119 replies to this topic

[MightyMouse]

Wow. It seems that most people here don't really take time to grasp what "infinity" means. Someone in this thread said "universe is pretty big and infinity might not be enough to explore it." Yes it is. It's enough, and then, after you have done it, there will be infinity of time left. Infinity of boredom and despair. Also, the fact that universe is huge doesn't mean it has huge amount of variability. Just think about being infinitely immortal without the option of ending your existance at will or for example reset your memories. Having seen all, having experienced all there is to experience. Worst possible torture.

 

Then again, contemplating the idea of my mind ceasing to exist on one day gives me a panic attack as well. So, according to our current knowledge there are no great options available...

 

P.S. I see there are some religious people here at longecity? Whats that all about :D Why do you care about physical immortality?

[Jiminy Glick]

You seem suicidal.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

I believe that our souls/minds are immortal already, but I dont know if I would want my body to be immortal.

 

I think eventually I would want to take that Final Promotion.

 

The soul or spirit are not physical so they are not subject to physical laws.  Everything solely physical dies.  To die does not mean to cease to exist.  Nothing purely physical ceases to exist but it no longer can function in the form it was.
 

 

I agree that dying does not mean we cease to exist, but I am not sure that mechanical indefinite lifespans are not achievable as forms of energy or as mechanical housing for the mind.

 

atoms and molecules composed of atoms are capable of very long periods of existence.  Solar systems, though not nearly so complex as the cell or other biological forms, have been around for billions of years, in fact DNA may have existed before our sun did and brought to us one a comet.

 

Uploading our minds through a gradual transition from our own minds to some kind of computer could happen one day.

 

Imagine if you would a brain that has had new tissue added to it due to surgery attempting to repair damage an accident. Is it implausible that, if it is added to the frontal cortex that it might l meld and become part of the persons mind? Why not?

 

If say the frontal cortex was damaged by 50% and the new material amounted to 50% of the prior intact mind, could the person expand their use of said material into the new tissue?

 

And what if there were no damage? Suppose the new tissue was simply grafted in?  More than that, suppose the new tissue was part of an external biological "brain that was wirelessly connected to the old brain,and had no prior consciousness or memories, maybe it was grown in a lab from the persons own stem cells? What if this process could be repeated over and over, so that we existed in a biological "box" with a brain in it that could be surgically fit into our skulls and had a layering that would grow neural connections to the right nerves to function?  I know this sounds hilarious to some degree, but I do not see anything that makes it impossible.

 

I am not saying this is a proven possibility, I am just thinking wild I guess.

 

Cant argue with wild guesses, or imagination.  Good job,

 

[nickthird]

Wow. It seems that most people here don't really take time to grasp what "infinity" means. Someone in this thread said "universe is pretty big and infinity might not be enough to explore it." Yes it is. It's enough, and then, after you have done it, there will be infinity of time left. Infinity of boredom and despair. Also, the fact that universe is huge doesn't mean it has huge amount of variability. Just think about being infinitely immortal without the option of ending your existance at will or for example reset your memories. Having seen all, having experienced all there is to experience. Worst possible torture.

 

Then again, contemplating the idea of my mind ceasing to exist on one day gives me a panic attack as well. So, according to our current knowledge there are no great options available...

 

P.S. I see there are some religious people here at longecity? Whats that all about :D Why do you care about physical immortality?

 

Your perspective is not rational. If you can live long enough to experience everything a human can, you would by then evolve out of your body into something far beyond human.

 

This is a pointless question because there are just too many unknowns to estimate anything. Maybe time travel is possible and you will go back in time and change stuff and wait to evolve again, maybe you find other universes, etc.

 

It is literally impossible to experience everything and remember all of it because then all the atoms would have to be part of your brain.

[MightyMouse]

 

It is literally impossible to experience everything and remember all of it because then all the atoms would have to be part of your brain.

 

 

What you're saying is that if we want to experience all of the ocean and remember all of it we have to remember every atom in it. It's not true tho, it can be modeled much more easily and has systematic repetition. As I said, the fact that something is vast doesn't mean its variety is vast. That might hold true for universe. All in all, of course we are very limited minds and I might be wrong when it comes to possibilities.

