Would you do it?

[loup garou]

Think about this. If technology progessed enough that we were able to download thoughts, memories, etc ., as Elledan suggests, to an artificial neural network, then what would stop us from reversing this process and uploading this same data to another brain? With human cloning being pretty much a given, what would happen if I cloned myself, then tranferred my "brain data" over to my clone, essentially making a biological and mental copy of myself? Weird...

 

[Elledan]

<< Think about this. If technology progessed enough that we were able to download thoughts, memories, etc ., as Elledan suggests, to an artificial neural network, then what would stop us from reversing this process and uploading this same data to another brain? With human cloning being pretty much a given, what would happen if I cloned myself, then tranferred my "brain data" over to my clone? Weird... >>

In order for this to be done, certain parts of the clone's brain would have to be an almost exact match of that of your own. The hippocampus, frontal lobe etc. determine who and what you are, and store your memories.

The brain isn't some kind of fancy HD on which you can write data. It's more like a fully integrated computer in which there's no difference between hardware and software.

 

[Czar]

I would do it, but only after I´d turn 70 or something, I would like to enjoy my organic body while I can

 

[Nemesis77]

<< I would do it, but only after I´d turn 70 or something, I would like to enjoy my organic body while I can >>



Well, I think the cyborg-bodies would have I/O-ports

 

[dfi]

What if you replaced only of your brain cells with an electronic connector? Would you be the same person?

What if you replaced 2 of your brain cells?

What if you replaced 2 billion of your brain cells?

If an amputee got a mechanical arm, is he less human than you or I? What about ppl w/o legs? Are they even less human?

dfi

 

[Koing]

I wouldn't do it.

Not for any scientific reasoning but for the fact that I think my body without my soul and ME all intact is nothing more then a body........

 

[Wallydraigle]

No. I wouldn't even have to think about it.

 

[Elledan]

<< No. I wouldn't even have to think about it. >>

What's the reasoning behind this decision?

 

[Wallydraigle]

I'm human and I would like to stay that way. Call me crazy.

 

[Elledan]

<< I'm human and I would like to stay that way. Call me crazy. >>

You do not want to trade your current (biological) body for a new (artificial) one?

I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sound very convincing.

 

[Wallydraigle]

No, I would not. If my thoughts and feelings and whatever else that makes me who I am were uploaded to an artificial body, assuming I survived the process, then there would be the "real" me, and an artificial me. You contend that the artificial me is as much me as I am. As far as he is concerned you may be right. From his perspective he was born when I was, has all the same memories that I do, and shares my thought paterns, and personality. As far as he is concerned he is me in every way. Yet I won't be able to share his thoughts or his feelings. That makes him intrinsically not me. I think, therefore I am. If this other person is as much me as I am, then it would be he thinks therefore I am, and that doesn't make sense at all. It makes no difference if the "real" me dies during the procedure, or twenty years after the construction of the artificial me. When the real me dies I am dead, and the artificial me is merely an identical copy.

 

[jjones]

Sure, I would do it. Why not? You have to remember though that you are essentially creating another being of the same person at a particular point in time and they would only be the same for an instant, at the time of creation.

So then what happens to the biological me? Do I kill it or let it finish its days? And once the new android me is created, why stop with just one? A year later, the original biological me has new experiences and may want to undergo the procedure again. Where or when does this stop? Would it be a requirement that once the first android is made that the original biological me be destroyed?

Another question is should the new android me be allowed to replicate? I could create a whole new "me" colony.

Also, what about sex? This would be important for this particular android. If I could not experience the pleasures of sex I doubt that I would do it.

edit: and now that i've thought about it a moment, the same goes for the pleasures of eating. I love a good, well prepared meal.

 

[Elledan]

<< Sure, I would do it. Why not? You have to remember though that you are essentially creating another being of the same person at a particular point in time and they would only be the same for an instant, at the time of creation.

So then what happens to the biological me? Do I kill it or let it finish its days? And once the new android me is created, why stop with just one? A year later, the original biological me has new experiences and may want to undergo the procedure again. Where or when does this stop? Would it be a requirement that once the first android is made that the original biological me be destroyed? >>

These are some questions I've been pondering on. It's difficult.



<< Another question is should the new android me be allowed to replicate? I could create a whole new "me" colony. >>

This would make no sense, since neural network (individuals) which develop in an artificial body will be better adapted to that situation. Besides, it's been proven many times that individuals are capable of forming a society. Clones would have a hard time to function in a society, because of personality conflicts.



<< Also, what about sex? This would be important for this particular android. If I could not experience the pleasures of sex I doubt that I would do it. >>

Sex is only required for procreation by biological beings. It could be done, though. With the pleasure centra intact and the necessary, uhm, physical attributes in place, the experience would be just as real as the 'real' thing. You wouldn't even need a partner



<< edit: and now that i've thought about it a moment, the same goes for the pleasures of eating. I love a good, well prepared meal. >>

All types of pleasure could be experienced. Best of all, total VR would be a piece of cake by merely modifying the I/O-module.

 

[eakers]

no.
it just doesnt feel right to me. the idea of someone having my exact thoughts, memories, hopes, dreams everything is a little to much for me. i mean, what would now differentiate this being from me besides flesh? my soul? well what is a soul and does it even exist? and if it does would it be uploaded with all my thoughts and memories?

the idea of it scares me.

*kat. <-- her body wants to sleep but her brain is in "awake mode"

 

[kami]

Undecided.

