• 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
- - - - -

Brain Copy and Paste ....


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#61 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:02 AM

Well maybe now I have a few minutes to respond to a variety of issues here.

Don:
think it is entirely possible that, even in a world rapidly approaching singularity, the philosophical conundrum that surrounds the concept of duplication may not be resolved. In such a scenario, certain individuals who could not accept the legitimacy of duplication would be incapable of such a merger of like minds. And even if such a person were to be duplicated, their duplicates would share the same aversion that they did.


First Don's last point. The paradox you represent is a good reason for the individual with that psychology to resist and not volunteer to be uploaded under any circumstances. However such problems are probably discernible with pre-screening.

The reverse is however also theoretically possible, to seek and find individuals with no such problems with symbiotic sharing and the real question we must begin to ask is if humans can build such a synthetic construct of more than a single individual intelligence then what are its potentials?

This leads to the scenario I wanted to present earlier Peter.

I agree that the technical abilities of our present rate of scientific progress are too slow to suggest that *downloading* will be possible for personalties or even complex psycho-physiological aspects without the most advanced and invasive techniques presently imaginable and may be dependent on breakthroughs in alternative technologies like nano before being remotely considered for the pasting part of the copying but the copying part alone may not be as complex as suggested.

You see the author of this thread made a point, albeit unwittingly about this being a two part process, the copying and the pasting. We have all been calling them combined as *uploading* but frankly that is not exactly correct and in a sense Amordaad is more correct to call it copy/pasting.

I would suggest that the copying part may be much easier than the pasting part and here I agree with Peter completely, pasting, whether as simple emotions and complex data or whole personalties is going to be immensely complex but the copying part may not be nearly as difficult.

Yes, there are more than a few thresholds of knowledge to overcome, like where are all the loci of the matrix of personality stored in the active brain and how is the data encrypted, as well as how does the system integrate memory function and active sensory awareness into a coherent personality, and is personality described by a single *program* like an Operating System or a multiple of programs integrated through some physical property of the wetware?

But those are far more reasonable goals to meet than impossible. They do not depend on technologies we don't have, only refinements of the technology we do have. The answers to these question will bring even more difficult questions I suspect but we are on the downhill side of the slope in this quest; we have the tools and we have the theoretical models and we are remarkably close to answering some of the definitions of the mind conclusively.

OK, so Peter and I had a discussion a while ago about an idea I had for utilizing fMRI for uploading and he got me to realize why the download part of the issue was too complex but actually I want to return to something about the holographic resolution issue, I don't think it is too much longer before we will be able to monitor all neural activity simultaneously down to nearly a molecular level.

Now monitoring is not downloading but monitoring passively is still a way to possibly *copy* a personality into a synthetic matrix of a computer web sufficiently compatible to manage the data from the active mind and store it not as just numbers but program information.

That program being our *selves*.

Getting out of the box (so to speak) later is a different story so for the rest of this post I am only going to focus on some aspects of what that strict upload side might include.

First Peter I fully expect you to disagree with my proposal to upload through a very sophisticated fMRI but I also fully expect that technology, in as little as the next ten to fifteen years might reach a level of precision and detail capable of simultaneously recording every synaptic action individually, as well as integrate other data input fields, monitor soft tissue activity and so as to take into account more complex neurotransmitters and hormonal activity creating a whole body image of the mind. All of this will tie together with the kinds of precise information coming from labs like yours right now.

Second I expect us to find a few areas where the real-time data might be accessed that we aren't currently utilizing to capacity now out at the periphery of the nervous system and as blood chemistry and metabolic data are all integrated to build a more complex heuristic construct of personality the upload program may be able to be interactive and stimulate recall through more normalized methods like visual, aural, and olfactory stimuli. The point of this conjecture is that it is far more reasonable to suggest we might be able to copy personality than to transmit it back into a biological form.

So if we can copy humans into a complex synthetic neural net what does that mean?

Yes this presumes we have a hardware sufficiently sophisticated to *run* the human sourced software and this is no small step to be underestimated. But it is a different proposition than actually designing the complexity of this *human ware.*

Also before reaching the stage of true cybernetics lets look at a few interim steps beginning with just the possibility of uploading, and what multiple uploaded individuals would represent.

