How does ATOT deal with their own mortality?

[Ruptga]

Sure I value my own life, but in the grand scheme of things I'm nothing. The universe will go on more or less like it has for the last fourteen billion years.

Of course, if I'm lucky, in my lifetime cybernetics could be developed that would allow us to move memories from man to machine, in which case this biological me would still eventually die, but my person would never die so long as a machine with a copy of my mind existed.

 

[mk]

Sure I value my own life, but in the grand scheme of things I'm nothing. The universe will go on more or less like it has for the last fourteen billion years.

Of course, if I'm lucky, in my lifetime cybernetics could be developed that would allow us to move memories from man to machine, in which case this biological me would still eventually die, but my person would never die so long as a machine with a copy of my mind existed.

That's of little consolation. You'd still be dead but something completely separate from you would think and remember like you. At least others could interact with the copy so your personality characteristics would still be a part of the world. It just wouldn't be you.

 

[Ruptga]

That's of little consolation. You'd still be dead but something completely separate from you would think and remember like you. At least others could interact with the copy so your personality characteristics would still be a part of the world. It just wouldn't be you.

There is nothing about any of our personalities that isn't contained in our brains. If all that brain stuff is copied or transferred the person moves with the stuff. Unless you are going to claim souls are real, I can't see any reason to believe otherwise. I mean if it remembers everything I do and thinks the way I do, why isn't it me?

 

[manimal]

I am alot more careful than when I was young. My sense of danger is much more acute these days as well.

A buddy of mine invited me to ride since he has two dual sports this last week and my back already hurt so I grounded myself.

 

[mk]

There is nothing about any of our personalities that isn't contained in our brains. If all that brain stuff is copied or transferred the person moves with the stuff. Unless you are going to claim souls are real, I can't see any reason to believe otherwise. I mean if it remembers everything I do and thinks the way I do, why isn't it me?

Well, it would be you but you wouldn't be it.

Suppose a dozen copies of your brain were made while you were still alive. The moment the machine brains became conscious they would be perfect copies of your mind when the image was taken. At that precise moment they all would think they were you but start collecting sensory input and forming thought patterns that were unique to each brain. They would essentially start branching out to different versions of you and eventually different personalities depending on their experiences.

You (as in you you, your brain in your body) would continue your life experiencing things from your perspective, you wouldn't have access to the minds of the machine brains.

If at any point any of the brains, real or machine, ceased to function the rest would continue as they were, on their own paths.

 

[MrMuppet]

There is nothing about any of our personalities that isn't contained in our brains. If all that brain stuff is copied or transferred the person moves with the stuff. Unless you are going to claim souls are real, I can't see any reason to believe otherwise. I mean if it remembers everything I do and thinks the way I do, why isn't it me?

You are assuming that we are our personalities. On the contrary, my belief is that I am my consciousness, my "screen". Not my brain. "My" personality (brain+body or person) is currently being depicted on it, but I'm not so sure that's the real me.

Project a completely different personality on the screen and the screen would still be you and you would suddenly be deceived to "think" you were that completely different personality (and always had been). It would be the most natural thing in the world.

Project your current personality on another screen and that other screen still would not be you. It would appear to be to others (and to them it would make no difference). You just wouldn't "be there" to experience it.

Let's say you suddenly lost all memories, suffered some mental illness and outwardly became a different personality. It would still be you, as in you would still be the one experiencing. I hope I managed to explain myself.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You are assuming that we are our personalities. On the contrary, my belief is that I am my consciousness, my "screen". Not my brain. "My" personality (brain+body or person) is currently being depicted on it, but I'm not so sure that's the real me.

Project a completely different personality on the screen and the screen would still be you and you would suddenly be deceived to "think" you were that completely different personality (and always had been). It would be the most natural thing in the world.

Project your current personality on another screen and that other screen still would not be you. It would appear to be to others (and to them it would make no difference). You just wouldn't "be there" to experience it.

Let's say you suddenly lost all memories, suffered some mental illness and outwardly became a different personality. It would still be you, as in you would still be the one experiencing. I hope I managed to explain myself.

So you are supposing a soul. Some mystical part of you that is not generated by the brain, but is residing in (or projected on) the brain. Or is this some kind of reverse soul, you are your body but not your personality. And how are you separating personality from consciousness, surely personality is a emergent quality of consciousness.

 

[mk]

You are assuming that we are our personalities. On the contrary, my belief is that I am my consciousness, my "screen". Not my brain. "My" personality (brain+body or person) is currently being depicted on it, but I'm not so sure that's the real me.