[nickthird]

 

 

It is literally impossible to experience everything and remember all of it because then all the atoms would have to be part of your brain.

 

 

What you're saying is that if we want to experience all of the ocean and remember all of it we have to remember every atom in it. It's not true tho, it can be modeled much more easily and has systematic repetition. As I said, the fact that something is vast doesn't mean its variety is vast. That might hold true for universe. All in all, of course we are very limited minds and I might be wrong when it comes to possibilities.

 

 

I didn't mean it like that...

 

My point is that likely the limitation is the human brain / memory rather than the variety in the whole existing universe.

 

Anyway you are in no way limited by universe size in terms of variety. You can make up a story which can be made from an infinite number of words, and variety of words would also be infinite if you are willing to define new ones with more exotic / specific meanings.

 

The question is not whether the variety of the static universe is limited, but rather is the variety of the creations of intelligent life limited. I would definitely rather find that out then kill myself at the ripe old age of 1 trillion if it comes to it, than die before that happens...

[MightyMouse]

Suicide at 1 trillion years could be an option

 

The point of my first post was that if we don't have a possibility of ending our existance at some point it could become a torture. This has been puzzling me for some time - the thought of ceasing to exist being comparably horrifying to the thought of having to live forever. I guess that these concepts are bit too much for my evolutionary animal brain to handle.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Suicide at 1 trillion years could be an option

 

The point of my first post was that if we don't have a possibility of ending our existance at some point it could become a torture. This has been puzzling me for some time - the thought of ceasing to exist being comparably horrifying to the thought of having to live forever. I guess that these concepts are bit too much for my evolutionary animal brain to handle.

 

What exatly do you mean by tortue?

 

If you mean the bored to death argument - the argument, that you will do everything that you wanted to do, and after that you will be getting progressively bored with the time and finally you will be urged to do the same things over and over, like to be forced to play a stupid video game, every day, until sickness.

 

If this is what you mean, this thing does not exist. I have a very strong argument against that point of view, that I have described here:

http://www.longecity...life-extension/

posts 19, 28 and 31

 

You will never get bored because of the too many nice things to do, the build in forgetting ablity of the human brain, and the fact, that you can arange a list of your favourite things in a closed circle.

 

For example, if you like reading, you may take 100 000 books, that you would like extermely much, and simply start reading. When you finish the last book, you will have perfectly forgotten the first book. Then you simply can start again from the first one. Thus you close the cycle. You can read books for an unlimited time, and in never to stop to like that.

[MightyMouse]

I get what you are saying. Although, after 1 trillion years very likely we will not be human anymore. Cybernetic extensions are like 10 years away. Transferring the whole mind to digital form - maybe 30-50 years away. So I don't think it's certain that our memory will be limited. 

 

About willful forgetting. Yes, we can willfully forget or create some sorts of scenarious and simulations for us that feel real. Maybe we can create time loops for us that reset our minds at some point. But that is self deception. Right now, our highest aspiration in this life is to learn as much as we can about the universe. In above described scenario we will be just giving up part of the knowledge in order to avoid boredom and remain sane. About the 100 000 books sample: will reading a book really seem that enjoyable if you know for certain you won't remember a tiniest bit of it after a while? Accordingly, will anything, for example building relationships, loving someone, feel enjoyable if you know that after x amount of time you won't remember a thing about it? Like it never happened.

 

Thinking about it fills me with despair. So yeah, torture might not be best word. Despair.

[Danail Bulgaria]

... very likely we will not be human anymore. Cybernetic extensions are like 10 years away. Transferring the whole mind to digital form - maybe 30-50 years away. So I don't think it's certain that our memory will be limited. 

....