A true cyborg would be able to process the synthetic neural net into an integrated functional robot body but that step, like that of downloading is still one step over the horizon. But there are still profound aspects that are much more pragmatically possible. And while we are a ways away from this level of sophisticated hardware with portable processing ability we are not so far from the first true quantum computers that will be like primitive UNIVAC's in relation to modern PC's. But those behemoth scale quantum computers may perhaps offer sufficient processing ability and speed to manage the complexity of containing human minds.

So what if an uploaded mind could function in a virtual environment, provided with virtual feedback that mimics the biological information (virtual biofeedback loops) taken from the uploading process and what if we could also bring multiple personalities together through that virtual realm into a super mind of integrated intelligence and ability?

Is this a practical step around the question of greater than *individual* human intelligence by maximizing our ability to both augment intelligence through direct hardware advantages (the fastest quantum computers, vast data banks of knowledge, the web, and super math/language processing ability) along with more than one person's copy such that these virtual copies are able to do what the originals aren't; merge and diverge at will, all while functioning?

By this approach we might have the ability to upload individual personalities into an interactive virtual world as companions to support one another and also to integrate with the most advanced computer software to create a hybrid consciousness that is part AI and part amalgam of human and bring the sophistication of human awareness to the virtual as a synthesis. A synthesis that might be capable of jump starting many of our technological conundrums and leapfrog the problems of Inhumane Super Intelligence.

Also this active matrix data bank of personalties would be able to be updated with subsequent memory as the source continued living, such that the two divergent personalities would be able to be *upgraded* until the death of the original if that were to occur but the upgrade would actually be an independent experience with multiple cumulative memory because it would also have the virtual experience as a part of its memory as well as interactive with our real world experience through the interface of the web. I offer this as an alternative Seed AI strategy.

Possible?

Heh it's just conjecture but let's go further.

Biological humans might not be able to integrate into a super-conscience but what is the reason that psychologically competent individuals prepared for the integrative synthesis could not?

And once this process were perfected, as it poses no real threat to the volunteers why not invite some of humanity's most competent, sane, and compassionate to join this super-conscious matrix?

Talent in this respect should reflect the broad spectrum of human abilities and not simply technical expertise. There would be a need to introduce many diverse representatives of human interest and integrative ability so as to maximize the potential intelligence and wisdom of this *virtual utopia*

This approach would store and update our consciousness as a reserve until future tech could provide download ability but also it creates an alternative that makes the copy its own original with the ability to retain currency with real-time present awareness as time progresses and includes a transhumanist prospect of allowing adaptive intelligent augmentation that mimics genetic mutation for intelligence in a memetic fashion,

Frankly I doubt the return to our first birth bodies is particularly desirable and if a biological construct were possible that had the advantages of SENS encrypted in its genome along with genetically enhanced cerebral ability and enhanced physical and immune response then what prevents us from downloading at a much later time? Perhaps even at a neo or even prenatal stage along with a temporary memory suppression program so as to allow the download to integrate into the early forming body less traumatically?

Sure this is profoundly more advanced tech than we have now but suppose we could make allies of the most competent developmental team possible with a real self interest to make it work?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 09 March 2005 - 02:57 PM.


#62 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 12:29 PM

Thank you all for your comments , it was a very useful talking for me and now I am familiar with many positive and negative views to brain copy and pasting ....
In the last day the thread was enlarged very fast and it was hard for me to read all of the new comments and to think about all of them but I reviewed them all and found many points on these enthusiastical sayings ....
It is very hard to talk about all of them just in one reply so I will save them and one by one I will tell my opinion about them . Every body in this forum is of high knowledge about recent developements in sience and has fully thought about the ways possible to make Immortality a reality but after all I have a request of everybody who likes to continue in this thread not to digressing and sticking to the topic which I can say now it is " A Possible Method for Being Immortal "
but I have still many things about my proposal of Copying and Pasting the brain and I'm going to talk about them as still I think this method would be possible to achieve even with some less complicated technologies . But there was a comment that I was waiting for so long that Ocsrazor gave :

This is all pretty old hat territory, but I see it being rehashed so let me summarize the technical problems with this proposal.

this is what I was looking for that possible ways of achieving the brain copy and paste would be criticized and I will give my idea about the problems summarized by Oscrazor the day after and now I've not got the time to do it ...