Project a completely different personality on the screen and the screen would still be you and you would suddenly be deceived to "think" you were that completely different personality (and always had been). It would be the most natural thing in the world.

Project your current personality on another screen and that other screen still would not be you. It would appear to be to others (and to them it would make no difference). You just wouldn't "be there" to experience it.

Let's say you suddenly lost all memories, suffered some mental illness and outwardly became a different personality. It would still be you, as in you would still be the one experiencing. I hope I managed to explain myself.

Consciousness and personality are both brain processes that can be disrupted by drugs (not necessarily illicit), electric shocks. Brain damage can cause permanent changes and can completely alter ones personality or wipe out memories.

If the change causes a brain to remember, experience and react to things differently is it still the same person?

IMO when brain functions are permanently altered to large enough degree the old person ceases to exist and is replaced by someone new.

 

[bfdd]

Well, it would be you but you wouldn't be it.

Suppose a dozen copies of your brain were made while you were still alive. The moment the machine brains became conscious they would be perfect copies of your mind when the image was taken. At that precise moment they all would think they were you but start collecting sensory input and forming thought patterns that were unique to each brain. They would essentially start branching out to different versions of you and eventually different personalities depending on their experiences.

You (as in you you, your brain in your body) would continue your life experiencing things from your perspective, you wouldn't have access to the minds of the machine brains.

If at any point any of the brains, real or machine, ceased to function the rest would continue as they were, on their own paths.

That doesn't really matter, we're all aggregates of information. As long as that information some how survives, so do we.

 

[mk]

That doesn't really matter, we're all aggregates of information. As long as that information some how survives, so do we.

Again, from the perspective of the rest of the world, your mind would survive as the copy-brain would think like you. Your own consciousness, however, is a function of your brain. It wouldn't transfer into the copy, the copy would have its own. When you'd die your consciousness would die as well while the copy's would go on on its own.

 

[MrMuppet]

So you are supposing a soul. Some mystical part of you that is not generated by the brain, but is residing in (or projected on) the brain. Or is this some kind of reverse soul, you are your body but not your personality. And how are you separating personality from consciousness, surely personality is a emergent quality of consciousness.

Yes, a metaphysical "soul". On which your brain is being projected and not the other way around (your soul is not necessarily projected on your brain, although some kind of feedback mechanism cannot be ruled out completely). I am experiencing therefore I am, but that point cannot be proven. Not a mystical part of you, rather your soul is you. Your body/brain is no more you than your monitor is your computer or your TV is your PS3. Your soul just happens to be connected to this earthly "biological machine" (which is providing an input signal/stimulus for your soul through your senses (your thoughts being part of your senses) for you to experience (perhaps by means of "peeking")).

(Actually my soul is me, you may or may not have/be one. But for argument's sake... I mean, you may think you are one without even having one, or think you don't have one while actually being one.)

Consciousness and personality are both brain processes that can be disrupted by drugs (not necessarily illicit), electric shocks. Brain damage can cause permanent changes and can completely alter ones personality or wipe out memories.

If the change causes a brain to remember, experience and react to things differently is it still the same person?

IMO when brain functions are permanently altered to large enough degree the old person ceases to exist and is replaced by someone new.

Consciousness is a physical brain process? Interesting. Please, elaborate. (I'm not talkin about self-awareness here, but rather a "soul" that is actually experiencing, rather than a (biological) machine emulating it.)

I'm not going to argue this point, as it's merely a matter of definitions, but you might ponder whether you are the same person you were as a child, or even after reaching adulthood? 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced every year.

More importantly, if you were merely a biological machine, torturing you would be just fine. Machines don't suffer, but can emulate suffering (i.e. screaming and such). Reductionism leaves you with subatomic particles (or waves/strings/whatever), no single one being you and it can hardly be argued that any of these particles has the ability to suffer anyway. Virtual video game characters appear to suffer too.

 

[ringtail]

``

 

[Ruptga]

Again, from the perspective of the rest of the world, your mind would survive as the copy-brain would think like you. Your own consciousness, however, is a function of your brain. It wouldn't transfer into the copy, the copy would have its own. When you'd die your consciousness would die as well while the copy's would go on on its own.

That is true, but as bfdd said we are just aggregates of information. The biological me would eventually die, but as far as the machine me(s) are concerned they were biological one day and immortal machine overlords the next. If this were presently possible and I kept daily backups of myself I wouldn't consider myself the latest in a line of clones, I would consider myself to be the same immortal person. Assuming me-alpha died somehow, I would still refer to myself as ADDAvenger. It doesn't matter that I may be on ADDAvenger-delta, I would have everything in my head that made me alpha, and beta, and gamma.