 

We will not be human anymore means the destruction of the human kind. You must never dream of that. Under any circumstances. The entire science has to be devoted to the opposite - we to be human kind forever. Eveything else is a suicidal thinking at a mass scale. That is the most important from your post, that I need to comment. Cybernetic extensions are like 10 years away but they are designed for people, who have no any other choice, for example if a train has run over their legs. Yes, they loose a part of their biological essence and substitute it with a machinary. Why do they do it? Out of helplessness, out of any other choice. Until when will be the disabled doing it? Until the science finds a way to clone biological legs and transplant them back, and thus restore their biological essence. But deliberately to cut off your legs and to substitute them with cybernetic extensions is on the route of self-destruction of the human kind. We are biological beings, and our way can be only substituting a biological part with another biology part.

 

There are limits of memory ofcourse. A hard drive can be 1TB but it is still limited. Another question is if the pleasures of the universe are also limited. Most probably they are. Will it be possible all of the pleasures for you to be recorded, and periodically flushed into your brain? Maybe yes, maybe no. In the both cases scenarios things can be arranged so, that you never to get bored.

 

"Maybe we can create time loops for us that reset our minds at some point. But that is self deception."

I am not talking about self deception time loops. I am talking about feeling the same nice things over and over. It is a loop, but not a time loop. A real time loop would be to bring back the entire universe in prvious states cotinuously over and over. This is not what I am talking about. And it is not a self-deception. It is feeling the same goodies over and over without an ending on the way that your natural body construction allows it. If you assume, that repeating a forgotten pleasure is self-deception, then are you self-decepting yourself when you watch some nice old movie, that you watched whe you were a child? 

 

"Right now, our highest aspiration in this life is to learn as much as we can about the universe. In above described scenario we will be just giving up part of the knowledge in order to avoid boredom and remain sane."

How feeling the old pleasures over and over stops you from exploring and learning the universe? Does it stops you now? Today you also have forgotten many of the pleasures, that you had. If you feel them back will this stop you from exploring the universe? How about if you feel your present pleasures after 30 years? Will that stop you from exploring?

 

"About the 100 000 books sample: will reading a book really seem that enjoyable if you know for certain you won't remember a tiniest bit of it after a while?"

How about now? Is reading a good book enjoyable if you know that only 30-40 years after you will not remember it on the very same way you don't remember now your favourite movies from the childhood? And is it enjoyable if you know, that when you get the age related dementia, you will not remember a tiniest bit of it?

 

It fills you with a despire, because you have the wrong thinking. You are hard to be blamed though. The majority of the people today are deluted and mind twisted from whatever you wish - lack of evidences, luck of knowledge, even deliberate propaganda.

[MightyMouse]

Ahh, seivtco. We all know how you adore good ol' human race. Why is preserving humanity such a paramount goal? What's so special about our biological body? C'mon, dont be such a xenophobe... Do you think there's a "soul" or "gaya" lurking somewhere in this wet matter? Electrical and chemical signals are what make us what we are. These can be replicated perfectly when the time comes. And means don't have to be of biological nature.

 

For me, mind and sentinence is of utmost importance, everything else can go. So, if I deliberately cut off my legs and get synthetic ones, will I be a less valuable being? Where do you draw a line between biological and cybernetical btw? What about a baby who has had a genetic disease removed using CRISPR? Not a human? What about someone who has had some physical properties modified in embryo, need for less sleep or increased intelligence and tolerance for radiation? Not human! Exterminate? 

Edited by MightyMouse, 04 November 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Really you all know how do I adore the human race haha.

I do actually.

 

Why is preserving humanity such a paramount goal? Well... why not? We create the science and the technologies. We have the right to purpose them to work for us. Why to push them against us?

 

I don'y believe in the soul. I believe, that everything, that is being named a soul is the product of our brain work. What do you name soul? Your memories, your way of thinking, your knowledge, your feelings and passions - everything that is a product of the brain.

 

if you deliberately cut off your legs and get synthetic ones, you will be a less biological being. Something between a human and a doll. The more artifitial things you place in your body, the less human you are. People currently place artifitial implants only because of necessity - absence of an alternative, that to recover the function of the missing body parts. Cyborg you will become when you merge with the machine. Something like Robocop. The most you loose from the biological tissues and cels, the most you turn into a full robot. To such things you have to go only when you have no other choice.

