104 replies to this topic

[justinb]

It is impossible to stop my reactions. Now, if you froze time and then started it again, yes.

P.S.

If you mean the reactions that create my "consciousnes", then yes, of course.

But the foundamental reactions that take place within my brain, on the neuronal level, can never be completely stopped... just slowed down a great deal so as to be negligible.

P.P.S.

The reactions that create my consciousness are a specific set of reactions that are dependent on the neuronal level. You can stop the reactions that create my consciousness but not the reactions that are required for my consciousness to be able to exist in the first place.

[bgwowk]

But the foundamental reactions that take place within my brain, on the neuronal level, can never be completely stopped... just slowed down a great deal so as to be negligible.

Nonsense. If I chemically block nerve transmission, and/or deprive your brain of oxygen, and/or cool your brain so cold that action potentials can't exist, your "neuronal level" reactions are STOPPED. That is a medical fact. So again I ask, if I later restart them, are you the same person?

---BrianW

[Kalepha]

John, I think the confusion lies with what you thought I meant when I said we should be disturbed. You probably thought I meant that I would actually be disturbed with duplicates scurrying around simultaneously. No. The tacit knowledge is that Brian seems to accept all three implications that if he is A, and only A unbeknownst to him, and a qualitatively identical instance (which is significantly different than numerical identity) of him was created, B, then he would be A or B. I deny this. If I am A and only A, then I could be [A and B] (being a suitably advanced superintelligence to account for both their observer states) but not [A or B].

[John Schloendorn]

Ok cool thanks

[justinb]

You are talking about action potentials at the neuronal level. I am talking about the molecules that make up the neuronal level. Sure, you can stop a lot of action potentials, but you can't stop all of them. And you certainly can't stop the molecular reactions that comprise the neurons. Yes, you are the same "person." Since you, the reaction, is still going. Even if it wasn't, you the person is still there since the structure that creates you is still there.

Another structure that memics a person completely is just another structure, another person. Two seperate brains are two seperate brains, obviously. A brain undergoing many different changes is still a single brain, a single person. Destroying that brain would destroy the person.

A copy is a seperate brain, no?

[eternaltraveler]

Brian, just give him a couple months to let it sink in. It worked for me

[justinb]

JustinRebo

Brian, just give him a couple months to let it sink in.  It worked for me

heh heh

If what you guys are saying is that a copy is really just a continuation of me, an end product of my reactions, then I would agree. If what you are saying is that a copy, a seperate brain other than my own is me, then I disagree. Meaning, you can point and say "there is a brain over there, and there is another brain over there." To make myself absolutely clear. Imagine that you have two seperate rooms that are not connected with each other in anyway. Place me, the original, in room A, and create a copy of me in room B. I and the copy are two different entities. Wouldn't you agree?

If this has all been a semantic mix up, then I feel like an ass. I just want to get to the bottom of this.

To me, the idea of two seperate brains located in two completely different spatial domains at the same temporal location, being the same person is... well... absolutely absurd! That is what I was so upset about.

I apologize for being a cunt in the past couple of threads, I just get extremely upset when highly intelligent people fall for such BS. Especially when they are fellow immortalists and we share the same extremely important goals and are the only ones that give a shit. I only behave rudely when my and others' lives are at stake, or at least appear to be. What is the difference? [tung]

[bgwowk]

Yes, justinb, two copies are two separate people. The point is that if you are subjected to a faithful copying process, you should subjectively expect to wake as either copy. And both copies are legally and morally an equivalent continuation of you to external observers. They are both conscious and both justinb's.

As to the other topic in question, if you cool a brain cold enough, all chemical reactions will stop. Local vibrations persist down to absolute zero, but translational motion stops at much higher temperatures. If molecules can't move relative to each other, there is no chemistry.

---BrianW

[justinb]

The point is that if you are subjected to a faithful copying process, you should subjectively expect to wake as either copy.

I still venemently disagree. Oh well, no use going on about it.

To me, what you are saying is either a tautology or is silly.

If what you mean is that another physical being resembling me exactly is created while I am "put" under and that person awakes, that person would have the thoughts very similar to what I would have and he would think he "was me" in the sense that he would have my memories and personality. That is the tautology.

The silly part is that you would actually consider that person to be *me* the reaction and not just *me* the personality. That is obviously false.

Care to point out my errors of intrepretation?

If you guys are right about duplication, than I must be missing something completely obvious.