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#63 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 01:42 PM

The mind is a terrible thing to cut and paste.

Why would you want to destroy the original brain and body?  After all, when that's destroyed, you'll be dead.  Face it.  You are not your clone.  At the best, such a procedure could be done for its own sake (for the robot's sake) but yourself would still die.  The robot would only be like your twin.  However, I still wonder if robotics could replace the brain itself, like in the movie "Ghost in the Shell", and still retain who the person essentially is.  Would that robot still be one's soul/self or would the person just become a walking dead robot?  Could a brain copy record memories?


Well, you'd have to be curious about this procedure. Would it take the course of years? Hours? If it worked over the course of years, why couldn't it work over the course of seconds? Micro-seconds? Instanteously replace the entire brain at once, as in a scan?

To be perfectly honest, I feel like your clone IS you. It has all your knowledges and experiences and behaves just like you. You two could be switched endlessly and no difference be noticed. At the instant of the 'copying', you might end up being your clone or you might stay yourself. You can 100% guarantee you will be your clone by getting rid of your body. People who think we need a replacement method to stay alive are still stuck in the idea of dualistic 'consciousness' or 'souls' that take up residence in the body. I feel this is the kind of thinking we need to get over. Under your logic (and kraemahz) if you were disintegrated and then cloned and repatterned your brain to be the you-of-last-backup, you'd still be dead, and the 'new you' would just be a 'copy'. I'd never say that the MP3's I have on my backup drive are just 'copies' of the originals. Every night we interrupt our stream of consciousness when we go to sleep. I don't understand the major difference, or the reason people are so keen on replacement but not downright 'scanning'. We are information, patterns in the brain, not souls or protein structures. We go where our patterns go.

#64

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 02:29 PM

armrha, the issue is existentially threatening (or at least troubling). I agree with your most recent post, but this is an unsettling realization for most, even for secularists.

#65 kraemahz

  • Guest
  • 157 posts
  • 0
  • Location:University of Washington

Posted 08 March 2005 - 05:54 PM

I am not personally distrubed by being copied, I don't reject the idea because it is hard to accept at least. You're forgetting, however, my point that perception has no effect on the outcome of copying proceedure. Just because someone doesn't view a copy as a copy, doesn't mean it isn't. You'll notice in my own method I stress heavily that there is direct two-way communication. In order for a mind to be copied over to another brain it would have to at some point exist as only a data stream. You're not suggesting moving a few files over and saying they're the same files. You're suggesting moving the operating system over and saying it's the same computer. A scanning/information sharing proceedure is essentially trying to run the same operating system over two pieces of equipment, each sharing part of the burden. We don't say that the two machines are the same, but we do say that they are both running the same program.

As current, no one has answered my question from what I've seen: If I did this very same copying proceedure, except in this version I take all the data I'm copying from you and printing it out on reams of paper. After this is done, I destroy your body. Is that paper you? If I burn that paper, am I killing you (as opposed to you dying when your body was destroyed)? Keep in mind that if I wanted to I could use this information to recreate your body and mind, but as current I'm holding you in the data transfer of it indefinitely.

#66 Infernity

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

Posted 08 March 2005 - 05:56 PM

You can 100% guarantee you will be your clone by getting rid of your body.

Let me disagree on the "100%". sorry, I just couldn't resist...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#67

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:08 PM

kraemahz:

As current, no one has answered my question from what I've seen: If I did this very same copying proceedure, except in this version I take all the data I'm copying from you and printing it out on reams of paper. After this is done, I destroy your body. Is that paper you? If I burn that paper, am I killing you (as opposed to you dying when your body was destroyed)? Keep in mind that if I wanted to I could use this information to recreate your body and mind, but as current I'm holding you in the data transfer of it indefinitely.


If you're stored in paper format, you would not be alive. Your human process must be facilitated by a substrate so that you may live. In paper format, we only have a static image of you at some point in time. I know the last thread I linked to on page 3 was long, but it discusses duplication thoroughly if you're interested in reading it.

#68 kraemahz

  • Guest
  • 157 posts
  • 0
  • Location:University of Washington

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:19 PM

Cosmos,

If you're stored in paper format, you would not be alive. Your human process must be facilitated by a substrate so that you may live. In paper format, we only have a static image of you at some point in time. I know the last thread I linked to on page 3 was long, but it discusses duplication thoroughly if you're interested in reading it.