 

The baby, that is modified genetically is another thing - it does not replace buological parts with not biological parts, so it is not loosing its biological nature. If the modification is to be added new properties then the baby can be named mutant, if the modification is done to restore a genetic disease, it eventually can be named healed mutant, but neither a cyborg, nor a doll. It is entirely biological and is a completely different thing.

 

I don't want to exterminate anything. If I have a security, that the robots, the cyborgs or the mutants will not destroy the original people, then their existence is fine for me.

[nickthird]

You guys are forgetting that by the time you experience all that you can as a human you will no longer be a human. There is no way to predict if there is a limit to what a living being can experience. For example, we have limited senses but we can make far more senses. We can create new types of emotions and new types of responses to external phenomena.

 

The universe is currently assumed to be infinite. To assume that you can know everything is to assume there is an end to physics and that you can find the laws the govern everything. There is no basis for that assumption.

 

In daily life, our experiences are never limited to what nature has to offer, but rather they limited to the culture we can evolve as a species. If you go out to the forest and look at animals, many people will get bored very fast. There is no way that human interactions have a variability limit because your interactions are based on all of your past experiences.

[Danail Bulgaria]

You guys are forgetting that by the time you experience all that you can as a human you will no longer be a human. There is no way to predict if there is a limit to what a living being can experience. For example, we have limited senses but we can make far more senses. We can create new types of emotions and new types of responses to external phenomena.

 

The universe is currently assumed to be infinite. To assume that you can know everything is to assume there is an end to physics and that you can find the laws the govern everything. There is no basis for that assumption.

 

In daily life, our experiences are never limited to what nature has to offer, but rather they limited to the culture we can evolve as a species. If you go out to the forest and look at animals, many people will get bored very fast. There is no way that human interactions have a variability limit because your interactions are based on all of your past experiences.

 

"You guys are forgetting that by the time you experience all that you can as a human you will no longer be a human"

That is a matter of personal choice. You no longer be a human means, that you will kill yourself somehow. Whatever your plan is, it is a suicide.

 

"There is no way to predict if there is a limit to what a living being can experience"

You may be correct on that. We can't say it for sure if there is a limit in the universe or not. Some people can suggest, that the universe has a finite number of possible configurations or states. The last also sounds logical since all of the configurations of the agregated matter are the different atoms from the Mendellev's table. And the stable elements there are finite in number. If we suggest the big bang theory, then we have to suggest, that all of the elementary particles, that the entire universe has been made from, are a finite number of elementary particles, that have been super packed in a very small ball, which ball has exploded. So, there comes the question how will you make an infinite number of combinations from a finite number of partiles in the universe, agregated in a finite number of atoms, variating in a finite number of atom types.

There are many unanswered questions, ofcourse, defending either the one or the other view, starting from "does infinity exists at all" to "has there been a big bang at all" and "is our universe the only one?" Are there other universes with more atoms there, etc. 

To me at that moment the question if there is a limit of the states in the universe is unanswered, but the possibility for the limit to exist, is not for yet for the garbage.

If there is a limit of the possible configurations of the particles in the universe, then that limit governs a limited number of things as general, and a limited number of things, that can bring you joy.

 

As for the end to physics and can people find the laws the govern everything these are completely different questions. They may have or may have not interference with the infinity.

 

"There is no way that human interactions have a variability limit because your interactions are based on all of your past experiences"

Everything that your brain does, is based on its neural network. And that neural network is governed by the laws of the sciences, biochemical, electrical, etc, that determine if a neuron will fire or not. You think, that you are taking a decision, but you are just following the rules, that guide your neural network. If your neural network is placed twice in absolutely the same environment, it will give twice the same result. Your decisions are calculatable, and have a limit, because of the finite number of brain cells, and their finite number of connections between them. Thus your brain neural network can be in a finite number of states. Your past experiences are based on the variations of your surrounding environment, which are finite in number, even if the universe as general is infinite.

[Matt]

In an infinite universe with maybe an infinite number of metaverses in the future... Yeah of course! 

