• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Which of these philosophies do you believe?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

Poll: Philosophy A or B? (47 member(s) have cast votes)

Which Philosophy?

  1. Philosophy A (30 votes [63.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.83%

  2. Philosophy B (17 votes [36.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.17%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Mixter

  • Guest
  • 788 posts
  • 98
  • Location:Europe

Posted 28 February 2009 - 01:36 PM

Answering this would require a definition of the mysterious "You" that is referred to :)

#32 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 28 February 2009 - 07:54 PM

If the brain functions according to classical mechanics, yes you can do it.

However if consiousness is a quantum effect, its state can not be determined. There is no algorithm possible to determine quantum wave function colapse for instance. It follows that conciousness would be non algorithmic. There would be no mechanical system able to duplicate it. No equivalent logical program. You would not be able to replace bit by bit like parts in the engine of a car. The mere act of looking at a bunch of quantum fluctations would colapse them. How would you built even one artificial neuron to replace a certain quantum state that you can not even measure?


Hmm... It would seem to me that replacing a single neuron would not affect the existence of a consciousness. Even if the quantum states don't match perfectly, you still haven't destroyed the entire consciousness by replacing one neuron. Now do that a couple billion times and you've got a full brain of synthetic neurons.

For example, we lose single neurons every day to slight bumps on the head, but I don't think you'd say that we die as a result of that. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that you could keep a consciousness intact by replacing one neuron at a time.

#33 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 28 February 2009 - 08:02 PM

Answering this would require a definition of the mysterious "You" that is referred to :)


That's probably a source of the debate. The "A" people see "you" as a continuum of consciousness, which if broken would cease to exist. The "B" people see "you" as the pattern of information that has your exact memories and behaviors, so it would not "end" if copied and then destroyed.

I feel like the "B" people are using wishful thinking because they'd like to believe they can just back up their mind and replace it if they die. I'm glad to see that there are a good amount of people on the "A" side. For a while I was worried that it was the unpopular opinion.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 JediMasterLucia

  • Guest
  • 708 posts
  • 221
  • Location:Everywhere and Nowhere on the WWW, The Netherlands

Posted 28 February 2009 - 09:23 PM

I voted for A

The copy will never be me because it's a copy, thus a new person with my memories ect.

#35 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 01 March 2009 - 11:18 AM

Defenetly A.

I consider our mind/soul in correlation with our body.

Our remembers are related to certain physical emotion and our mind register them. I mean i could have a physical disgust for somehting because my mind had register it in this way, it's part of me and my history. If i die, everything related to that event and the physical consequences are erased....


did I understand well the topic ? :)

#36 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:08 AM

This is one of those topics where otherwise intelligent people turn into complete fuck.ing morons.

#37 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:14 AM

This is one of those topics where otherwise intelligent people turn into complete fuck.ing morons.


Aw come on man. If you're going to post in this thread at least make an argument of some kind. This thread isn't about making enemies, it's about discussing an important topic. Please be civil or don't post.

#38 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:30 PM

This is one of those topics where otherwise intelligent people turn into complete fuck.ing morons.


What did you vote for? ^^

#39 Harvey Newstrom

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 102 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Washington, DC & FL

Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:31 PM

1. Here is what we have now:

(Born) ----------> (live) ----------X (Die)

That last part is bad.


2. Here's what we want:

(Born) ----------> (live) ----------> (Don't Die) ----------> (Keep going indefinitely) ---------->

That last part is good.


3. Here is what the Copy/Kill philosophy "B" gives us:

(Born) ----------> (live) ----------X (Die)
(Don't Die) ----------> (Keep going indefinitely) ---------->

Is this good enough? This solution has BOTH the bad thing we are trying to avoid, and the good thing we are trying to achieve. It fails to meet the former goal, while claiming to achieve the latter goal. This is good enough depending on which goal a person actually values more than the other.

4. Extra credit question:
How is the copy created in #2 going to live any longer than the original in #1 if they are identical? If we can cure aging in #2, why can't we cure aging in #1? Can anyone explain why this example thought experiment is even relevant to life extension? Or how exact duplicates could have differing life expectancies? I don't see the point of this copy, even if I could do it.

#40 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:31 AM

To quote a friend...

It's highly counterintuitive. Also, humans are complete fucking idiots by default.


Thank you but I've had more than enough of this worthless debate to last me until the Singularity. I feel no motivation to argue with these people. They will either be dead, or much easier to convince, later.


Also, for those of you too stupid to understand which I would vote for- B.

http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=303753

Edited by advancdaltruist, 03 March 2009 - 12:33 AM.