So, what I'm suggesting is that in order for you to still be you at all points during this process you'd have to consider that form as yourself. If it works very quickly then what's the difference between it working very slowly? That paper has the potential to create a version of you just like the data running through in the transfer. If you exist as just a pattern, then that paper would have to be you, wouldn't it? Like I'm asking, if I'm burning that paper, destroying your last chance to be cloned, is it at that point I'm 'killing' you? (I'm using words loosely here, ending your existance if you'd prefer)

#69 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:20 PM

If I did this very same copying procedure, except in this version I take all the data I'm copying from you and printing it out on reams of paper. After this is done, I destroy your body. Is that paper you? If I burn that paper, am I killing you (as opposed to you dying when your body was destroyed)?


I would argue no kraemahz but I would also argue that the state you describe is like being comatose or in suspension. The vessel is not me but the information is only fully me once it becomes interactive through some means of being alert or aware (intellectually, sensually, and maybe even socially perceptive) of the relationship of self to the universe and others: the existential self .

I am not convinced of the death mimicry argument for sleep but I do grant a certain reaffirmation argument to determine existence in a somewhat relativistic manner.

I suggest a few ways around this above and I am also not concerned as much with 'copy to copy' or 'copy to original' conundrums as others because I do find this is more the result of psychosocial predisposition than something inherently hardwired into the brain.

The paper model you propose is an inadequate medium to support *self awareness* and *life* but if it stored an adequately complex form of information such that it could be converted to an adequate form by whatever means at a later date then the suspension of you is basically analogous to the sleep, or coma dilemma of consciousness IMHO.

It could be argued that some of this is also similar to the differences of nature and nurture aspects of cloning. The DNA (and for the sake of argument include mtDNA) could be the same but the conditions of the gestational period in the womb and the subsequent development alter the outcome such that the two individuals would still be two entirely different individuals; me & you. :))

However in the virtual medium of merged minds that I am proposing there is something subtly different that does include electronically assisted communication, such that two consciousnesses could share the entirety of their experience, memory and simultaneous awareness. I am suggesting this doesn't require a biological body to accomplish but simply a means for interaction of the *software* and the sustaining of a discrete program recognition of *self choice/recognition*.

Communicating back to the biological is so far away from our current technological state that it is important not to confuse these two issues. If a copy of me were made and it were maintained in an interactive *self aware* state then we both have a right to say we coexist as extensions of one another.

The electronic form is like a higher order of consciousness for me. I would continue to experience physical lief until I died and the electronic me could retain and be aware of even that event but continue beyond it, learning from it.

If at some point the electronic me could develop a sufficiently mobile and self sustaining physical vessel for itself then *I* would return to split screen experience so long as the two aspects of me could sustain real time communication but let's say I sent a copy of me as a remote viewing satellite to explore other planets of the solar system and was out of full time communication. I could still assimilate the data of the separate experience at a later date and then reassemble a coherent unified sense of self.

I do not consider the conundrums of the mind to be exactly analogous to those of a hypothetical soul and that is the whole point of this exercise now isn't it?

I do think that the mind is what we commonly call the soul; at least until I am confronted with verifiable evidence to the contrary.

#70 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:59 PM

To paraphrase what I am suggesting above is that the importance of the substrate whether biological or electronic is that it provides an interactive interface with *reality* both virtual and material.

The paper does not provide such an interactive interface and all such analysis should in order to make this comparison and that is why I would compare it to an *unconscious state*.

If *I* have such an interactive interface then I can adapt. I have only to point to examples like Stephen Hawkins to support this contention. Intelligence is not all in the genes it is also a cumulative result of environmental experience.

#71 kraemahz

  • Guest
  • 157 posts
  • 0
  • Location:University of Washington

Posted 08 March 2005 - 07:01 PM

Laz,

The paper model you propose is an inadequate medium to support *self awareness* and *life* but if it stored an adequately complex form of information such that it could be converted to an adequate form by whatever means at a later date then the suspension of you is basically analogous to the sleep, or coma dilemma of consciousness IMHO.