I think all the stories and art humans have created will be re-created by AI as virtual worlds, adventures, stories. So not only can we experience all the possible things that reality has to offer, but we could live out entire lives in simulation of whatever we choose. Perhaps you like Battlestar Galactica and you want to live out that story... you could do it. Or maybe LOTR. :D

 

Maybe with future brain enhancements, these experiences would seem like a lifetime to those experiencing it, but in reality a week has just gone by. 

I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't want to exist. So when I say I want to live forever, I really mean "forever". It's probably not possible... but it makes no sense to decide right now to put a limit on it.

 

 

[nickthird]

Becoming something non human does not have to involve dying. You are just assuming your current knowledge is the end of it. Maybe it is possible to transfer consciousness to a brain with infinite memory, and a possibly infinite number of states.

I think you guys are not understanding really big numbers. The number of possible chess games you can play in 40 moves is larger than the number of electrons in the observable universe. That means since you cannot store a game on one electron, you will not be able to remember them all.

Now some other comments are about the finiteness of particle configurations. But we don't even know all the particles, you have quarks, then maybe strings etc. You are just assuming things which are baseless.

Whether or now the same input to the brain produces the same output is another assumption of yours. Yes, in simulated networks the randomness is usually overcome, but we don't know how true that is for the brain in the short term.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Becoming something non human does not have to involve dying. You are just assuming your current knowledge is the end of it. Maybe it is possible to transfer consciousness to a brain with infinite memory, and a possibly infinite number of states.

I think you guys are not understanding really big numbers. The number of possible chess games you can play in 40 moves is larger than the number of electrons in the observable universe. That means since you cannot store a game on one electron, you will not be able to remember them all.

Now some other comments are about the finiteness of particle configurations. But we don't even know all the particles, you have quarks, then maybe strings etc. You are just assuming things which are baseless.

Whether or now the same input to the brain produces the same output is another assumption of yours. Yes, in simulated networks the randomness is usually overcome, but we don't know how true that is for the brain in the short term.

 

"Becoming something non human does not have to involve dying"

As I wrote above, it is a matter of personal choice. In my oppinion if you copy-paste your brain neural network in a machine, it will ne nothing more than a model of your brain workings, then later when you die, your actual body dies, and rots, and that is the end. What remains is a model of your brain. Its like demonishing a building, keeping its plans, and claiming, that the building is still there.

If you don't mind that, then you are free to do it. It is your choice. My moral task is only to warn you, that this is not immortality.

 

As long as I understand mathematics, a really big number is still finite. It can be more than the number of electrons in the universe, but it is still finite.

 

Knowing or don't knowing all of the possible particles doesn't matter for that conversation, if the big bang is true, and all of the particles of the universe are still finite in number and have been packed in a super small ball.

Maybe physicians don't know all of the particles, that the universe is created, but for one reason or another these particles at the end aggregate in a finite number of larger particles, that are the atoms. The items, that make the joy of the most people are made from these relatively small set of stable atoms. That is why I used only them as an argument.

 

Ofcourse the brain will produce the same output. The difference between the simulated network and the brain is only the number of neurns and the number of connections.

[Danail Bulgaria]

In an infinite universe with maybe an infinite number of metaverses in the future... Yeah of course! 

I think all the stories and art humans have created will be re-created by AI as virtual worlds, adventures, stories. So not only can we experience all the possible things that reality has to offer, but we could live out entire lives in simulation of whatever we choose. Perhaps you like Battlestar Galactica and you want to live out that story... you could do it. Or maybe LOTR. :D

 

Maybe with future brain enhancements, these experiences would seem like a lifetime to those experiencing it, but in reality a week has just gone by. 

I can't think of a good reason why I wouldn't want to exist. So when I say I want to live forever, I really mean "forever". It's probably not possible... but it makes no sense to decide right now to put a limit on it.

 

 

 

The boredom argument, that very often is being heared from many people assumes, that the things, that you like to do are finite, and that you will be bored to death doing them, and at the end, you will suicide, for just to get out of that prizon.

