Would you do it?

[Elledan]

<<

<< Curiosity and logic. >>


I understand the point of curiosity, and I'm getting the idea that it is to prove whether or not the logic you used to predict what would/would not happen is accurate. So I think we're looking at a science experiment here. Is that a fair observation? >>

I asked to assume that this procedure is a reliable and safe method of 'converting' the brain into an artificial neural network. This to eliminate any irrelevant details.

I started this thread, because I'm curious what other people would do and what kind of reasoning they would use to validate their answer.




<< << Also, what evidence do you have to support your claim that the brain is "all there is"? >>



<< Do have any reason to assume that it's not the case? >>



Well, I haven't stated a claim or a position on this here yet, but I just wanted to see if you had any evidence to validate your claim that the brain was "all there is." Sounds like a pretty absolute statement, and I just wanted to see if there was any absolute proof to back that up. I don't really like "assuming" things to be true without rationales. Not very scientific. >>

There's never absolute proof.

Point is that we haven't observed any radiation, energy or something travel between the brain and something else which we can not explain. There's no observable 'link' with another system. The brain appears to be responsible for the mind.

My current research also intends to investigate this topic.




<<

<< 'science', is our curiosity at work. It's a learning process. >>



I would agree with you that science is our curiosity at work. However, that doesn't tell me anything about either moral/ethical implications about the application of science or its innate truth. For example, would you agree with me that one of science's strong points is that it can be proven wrong? After all, isn't that the test of true science -- a statement is not scientific if there is no test to prove it wrong -- isn't that true? >>

The morality and ethics of those whose curiosty is at work applies.



<<

<< Well, why not? What do you've got to lose? >>



Would you agree with me that there are moral/ethical implications behind the September 11th attacks? Now I know this isn't a direct correlation, but please bear with me. If we can safely assume that terrorism and acts of mass murder are wrong -- and I think we can, can't we -- what other moral and ethical implications might come to bear on other decisions I make? I don't want to be ethically wrong, and I don't see how science can tell me whether or not I am ethically/morally wrong, do you? So I guess my question is: what ethical or moral considerations are involved in this experiment? Or do those even matter to you? And if not, why not?

Now, if I buy into the idea that everything is purely natural in the sense that I am composed of nothing but chemicals and my brain is the result of purely chemical and organic processes, then there are no ethical considerations to speak of at all... right? But that also implies that I cannot say that the September 11th problem was even a problem -- just some people carrying out their viewpoint, which is based on the same organic processes that I am using to form the presuppositions behind my life -- isn't that true? So, if that is the case, then no, I have nothing to lose in this experiment, because there are no ethical considerations at all. Is this your stance?

Let me know, just so I can understand what exactly I would be involved in with this hypothetical consideration. >>

[/i] >>

The attacks of 9/11 were the result of blind faith, ignorance and arrogance. Both sides were wrong in more than one way.

See my other thread about the 'logical' nature of Humans.

 

[Elledan]

<< Not only is this not feesable, but it is not possible. Transfering mental data and personality is possible, but transfering mental perspective is not. >>

I asked a hypothetical question. I didn't ask your opinion on whether it would work or not.

BTW, you're closed-minded.

 

[Palek]

<< BTW, you're closed-minded. >>



Elledan, you are following a very familiar pattern here. You start a discussion, asking people to explain their point of view. Somebody says something that does not fit your ideas and you call them closed-minded. Aren't you the one being closed-minded here by dismissing anyone as closed-minded when they disagree with you? A discussion between two (or more) open-minded people can still end with the parties not agreeing but intelligent minds would not stick the "closed-minded" label on each other's backs. They would agree to disagree. Isn't that what open-mindedness is all about? Just a thought...

And as for the topic of this thread...

Even if our personality was indeed only the product of the cells that comprise our bodies, who can say with 100% certainty that replacing all that bio-material with man-made parts will not radically change your personality?