The reason I emphasise inanimate objects in discussions like these is for the very reason that they cannot support conciousness. Essentially, I am saying "If the answer you propose doesn't work for a brick, it doesn't work for you." It is often difficult to look at things like conciousness objectively, however we have a natural intuition towards real objects. And actually, the paper model is very good for grounding this discussion, to print all this out on a piece of paper is exactly the same as moving someone as bits through a wire, in both cases they are 'existing' in an inanimate object incapable of making them concious. If it cannot support your mind then it cannot reasonably support you being you. The process "you -> not you -> you" doesn't follow logically.

I suggest a few ways around this above and I am also not concerned as much with 'copy to copy' or 'copy to original' conundrums as others because I do find this is more the result of psychosocial predisposition than something inherently hardwired into the brain.

The reason I feel this is a very important argument is because I personally don't want to see someone killing themself because they believe their copy to be them. In the same way, I don't want someone to perform a quantum suicide experiement to test if they are immortal by the MWI. In both cases, they'd stop existing in "my" universe. To me, you cannot upload yourself by slicing up your brain and reading it into a machine and anyone attempting to do so is killing themself, misguidedly.

The electronic form is like a higher order of consciousness for me. I would continue to experience physical lief until I died and the electronic me could retain and be aware of even that event but continue beyond it, learning from it.


I agree with you very strongly here. If a machine and life version of me existed as a shared collective, my conciousness would essentially exist in both places. My only concern is that, in this state, if I were to link minds with another individual. Would we merge and lose our sense of self?

#72

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 07:17 PM

kraemahz, if you destroyed the paper that contained my information I would be irrecoverable but not murdered. If I were restored in an interactive substrate, and you destroyed me as a conscious sentient being in that substrate, I would have been murdered.

#73 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 08 March 2005 - 08:06 PM

Cosmos I would beg to differ and the reason is that you are confusing some aspects of the word copy.

If you can accept my argument above then destroying the paper version of perfect copy of *me* regardless of whether we had yet come to develop the technology to return me fully to life, would constitute murder just as if you had killed me in my sleep.

You are confusing the idea of photo or some other *superficial* facsimile for an exact *copy*. For the moment let's sidestep my concern over interactivity (selection) with reality (virtual and material) and just examine the idea of what a copy means.

To do so let me outline a couple of parameters.

1, Tools: We have developed advanced nanotech (requires #3 to be true)
2. Object: An original work of unique art that is not the product of anything but manual labor
3: Encryption: The ability to convert any physical object into completely translatable forms of data.

Ok that is enough to begin with and I hope everyone realizes that this is a thought experiment and we don't have numbers #1 & #3 yet but please suspend disbelief long enough to make the comparison.

So now let me trump out this poor and oft abused visage of the Mona Lisa.

If we have a sufficiently advanced form of encryption such that it is translatable through nanotech into an assembly process that allows reproduction of the original down not only to brush strokes and pigment but perhaps the molecular consistency of the canvas and buried mistakes hidden beneath the upper layers then in fact initial detection of differences would require the analysis of molecular traits to detect the half-lives of atomic isotopes to determine age but with sufficiently advanced nano even this might be reproducible.

Notice I have switched to using the word *reproduced* instead of copy. This I suggest is the trap that many are falling into. By the method I have outlined the original and the reproduction are entirely indistinguishable, hence both can claim to be the original. Destroy either and you have committed a crime.

The same can be said of the information of you IMHO. However I am not comparing the *reproduction* to a superficial object like a photo *copy* but to the source code of the self with the potential of being reproduced into full being.

I return to seeing the distinctions here based on other criteria than many who I suspect are caught in psychosocial quandaries. I see life as a more interactive state and involving self awareness and the paper state does not achieve that but I would argue kraemahz that an electronic medium might.

You see many have been examining the duplication process like an artist of encryption intent on duplicating the entire complex encryption process that is the result of billions of years of evolution. I would argue that we only need to copy it onto a virtual substrate, we don't need to reinvent it.

Reproduction in this model does require a translation onto other media and that requires decryption of what is at least a known quantity as the self exists. I suggest you accept that last point or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

#74

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 08:27 PM

Laz, I'll keep this quick.