 

Some time ago I started to scientifically explore that argument, and the result was blasting it out. You will never get bored from doing a large enough number of finite pleasent things to do, because you will be doing and forgetting them over and over, in a closed cycle. The boredom argument was defeated by me on its own teritory on the bases of its own assumptions.

 

The people, who stand for the boredom argument asume, that the the pleasent things to do have imits, and that is their reality. Going againt their beliefs is very hard. That is why talking them about multiverses, paralel universes, etc. is nothing more than idiotism and fantasy.

 

The boredom factor, however, does not exist even if the universe is only one, and even if the virtual reality worlds are also finite. 

[nickthird]

"Becoming something non human does not have to involve dying"

 

 

As I wrote above, it is a matter of personal choice. In my oppinion if you copy-paste your brain neural network in a machine, it will ne nothing more than a model of your brain workings, then later when you die, your actual body dies, and rots, and that is the end. What remains is a model of your brain. Its like demonishing a building, keeping its plans, and claiming, that the building is still there.

If you don't mind that, then you are free to do it. It is your choice. My moral task is only to warn you, that this is not immortality.

 

As long as I understand mathematics, a really big number is still finite. It can be more than the number of electrons in the universe, but it is still finite.

 

Knowing or don't knowing all of the possible particles doesn't matter for that conversation, if the big bang is true, and all of the particles of the universe are still finite in number and have been packed in a super small ball.

Maybe physicians don't know all of the particles, that the universe is created, but for one reason or another these particles at the end aggregate in a finite number of larger particles, that are the atoms. The items, that make the joy of the most people are made from these relatively small set of stable atoms. That is why I used only them as an argument.

 

Ofcourse the brain will produce the same output. The difference between the simulated network and the brain is only the number of neurns and the number of connections.

 

 

Becoming something other than human doesn't have to involve copy pasting your brain. All that it takes is to isolate consciousness itself (whether it be a group of cells, some process or one cell), extract that out your brain, and build a new brain around it. I only care about my consciousness, so to me that would be immortality.

 

Another thing you can do is build an extension to your existing brain, so that you are not actually destroying anything, just adding.

 

Of course any big number is finite, but for all practical purposes it could be the same as infinite, for example because you are limited by how far you can travel due to the speed of light, so if you want your brain to respond within a certain time range its size may have to be limited.

 

Look my main point was that even with a simple game like chess and only 40 moves you get such high complexity. So the variability is not a realistically stronger limit than the size of the brain or the size of its memory (as before people were discussing how the variability of universe is such a big problem, or lack of).

 

 

 

 if the big bang is true, and all of the particles of the universe are still finite in number and have been packed in a super small ball

You don't understand the theory of the big bang. This was also my misconception some years ago, because of the way it is portrayed in the media.

 

The big bang theory does not state that all of the universe began at one point. It states that there were an infinite number of points where the universe began, and they all expanded. The universe started out infinite. Now what you see in the media with the one point expansion is just the portrayal of the visible universe, but there were infinite points of expansion.

 

"for one reason or another these particles at the end aggregate in a finite number of larger particles, that are the atoms."

What about dark matter etc? We don't even know all types of matter... and who knows what else will be discovered.

 

 

 

 

 

make the joy of the most people are made from these relatively small set of stable atoms. That is why I used only them as an argument.

The universe has explorable phenomena which is the result of more than the regular matter you interact with during daily life, thus there is no need to limit the variability of the universe to the (infinite) number of regular matter configurations.

 

 

 

Ofcourse the brain will produce the same output. The difference between the simulated network and the brain is only the number of neurns and the number of connections.

"Of course"? Are you a neuroscientist? I have done research in this area, and I can tell you this is not as "obvious" as you'd think. There is a lot of randomness in the operation of the brain.

 

I have simulated networks in the brain, and no, that is very far from being the only difference. The difference is huge.

 

 

[MightyMouse]

"Of course"? Are you a neuroscientist? I have done research in this area, and I can tell you this is not as "obvious" as you'd think. There is a lot of randomness in the operation of the brain.