I would think that our minds work the way they do because they were built to function in a system of biological cells. You might be able to reproduce the complex system of exchanges of electric current between cells, but what about bodily fluids? Who is to say that replacing blood and sugar with copper and electrons does not affect your personality? What would happen to eating, drinking, sweating, sleeping, sneezing, snoring, yawning, all these actions that are part of our personality but would most likely not be reproduced by the artificial body? As soon as you want to include all these functions in your android, you will be creating a lifeform that is basically biological, and if you want to do a perfect job, you end up will a 100% flesh and bones creature that is in no way different from the original. It would live and die just like the original. The experiment would prove pointless.

Please point it out to me if you see faults in my logic!

To answer the question, no way!!! I much prefer my jar of clay!!!

 

[skace]

Elladan,

I'm trying to visualize this theory. Let's talk FPS games. Now FPS states I have the view from 1 set of eyes, it would be almost impossible to have the view of 2 because the images would overlap and I wouldn't be able to tell where I was going. So would I switch back and forth between the bodies? Would one become limp and lifeless while I control the other? Or would I be like the borg able to control many bodies from 1 concious. I guess it is beyond our field of experience to visualize controlling 2 bodies.

I would stay into my biological body until it started to decay, then I would make up my mind based on the trends. IE: the people I live with, are they cyborgs? Is it more conveniant to be a cyborg? Is life in this new cyborg era worth living?

Another question would be, if you could make cyborgs, why not implant my current biological body with nanomachines and give me regenerative life.

Also, I think once this procedure became the norm this question would be almost non existant. The only reason most would not accept it now is the awkwardness of it and the fact that they fear it wouldn't work. All things are awkward at first.

 

[ObiDaJedi]

Not only is this not feesable, but it is not possible. Transfering mental data and personality is possible, but transfering mental perspective is not.



Since when did you begin predicting the future? Scientific advancements in the next hundred years will be more than our puny brains can comprehend at this point. You can't rule anything out just because it doesn't seem possible now.

 

[Shalmanese]

I for one believe that one of our main motivations to suceed on this earth is the fact that we are mortal. All the great inventors/scientists etc have been driven becuase they wanted to achieve something great before they died (or turned 30 in the case of mathematicians). If that drive were not there, I think innovation would proceed at a much more lesurely pace simply because there is no need to prove yourself within the next 10 years.

Also, with immortality, there would be no people being born which would mean that all the same prejudices kept within the population. Thomas Kuhn once said that a scientific theory does not become accepted because the current generation of scientists see the light but, rather, when the current generation die off and the new generation is indoctrinated in the new theory. With no new generation, all our prejudices would remain.



Now, I want to get down to some nitty gritty aspects of your plan.

Would the value of Human life be reduced because there would always exist a copy somewhere, would crimes such as Rape become marginalised since they rely on the premise of violating a human body.

First of all, Intellectual theft would become a vastly different beast, what do you do if a person hacks into your brain and downloads a copy... or 10? What if it (using geneder neutral pronouns) had the ability to change your memories. Could it act out some sick fantasy of his and turn you into a gibbering idiot or a mindless fan?

The basic notion of intelligence as an asset would be removed if other people could access the said intelligence, what if I, as a chemical company, stole the minds of the top workers at another company and then deleted the records so that they only exisited with me, would that amount to kidnapping? What If I then made 1 million copies of those people and had them work in a massive colaborative effort? essentially as slave labour?
Could some crazy maniac wreak a virus upon the system which would destroy every mind with a certain belief?

 

[krakken]

I'd just as soon not bother. I know that it would seem like it'd be you living forever, but I don't beleive I'd waste money and/or resources on such a procedure.
Besides, it'd be putting my faith in 'man' to do something that God has already promised, for man to try that would pretty much be putting himself in God's place, very arrogant.