 

[MrMuppet]

That is true, but as bfdd said we are just aggregates of information. The biological me would eventually die, but as far as the machine me(s) are concerned they were biological one day and immortal machine overlords the next. If this were presently possible and I kept daily backups of myself I wouldn't consider myself the latest in a line of clones, I would consider myself to be the same immortal person. Assuming me-alpha died somehow, I would still refer to myself as ADDAvenger. It doesn't matter that I may be on ADDAvenger-delta, I would have everything in my head that made me alpha, and beta, and gamma.

But in actuality the following would happen:

"Assuming me-alpha died somehow, I a machine would still refer to myself itself as ADDAvenger. It doesn't matter that I it may be on ADDAvenger-delta, I ADDAvenger-delta would have everything in my its head that made me alpha, and beta, and gamma alpha, and beta, and gamma."

 

[Ruptga]

But in actuality the following would happen:

"Assuming me-alpha died somehow, I a machine would still refer to myself itself as ADDAvenger. It doesn't matter that I it may be on ADDAvenger-delta, I ADDAvenger-delta would have everything in my its head that made me alpha, and beta, and gamma alpha, and beta, and gamma."

Yes, it the machine would be me. I would be the machine, even though a slightly more dated me would be dead. Aside from the body that the minds are in there would be no way to differentiate the two.

 

[MrMuppet]

Yes, it the machine would be me. I would be the machine, even though a slightly more dated me would be dead. Aside from the body that the minds are in there would be no way to differentiate the two.

No, it would be a perfect clone of "your" brain state. Others not being able to differentiate the two (or n) of you is irrelevant, a red herring. Exactly alike != same.

You are not only assuming that you are your current brain state, you are even assuming that information exists, when it's just an abstraction. When we see patterns and (representations of) information, in reality we're witnessing our own capacity for abstract thought. On our screen.

 

[Ruptga]

No, it would be a perfect clone of "your" brain state. Others not being able to differentiate the two (or n) of you is irrelevant, a red herring. Exactly alike != same.

You are not only assuming that you are your current brain state, you are even assuming that information exists, when it's just an abstraction. When we see patterns and (representations of) information, in reality we're witnessing our own capacity for abstract thought. On our screen.

If there is no way to tell two things apart there is NO reason to believe they are different, that is a basic rule of logic. And of course I am assuming I am my current brain state. There is nothing else scientifically observed that has to do with who we are.

 

[MrMuppet]

If there is no way to tell two things apart there is NO reason to believe they are different, that is a basic rule of logic. And of course I am assuming I am my current brain state. There is nothing else scientifically observed that has to do with who we are.

You're repeating yourself. A perfect clone is obviously a perfect clone, a perfect replica (and not different, but exactly alike). However, they're not the same instance of that object, the replica is not the original (even if they're instances of the same class made up of the same variable types/fundamental particles with the same values, just being "stored" in different physical addresses/memory cells/locations in spacetime). They just appear and behave alike. Like subatomic particles/fundamental building blocks, I suppose.

How does science explain the consciousness (not organisms becoming self-aware)? Science ultimately means reductionism. Which subatomic particle is you? Removing which single subatomic particle from your brain would remove you? Or is your existence only an illusion? If you only appear to exist but actually do not, then truly you are irrelevant and there would be nothing wrong with, say, torturing "you" for all eternity just for fun. It wouldn't be any worse than torturing a virtual character in some cheesy computer game. You wouldn't even be relevant to "yourself", because you don't exist. A machine follows its programming, but ultimately does not care or matter to itself. The same applies to you, apparently.

Btw, speaking of science, science can never prove that something truly does not exist. Not (yet) having observed something does not mean it doesn't exist. Science avoids subjects like the existence of God or life after death as such beliefs can't be tested (they don't allow for any observations, experiments or testable predictions to be made to confirm them), so they're untestable, unfalsifiable and as such futile to discuss in a scientific context. Philsophy deals with metaphysics (which literally means and comes "after the physics", that is after the "natural" sciences).

 

[SlitheryDee]

That is true, but as bfdd said we are just aggregates of information. The biological me would eventually die, but as far as the machine me(s) are concerned they were biological one day and immortal machine overlords the next. If this were presently possible and I kept daily backups of myself I wouldn't consider myself the latest in a line of clones, I would consider myself to be the same immortal person. Assuming me-alpha died somehow, I would still refer to myself as ADDAvenger. It doesn't matter that I may be on ADDAvenger-delta, I would have everything in my head that made me alpha, and beta, and gamma.

