Do you want to be Transhuman?:

Total posts: [914]
1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 37
@Wolf 1066: What preserves you identity from one moment to the next? Particles don't have identities that persist over time so physical continuity isn't even a thing.

I am still me because the current me was caused by previous me in such a way that I stayed in the acceptable range of what counts.

@Le Garcon: Since physical continuity isn't a thing, neither are copies but are both originals. Both are acceptable continuations of the person. So the person is not killed.

edited 3rd Mar '14 5:35:12 PM by higurashimerlin

When life gives you lemons, burn life's house down with the lemons.
602 Wolf10663rd Mar 2014 05:35:40 PM from New Zealand , Relationship Status: In my bunk
Typin' strangely
[up]and a duplicate is outside the acceptable range of what counts.

I know the J Ws would disagree on that score, and that's there prerogative, but for me, a duplicate is not me.

Physical continuity is a thing. When all that is changing from one moment to the next is a small fraction of a percentage of the whole - as in the case of our bodies as a whole and even more relevant in the case of our brains (which don't replace parts as fast as other parts of our bodies) - there is physical continuity.

Or do you believe you magically cease to exist and are rebuilt every billionth of a second?

edited 3rd Mar '14 5:38:51 PM by Wolf1066

Dangerously Genre Savvy since ages ago...
Wolf 1066: No physical continuity is not a thing. There is no electron A that is preserved in both Moment 1 and Moment 2. There is only a electron here and one here, they don't have identities.

The only thing that preserves me from one moment to the next is casual continuity which brain uploading and teleporting retain. There is two original and asking which one is you is meaningless since they are both you.

edited 3rd Mar '14 5:45:10 PM by higurashimerlin

When life gives you lemons, burn life's house down with the lemons.
604 Qeise3rd Mar 2014 06:33:43 PM from sqrt(-inf)/0 , Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
[up][up]What is a JW?

I suggested replacing the biological brain with an artificial one a bit at a time, never breaking the continuity earlier in the thread. Then if for some reason a different kind of hardware was desirable the process could be repeated. Each iteration would be slightly different but still compatible with the previous one.

I don't know if this would yet be considered brain uploading.

Eventually we could end up with an iteration with hardware in multiple locations but a single consciousness. If then hardware is built and information transmitted in such a way that the same operations are done at both locations and their connection is then cut you have two copies of yourself without consciousness ever stopping.

It saddens me that the kind of technology required for this is most likely going to be achieved hundreds of years after my time. But one can always hope.

Edited slightly to make more readable.

edited 3rd Mar '14 6:44:34 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
605 Wolf10663rd Mar 2014 06:36:10 PM from New Zealand , Relationship Status: In my bunk
Typin' strangely
[up][up]In case you missed the obvious, I'm not an electron. There are atoms - they don't spontaneously cease to exist and be replaced one instant to the next - which form molecules - which also don't spontaneously cease to exist &c - which make up cells, bone structures and so forth in the body as a whole.

Yes, there is gradual attrition and replacement of individual elements.

The key being gradual.

IIRC, the fastest-replaced cells in the human body are in the stomach lining due to its inhospitable nature. We get a complete turnaround of stomach-lining cells in a week, apparently.

That's over the course of a week. Not in an instant at 4:05:37.0134237 pm on Friday.

So about 1/7th of the cells in your stomach lining are replaced each day (which means, 6/7ths of them remain), which is 1/168th of the total in an hour or 1/10080th in a minute or 1/604800th in a second.

And brain cells are replaced even more slowly.

Taking your body as a whole, despite the frenetic turnover of your stomach lining cells, the majority of you continues any given second. Taking the brain cells alone, the surviving majority is even greater.

That is "continuation".

Electrons, atoms and molecules may not have personality, but my neural network (of cells and molecules) as a whole sure as hell does.

A mechanical duplicate of my brain is not a continuation of my neural network (nor, incidentally, is a reconstructed copy made by a theoretical Star Trek-style teleporter).

[up]A JW is a Jehovah's Witness, different from many other forms of Christianity in that they do not believe in an "Immortal Soul". Their belief is that when you die, you die.

If you are saved, JHVH will recreate you in an incorruptible form (not subject to death) and you will live as either one of the 144000 in heaven or as one of the rest on the New Earth.

They are quite happy to believe that a duplicate of them created some indeterminate number of years after their total cessation of existence is the same as them (personally) having eternal life.

I know this from extensive conversations with a number of them.