 

[pyonir]

i said no, because i don't want to live forever. hell i don't want to live past 70. besides, wouldn't your skin age, bones get weak, lose your hair, etc? but, even if all that stayed the same, i wouldn't want the op.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< BTW, you're closed-minded. >>



Elledan, you are following a very familiar pattern here. You start a discussion, asking people to explain their point of view. Somebody says something that does not fit your ideas and you call them closed-minded. Aren't you the one being closed-minded here by dismissing anyone as closed-minded when they disagree with you? A discussion between two (or more) open-minded people can still end with the parties not agreeing but intelligent minds would not stick the "closed-minded" label on each other's backs. They would agree to disagree. Isn't that what open-mindedness is all about? Just a thought... >>

Perhaps you didn't know it yet, but I've a hard time lowering myself to the level of an idiot.

I don't call someone closed-minded without good reason.



<< And as for the topic of this thread...

Even if our personality was indeed only the product of the cells that comprise our bodies, who can say with 100% certainty that replacing all that bio-material with man-made parts will not radically change your personality? >>

Some things will change, alright. However, your personality is not just a single part of you. It's everything. Every single memory, every thought is what you are and who you are.

If anything, this experience would enrich your personality, allow you to go beyond the limits which always kept you back from reaching goals you've dreamed of for almost an eternity.



<< I would think that our minds work the way they do because they were built to function in a system of biological cells. You might be able to reproduce the complex system of exchanges of electric current between cells, but what about bodily fluids? Who is to say that replacing blood and sugar with copper and electrons does not affect your personality? What would happen to eating, drinking, sweating, sleeping, sneezing, snoring, yawning, all these actions that are part of our personality but would most likely not be reproduced by the artificial body? As soon as you want to include all these functions in your android, you will be creating a lifeform that is basically biological, and if you want to do a perfect job, you end up will a 100% flesh and bones creature that is in no way different from the original. It would live and die just like the original. The experiment would prove pointless. >>

Your reasoning is flawed.

The brain is adapted to a particular type of body. Correct.

Does anything beyond the functions of the nerve cells really matter? No.

That is, unless you've some evidence which shows that your reasoning is based on anything but an illusion.



<< Please point it out to me if you see faults in my logic! >>

I fear I just did exactly that.



<< To answer the question, no way!!! I much prefer my jar of clay!!! >>

Why?

 

[Elledan]

<< Elladan,

I'm trying to visualize this theory. Let's talk FPS games. Now FPS states I have the view from 1 set of eyes, it would be almost impossible to have the view of 2 because the images would overlap and I wouldn't be able to tell where I was going. So would I switch back and forth between the bodies? Would one become limp and lifeless while I control the other? Or would I be like the borg able to control many bodies from 1 concious. I guess it is beyond our field of experience to visualize controlling 2 bodies. >>

There wouldn't be one conscious. There would be two individuals, yet both with your own personality, memory and thoughts.



<< I would stay into my biological body until it started to decay, then I would make up my mind based on the trends. IE: the people I live with, are they cyborgs? Is it more conveniant to be a cyborg? Is life in this new cyborg era worth living? >>

A cyborg is a being both biological and machine. The term you're looking for is 'android', although even this word is not very suitable. 'artificial Human' would be better.



<< Another question would be, if you could make cyborgs, why not implant my current biological body with nanomachines and give me regenerative life. >>

That would be possible after a while as well, yet there are two disadvantages:

- once a biological body dies, it can not be recovered. An artificial body can be replaced, and 'you' can be restored from a backup.

- a biological body is far more fragile than an artificial one. It depends on a regular intake of certain substances, or it will die. It can drown, be impaled or wounded in other, lethal ways. An artificial body wouldn't.



<< Also, I think once this procedure became the norm this question would be almost non existant. The only reason most would not accept it now is the awkwardness of it and the fact that they fear it wouldn't work. All things are awkward at first. >>

Agreed.

There's nothing as frightening as the unknown. Yet those who dare not to investigate will remain frightened forever.

