all 37 comments

[–]kiotoarigumi 5 points6 points  (18 children)

Wouldn't this just create a virtual clone of yourself?

[–]sssssnaperson 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Yeah, I'm not sure how your conscience crosses over.

[–]LoL420FukBoi69 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Conciousness is a just a word. If everything about me is transferred, I'd consider new me to be me still

[–]sssssnaperson 1 point2 points  (4 children)

You can call it what you want, but I don't see how you're going to be aware of what your digital self it doing once your real body dies. How do you transfer the brain to digital without just copying the data in it, and essentially creating a meta-physical clone?

For all we know the phenomenon we call conscious is, a more complex, combined experience of our entire body, and senses we use, plus some unknown factors. Perhaps the brain is just the central processing unit, and transferring it is only part of the puzzle. Unfortunately we just don't understand enough. I am actually really curious of your reasoning?

[–]LoL420FukBoi69 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are insinuating that there is something metaphysical going on. I'm not a metaphysical person. I don't believe in a soul of any kind. You might see a copy, and you'd be right. But I don't see how that wouldn't be me in any meaningful way.

I am the flow of information in my brain. If that were to be stopped and restarted on a different substrate, I'd still consider me to be me.

[–]therealslimbrady1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think he's just saying that if you were to start on a different substrate (while your original, biological body is still alive), then at that point there would be two instances of you. Don't necessarily have to bring metaphysicality into it.

Let's say the "you" on the computer was also able to emulate a biological brain accurately, and thus it has it can also be described as a "flow of information" just as you described biological brains to be. The "computer you" does not share your memories or senses, so it's an entirely different individual. Likewise, you cannot experience what the "computer you" is feeling or thinking, so you are a completely different individual.

It's just that there would be two different "you"s, and some people define "you" as only being one person. And since there can't be two "you"s, they say that the 2nd "you" is an entirely different person.

Whether or not your definition of "you" consists of it only applying to one individual is just up to personal philosophies, and I don't think there's a correct answer.

Hope that makes sense lol.

[–]LoL420FukBoi69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd agree that they would only be the same person for that moment when copied and quickly diverge. I'm still pro uploading since their would be way more room for augmentations than what would be possible on a biological substrate.

If I ever do get a digital 'copy', I'd prefer not to leave a living meat bag behind.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you transfer the brain to digital without just copying the data in it, and essentially creating a meta-physical clone?

How is this different to when you sleep, or when people legally die for a few minutes then are brought back to life, or are comatose for extended periods with no memory of it and so forth? A constant stream of consciousness hasn't been important for identity in the past, why would it be an issue now?

As for your second paragraph, I think a digitised brain would have digitised hormones and senses and everything with it at first otherwise it wouldn't function properly.

[–]2Punx2FuriousSingularity + h+ = radical life extension 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Yes, that's correct. Mind upload won't allow you to experience what your uploaded copy experiences.

[–]kiotoarigumi 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Right, which makes it useless for people that just want to experience more things like OP. It would have many applications aside from that though.

[–]2Punx2FuriousSingularity + h+ = radical life extension 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Indeed, it would still be amazing, as long as it's good enough, practical, and doesn't kill you.

[–]kiotoarigumi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What are your ideas on ways it could be beneficial to mankind?

[–]2Punx2FuriousSingularity + h+ = radical life extension 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would effectively enable us to have multiple copies of skilled people doing many more things in the same amount of time (and possibly better, if being digital also enhances their capabilities).

For example, right now only few people can afford to go to the best doctor in the world that specializes in, say, brain tumors, but if that doctor decides to make many copies of himself, then he could basically be in every hospital in the world that has a computer, and he could perform surgeries with something like this, or an android.

And that applies to any other profession. Of course, that assumes that by then humans will still be required to work, as mind uploading might very well come post-singularity, so by then we might not need to work anymore, but even then, it could be beneficial to the individual. Imagine wanting to do something that for you alone, would take a lot of time, like writing a whole AAA video-game, or maybe building a house, or something like that. You could make a few clones of yourself, and assign to each a task, and then you could work together to achieve your goal that you all share. I'd love to do something like that, especially to write books, music, software, video games, and so on, since they would all be "me", we'd have the same goals, and styles and probably skill level. My biological body might be significantly inferior though, unless there are other ways to improve my cognitive abilities while remaining biological, but that's fine.

[–]Gozer45 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Doesn't this claim entirely predicate understanding of how the mind upload process happens?

Which fundamental you can't do yet because we haven't done it yet.

[–]sssssnaperson 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In that case we should probably stop talking about it altogether.

[–]Gozer45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who says? Why not instead try to figure out as best we can what it would mean. But to do so we my need to form a better picture of what the continuation of self would mean.

[–]2Punx2FuriousSingularity + h+ = radical life extension 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Of course, it's just my prediction of what I think it's most likely. I don't think it would really make any logical sense to be able to experience what your copy experiences, but who knows...

[–]Gozer45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That depends entirely on what constitutes consciousness. Does consciousness predicated an unbroken chain?

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really because the idea is to continue existence in the virtual world and not cloning. If someone is let's say, dying, but prefers to continue his l ife in the digital world, then he has to program his mind to that before the upload is done.

[–]2Punx2FuriousSingularity + h+ = radical life extension 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is so much wrong in this post that I don't even want to get started.