I don't agree with their beliefs, just as I do not believe that a copy of my neural network in a machine is a continuation of me - however, their belief is dependent on the duplication being done by an omnipotent deity, not by a fallible technician, so I cut them some slack.

edited 3rd Mar '14 6:45:15 PM by Wolf1066

Dangerously Genre Savvy since ages ago...
606 Qeise3rd Mar 2014 06:41:53 PM from sqrt(-inf)/0 , Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
A mechanical duplicate of my brain is not a continuation of my neural network (nor, incidentally, is a reconstructed copy made by a theoretical Star Trek-style teleporter).
Is this a response to my post? I thought your issue was with the continuity of consciousness?
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
607 Wolf10663rd Mar 2014 06:46:57 PM from New Zealand , Relationship Status: In my bunk
Typin' strangely
We multiple ninja'ed each other.

My response was to the post above yours but you evidently posted that before I had a chance to edit and insert the extra [up]

My response to yours has also been appended to my post.

My issue is indeed continuation of consciousness. There is none when the data is copied - whether into a contemporary duplicate or a fresh duplicate after the cessation of existence of the original.

As to the gradual replacement of the existing neural net with non-biological or engineered biological matter, there would still be continuation of existence.

But it would need to be replacement, not duplication - as these cells die, their replacements are engineered artificial duplicates (perhaps some sort of nanotech or cellular tweaking to work with non-biological materials that have the requisite properties) so the brain gradually becomes more and more mechanical until it's completely replaced.

edited 3rd Mar '14 6:55:41 PM by Wolf1066

Dangerously Genre Savvy since ages ago...
608 Qeise3rd Mar 2014 07:36:27 PM from sqrt(-inf)/0 , Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
So your problem is with: If then hardware is built and information transmitted in such a way that the same operations are done at both locations.?

I'm trying to come up with a way of doing it with less of a chance of being a copy with no continuity of consciousness.

If the artificial brain is divided so that the artificial neurons are in two locations. Not as in cut half in the middle, but more like dividing a book by moving every second letter or a three dimensional zipper. The neurons will still transmit messages to the same ones as before, but over a greater distance if that neighbour happens to be in the other half.

Then for each neuron a copy is built in the opposite location. Now each neuron will be transmitting its message to both to the original receiver and the new copy. Then the connection to the physically different location is cut, and each neuron transmits its message once again to the original number of locations.

In this version only individual neurons haven't existed continuosly.
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
609 supermerlin1003rd Mar 2014 07:53:25 PM , Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
What are you even talking about? If souls don't exist then it is the structure of the brain that makes you you. If supernatural forces are at work they could decide that you stay in your brain, but if it's all physics. Well physics doesn't care. It doesn't care if the program is paused and restarted or copied into another computer. Of course after words the two yous will have separate experiences, but before hand you would have some degree of expectation of waking up as an upload.
The road to exploding boats is paved with good intentions.
610 Wolf10663rd Mar 2014 08:55:05 PM from New Zealand , Relationship Status: In my bunk
Typin' strangely
Physics may not care, but I, as the living self-aware (trans)human certainly frigging would. If I were copied I would, unless it were done without my knowledge and consent, know that the copy had been made. The copy would also know it was made and that it was the copy.

My defining identity would be that I am the original, just as my current defining identity is that I'm me.

My duplicate's defining identity is that he doesn't exist as a unique individual - he did not "develop" over the years in a unique way, despite what the memories of having done so might say. Since he thinks like me, no doubt he's not going to like that very much - I wouldn't want to be a copy of anyone else, even someone as wonderful as I tongue

Given sufficient skill, art and technology at some future stage, you could no doubt create a copy of someone's neural net and memories that would accurately think and decide like the original to the point that it would fool even close friends and family into thinking that it's the same person.

That still wouldn't make it that person, just a very very good facsimile.

From the point of view of friends and family, and perhaps even physics itself if physics cares enough to notice, it may be "identical enough that it makes no difference" whether it's the original person or not, but from the point of view of reality, it's not the original person.

One started its existence as a biological entity that developed and grew, everchanging but continuous.

The other started its existence as a "nearly finished product" that just happens to remember doing things that it never actually did.

The latter cannot be a "continuation of" the former.

If the former survives any length of time, the two would diverge and the latter would be even less of a "continuation" of the original. If the former died, the former is still dead, only a duplicate remains.

I'm fine with the gradual replacement of cells throughout my lifetime and the whole wonder of the various elemental cycles that ensure I don't have any stale carbon, I'm fine with replacing a large chunk of my body all at once, I'm even fine with staged replacement of the components of my brain with more robust non-organic components that are shaped into appropriate neural pathways by my brain.