 

[Elledan]

<< I for one believe that one of our main motivations to suceed on this earth is the fact that we are mortal. All the great inventors/scientists etc have been driven becuase they wanted to achieve something great before they died (or turned 30 in the case of mathematicians). If that drive were not there, I think innovation would proceed at a much more lesurely pace simply because there is no need to prove yourself within the next 10 years. >>

I still consider curiosity to be the most important reason for innovation. I simply don't see how mortality could influence this. None of the observations I've made are consistent with your statement. You might want to give some examples.



<< Also, with immortality, there would be no people being born which would mean that all the same prejudices kept within the population. Thomas Kuhn once said that a scientific theory does not become accepted because the current generation of scientists see the light but, rather, when the current generation die off and the new generation is indoctrinated in the new theory. With no new generation, all our prejudices would remain. >>

This argument is false.

Prejudices will remain in a population, even if its individuals are mortals. The magic word here is 'culture'. 'Immortality' would free individuals from many limits, enabling them to use logic in ways unimagined because of their increased processing power. Mental tasks which now take a Human hours to complete could be finished by an 'artificial' Human in merely a few minutes or even seconds.

By optimizing the neural networks, one could change virtually everyone into a genius.




<< Now, I want to get down to some nitty gritty aspects of your plan.

Would the value of Human life be reduced because there would always exist a copy somewhere, would crimes such as Rape become marginalised since they rely on the premise of violating a human body. >>

Without the need to procreate, sex would disappear. Rape would become a thing of the past.



<< First of all, Intellectual theft would become a vastly different beast, what do you do if a person hacks into your brain and downloads a copy... or 10? What if it (using geneder neutral pronouns) had the ability to change your memories. Could it act out some sick fantasy of his and turn you into a gibbering idiot or a mindless fan? >>


1. You're assuming that everyone is connected to some kind of WAN like the internet. Well, they're not. They're individuals, not computers. They're just as free as Humans are today.
2. Security could be introduced to protect the system against tampering.



<< The basic notion of intelligence as an asset would be removed if other people could access the said intelligence, what if I, as a chemical company, stole the minds of the top workers at another company and then deleted the records so that they only exisited with me, would that amount to kidnapping? What If I then made 1 million copies of those people and had them work in a massive colaborative effort? essentially as slave labour? >>


In order to obtain a copy of a person's mind, that person would have to be physically present, unless a backup is somewhere stored. Either way, it would be illegal.

However, I don't think that such practices would form a problem, nor that they would occur reguarly.


<< Could some crazy maniac wreak a virus upon the system which would destroy every mind with a certain belief? >>


Again, everyone is not connected to a WAN.

A virus could disrupt the activity of the person, but once the person noticed it, s/he could shut down and restart, after which the virus would be gone.

BTW, you really should check some episodes of Star Trek TNG. Data is a pretty good example.

 

[Elledan]

<< i said no, because i don't want to live forever. hell i don't want to live past 70. besides, wouldn't your skin age, bones get weak, lose your hair, etc? but, even if all that stayed the same, i wouldn't want the op. >>

Did you actually read the post containing the explanation?!

 

[Elledan]

<< I'd just as soon not bother. I know that it would seem like it'd be you living forever, but I don't beleive I'd waste money and/or resources on such a procedure. >>

You don't sound like you're convinced, do you?


<< Besides, it'd be putting my faith in 'man' to do something that God has already promised, for man to try that would pretty much be putting himself in God's place, very arrogant. >>

Didn't you know it yet? All life on this planet was created by blue, purple-striped beings from another universe.

Well, it does sound just as plausible as this 'god'-theory.

 

[fatalbert]

no,

I don't feel this is a good thing,

It creates an Android, but, while you are alive, what will this android do... and after your death, will it take over your job? the economical ramifications alone make it a very disturbing thought. But morally, what kind of life would this android have.

 

[KatLei]

I'd like to eventually die and complete a full life cycle instead of "eternal" life. Hell, if I live to a 100 years old I wonder how many loved ones and friends would I have left. Nahhh.