[–]lordcirth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"transhumanism" != mind uploading! The sidebar even has a definition:

Transhumanism is an intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities.

[–]SomeBigAngryDude 1 point2 points  (7 children)

I think we're all here because we all somehow believe in the possibility of immortality in the virtual world, right?


That kind of existence is not immortality to me. I will still die, the copy of me might keep existing and look to others like it is me. But I will look at it like a clone, a copy of me, not me.

I'm more one of the "biological guys", in the sense of at least keeping the brain to still be me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What happens when you go comatose, go to sleep, temporarily die for 40 minutes before being brought back to life and so forth? Do you consider the you yesterday to be dead and the you now, with different memories and experiences, the same you?

[–]SomeBigAngryDude 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No, same brain, same system, same me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you agree that it's not continuity of consciousness, but in fact that there's a substrate your data is stored on and if you copied it over, it would in fact not be you. Right?

You can get around this easily. Change 1 neuron for an identically functional, artificial one. Are you still you? Keep in mind your neurons can die and some already have, yet I reckon you'd still say you were you today. If you agree to the previous premise, what if you change 1 more neuron the next day? And again the next day?

Eventually you'd have a mechanical brain, perhaps one that can be manipulated more easily with wifi and such, as opposed to a biological one. Would you be happy with this solution?

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well, the idea of immortality in the virtual word is not cloning but rather the continuation of one's existence. Let's say someone has his physical body failing, then he can opt to continue his life in the digital existence thru proper programming of the mind. It is really complex and hard to explain that at this point, this is still under debates by the experts but I think I look at it positively in case that happens.

[–]sssssnaperson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess we'll have to figure out what the hell consciousness is first.

[–]SomeBigAngryDude 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I see. Still, call it as you wish, "continuation" will change you from one "medium" to another, wetware to hardware. At one point "you" will end.

At least that is how I see it, if I imagine the process like uploading data. It might make a difference, if the scenario is more like a transition, like replacing the brain part by part with a technological medium, like, I don't know, having nanites turn biological synapses and brain matter into silicon and wire in an ongoing process.

I guess what I'm meaning is: As long as it is theoretically possible to exist simultaniously as two entitys, it's death. But not only in this scenario. It's kind of hard to convey my point I fear, sorry.

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No worries. It is really a debatable topic that even the experts are debating about it so I can't blame you. Even I can't explain it in broader details because I'm not an expert myself. My point is that there is a possibility of it to happen thus the benefit of doubt is present. Whether it will happen or not still remains to be seen. =)

[–]jackthezipper444 0 points1 point  (5 children)

The other is uploading of human's life experiences using recording on devices which are capable of producing a virtual copy.

This transition is believed to be able to lead humans into becoming a virtual form of that individual which then leads to the possibility of not having to experience death.

If someone records a human's life experience into a recording device, how is it considered immortality then if your physical body is still here? Are we to expect to have some sort of teleportation device to use to transport ourselves in the virtual world? How is it escaping death exactly? I'm all for this but I dunno about that transition thing mate.

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I think the idea of recording one's life experiences is for the purpose of continuing life in the virtual world. The immortality idea I think is needed to be set in the human's mind before the uploading can be done. TBH, it really seems to be a an extremely complex idea that even the experts are still debating about. My point is that there is the possibility of it happening in the virtual world and if it will happen, why not, right?

[–]jackthezipper444 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It seems dodgy to me. Recording a person's life experience does not translate to continuing life in the virtual world. How is that going to be useful? Giving your virtual self some memories? Sorry mate. Thats not how it works I dont think. Transferring human's mind is sure probable, but this moving in there, idunno.

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I understand you and really, it's not something that is likely to happen very soon. Even those working on the project has said that it might take decades. Even they are still debating about it like we do here. My point is that there is the possibility of it. The continuation of one's life to the virtual existence. It might be like a shared reality or something. Pretty much like the movie Matrix where machines have resorted to using human bodies as power cells to drive a fully realistic simulation of Earth. Maybe at this point, it sounds unreal but if that is gonna happen, for me, it's a welcome idea. Just my two cents.

[–]jackthezipper444 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The continuation of one's life to the virtual existence. It might be like a shared reality or something.

One cannot exist with the other at the same time. You mean while your virtual self is out there wanking or having a drink at the virtual pub, your real self is also doing something else here in the world at the same time? No. Thats not possible. One of them will have to sacrifice and im sure is your physical body.

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. As I said in this thread, it's not cloning so yourself being able to do something in the real world while the other you are also doing something else in the virtual world is not the idea of it. Continuation means stopping from one existence to transition to the other. The idea of being able to prevent death in the Virtual world is when the body is failing, then that person may "continue" existing in the virtual world if he/she chooses to. Again, this is way too far in the future if ever it will happen. At this point, it's just a possibility.

[–]Ansbach 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I played SOMA a while ago and realised the problem with this kind of transition. Keep immortality biological.

[–]HeartofAthena[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand. It really depends on how someone looks at his own life. If it seems to be a nightmare, then even I would not want to stay alive, more so live forever. It's just a possibility anyway which means that it may or may not happen. If ever it really would happen, I don't think it will be forced to everyone. If someone chooses to continue his existence in the digital world, then fine. If not, then also fine.