As I recall in kraemahz's example. The only remainder of me is paper data containing a snapshot image of my human process at one point in time, the original me was already destroyed. So assuming all that was left of me was this paper storage, if he destroyed that paper, he would render me irrecoverable. If I were restored using that paper and were once again made conscious and sentient on another substrate, and then he proceeded to destroy me, I would have been murdered.

The issue is different when there are multiple duplicates. If all duplicates of me are created from the same brain image, they are all equally me at the point of creation. All of them proceed to diverge on their own timelines after that point. If you were to kill one of my duplicates, it would still be murder, but those other duplicates would insure that my process persisted in one of multiple divergent timelines.

(Excuse any typos.)

#75

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2005 - 08:30 PM

Bear in mind I've yet to consider all the ramifications and implications of duplication beyond the likelyhood that it would retain one's self.

#76 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 09 March 2005 - 12:54 AM

kraemahz wrote:

And actually, the paper model is very good for grounding this discussion, to print all this out on a piece of paper is exactly the same as moving someone as bits through a wire, in both cases they are 'existing' in an inanimate object incapable of making them concious. If it cannot support your mind then it cannot reasonably support you being you. The process "you -> not you -> you" doesn't follow logically.

If I dose you with barbiturates to block neurotrasmitter receptors essential for consciousness, putting you into a coma (total unconsciousness), are you still you? A brain with those receptors blocked can't support human awareness, so why would you still be you?

Now on top of adding those barbiturates, I'll cool you and replace your blood with fluid incapable of carrying oxygen, and stop your heart so you are just cold meat on a table. (This is done in real life for certain surgeries.) A brain in this state CANNOT support human life (read: awareness). Are you still you?

Now on top of all that, I'll replace half the water in every cell with an organic solvent and cool you to -196 degC, turning your brain into a rigid solid with no translational molecular motion (what cryonics does). A brain in that state is no more able to support a human mind than your hypothetical piece of paper. In both cases, the paper and solidified brain are just information reservoirs for a complex restoration process necessary to recreate a substrate that can support awareness.

We can imagine even more bizarre brain modification/disassembly/restoration scenarios using nanotechnology (including ones that literally change the atoms of your brain into paper and then back into a brain!), but hopefully you get the point. The point is that whether you modify a brain into inactivity by attaching barbiturates to receptors, or by turning it into a piece of paper, you are still killing a human being if you take actions to forever prevent restoration of a working brain based on the information in those objects. In the former case you will go to jail for it even today.

---BrianW

#77 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:48 AM

At this time I experienced something that it would be somehow like the black death … just after one hour thinking and writing for this topic suddenly the power of my computer went off and I lost any thing I had written and it was a big shock for me just two or three minutes to end my comments and before pressing the button to send the data … I was so sorry for myself …..
But I try to do it again and if there was a saved copy of my writings … OK now I try again but this time I put the options of my pc to autosave every 2 minutes :
I think it is very good that here we all are suggesting some methods for the human being to be Immortal and it's better when we are trying to solve the technological problems in the best method chosen after so long thinking and debating , again and again have reviews in the basic principles of that special method and it would be a preventive action of some wrong ways and it would help us to save the time … I myself am trying to reach this goal ( I mean Immortality Realization ) during my life so there is not too long time to waste in wrong ways …. And I think the same is for you …
Ok now I want to speak about my opinion that what is life and death . This is very important to notice the differences between plants , animals and human . First of all I think the difference is based upon consciousness of human about himself and lack of this self awareness in plants . Lets assume that plants are without such a feature and ofcourse they are responsing to their environment and being affected by it . So for a specific species of plants it is not important to survive for the individuals and it is enough that just one or two samples be alive and then the species is alive …
And it is the same for animals but a little self-consciousness in animals causes some not perfectness of Immortality I think , until the moment that the last sample of any species is alive we say that it has not faced exstinction …
Yes this is the way that the Nature has established to conquer the black death . Reproduction in plants and animals is a real and natural response to the instinct of living creatures to survive ….
Immagine a plant which is cut in one of its branches and this cut piece is put in a propper substrate it will grow … The question is , are these two the same first plant ?
I think the same way of Immortality was used by the primitive man which has not separated completely of the animals but as individuality was developing in the human communities it was diminishing and losing its effectiveness .