All of those things ensure a continuation of self.
Dangerously Genre Savvy since ages ago...
611 ParadoxialStratagem3rd Mar 2014 09:06:59 PM from Somewhere , Relationship Status: Hiding
Our Good Is Greater Than Yours
This is a very interesting discussion. I also have to wonder this: If one managed to copy someone's neural net, would their memories even follow or would you just be copying their behavior patterns like you mentioned? If the duplicate of the original didn't have the memories that defined the original self, wouldn't it gradually lose the illusion of being an actual clone of its host and seem to become its own identity entirely?
612 TairaMai3rd Mar 2014 09:19:33 PM from El Paso Tx , Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
rollin' on dubs
As a point of reference, and because I luv Sf Debris:

Both films touch on memories and how they shape the human condition. It's a nice, if you forgive the term, thought experiment.

As far as science has come, mind uploading is still fiction. And, for now, I think that's where it will stay (again for now).

For those of you who haven't seen DarkCity or Bladerunner...GO SEE THEM.

If not for the sci-fi elements, as films they are teh awesome, Trope Overdosed films like Inception.

edited 3rd Mar '14 9:20:06 PM by TairaMai

613 Wolf10663rd Mar 2014 09:34:05 PM from New Zealand , Relationship Status: In my bunk
Typin' strangely
[up][up]For part of that that to be answered, we'd have to know exactly how our memories are stored.

But if the memories can't be transferred, then it would definitely be something unique and not at all a duplicate as it wouldn't remember anything about the life and experiences of the original from which the basic network was copied.

How that would affect emotional response is interesting - our emotions are heavily linked to our memories: one person may cry at anothers death, remembering him as a kindly and loving person, while another may rejoice, remembering him as the rotten prick who gave him a hard time, while others feel neither, not having known him at all.

If the duplicate had no memories, it wouldn't respond to the same stimuli with the same emotions. It'd have to come up with its own memories and beliefs to have emotional responses.

The other thing is: even if we created self-aware AI that used a neural network of electronic nodes, there's no reason to assume that such a neural network would be able to be replicated to create an exact copy of that self-aware AI. Perhaps all neural networks have to "grow" via a learning process.

And even if you could replicate the AI's neural network and can then mass produce 100,000,000 identical copies for sale to people who want to stick them in artificial bodies to create a workforce that never gets sick, what's to say that the artificial neural network is in any way compatible with our own neural networks?

You could easily find that you can't copy a human brain as we can't create a working neural network that duplicates it well enough.

It would end up being that "uploading" to a computer may be impossible due to incompatible architecture/storage media/frequency/whatever - like trying to watch Cable TV on an old crystal radio or a microwave oven.

It could be that the only way to "beat the meat barrier" is to convince natural brain tissue to start incorporating non-organic material as an alternative to the biological stuff it'd normally use in self-repair, ending up with an inorganic neural network that was "naturally grown" under the direction of our brains own internal mechanisms. Or maybe the only solution would be to get nanobots to thread bits of more robust stuff through the brain to hold it together, following established lines.

[up]I fully agree, those films are both awesome thought experiments.

And just generally fucking awesome films.

edited 3rd Mar '14 9:35:43 PM by Wolf1066

Dangerously Genre Savvy since ages ago...
614 Gabrael4th Mar 2014 07:13:41 PM from My musings , Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
A doctor named Lazarus working on an anti aging program...

Man walked out of a comic book[lol]
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
615 KnightofLsama4th Mar 2014 11:31:11 PM from The Sea of Chaos
Servant of the Golden Lady of Chaos
[up] That or he's got a bad case of nominative determinism going on.
Welcome to the Sea of Chaos
Working on anti-aging?

When life gives you lemons, burn life's house down with the lemons.
617 Fighteer5th Mar 2014 08:07:07 AM from the Time Vortex , Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
It's at the point where if you're named Lazarus, people expect you to be long-lived or an Immortality Seeker.
Well I am a ImmortalitySeeker but, I am not name Lazarus.
When life gives you lemons, burn life's house down with the lemons.
You know, it's hard to see things like this or this and not get excited.

I mean, seeing those kind of things and thinking "designer babies" or "superhumans" may be wrong, but it is amazing how tiny genetic changes can have such dramatic effects.
620 SeptimusHeap9th Mar 2014 03:30:07 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Or that mouse that can regenerate limbs.
621 Pykrete10th Mar 2014 06:24:32 PM from Viridian Forest
[up][up] I dunno man, I'm seeing plenty of reason to be wary of that as is.