Local vibrations persist down to absolute zero, but translational motion stops at much higher temperatures.

Gotch ya. My point was that your brain can never completely stop changing.

Although, statistically speaking, wouldn't there be the occasional chemical reaction at near absolute zero temperature?

One thing is for certain, when you raise the temperature and bring him or her back, that person is going to be different on some level or another.

Edited by justinb, 09 December 2005 - 02:52 PM.

[bgwowk]

justinb, there is no continuous "reaction" that is you, and that is the point. There is a type of physical process, a pattern of molecular machinery, that supports your consciousness. Whether that same consciousness exists at time T1 and then time T2 depends only on whether that same pattern of machinery exists at time T1 and then at T2, regardless of what happens in between.

You must work through these thought eperiments to see your "reaction" hypothesis go poof.

* If I surgically transect your brain, and then reattach the halves, are you the same person?

* If I cut your brain into many pieces, and faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person?

* If I separate your frozen brain into micron-sized cubes, and then faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person?

* If I replace some or all of the micron-sized cubes with molecular copies, and then faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person? If not, when exactly does your personhood cease and why do you believe this?

If you think about problems like this for 20 years, as I have, you will be forced to come to the same conclusions.

---BrianW

[justinb]

justinb, there is no continuous "reaction" that is you, and that is the point.  There is a type of physical process, a pattern of molecular machinery, that supports your consciousness.  Whether that same consciousness exists at time T1 and then time T2 depends only on whether that same pattern of machinery exists at time T1 and then at T2, regardless of what happens in between.

You must work through these thought eperiments to see your "reaction" hypothesis go poof.

* If I surgically transect your brain, and then reattach the halves, are you the same person?

* If I cut your brain into many pieces, and faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person?

* If I separate your frozen brain into micron-sized cubes, and then faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person?

* If I replace some or all of the micron-sized cubes with molecular copies, and then faithfully reassemble them, are you the same person?  If not, when exactly does your personhood cease and why do you believe this?

If you think about problems like this for 20 years, as I have, you will be forced to come to the same conclusions. 

---BrianW

We don't know what will happen if you did any of those things. They sound like they would negate my viewpoint in theory, but we have no way of knowing how they would plan out in practice.

justinb, there is no continuous "reaction" that is you, and that is the point.

Right, what I mean by a continuous reaction is a continuous reflection of self, a holographic system that creates consciousness. Of course if you freeze my brain and then "started it up again" I would be the same person since I am accessing the same information with the "same" brain that I was "using" before I lost consciousness. Consciousness is a reflecting process. You most access informion within a particular structure and state to become self-aware.

I know that parts of this are very obvious, I am just stating it not only for others but for myself too.

First we need to know exactly what consciousness is and how it works. Until then, I doubt that we can answer the duplication question honestly. How can we know for absolute certain that my consciousness will be carried on in a copy? We cannot, as of yet at least. To me, I am not only the pattern, but the object too. Since the object is what creates the pattern to begin with. My consciousness is the totality of the brain. The neurons firing in my brain right now is what creates me. The information within my brain is what creates me. Another physically seperate brain that copies me is just another conscioussness. I am a changing process that is dependent on my current temporal location and spatial configuration.

Sorry if I appear stubborn. [lol]

I just want to get to the bottom of this, if that is even possible as of now.

Edited by justinb, 09 December 2005 - 05:46 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

the atoms in your brain are replaced continuously naturally. Are you not the same person in 3 months?

[Kalepha]

Justin B, you're actually pretty close to endorsing self-observable numerical identity. Once you understand enough to get over the substrate-dependence hump, you'll be there.

[justinb]

JustinRebo

the atoms in your brain are replaced continuously naturally. Are you not the same person in 3 months?

The holographic process of self reflection can only take place within a certain inter-dependent system. Another system obviously wont replace the other system. Unless the original system evolves into the other system. Two seperate systems wont allow for that to happen. Turning off a brain and creating an exact copy just doesn't cut it, I am sorry.

Nate Barna

Justin B, you're actually pretty close to endorsing self-observable numerical identity. Once you understand enough to get over the substrate-dependence hump, you'll be there.

Probably, I definitely have a lot to learn about neurochemistry and neurokinetics. That is no surprise.

P.S. (Added hours later)

Althought, as far as I know the substrate has everything to do with who we are. Consciousness itself is a biodynamical process. We receive information from our retina in more or less fixed way.