#78 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 March 2005 - 12:19 PM

I'm glad that you all have good suggestion for realizing the eternal life specially some strong theories just like the Lazarus's and its good to talk about it with you intellectuals . No matter which method will be accepted and who will convince others I think all of the suggestions have some common principles and I wish soon we start to talk about technological possibilities of our suggestions in a more realistic way .
Now let me tell you an imaginary short story about the brain copy and paste ( or reproducing ) in ancient times for human being …
An ancient blacksmith in a primitive village … he has the chance ( optimistically speaking ) to have an eternal life . He got married and then by a chance of 50-50 his wife gave birth to a baby boy very similar to his father by face and body . Yes for this ancient man in about 6000 years ago there aws a chance gifted by the Nature to be Immortal . As the baby was growing the man was trying to transfer his memories to the mind of his son . Telling stories that he knew about more ancient times . Teasching his son the same way of speaking he used himself . In the dark nights and with the sparkling little fire he told any tales and stories for his son and he talked about his memories and all that has happened to him during his life one by one .When the son was at the age of 9 or 10 he went to his fathers little workshop and our blacksmith started to teach his son his own job …
This long days of working together in the workshop made the son more and more like his father and when he was 20 it was the time of fathers death . But I'm sure at that moment when father looked at his son he found himself and closed his eyes and it was a calm and comfort sleep because the son … no the same blacksmith left the room and after a while any body who saw that man all and all it was the same …
Ok I know that this story has some features that would not sound good to us , the third millennium people , that are always thinking of perfectness and the most important shortage in this story may be the lack of a perfect copy and paste of mind . So I'm trying to establish the procedure I talked about at the beginning of the thread for a more reliable and perfect technology to perform the same time consuming but natural method of Immortality but this time with the ego of 21th century's man ….
[glasses]

#79 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:48 AM

A question is asked here that " if the mind is encrypted and written on some paper then what will happen ?"
and this is my answer :
when the encryption is being completed , then you put the gun on that person's head and shoot , at this moment you have killed this man and imagine that the copying process has recorded until the last moment of his life . What actually is maintained on the paper is the probability to make that man alive again . If you burn those papers then you have simply ended this possibility that he could be alive once more . If the data is kept for a while and then it is put again in a ready brain .... then you stand brfore the new man and be sure at the moment he sees you the hard box of him on your face will make you believe that he is the same man you killed .... [lol]

#80 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:54 AM

I think a human being with clean brain is just like a standby machine , but it is alive . So living is a matter of active cells in a body . It doesn't have any thing to do with personality or identity and these are based upon the mind which is the patterns saved originated from the experiences during a life .

#81 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 March 2005 - 12:12 PM

So is it a form of grand deception that you are suggesting is required for the individual to retain their sanity?

Lazarus , I think it is not a great deception but convincing the subjected person about a reality ...
and two questions about your suggestion :
1- Would be the machine merged to the brain in mutual interaction with the environment independently of the main brain ?
2- If it is the time of death for the biological brain ,what would happen to the data stored in it and to the machine separated after this death from the main brain ?

#82 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 March 2005 - 02:47 PM

Is this forum just like the other damn forums , cool , aimlessly challenging , trying to convince others anyhow and if not quit the topic ???????????????????????????????? [ang] [cry] [?]

#83 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 March 2005 - 04:05 PM

Patience Amordaad. If you want to live a very long time it is not consistent to always demand instant gratification.

Some of these subjects have been discussed for thousands of years and you should allow a little time for people to digest what is said and return to it calmly.

It doesn't hurt to raise more concerns you might have and then wait for the responses. Though bouncing a post to the top of the active list to keep other's aware of it is reasonable too ;))

Frankly I hadn't seen your post with questions directed to me. I know at times it seems like I am already cloned so as to be in so many virtual places at the same time but frankly that is far more myth than substance [lol]

#84 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 March 2005 - 04:24 PM

Lazarus , I think it is not a great deception but convincing the subjected person about a reality ...
and two questions about your suggestion :
1- Would be the machine merged to the brain in mutual interaction with the environment independently of the main brain ?
2- If it is the time of death for the biological brain ,what would happen to the data stored in it and to the machine separated after this death from the main brain ?