#41 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:45 AM

4. Extra credit question:
How is the copy created in #2 going to live any longer than the original in #1 if they are identical? If we can cure aging in #2, why can't we cure aging in #1? Can anyone explain why this example thought experiment is even relevant to life extension? Or how exact duplicates could have differing life expectancies? I don't see the point of this copy, even if I could do it.


I guess what the "B" people want is a preservation of consciousness. If the body is about to die or dying then they think you can just copy the consciousness onto another medium, thus preserving the life. I don't think this works since the original would be dead anyway.

The reason why this is important is because I don't want myself or people I know and love to start making copies of themselves thinking that they'll be alive as the copy when they'll actually be dead with the copy going on as an impostor of sorts.

...

Seriously advancdaltruist, make a sensible argument or leave the thread. You posted something on page one, which was rebutted. If you'd like to give a response go ahead, otherwise you're just trolling.

#42 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 03 March 2009 - 01:18 AM

hehe

Edited by advancdaltruist, 03 March 2009 - 01:19 AM.


#43 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:48 AM

The reason why this is important is because I don't want myself or people I know and love to start making copies of themselves thinking that they'll be alive as the copy when they'll actually be dead with the copy going on as an impostor of sorts.


And as AA and I and many others see it, you are clinging to a belief in the inherent "Specialness" of the original, with all the furvor of any religious zealot. As I stated previously, you might as well be arguing for souls. At any given time, if you tracked every atom in the body, given a period of time, every single atom is replaced. Every atom I had when I was born is no longer a part of me.

And since my consciousness survives this natural replacement of components, it is obvious that the meat is just meat. It is the pattern which survives, and which needs to be preserved.

But please, feel free to believe what you wish. Just be aware that we find your reasoning completely fallacious, and based on erroneous assumptions. But thats perfectly fine, we will have forever to continue the debate.

#44 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 03 March 2009 - 07:10 AM

This debate has happened many many times before.

I'm a patternist, so obviously I choose B.

For a number of reasons, I think those who subscribe to philosophy B will gain a huge competitive advantage in our posthuman future.

I am particularly fond of the thought of having multiple duplicates who occasionally mind-merge so they (or "it") can maintain a cohesive identity.

#45 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 03 March 2009 - 07:14 AM

Ahh, I went back and actually started reading the content of this thread. It seems Valkyrie has already brought up mind mergers.

#46 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2009 - 03:49 PM

And as AA and I and many others see it, you are clinging to a belief in the inherent "Specialness" of the original, with all the furvor of any religious zealot. As I stated previously, you might as well be arguing for souls. At any given time, if you tracked every atom in the body, given a period of time, every single atom is replaced. Every atom I had when I was born is no longer a part of me.

And since my consciousness survives this natural replacement of components, it is obvious that the meat is just meat. It is the pattern which survives, and which needs to be preserved.

But please, feel free to believe what you wish. Just be aware that we find your reasoning completely fallacious, and based on erroneous assumptions. But thats perfectly fine, we will have forever to continue the debate.


I have no problem with replacing every atom in my body one at a time. That is fine. Also, Valkyrie, it seems that your are clinging to your belief with religious fervor to me. Don't think my way of thinking is so special ;)

As for mind merging, that seems fine too, as long as there is a reasonable means to do it, which is obviously beyond our technology at the moment.

As a response to all the "B" people, I have yet to hear any response to this argument:

If I were to copy you before your death, you would agree that you would not be conscious of the copy. Then if the original you died, how would you then become conscious of the copy? That seems to be what the "B" people are arguing for, yet I haven't seen any of you guys take on this argument directly. No sidestepping, just try to answer the question.

#47 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:34 PM

If I were to copy you before your death, you would agree that you would not be conscious of the copy. Then if the original you died, how would you then become conscious of the copy? That seems to be what the "B" people are arguing for, yet I haven't seen any of you guys take on this argument directly. No sidestepping, just try to answer the question.

Here is the answer: You have no clue what "conscious" means.

#48 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:56 PM

Here is the answer: You have no clue what "conscious" means.


Care to explain it to me then?

#49 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 03 March 2009 - 07:41 PM

But Val, after you die, even if all that you contain is store there, the original is gone... Unless the brain's consciousness is being regenerated too

#50 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 03 March 2009 - 10:41 PM

But Val, after you die, even if all that you contain is store there, the original is gone... Unless the brain's consciousness is being regenerated too

Exactly! Why wouldn't the brain's consciousness be regenerated?

You see? The brain's consciousness is a result of its physical processes.