The difference is perspective. You can't change the perspective from which you view the world no matter how many copies of yourself you make. You'll still be you, looking out of your eyes, feeling with your hands, living in your body. Not being able to tell yourself from something that is outside your individual perspective simply because someone else wouldn't be able to tell you apart is a failure of the imagination on par with your original statement of irrelevance. Even if you make a copy of yourself, you will still individually die. You will still feel those last moments of fear as your body fails you and you will still descend into whatever eternal nothingness there is that awaits us all. Why would you feel good about some other you living on? That improves your individual situation not one iota.

 

[MrMuppet]

Why would you feel good about some other you living on? That improves your individual situation not one iota.

It sounds like some twisted form of the evolutionarily rational desire to increase one's inclusive fitness. Evolutionary psychology at play here, not "individualistic" rationality.

 

[moonbogg]

This is such a hard problem to come to terms with. If you copied your data to a machine, and you were conscious during the transition, then you could be successfully transfered to the machine. But, if your data was copied and you didn't realize it, then you would not successfully be transfered to the machine. Thats how I see it. There really isn't a difference between you and the machine, but if you were having a conversation with your copy, and it was really you, which one of you would be billing to die? If you're both the same it shouldn't be an issue for either of you, but we all know neither one of you would like to die. A conscious transfer is the only way.
If the continuity of your consciousness is interupted, then whatever comes out on the other side is not you, but only a copy of you. The copy won't feel this way, but thats how I see it. There is a sovereignty that must not be violated. It has to do with your relationship with yourself just as much as it has to do with your relationship with others. You can only be considered "you" by others if you are considered "you" to yourself in this sovereign, uninterupted way.
Now, if your consciousness was interupted but then reactivated without making a copy or transfering it elsewhere, then the reactivation of it in your brain would of course still be you.
Or maybe we are biological machines and identity is just an illusion. Hard one to nail down.

 

[Red Squirrel]

When I die I go see God , and if I happen to be wrong, well I can't change that so I'll find out when I die.

 

[SlitheryDee]

It sounds like some twisted form of the evolutionarily rational desire to increase one's inclusive fitness. Evolutionary psychology at play here, not "individualistic" rationality.

I suppose a digital copy of your mind would be "offspring" of a sort. That particular form of reproduction isn't appealing to me at all. Perhaps that's where we're headed though, and people of his mindset will eventually find themselves selected for in an evolutionary sense. *shrug*

 

[rayfieldclement]

I just do not want to die early! There IS an afterlife!

 

[Ruptga]

To my growing fan club:

The difference is perspective. You can't change the perspective from which you view the world no matter how many copies of yourself you make. You'll still be you, looking out of your eyes, feeling with your hands, living in your body.
You will still feel those last moments of fear as your body fails you and you will still descend into whatever eternal nothingness there is that awaits us all. Why would you feel good about some other you living on?

That is a totally valid point, and question. The other me may be other, but it would also be me. I consider my person to be the continuing of an individual perspective. What I am talking about is the duplication of that perspective. A me would still die, but as far as the other me would be concerned it would have went to sleep for a procedure and woken up immortal. Original me would die happy knowing that my person (the only part of me that really matters) isn't gone forever. And just to be safe I would will all of my stuff to my other me, just in case the courts end up thinking the way you seem to.

Of course that's not as clean of a solution as some magic formula that grants biological immortality, but it seems a hell of a lot more plausible to me. Plus this kind of immortality allows literal respawns in case I decide to visit historic Somalia and end up painting the sand with android brains.

(first 1/2 of Muppet's last post)

This particle is not a person.
This neuron is not a person.
etc etc
ergo this body is not a person.
ergo the person must be separate from the body.

That is the basic form of an argument you keep making, yet if you contrast it with this counterexample it's obviously a bullshit argument.

A tire is not too heavy for me to lift.
A windshield is not too heavy for me to lift.
etc etc
ergo, a car is not too heavy for me to lift.

The car's weight and the body's person are both emergent properties.

second 1/2 of Muppet's last post

If you can't fathom why (to continue your tired example) torture is bad unless we all have souls, I don't know if I can really help you. But perhaps this is in terms you can understand: do non-human animals have souls, and is it acceptable to torture animals?
Assuming you think such animals do have souls: what is it then that separates humans from other animals?

"Not (yet) having observed something does not mean it doesn't exist." That is totally accurate, but misleading on its own.



There, is the horse dead yet?