"On the downside, they eat twice as much as control mice, but they are half the weight, and are very aggressive. Why this is the case, we are not really sure."

Maybe because you fucking cranked their metabolism up to thirteen, mister scientist.

edited 10th Mar '14 6:27:36 PM by Pykrete

I read "60% more" in the first link, but checking for the original research now.

Edit: Here's the abstract for the original paper (it's actually quite old, 2007)

Transgenic mice, containing a chimeric gene in which the cDNA for phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (GTP) (PEPCK-C) (EC was linked to the α-skeletal actin gene promoter, express PEPCK-C in skeletal muscle (1-3 units/g). Breeding two founder lines together produced mice with an activity of PEPCK-C of 9 units/g of muscle (PEPCK-Cmus mice). These mice were seven times more active in their cages than controls. On a mouse treadmill, PEPCK-Cmus mice ran up to 6 km at a speed of 20 m/min, whereas controls stopped at 0.2 km. PEPCK-Cmus mice had an enhanced exercise capacity, with a V O2max of 156 ± 8.0 ml/kg/min, a maximal respiratory exchange ratio of 0.91 ± 0.03, and a blood lactate concentration of 3.7 ± 1.0 mM after running for 32 min at a 25° grade; the values for control animals were 112 ± 21 ml/kg/min, 0.99 ± 0.08, and 8.1 ± 5.0 mM respectively. The PEPCK-Cmus mice ate 60% more than controls but had half the body weight and 10% the body fat as determined by magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, the number of mitochondria and the content of triglyceride in the skeletal muscle of PEPCK-Cmus mice were greatly increased as compared with controls. PEPCK-Cmus mice had an extended life span relative to control animals; mice up to an age of 2.5 years ran twice as fast as 6-12-month-old control animals. We conclude that overexpression of PEPCK-C repatterns energy metabolism and leads to greater longevity.

And looking at it it's not just that they can do more but also the mice are also far more active:

Activity in the Home Cage—During the process of generating a homozygous line of PEPCK-Cmus mice from the C and D founder lines, we noted a very marked increase in the physical activity of the animals as compared with controls; the mice ran continuously in their cages. A systematic analysis of the PEPCK-Cmus mice was thus undertaken. Our preliminary observations did not detect any obvious signs of stereotypy-like locomotion, excessive grooming, or abnormal gait, all of which are potential con founders during home cages activity measure- ments of the PEPCK-Cmus mice or controls. Turn angle and angular velocities were similar in both groups, thus ruling out spinning (a common example of stereotypy-like locomotion) in the experimental group. Home cage activity measurements indicated that PEPCK-C mice were markedly more active in their home cages as compared with control animals(Fig.2). This was indicated by a greatly increased distance traveled and an increased rearing frequency. Likewise, PEPCK-Cmus mice had significantly faster movement in the cage as compared with controls (Fig. 2).

The mobility parameter tracks the location of the pixels, which are identified as belonging to the tracked animal in the current sample frame, and compares them with the pixels in the previous frame. A large difference (more than a user defined threshold) is identified as strongly mobile, a small difference (less than the threshold) is immobile, and values in between are mobile. This allows for a refined and quantifiable categorization of movement, or lack thereof, in experimental subjects. In this regard, our data indicate that although control and PEPCK- C mice spent a similar percentage of time in the mobile range,PEPCK-C mice spent significantly less time immobile and significantly more time as strongly mobile as compared with control mice (Fig.2).The fact that PEPCK-C mice were faster than controls is in accordance with our strong mobility findings. However, the fact that these animals spent similar portions of time in the mobile range and showed significantly more rearings rules out the possibility that the increased levels of activity (distance traveled) were simply due to a constant higher velocity of the mice.

In other words, hyperactive mice. tongue

edited 10th Mar '14 6:59:55 PM by IraTheSquire

623 Pykrete10th Mar 2014 07:09:36 PM from Viridian Forest








624 Gabrael18th Mar 2014 08:14:35 AM from My musings , Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
Fuck that side effect...
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
625 TheyCallMeTomu23rd Mar 2014 01:49:58 PM , Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
So, going on from what I was saying in the US Politics thread,

Internal computer chips wouldn't have to be connected to a network. With powerful enough microprocessors (and, well, the fact that the brain itself is a super computer), there's no need to connect to a network. If the only way to access the machine is through a direct hardware access, then there's less of a malware issue. You'd still have to connect to SOMETHING for updates, but that'd be on the tier of plugging into things. And frankly, you don't need a computer chip in your brain for someone to murder you horrifically while you let yourself go unconscious in their presence.

Total posts: 914
1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 37