If you could tell me how we would simulate the process of photons hitting our retina and the entire biochemical process that results, I would love to hear it.

People say that all we need is the relevent information. I disagree. The way the information is transfered (through a specific spatial medium via biochemical interactions) is almost as equally important as the actual "information" being transfered, in my opinion.

Edited by justinb, 10 December 2005 - 01:35 AM.

[bgwowk]

justinb wrote:

We don't know what will happen if you did any of those things.

Yes we do if we believe in the laws of physics. The laws of physics say the same collection of matter under the same conditions will behave the same (neglecting quantum mechanics, which is not really relevant to this). So if you do all kinds of manipulations to a brain (including physical destruction), yet somehow manage to put things back together the way they were, the brain MUST behave the same, and just continue on from where it left off.

First we need to know exactly what consciousness is and how it works.

No we don't. All we need is materialism; the assumption that consciousness correlates with physical states in a brain. Materialism and the laws of physics are all that is needed to answer these questions.

---BrianW

[justinb]

It is not the general laws of physics that will guide us, but what actually happens. We have a very good understanding of the laws of physics compared to our understanding of all of the factors involved in the creation of consciousness, i.e. the whole brain.

It is easy to say that if we took a brain apart in a certain why and put it back together again, that it would function in the same way. The problem is not the theory (once we actually have an extensive one, which we don't have now.. according to what I know), but the actual practice. What actually happens. Do you know of anyway that you can slice a brain up and put it back together and have it function at or near the same way as it was before? I suppose people have at least considered trying this in "simple" mammals, such as rodents. I don't know though. Has anyone tried such procedures in a mammalian brain before? Has anyone considered such procedures? Seriously considered it, that is.

Common-sense interpretations of neurological systems are usually absolutely wrong. Assuming that it is possible to freeze a brain, slice it up and then put it back together, fuse the tissue together, at or near the same configuration as it was before, and then raise the temperature and bring it "back online" is obviously so complicated that I don't even know where to begin contemplating such a procedure. Not to mention that I am extremely ignorant when it comes to neurology, but I know enough to know that such a procedure is absolutely complicated at best and impossible at the worst. Hehe, assuming that such a procedure is possible. Since the only thing that we know about such a procedure is the semantic meaning of the word itself. We can come up with any idea we want to and then defend it vigorously. We need more than an idea, we need a detailed plan that can be tested.

Edited by justinb, 10 December 2005 - 01:50 AM.

[bgwowk]

Your principal handicap here is not lack of understanding of neurobiology, it is lack of understanding of molecular nanotechnology. A mature MNT could reverse engineer brains down to the molecular level. This is the basis of the thought experiments proposed. Indeed, it is the basis of the whole idea of duplicating people in the first place. If you don't have general capabilities for molecular-level analysis and synthesis, then duplicating people in the way we are discussing could never be done.

In short, if you are not prepared to stipulate that adequate technology for the proposed thought experiments can exist, then there is no point in participating in threads discussing duplication because, from your point of view, the whole duplication issue is moot.

That's maybe just as well. Until we have technology able to comprehensively rework biological tissue, we're not getting any younger participating in these silly philosophical arguments.

---BrianW

[justinb]

That's maybe just as well. Until we have technology able to comprehensively rework biological tissue, we're not getting any younger participating in these silly philosophical arguments. 

lol

You are the only person to admit that this is all crock, other than myself a few times around here.

Indeed, these are quite silly philosophical discussions since we can't even have a structured debate... we don't have the knowledge and technology to have any sort of meaningful conclusions and advances in understanding.

[wassname]

I'm sorry I've been missing this I've been on holiday in Australia with no internet. This conversation has been fairly productive.

Perhaps some more situations to fit these hypothesis into are
(we don't neccisarily have to try these in reality

If Brian was brain washed by (by an insane-torrturer) untill he was exactly like justin. And Justin was brainwashed to be just like the original Brian.

If kid grew to be an old adult, and the beliefs, ideas and atoms of the substrate change completely. (the only thing in comon is continuity)

If one side of Nate-Barnas brain started fighting the other half over the remote.(the overmind has gone because of changes to the parts)


If, the pattern theory is a part of the explination, doesn't it mean that as your pattern changes (and is added to?) the old you is partly gone and dead.
And preservation of the individual is not happening with normal living.
Unless perhaps you simulated loops of yourself?