 

 

 

I have simulated networks in the brain, and no, that is very far from being the only difference. The difference is huge.

 

 

The fact that we don't have a 100% understanding how brain works doesn't mean we never will. I'm not saying its obvious or simple, but there's no particular reason why we wouldn't be able to replicate all of the aspects of human mind in the future. What exactly is this mystical component that can't possibly be copied? 

 

@ seivtcho... I don't agree to your building and blueprint example. Where do you get that? If we replicate all the processes that make us who we are, then the result is exactly who we are, not a "doll" or "blueprint". And yes, I know it's not only brain, its also peripheral nervous system, chemical signals in the body etc, but all of those things can likely be replicated in the future.

 

You guys keep implying that there's something mystical about human being that can't be rebuilt digitally. So what is this magic ingredient?

[nickthird]

The fact that we don't have a 100% understanding how brain works doesn't mean we never will. I'm not saying its obvious or simple, but there's no particular reason why we wouldn't be able to replicate all of the aspects of human mind in the future. What exactly is this mystical component that can't possibly be copied? 

 

@ seivtcho... I don't agree to your building and blueprint example. Where do you get that? If we replicate all the processes that make us who we are, then the result is exactly who we are, not a "doll" or "blueprint". And yes, I know it's not only brain, its also peripheral nervous system, chemical signals in the body etc, but all of those things can likely be replicated in the future.

 

You guys keep implying that there's something mystical about human being that can't be rebuilt digitally. So what is this magic ingredient?

 

 

I never implied there is something mystical about the brain that cannot be digitally rebuilt. I merely stated that you don't always get the same output for the same input. This fact can also be digitally rebuilt if it is fully understood.

 

Another issue is that If you digitally copy your brain you will not wake up the next day in the digital brain. You will live and die with your body, unless, in my opinion, consciousness itself is physically extracted from the brain and connected to something else.

[MightyMouse]

Another issue is that If you digitally copy your brain you will not wake up the next day in the digital brain. You will live and die with your body, unless, in my opinion, consciousness itself is physically extracted from the brain and connected to something else.

 

It is true if the copying doesn't inolve destroying the original you. If it can be done in such a way that biological body is spared, then I guess the two "yous" will go on living their different lives, drifting farther apart and essentially becoming different persons. 

 

I think there can be two possible reasons for copying ones mind to digital form:

 

1. Organic body and brain are deteriorating and science is not able to stop this process (computer science is more advanced than medicine). In this case there is no choice really. You get demented/die anyway, either you make a copy or not.

 

2. Moving your mind into a computer is necessary to compete with AI-s and other digitalised human minds - a mind functioning in a computer works thousands of times faster, also it has vastly higher ability to develop itself in a qualitative matter. So "organic" people (lol) would be to digital people the same as wild tribes are to modern people nowadays. Just as useful as animals in the zoo. After all, not much fun to do business with minds that are capable of uttering one word per hour. In that case the moral issues concernign the biological body left behind becomes more complicated. 

Edited by MightyMouse, 06 November 2017 - 01:29 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

Becoming something other than human doesn't have to involve copy pasting your brain. All that it takes is to isolate consciousness itself (whether it be a group of cells, some process or one cell), extract that out your brain, and build a new brain around it. I only care about my consciousness, so to me that would be immortality.

 

Another thing you can do is build an extension to your existing brain, so that you are not actually destroying anything, just adding.

 

Of course any big number is finite, but for all practical purposes it could be the same as infinite, for example because you are limited by how far you can travel due to the speed of light, so if you want your brain to respond within a certain time range its size may have to be limited.

 

Look my main point was that even with a simple game like chess and only 40 moves you get such high complexity. So the variability is not a realistically stronger limit than the size of the brain or the size of its memory (as before people were discussing how the variability of universe is such a big problem, or lack of).

 

You don't understand the theory of the big bang. This was also my misconception some years ago, because of the way it is portrayed in the media.

 

The big bang theory does not state that all of the universe began at one point. It states that there were an infinite number of points where the universe began, and they all expanded. The universe started out infinite. Now what you see in the media with the one point expansion is just the portrayal of the visible universe, but there were infinite points of expansion.