 

[Elledan]

<< no,

I don't feel this is a good thing,

It creates an Android, but, while you are alive, what will this android do... and after your death, will it take over your job? the economical ramifications alone make it a very disturbing thought. But morally, what kind of life would this android have. >>

This 'android' is yourself.

That's what this whole thread is about: copying your brain at one moment in time, after which both the original and the copy would both be 'you'. You would see the copy. You would see the original. The original dies, the copy lives. You die. You live.

 

[Ornery]

"There wouldn't be one conscious. There would be two individuals, yet both with your own personality, memory and thoughts."

You never addressed the question posed by several people, including myself, about what makes you, you.

"...original and the copy would both be 'you'."

And I still think you're not wanting to come to terms with the religious/soul implications inferred by the true nature of the self. Admitting that there is more to the 'self' than the physical, just doesn't sit right, does it?

My theory is that we're all manifested from a pool of life to observe things from our own perspective. Your clone may be identical, but will have it's own perspective, not yours.

 

[Elledan]

<< "There wouldn't be one conscious. There would be two individuals, yet both with your own personality, memory and thoughts."

You never addressed the question posed by several people, including myself, about what makes you, you. >>

I already did. Multiple times, actually.

Personality, memory and thoughts. In short, the brainstructure.



<< "...original and the copy would both be 'you'."

And I still think you're not wanting to come to terms with the religious/soul implications inferred by the true nature of the self. Admitting that there is more to the 'self' than the physical, just doesn't sit right, does it? >>

I do not see the logic behind this statement. It's totally illogical to even consider something for which no evidence exists.

My statement that the soul doesn't exist can not be refuted since there's no evidence to prove otherwise.



<< My theory is that we're all manifested from a pool of life to observe things from our own perspective. Your clone may be identical, but will have it's own perspective, not yours. >>

ROFL.... a philosophical statement and an agreement in one sentence.

Of course each 'clone' will have its own perspective, because it are two individuals, only will it be more like two copies of yourself, each experiencing different things. It's as though you've split yourself into two, with each part being the same person.

 

[Elledan]

Hmm... so far there has been just one single good argument against the procedure: when loved ones or close relatives/friends/family wouldn't want to do it as well.

Souls etc. haven't yet gone beyond the realm of superstition and blind faith.

 

[Ultima]

What we mean, is that what's the point of we have a clone that thinks its "me"? I'm not seeing things from that clone's perspective, I see from my own, and when I die I die. I couldn't care less if I have some copy of me that thinks its me living on, I thought that's what kids were for?




<<

<< "There wouldn't be one conscious. There would be two individuals, yet both with your own personality, memory and thoughts."

You never addressed the question posed by several people, including myself, about what makes you, you. >>

I already did. Multiple times, actually.

Personality, memory and thoughts. In short, the brainstructure.



<< "...original and the copy would both be 'you'."

And I still think you're not wanting to come to terms with the religious/soul implications inferred by the true nature of the self. Admitting that there is more to the 'self' than the physical, just doesn't sit right, does it? >>

I do not see the logic behind this statement. It's totally illogical to even consider something for which no evidence exists.

My statement that the soul doesn't exist can not be refuted since there's no evidence to prove otherwise.



<< My theory is that we're all manifested from a pool of life to observe things from our own perspective. Your clone may be identical, but will have it's own perspective, not yours. >>

ROFL.... a philosophical statement and an agreement in one sentence.

Of course each 'clone' will have its own perspective, because it are two individuals, only will it be more like two copies of yourself, each experiencing different things. It's as though you've split yourself into two, with each part being the same person. >>

 

[Elledan]

<< What we mean, is that what's the point of we have a clone that thinks its "me"? I'm not seeing things from that clone's perspective, I see from my own, and when I die I die. I couldn't care less if I have some copy of me that thinks its me living on, I thought that's what kids were for? >>

After the artificial neural network has been initialized, you'll watch yourself sitting or lying . From that point on, you'll probably trouble accepting that that person you see is yourself, that the body you see was once your own body.