Edited by wassname, 21 December 2005 - 07:09 AM.

[deadbee]

What if you just abandoned the idea that two subjective experiences from one body are ever somehow the same. Does this not solve your paradoxes without need to suppose there exists a soul?

No, it does not. After getting to conclusion, that you will not be "transported" to any copy after death of original, you have to make a conclusion, that there is another, not materialistic difference between you and your copy. That what is beeing tried to proove.

I've been thinking about this.... i'm gonna put it nice and simple, i'm not a boffin, i'm a 27 yr old goldsmith from Sheffield... I would fear death (a gut feeling) i just wouldn't expect to be opening my eyes ever again, even if my brain was copied, the copy would think he was me but i'd be dead..... a copy is what it is....A COPY! not ME.
I don't think this has much to do with a "soul" i just think it's common sense that each version would be a seperate being.... to everyone but the original self everything would be fine... you'd be dead but appear to be alive because the new YOU would be convinced that he was you and be able to tell of all your memories.... i don't think that this way of thinking can prove the existance of a soul.... it's more of a proof that a copy of YOU is still a seperate person.
I believe that our brains are just organs that hold the soul, weather or not it goes anywhere after our lives end is a mystery, maybe we do go from body to body.... but as soon as you start going into how that would work it all seems like a stupid idea.... maybe we shouldn't bother thinking about it and just try and make the most of OURSELVES.

[gashinshotan]

Let's say we can suppress brain to the level of no brainwaves and revive it after some time.
Imagine such experiment:
We turn someone's brain off and then create two identical copies of that brain by nanoassembler. Next the original brain is destroyed forever and the copies are turned on.

Lets make a premise that souls don't exist. If this was the case, the object from which you see the world would be determined by the structure of the brain or brain-like mechanism only. So you must go on living in the one of the copies after they are turned on, because they didn't experience any perceptions and didn't change while they were off. But it's obviously not likely that u could be in two places simultaneously and see things from 4 eyes. Thus this premise is contradictory and must be wrong.

The conclusion is that living beings contain something which can't be copied by our current or predicted to come technologies and we call this thing a soul.

I'd appreaciate your comments about inconsistencies or mistakes if you see any, especially by ocsrazor and other scientists.

Retarded. Stop viewing your consciousness as anything more than a biological process. Making two brains wouldn't change a thing. You would still only hold consciousness in the original brain while the second brain will be merely a clone.

[ntenhue]

What a brilliant thread. I greatly enjoyed reading this little argument.
Questions like this always remind me of Theseus' paradox; if something has all its parts replaced does it remain the same object?
If we look at either the original or the copy from a fourth dimensional point of view neither of the objects will be quantitatively identical at any point in time.
Therefore in a physical sense they will never be an exact likenesses of each other, the only uncertainty arises when people disagree on the very concept of what makes an object.
Personally I find defining objecthood quite a difficult task since it cannot be explained in terms of anything else.

[mentatpsi]

This might sound idiotic, if so correct me as you choose, but who says that duplicating the brain will create a duplicate? No two things can be exactly alike since energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The creation of another similar brain doesn't mean it will turn out as the original did, think probabilities and think quantum physics. We are to assume that consciousness is a network of neural connections which thereby increases the odds infinitely that it will retain the same form. If we end up emulating the brain, it won't be stagnant, and that plasticity gives way to probabilities which are bounded by subjective experiences. I see both sides to the argument, but pure duplication doesn't exist, thereby transferring by supposed copies isn't a feasible idea.

Edited by mysticpsi, 18 March 2008 - 08:43 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Let's say we can suppress brain to the level of no brainwaves and revive it after some time.
Imagine such experiment:
We turn someone's brain off and then create two identical copies of that brain by nanoassembler. Next the original brain is destroyed forever and the copies are turned on.

Lets make a premise that souls don't exist. If this was the case, the object from which you see the world would be determined by the structure of the brain or brain-like mechanism only. So you must go on living in the one of the copies after they are turned on, because they didn't experience any perceptions and didn't change while they were off. But it's obviously not likely that u could be in two places simultaneously and see things from 4 eyes. Thus this premise is contradictory and must be wrong.

The conclusion is that living beings contain something which can't be copied by our current or predicted to come technologies and we call this thing a soul.

I'd appreaciate your comments about inconsistencies or mistakes if you see any, especially by ocsrazor and other scientists.