#1 it depends how reliable and proven the procedure is
#2 i would only do it if my spouse and closest family also did...i don't think i could leave my loved ones behind for literally an eternity. I'm not talking about afterlife here, I am just saying you only have one family...and what would it be like to sit there and not age, but see all your loved ones age and die...even outlive your own children?

So if it was something everyone was doing I would, but if not I would not.

 

[Elledan]

<< no.
it just doesnt feel right to me. the idea of someone having my exact thoughts, memories, hopes, dreams everything is a little to much for me. i mean, what would now differentiate this being from me besides flesh? my soul? well what is a soul and does it even exist? and if it does would it be uploaded with all my thoughts and memories? >>

The intention of this procedure is to produce a copy of an existing biological neural network and 'translate' it into an artificial one. In other words, the artificial brain would be just as much you as your current brain is you.



<< the idea of it scares me. >>

You've every right to be frightened



<< *kat. <-- her body wants to sleep but her brain is in "awake mode" >>

 

[Elledan]

<< Undecided.

#1 it depends how reliable and proven the procedure is
#2 i would only do it if my spouse and closest family also did...i don't think i could leave my loved ones behind for literally an eternity. I'm not talking about afterlife here, I am just saying you only have one family...and what would it be like to sit there and not age, but see all your loved ones age and die...even outlive your own children? >>


To address your points:

1. The procedure would be without any risk, because a non-invasive scanning methode is used. In case of a failed scan or other failure during the process, the process can be repeated without any problems.
2. Emotional attachment. Would they want to see you continue your existance, while they wither and die? Probably not.



<< So if it was something everyone was doing I would, but if not I would not. >>

Fair enough.

 

[novon]

no, death is just as important as life

 

[Elledan]

<< no, death is just as important as life >>

Because... ?

 

[linuxboy]

The intention of this procedure is to produce a copy of an existing biological neural network and 'translate' it into an artificial one. In other words, the artificial brain would be just as much you as your current brain is you.


Woah woah woah there my fiesty monsieur je sais tout. Where in the world do you get off ignoring problems of intentionality (Searle) and assuming the procedure you described would indeed yield an exact replica. Another problem that comes into existence here is your simple explanation of neural functioing. What about stray electricity affecting action potential? What about the impossibility of scanning such a system in enough time to exactly replicate it and reproduce that exact firing pattern as contained. What about the relative impossibility of designing support systems for cells to create cell functions that mirror biological ones to such precision that this could be successful.

I don't exactly have a problem with undergoing the procedure, although I see no real point to it. What I do have a problem is this entire exercise of mental masturbation and assuming things like it's possible to make an artifical 'brain' which, at least in the first few moments, is an (nearly) exact copy of the biological neural network, allowing personality and memories to remain intact. I cringe at the inaccuracy of this statement. Do yourself a favor as a wannabee scientist and read up on current philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, neurobio, etc. Your idea may be true but it's illogical to go as far as saying that it's possible to make an artificial brain, given what we know now.


Cheers !

 

[linuxboy]

no, death is just as important as life

That's true because death and rebirth is a part of the cycle that is evident in nature. To override that function and phenomenon by asserting my own superiority is to finally rise above all else and say "Look at me and how great I am". I happen to think that this sort of attitude is deleterious to the well being of humanity and to the environment in which I live. The squirrel dies. The leaves decompose. The trees shed fruit. I don't see a reason why I should go from the state I found myself in, no matter how perplexing that is to my poor neurotic self.


Cheers !

 

[WageSlave]

Well, a copy is a copy. a copy of a famous wor of art is a copy, not the original, and it will not allow that which is YOU to survive. In order to accomplish this you MUST not have a break in conciousness

 

[SWScorch]

you are assuming that our brains are the only things which hold us. I say, you can recreate a person's brain, neuron for neuron, but will not necessarily recreate that person.

 

[Elledan]

<< The intention of this procedure is to produce a copy of an existing biological neural network and 'translate' it into an artificial one. In other words, the artificial brain would be just as much you as your current brain is you.


Woah woah woah there my fiesty monsieur je sais tout. Where in the world do you get off ignoring problems of intentionality (Searle) and assuming the procedure you described would indeed yield an exact replica. Another problem that comes into existence here is your simple explanation of neural functioing. What about stray electricity affecting action potential? What about the impossibility of scanning such a system in enough time to exactly replicate it and reproduce that exact firing pattern as contained. What about the relative impossibility of designing support systems for cells to create cell functions that mirror biological ones to such precision that this could be successful. >>

Notice the word 'imagine' at the beginning of my post? I'm telling you to assume that this procedure is possible, not that it's necessarily feasible.



<< I don't exactly have a problem with undergoing the procedure, although I see no real point to it. What I do have a problem is this entire exercise of mental masturbation and assuming things like it's possible to make an artifical 'brain' which, at least in the first few moments, is an (nearly) exact copy of the biological neural network, allowing personality and memories to remain intact. I cringe at the inaccuracy of this statement. Do yourself a favor as a wannabee scientist and read up on current philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, neurobio, etc. >>

I'm very well familiar with neuroscience, thank you.


<< Your idea may be true but it's illogical to go as far as saying that it's possible to make an artificial brain, given what we know now. >>

But that's not the point of this thread. The whole point is that IF this ever becomes a reality what the implications would be on individuals.

 

[Elledan]

<< you are assuming that our brains are the only things which hold us. I say, you can recreate a person's brain, neuron for neuron, but will not necessarily recreate that person. >>

At this moment it's logical to assume that our brains are all we are. There's not sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.