And this is not about cloning, it's about exceeding one's limits. That's why some people here already mentioned getting rid of the biological version since it has become obsolete.

 

[Ornery]

"Of course each 'clone' will have its own perspective, because it are two individuals,"

Two individuals, but there's only one 'you'. The experiment can't accomplish what you want, no matter how exact the clone is. You know as well as everybody else here that you can have a living body with all the physical parts intact, yet the owner 'not home' and never to return. Where did they go? Where did they come from? If all the physical parts are there, what is it that left?

 

[Ultima]

Got some more thoughts to add.

Someone here brought up a very good point. The brain is influenced by things such as sugar levels, hormone levels, alcohol, narcotics, and so on. Is this all going to have to be emulated? Take things away such as sex and mortality and you take away what it means to be human. You also haven't addressed just what exactly what a consciousness is. What is the point of this operation if you end up with a copy that thinks its you, but it is not really you? How do consiousness form? Can they split or stream? Does anyone really know? No, I don't think so, so don't make any assumptions.

How do we know red is red, blue is blue? Can you define what the feeling of being touched is? Define exactly what it is? Or how about you define just exactly what a 100khz tone sounds like. You'll never be able to do it, you'll just end up with metaphors. This is one thing that science hasn't really figured out yet.

If my consciousness was not transferred, I would not want the procedure to be done. Secondly, I don't know if I'd want it done at any rate, because I simply wouldn't be human anymore. Our brains are built for the human condition, not an artificial one. Who knows what could happen when you take away the biggest drives: Sex, food, and the struggle for power. When you're immortal there's not really any push to innovate, since you can take all the time in the world.

What I think will happen, is that a seed AI will one day be created, and it will become the dominant "creature" on the planet. If the seed AI is programmed properly, it will be benevolent and will allow humanity to live in utopia. Maybe one day we will even merge with it, and then the human race will be extinct. For those people who don't want to merge, they'd continue living on in their paradise but eventually everyone would merge. I can't figure out what would be better though, being a human living in paradise or actually being an AI? The human life would eventually get boring, so sooner or later I'd probably opt for the AI. That would be weird, so weird I can't even begin to imagine it. These days are far away, maybe I'll be an old man when it starts happening, or maybe it won't happen and we'll have programmed a malevolent AI or destroyed ourselves through some other means. Who knows...

 

[Ultima]

<< After the artificial neural network has been initialized, you'll watch yourself sitting or lying . From that point on, you'll probably trouble accepting that that person you see is yourself, that the body you see was once your own body.

>>



That is only your opinion, and has yet to be proven. It may behave like me, it may look like me (or it may look like a giant toaster but that's beside the point), and it may think its me, but who's to say that it really is me? Read my above post, too.

 

[Palek]

<< Does anything beyond the functions of the nerve cells really matter? No. >>



Dude, you are really something! Did the great Elledan cook up this conclusion through years of research into the secrets of the human mind? Just to throw your words right back at you... How do you know that only the nerve cells matter? Give us some proof! Evidence! Facts! Links! Something! Without that you are simply making a fool of yourself if you keep repeating, "It is proven blah blah blah". You have no right to refute opposing theories unless you have evidence to support yours.



<< To answer the question, no way!!! I much prefer my jar of clay!!! >>




<< Why? >>



Oooh, this one's really gonna get you going... Because my body is simply an earthly vessel for my soul, when it dies I will receive a better, newer body that will last forever in heaven. A copy of my body would simply be an empty shell. It would not be me!



<< Perhaps you didn't know it yet, but I've a hard time lowering myself to the level of an idiot.

I don't call someone closed-minded without good reason. >>



Oh... Hang on... Maybe I am an idiot too... And if that is the case I definitely should not be posting in this thread because poor Elledan will have to lower himself to my level.

I am amazed at how easy it is to make you reveal your true self - in fact you do not even try to hide how conceited and stubborn you are. Spewing words like "idiot" and "closed-minded" at anyone and everyone. Have a good chat with yourself! I will leave you to it!