There is no such thing as a zombie

Your "zombie", in the philosophical usage of the term, is putatively a being that is exactly like you in every respect - identical behavior, identical speech, identical brain; every atom and quark in exactly the same position, moving according to the same causal laws of motion - except that your zombie is not conscious.

http://www.overcomin...04/zombies.html

"You", and your "consciousness", are simply the labels we use to refer to the beautiful patterns of physical phenomena that are caused by the physical arrangement of matter that your body and brain are composed of.

"But I am not an object. I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a John K Clark-ish way. At the present time only one chunk of matter in the universe behaves that way; someday that could change."
-- John K Clark



It definitely causes a "yuck" reaction for many of us, but this is the truth.

Believe me- there is nothing supernatural about that lump of carbon between your ears (although I can certainly understand calling it mystical, magical or spiritual in a purely romantic, non-literal sense).

Edited by advancdaltruist, 03 March 2009 - 10:52 PM.


#51 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 12:58 AM

But Val, after you die, even if all that you contain is store there, the original is gone... Unless the brain's consciousness is being regenerated too


Perhaps it will explain my views if I discuss the process I envision.

As I see this process, my brain will contain a device that is capable of interfacing with a onboard computer with massive capacity. This computer will be interfaced transparently with the hardware in my head, and be massively redundant. My consciousness will be the controlling program. In addition, a pure memory backup will be happening in a seperate location, keeping a up to the nanosecond record of my thoughts, synaptic maps, and current operating conditions, i.e. limbic system analogs, hormone levels, etc.

Due to the fact that my sensor cluster is centralized in my head, my Point of View, appears centered there as well, but the process of cognition and consciouness will in fact be shared between my possibly no longer organic brain, the computer system I possess onboard, and an external system. In this example, say it is a space vessel.

My thoughts and thus my consciousness is residing on all of these systems at once, but my POV is still centered in my head, because this is where my interface with the external world is. If my head is lost, by say a rock falling and crushing my head, my consciousness is preseved becasue it simply runs on the other hardware uninterrupted while my body regenerates my head. If my entire body is destroyed, my consciousness is preserved in the spaceship, where I simply make a new body. If the spaceship is destroyed, I would have the neccessary programs and nanomachines to rebuild it.

In this same manner, prior to this eventuality, say I have still have an organic body, and I have that same nanosecond to nanosecond backup, so that in the event of my body's destruction, that completely accurate, up to the nanosecond clone, which has been maintained digitally, is activated. To my consciousness, which is an emergant phenomina created by the energy pattern maintained by my physical structure, all that would occur is that my Point of View, i.e. my center of consciousness, will have shifted to the new sensor cluster.

Consciousness is an inherent property of the Pattern. So long as the Pattern is maintained, by which I speak not only of my memories, but the sum total of data needed to produce my consciousness, i.e. the neural structure of my brain, the hormonal effects of my emotions, and the physical support structure which maintains it, then my consciousness is also maintained.

Thus, my perfect copy is also me. Everything else is argueing semantics and philosophical belief systems. As a Scientific Materialist, I can see no other logical conclusion than that if A=B then B=A

#52 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:04 AM

If I were to copy you before your death, you would agree that you would not be conscious of the copy. Then if the original you died, how would you then become conscious of the copy? That seems to be what the "B" people are arguing for, yet I haven't seen any of you guys take on this argument directly. No sidestepping, just try to answer the question.


I am still waiting for a coherent response to this issue...

#53 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:07 AM

My thoughts and thus my consciousness is residing on all of these systems at once, but my POV is still centered in my head, because this is where my interface with the external world is. If my head is lost, by say a rock falling and crushing my head, my consciousness is preseved becasue it simply runs on the other hardware uninterrupted while my body regenerates my head. If my entire body is destroyed, my consciousness is preserved in the spaceship, where I simply make a new body. If the spaceship is destroyed, I would have the neccessary programs and nanomachines to rebuild it.


Tell me how your "consciousness" could be in multiple places while your "POV" is only in one place. In my eyes, your "POV" is your consciousness.

Also, I'm still waiting for a answer to my question above.

#54 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 01:54 AM

If I were to copy you before your death, you would agree that you would not be conscious of the copy. Then if the original you died, how would you then become conscious of the copy? That seems to be what the "B" people are arguing for, yet I haven't seen any of you guys take on this argument directly. No sidestepping, just try to answer the question.


I am still waiting for a coherent response to this issue...


Your question presumes that consciousness is EXTERNAL and INDEPENDANT as opposed to EMERGANT, Vgamer. Thus, my statement that you may as well argue for the existance of a soul. You are essentually asking me how my soul would know to travel to the new body.

#55 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:05 AM

Your question presumes that consciousness is EXTERNAL and INDEPENDANT as opposed to EMERGANT, Vgamer. Thus, my statement that you may as well argue for the existance of a soul. You are essentually asking me how my soul would know to travel to the new body.