Actually I believe this is false. What you bring up is also very close to Bernard William's thought experiment.

If the brain was copied atom per atom (taking even quantum affects into account), then there will be two of you. And both of them will be you. I know this is very difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept (since it brings up a lot of moral and emotional issues) but its the truth. Just because we don't like the idea, doesn't make it any less true.

For example, we must also take into account the fact that even now in our current bodies, we are a completely new person and the person that existed, say, ten years ago is now died. In other words, as we grow older through time our bodies are being replenished with nutrients, vitamins, oxygen and so forth. Cells in our bodies are constantly dividing. Constantly being created and destroyed. Our bodies are a very dynamic system. Like the saying goes, we are what we eat. Over time the molecules and atoms that make up our cells are constantly being replaced with new ones. Our entire molecular make up is entirely different now than it was ten years ago. We don’t have the exact same cells and atoms that were in us back then. We are essentially, in my view, completely different people now. We are essentially the propagation of one long continuous copying process.

[sacha]

First of all hello to everyone, 1st Post ...

This is actually quite simple (at least for me)

To OP: What you call the "soul", stands for consciousness, or "spirit" if you wish. This is a very important notion to understand, as it helps with a lot of other matters (cryogenics, digital upload or copy ...)

Let's say the humain body is a machine. The Brain would be both a processing unit and a memory unit.
The "soul", or consciousness of our being would be the massive and perpetual information transfer between our brain cells. For exemple, the thought you are having at this moment is only described as information because it's not memory yet, and maybe never will be. It is not "stored" in any way.

This explains why a "copy", cloning of two same humain beings with two identical DNA's, wouldn't result in the same consciousness, even though the brain is basically identical.
This also explains why, as stated above by another poster, it is very important to understand that brain uploading/transfer and copying to digital is very different.

Finally, let's not forget about cryogenics, which is a perfect exemple. Imagine you die today but none of your cells are damaged. If you wake up in 100 years, your brain will be identical, as will be your memories. However you won't be the same "person". Why ? because the actual massive information transfer got killed in the process. Your consciousness got stopped even though the body, the "machine", is still fully fonctional.

I however got to think that we have no proof at all that during our lifetime, our consciousness does not "reset" maybe each time we dream ... each time we face a difficult shocking situation... and yet we wouldn't really be able to know it if it happened.
Maybe we even wake up as a different person each day without knowing it. Spooky?

Sorry for the bad english and thanks for reading through

[mentatpsi]

Actually I believe this is false. What you bring up is also very close to Bernard William's thought experiment.

If the brain was copied atom per atom (taking even quantum affects into account), then there will be two of you. And both of them will be you. I know this is very difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept (since it brings up a lot of moral and emotional issues) but its the truth. Just because we don't like the idea, doesn't make it any less true.

I have to disagree with you on this one, though you use a couple great illustrations. To me identity is just an orbiting moon around consciousness, it makes an impact on consciousness, but results due to consciousness. It can be seen as a fragment which has an impact on the overall system (much like the theories around our own moon and its formations). So "both will be you", becomes a very loose statement that is both true and false, depending on your conceptions of self and identity.

For example, we must also take into account the fact that even now in our current bodies, we are a completely new person and the person that existed, say, ten years ago is now died. In other words, as we grow older through time our bodies are being replenished with nutrients, vitamins, oxygen and so forth. Cells in our bodies are constantly dividing. Constantly being created and destroyed. Our bodies are a very dynamic system. Like the saying goes, we are what we eat. Over time the molecules and atoms that make up our cells are constantly being replaced with new ones. Our entire molecular make up is entirely different now than it was ten years ago. We don’t have the exact same cells and atoms that were in us back then. We are essentially, in my view, completely different people now. We are essentially the propagation of one long continuous copying process.

Excellent point! The reality that we retain our consciousness even as it is being completely remade from the ground up is a rather interesting concept. What stores and ensures this dynamic system to maintain a coherent and fluid movement of perception? Why do we consider self to be dynamic only based on dynamic experiences, when the very host of all experiences changes every second? Great example . Have you seen Waking Life btw? Quite an interesting movie.


I am still not sure we have the knowledge of what consciousness is, many can easily dismiss it in a reductionist fashion, saying that time will tell as research progresses. Eventually consciousness will be reduced to extremely advanced mathematics.