 

"for one reason or another these particles at the end aggregate in a finite number of larger particles, that are the atoms."

What about dark matter etc? We don't even know all types of matter... and who knows what else will be discovered.

 

The universe has explorable phenomena which is the result of more than the regular matter you interact with during daily life, thus there is no need to limit the variability of the universe to the (infinite) number of regular matter configurations.

 

"Of course"? Are you a neuroscientist? I have done research in this area, and I can tell you this is not as "obvious" as you'd think. There is a lot of randomness in the operation of the brain.

 

I have simulated networks in the brain, and no, that is very far from being the only difference. The difference is huge.

 

 

Copy-pasting your neural network into a machine is making a model of your brain.

For the other options, that you believe, that will be possble in the future - isolating the brain cells, that make your consciousness, and then rebuilding a brain arround your consciousnes is another thing. I am not sure in what exactly you will end up, but if it still is a biological human being, then it is definately more acceptable than the robot.

Extension to your existing brain, so that you are not actually destroying anything, just adding depends how and what exactly you extend and add.

 

In terms of the getting bored argument the diffirence between infinite and finite is signifficant. From there it comes alot of the power for the getting bored argument.

 

As long as I understand the big bang theory, it is exactly one big bang. More big bangs is the theory of the multi-universes and the string theory.

The big bang is a single bang and matter inflating like a baloon. Mulri universes theory and the string theory says that there are other bubbles poping and inflating.

https://www.youtube....h?v=Ay_nJPJyWHA

 

Whatever dark matter is out there and if it exists or not, it has to be generated from the big bang ball.

 

What simulated networks in the brain have you done? In the neural networks, that are used for speech recognition and for image and pattern recognition, they give equal results when placed under equal circumstances.

[Danail Bulgaria]

....

@ seivtcho... I don't agree to your building and blueprint example. Where do you get that? If we replicate all the processes that make us who we are, then the result is exactly who we are, not a "doll" or "blueprint". And yes, I know it's not only brain, its also peripheral nervous system, chemical signals in the body etc, but all of those things can likely be replicated in the future.

....

 

If you manage to make an exact copy of yourself, a person from flesh and blood standing just next to you, then that person will be your clone. Then if you die, you will die and rot, and alive will keep being your clone.

[MightyMouse]

Copy-pasting your neural network into a machine is making a model of your brain.

 

 

For the other options, that you believe, that will be possble in the future - isolating the brain cells, that make your consciousness, and then rebuilding a brain arround your consciousnes is another thing. 

 

Ok, so let's say, in distant future, we are capable of making a digital copy of the whole body - down to single atom (or quark, if it matters). What do you call it then? Is it still a "model" and not a sentinent being? Will it be inferior to the original body somehow? 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I don't know, if it will be superior or inferior, it simply will not be you. It will be a modelof you, far more advanced model of your body, than the one, we can do today, but still a model.

[MightyMouse]

Technically, since it was created based on original, we can call it a "model". But it will be identical, it will be self-consious, and it wouldn't be able to tell whether it's a copy or original. Likewise we can't say for sure if our current selves arguing here are simulations or not, correct?

[Danail Bulgaria]

It is again a personal choice. If it is a sure belief of yours, that generating a perfect model of you will make you immortal, then go that way. My moral duty was to tell you about the other side of the coin. What will you do after that is entirely your choice.

 

[MightyMouse]

I'm just curious why you think differently.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I am simply seeking the truth. How can people do so, that never to die. Thats all.

 

People very often have different opinion on many questions. My experience, knowledge and way of thinking led me to the view, that we can be immortal only by rejuvenation - such as through stem cells and artifitial regeneration. This is so, because we are biological creatures, and we can maintain our bodies only by replacing a biological structure with a biological structure of the same kind, and with our own, person speciphic DNA.

 

And for after we die, the best chances of resurrection are given by the cryonics, some cryonics alternatives and the determinism. Because only they would be able to resurrect us as biological creatures.