1. In the regime I am describing the potentially merged minds of the copies are connected both to a synthetic virtual construct that provides some software support for continuous consciousness but also to the global web for communication as chat bots are today, as well as to the entirety of sensory arrays available that way for alternative awareness of information as real time data flow for visual, tactile (geological) climactic and all kinds of satellite data etc.

And yes they are independent of the brain of the donor once they are created because as yet the process of making the communications bidirectional are too invasive and unreliable. But part of the goal of building this type of alternative Super Intelligence is to accelerate the developmental rate of such technology.

2. I have a lot of concerns about waiting till the moment of death to actually perform this procedure due to the possibility of cerebral deterioration.

I would prefer to copy the optimal and then upload an update at the time of death to fill in the details filtered for adverse aspects like memory loss and neurosis induced by the advanced pathological conditions.

The death of the source (original) is an aspect that could be assimilated and even examined from the somewhat remote and objective state of still being a virtual consciousness. However there may be a risk of psychological trauma and it is here where I suspect having a social support group in the virtual environment could be beneficial to the retention of sanity.

If you are asking about what are the difficulties of uploading the data at the time of death I think this is still too speculative an area to provide a precise answer for. There may be an ability to upload data prior to death but as the procedure I am imagining is passive and not directly active with respect to neural activity it would require a different means of stimulating the operative *living* memory of the subject prior to the irreparable decay of that info.

After death cryo is probably a better alternative to preserve the contents of the brain but retrieving it will be a seriously more difficult issue. I am proposing a different strategy that is not contingent on the death of the original and as such could be treated as a more developed database for future reanimation anyway.

Unlike Dawkins suggests I do not feel some overwhelming devotion to my current genetic signature. I would, if uploaded, prefer to create an optimized vessel built on more advanced understanding before downloading. If such a body had some of my genetics great, if it didn't then so what?

If it were my mind I will adapt because how I *see* myself is not based primarily on the object in the mirror. It is a combination of my experience, education and the *manner* of my thoughts and emotions.

#85 kraemahz

  • Guest
  • 157 posts
  • 0
  • Location:University of Washington

Posted 13 March 2005 - 07:22 PM

I'm in finals week here so I won't really have time to compose anything interesting for at least the next few days.

#86 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 March 2005 - 10:09 AM

Thank you for your responses , I'm glad that my patient is not dead yet [lol] [thumb]

#87 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 March 2005 - 05:21 AM

If it were my mind I will adapt because how I *see* myself is not based primarily on the object in the mirror. It is a combination of my experience, education and the *manner* of my thoughts and emotions.

That's great , I agree with this comment . And I think all of these experiences have some effects and impacts on our mind so the patterns made to our mind is simply a multiple indicator of all of them ...

Edited by amordaad, 16 March 2005 - 06:54 AM.


#88 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 March 2005 - 08:40 AM

And yes they are independent of the brain of the donor once they are created because as yet the process of making the communications bidirectional are too invasive and unreliable.

I think this is a very important point that the devices or the machines are independently communicating with the environment because this makes another new sense of consciousness to the machine . I think the consciousness is an effect of the unique position of us in relation to the world .
Ofcourse there may be a common conscious but I think it would be very susceptible . It may be broken down into to consciousness imediately after being splitted foe just a short time .

#89 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:12 AM

And now I want to talk about the technological problems that "Ocsrazor" mentioned once in the replies :
The first thing is that :

A true copy will require at the very least a positional map of all 100 trillion synapses in a brain (and possibly all dendritic spines as well, which is an even larger number).

But I think there may be some short cuts to avoid dealing with such a coplexity . The brain is communicating with the whole world through its gateways and all that it knows is gained in this way and this same relation point may be used for connecting to the brain . I can suggest just an immaginary method to cope with this problem and that is to work on the processor of the brain which writes and reads the information to and from the brain and to leave this job for the processor when it is somehow accelerated ( as you told about the pasting phase ) . [huh]
There may be some ways to access deep to the brain via hypnotism so I think it deserves some study or some efforts to be made for achieving this method ...

Edited by amordaad, 16 March 2005 - 10:30 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#90 amordaad

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:20 AM

Ocsrazor , about the second problem you mentioned Ido have a question :
If so it will be impossible for the blind born people to be given sight by using surgical or medical new methods , won't be ? [huh]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users