If you guys agree that consciousness will be able to be understood through advanced mathematics, then it's very likely that you also accept that it is an extremely complex system that relies on various interrelated systems. However, if we don't accept this as the case then this whole topic is silly since one can't attain with precision something that can't be predicted (in turn, removing the possibilities of two exact copies), and since mathematics is the language of prediction, i see no other option. I write this now because what follows later relies upon this assumption.

If the brain was copied atom per atom (taking even quantum affects into account), then there will be two of you.

I don't think such a thing is possible, i'm making this argument on assumptions using laws, so it might be wrong. I'll do my best to explain why, if i'm wrong on any account do feel free to correct me.


If we maintain the universe is a closed system (and there is no deity altering it outside), then all matter is merely circulated energy. The law that energy is neither created nor destroyed, points clearly to this so i know many are in agreement. Let us take this one law further, if energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, then all one can merely do is alter the flow of energy using chemistry and other various means. Each fragment in a system has its own signature, its own configuration, though one can make two of one chemical substance through the same means, it doesn't result in exactly the same substance. Going further into my reasons, so if you want to attack this, this will be the heart of my argument :

A Since two pieces of matter can't occupy the same space, the forces that will be acting upon them, be it temperature differentials, gravity, or any other forces, will defer. In a small system, these things aren't important, but in a system of various components, the impact of one item's location impacts the system more since distance from one area to the next is greater. A system has properties to maintain whatever ideal values it wants, but these things cost changes; chemicals or whatever. Take for example when the human body is stressed, hormones and neurotransmitters are already altering the system. Another example is when the body is cold and requires changes in core body temperatures in order to protect vital organs. These things aren't that important later on in human development, since we've already established the body always changes yet identity remains the same and you're still in your body.

B Taking this into possible truth, in the development of any biological agent various forces impact its subatomic development, I'm not sure the impact on the overall system from a "mind" value, but from an exact value, there is no way to attain precisely the same system without completely modifying the universe, and we've established this is impossible. This is true because 100% precision requires the same instance in both space and time, better worded it requires all things to be held in place and time to be brought back like a bookmark to maintain the exact same conditions. However, the universe is an ever changing system...


Using these two deductions, we realize 100% precision is impossible, therefore if consciousness relies on precise mechanisms, and we've established that soul just means an everlasting stream of subjective experiences from human perception, existing even when not in a human host, then transferring souls is impossible.


These deductions do not require an existence of a soul to work, so it wouldn't matter if we could develop a human brain from scratch, it wouldn't be the same as the original model. Plus, why does ImmortalPhilosopher (who is no longer posting), assume you can use a hypothetical case to prove anything if it can't yield any reality based results?

Edited by mysticpsi, 19 March 2008 - 08:20 AM.

[mentatpsi]

Now regardless, going to another issue that keeps being raised upon experimentations on the brain and being able to bring it back together. You guys are really over complicating the matter. If you have an individual that has Alzheimer's and forgets everything about their lives and their own identity, then identity is preserved not by the individual but by the people who knew them, which themselves aren't even accurate! Various memory forms maintain existence, deteriorate that and you deteriorate the individual's identity. You can consider them someone else just as you can consider them the same person. This is psychological, if they no longer are bound by the same host (and within a decade or so they're completely physically new) then it is your memory of them that holds them in time, nothing else. What once held their identity to a coherent narrative is now lost.

Even if consciousness can be created, it would still stay within the host where the mechanics are taking place. Where in the world is anyone getting the argument that out of no where it'll shift into another body just because it seems identical. Even if the original host dies it can't make that transfer unless we could transfer the brain. People might critique this and say the brain that would be created would be the same, but i already covered this... it won't. There would be no way to make an exact replica of the brain, or anything for that matter.

Let me put an example... let us say we design a model of the same computer you are using right now... and i mean by the same properties. Would you expect to see what's going on in both computers using one? No... already there's a distinction.

Next up, how would the mind digest two separate realities, where's the link? The moment the two exist together, they diverge.

Edited by mysticpsi, 19 March 2008 - 10:18 AM.

[sacha]

Thank your for the analogy with computers Mysticpsi, as it is a very clever and intelligent way to compare humain beings in my opinion.

If the brain was copied atom per atom (taking even quantum affects into account), then there will be two of you.

That sentence is very unclear and confusing ...
You have to understand that consciousness is not made of atoms ...
I think the best way to compare it is with Internet actually.
Can you copy internet ? Can you copy the content of every information transfer ?