Don't worry about what you think I'm assuming. Why can't you just answer the question? Is it not coherent the way I put it?

#56 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:06 AM

My thoughts and thus my consciousness is residing on all of these systems at once, but my POV is still centered in my head, because this is where my interface with the external world is. If my head is lost, by say a rock falling and crushing my head, my consciousness is preseved becasue it simply runs on the other hardware uninterrupted while my body regenerates my head. If my entire body is destroyed, my consciousness is preserved in the spaceship, where I simply make a new body. If the spaceship is destroyed, I would have the neccessary programs and nanomachines to rebuild it.


Tell me how your "consciousness" could be in multiple places while your "POV" is only in one place. In my eyes, your "POV" is your consciousness.

Also, I'm still waiting for a answer to my question above.



And in a Virtual Reality, given that my brain is recieving full sensorium input from the virtual body, my POV would be that of the virtual character. There is no essential difference. My thought processes require inputs, and the location of those inputs detemines where my POV seems to exist. If my inputs were in one place, but my brain in another, I still would have a POV centered wherever my inputs were. Thus, inputs are seperate from Consciousness, but required for interaction with the physical or virtual world. In the same way, I am not Conscious of every action of my brain, but currently depend on it to maintain the energy patterns of my thoughts, and require the hardware of the rest of my body to make the brain work properly.

I cannot make it any clearer, I AM AN EMERGANT PROPERTY OF THE WHOLE PATTERN. THUS SO LONG AS THE PATTERN IS PRESERVED IT WILL CONTINUE TO CREATE THE EMERGANT PROPERTY OF ME-NESS.

#57 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:09 AM

Your question presumes that consciousness is EXTERNAL and INDEPENDANT as opposed to EMERGANT, Vgamer. Thus, my statement that you may as well argue for the existance of a soul. You are essentually asking me how my soul would know to travel to the new body.


Don't worry about what you think I'm assuming. Why can't you just answer the question? Is it not coherent the way I put it?


I did answer the question VGamer. Directly.

#58 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:15 AM

And in a Virtual Reality, given that my brain is recieving full sensorium input from the virtual body, my POV would be that of the virtual character. There is no essential difference. My thought processes require inputs, and the location of those inputs detemines where my POV seems to exist. If my inputs were in one place, but my brain in another, I still would have a POV centered wherever my inputs were. Thus, inputs are seperate from Consciousness, but required for interaction with the physical or virtual world. In the same way, I am not Conscious of every action of my brain, but currently depend on it to maintain the energy patterns of my thoughts, and require the hardware of the rest of my body to make the brain work properly.

I cannot make it any clearer, I AM AN EMERGANT PROPERTY OF THE WHOLE PATTERN. THUS SO LONG AS THE PATTERN IS PRESERVED IT WILL CONTINUE TO CREATE THE EMERGANT PROPERTY OF ME-NESS.


OK, so you're talking about a "subconscious" link between your body and some backup? This does seem plausible, but still the link would have to be there. This doesn't sound like what most of the "B" people were saying though. Am I getting your point right?

#59 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 04 March 2009 - 02:56 AM

And in a Virtual Reality, given that my brain is recieving full sensorium input from the virtual body, my POV would be that of the virtual character. There is no essential difference. My thought processes require inputs, and the location of those inputs detemines where my POV seems to exist. If my inputs were in one place, but my brain in another, I still would have a POV centered wherever my inputs were. Thus, inputs are seperate from Consciousness, but required for interaction with the physical or virtual world. In the same way, I am not Conscious of every action of my brain, but currently depend on it to maintain the energy patterns of my thoughts, and require the hardware of the rest of my body to make the brain work properly.

I cannot make it any clearer, I AM AN EMERGANT PROPERTY OF THE WHOLE PATTERN. THUS SO LONG AS THE PATTERN IS PRESERVED IT WILL CONTINUE TO CREATE THE EMERGANT PROPERTY OF ME-NESS.


OK, so you're talking about a "subconscious" link between your body and some backup? This does seem plausible, but still the link would have to be there. This doesn't sound like what most of the "B" people were saying though. Am I getting your point right?



No.

If a complete backup of me, perfect to every detail of me at the moment of cessation, is recreated, then the emergent "consciousness" that is me will always be the inevitable outcome. It does not matter if this backup is activated within nanoseconds of the previous incarnation, or if it activated after having been stored digitally for a billion billion years. The pattern will recreate the same emergant phenomina.

#60 Vgamer1

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2009 - 05:21 AM

So I guess I don't really understand your response then. I guess we should talk about it again in the ustream chat, because I don't really see how you've answered my question.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users