QUOTE (Kostas)For example, we must also take into account the fact that even now in our current bodies, we are a completely new person and the person that existed, say, ten years ago is now died.

This is a very interesting point but I think that you have to be careful when using the word "person". What are we defined by ? Our body, or consciousness, or both ?
Cells regenerate and have a life cycle indeed, but they belong to a much larger system, your body, which remains active thanks to its cell's lifecycle but has its OWN lifecycle.

If your "person" would be linked to your body, it would mean that each body enhancement or modification would make you a new person ...
We aren't what we eat, and we aren't our cells.
But our body is ...

(this would mean that we aren't our brain, discuss ...)

Edited by sacha, 19 March 2008 - 11:28 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

[quote]I am still not sure we have the knowledge of what consciousness is, many can easily dismiss it in a reductionist fashion, saying that time will tell as research progresses. Eventually consciousness will be reduced to extremely advanced mathematics.[/quote='mysticpsi']
I agree that one day consciousness will be reduced to mathematics, however this brings up another issue of whether consciousness is an illusion - that the whole universe is deterministic. That there is no such thing as free will and thought - that our whole lives are like films in that they only give the illusion of motion.

[quote]I don't think such a thing is possible, I'm making this argument on assumptions using laws, so it might be wrong.[/quote='mysticpsi']
lol ... I agree, it would be physically impossible to copy something atom per atom (I was only speaking hypothetically to convey a point). But honestly I think that in the same way we transfer memory from a computer, the same could be said with consciousness ... since it is after all just electrical impulses and neuro-chemical reactions in our head. Again this is only theoretically speaking since we don't have that science or technology yet.

[quote]Next up, how would the mind digest two separate realities, where's the link? The moment the two exist together, they diverge.[/quote='mysticpsi']
Multi-core processing!

[quote]Where in the world is anyone getting the argument that out of no where it'll shift into another body just because it seems identical. Even if the original host dies it can't make that transfer unless we could transfer the brain. People might critique this and say the brain that would be created would be the same, but i already covered this... it won't. There would be no way to make an exact replica of the brain, or anything for that matter. [/quote='mysticpsi']

Entropy can only increase as time passes, so it's true that there can never be a 100% identical copy. But we don't need a 100% identical copy to continue our consciousness. My original argument was that consciousness is a mechanism derived directly from the brain, much in the same way artificial intelligence is derived from computers. It is a processes. A continuing mechanistic process of electrical signals and chemical reactions. Therefore, all we really need to do is to continue this unique mechanistic process (it varies person per person - this is what gives us our unique personalities ... I will explain below) in order to maintain consciousness. Our brains are a very dynamic system, and they only get more complex as time passes. We wouldn't need to duplicate our brain atom-per-atom in order to insure we have maintained the original consciousness because there is no such thing as an original consciousness. Our consciousness is a process who's algorithm is partly defined by our subjective experiences and partly defined by our genes. Consciousness doesn't carry with it any identity unless if it is subjected to experiences and memories. Therefore, with the exact science and technology it would be theoretically possible to upload your mind.

[quote]You have to understand that consciousness is not made of atoms ... [/quote='sacha']
No, it is not made up of specific atoms (I should have been more specific). Consciousness, as I have explained above, is a process.

[quote]Can you copy internet ? Can you copy the content of every information transfer ? [/quote='sacha']
I'm pretty sure both of those are possible

[quote]This is a very interesting point but I think that you have to be careful when using the word "person". What are we defined by ? Our body, or consciousness, or both ?
Cells regenerate and have a life cycle indeed, but they belong to a much larger system, your body, which remains active thanks to its cell's lifecycle but has its OWN lifecycle.

If your "person" would be linked to your body, it would mean that each body enhancement or modification would make you a new person ...
We aren't what we eat, and we aren't our cells. [/quote='sacha']
I have to disagree. Our body is a system, true, but our consciousness is a process which is derived from this system. We are what we eat because our physical bodies maintain the continuation of this process. lol ... I should have been more clearer in my previous post.

Of course this is all coming strictly from my materialistic perspective. I have to admit, I'm a reductionist, all complex systems can be completely understood in terms of simpler constituents (much like in chaos theory, where something as small as the flap of a butterflies wings can generate something as complex as a hurricane).

Edited by Kostas, 20 March 2008 - 01:03 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

Btw, welcome to imminst sacha!