Would you do it?

[xirtam]

<< 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?


<< 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.




<< '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?



<< 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.

 

[nirgis]

I have actually thought about this concept for a while. Basically, the question boils down to the question: is there a soul/ is there something soul-like intrisic to the body? I don't think there is a question that the transfered brain would be *you* by this, I mean that to any outside person the transfered brain would be identical to the previous person. The transfered person would claim he was the original person, and to himself he would know that he was and remember his previous body. But....

what about you? I agree that whatever the 'soul' is, it is located entirely within the human brain, nothing truly transcendental about it, yet what happens from the point of breaking off of conscientiousness and transfer? How can one's self be transfered in the process? For this, I do not have the answers, I can at best offer some considerations:

what would be the difference between this and sleeping? Between this and being in a coma?
If you go through the procedure and the original "you" is lost, does it even matter? When you are dead, you cannot think, therefore you cannot process sorrow.

Despite all of this, I think I would refuse the process. Man is not meant to live indefinitely. The only way in which I could accept would be if I could remain conscious during the entire process, thereby ensuring there would be no break in consciousness

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Wouldn't that would require our concious to exist in two places at once? Couldn't that result in one exploding and the other imploding?

 

[Nocturnal]

No, isn't this just like that movie with Arnold in it? Eraser was it?

No, I wouldn't. When you die, you die.

 

[Lithium381]

i woudn't want ANOTHER me running around, i've already got an identical twin....that's enough

 

[Wallydraigle]

I've thought about it some more and I'm not sure it would even matter if the new artificial person is the same as the old biological one. Consciousness is the first person interpretation of all the thought processes going on in the brain. For now that's all we can prove that it is. I am not the same person I was a moment ago, in a moment I will not be the same person who I am now. I think therefore I am, not therefore I was or therefore I will be. In this moment the person I am both comes and goes. The first person perspective changes constantly. All our memories are in third person perspective, looking back at someone who used to be.

You can look at a divergent self exactly the same way you can look at a divergent timeline. All versions of the same self are who they are at any given moment, and that's all. In another moment neither self will be the same as it was anyway.

This is yet another reason why self could quite possibly be the greatest illusion of all. And since the self has a lifespan of exactly one moment it wouldn't really matter if you did it or not.

 

[xirtam]

Lirion: Is there a reason to assume that Descartes was correct in his Cogito, Ergo Sum argumentation? Could not the point be stretched, "I thought, therefore I was" or "I will think, therefore I will be?" At what point do you draw the line, and what justification do you offer for believing Descartes?

To me, the question comes down to this point: Is your brain a hard drive? If so, you can just rip it out and replace it or put it in a new "system." If you are, however, greater than the sum of your biological components, you might have a different response. But like Elledan says, if it is indeed only a hard drive -- if that's the extent of your life's significance -- then what do you have to lose? Rip it out of there and stick it in a new system. Perform a backup. Do whatever. If all else fails... RMA it to Newegg.

 

[Wallydraigle]

<< Lirion: Is there a reason to assume that Descartes was correct in his Cogito, Ergo Sum argumentation? Could not the point be stretched, "I thought, therefore I was" or "I will think, therefore I will be?" At what point do you draw the line, and what justification do you offer for believing Descartes? >>



I'm sorry if I didn't say that with clarity. The whole Cogito ergo sum thing is merely the most basic and self evident truth. Knowing anything else relies on the senses or even less trustworthy apparatus. That's all I meant by it. You can say I thought, therefore I was, but how can you be sure you didn't just imagine the memory of a previous thought? Neither can you say I will think therefore I am, because the future could prove otherwise. One can only be sure of their own existence, at this very moment.

 

[Ornery]

I'd do it to help further science, but I wouldn't pay for it. The copy wouldn't be me. I think that fact bothers some people here. Is it because of a religious /soul implication? There's something you could ponder for decades... what makes you, you? Not a particularly original thought, but perplexing none the less.

"If the procedure went flawless, your personality should be intact."

My personality? You would have two personalities there, although they may be identical. I don't think I'll ever be able to see that any other way, but I have an open mind. Convince me otherwise. GOOD LUCK!

 

[d1abolic]

Would i put a clone of my brain in an artificial body to avoid death? Yes. Absolutely, i wouldn't even think twice. However, i would only do it if my original brain/body were destroyed in the process. In other words, i would want to go to sleep as myself, and wake up as myself in a new body. I would NOT want to fall asleep as myself, and then wake up to see a new myself in a new body.

 

[J3anyus]

<< No. Life sucks. >>

 

[Ultima]

What is consciousness? It's not something we can easily define. One can argue that consciousness is the result of neuron activity in the brain, but who is anyone to say that that is all it is?

What makes red look red? Or blue look blue? What's that intangible quality of "consciousness", of being alive, that scientists still haven't figured out?

If I went under this procedure I have the feeling that I would just wake up to see a new me in a new body. If the original body was destroyed, then I would just die and cease to exist (and I wouldn't care, since I wouldn't be able to think, being dead and all...). I can't resolve this... I'd do it only if there was a way to guarantee that the "me" in the new body would be me.

 

[SWScorch]

Hey Ultima, that raises an interesting question. What if what I percieve as red, you percieve as blue? We both still call it red, but for me its one color, and for you, its a different color. But since thats what we've always seen and always called it, and have nothing to compare it to, we never know?

And as an update to my thoughts, I would do it only my original body was destroyed. As someone else said, there being two of me just doesnt set well. We're different entities. The same and yet not the same. I would eventually die and he would not. But if I were to die as soon as or before the process took place, then I wouldnt care would I?

 

[d1abolic]

Haven't you ever seen the 6th Day, silly? You won't even know that you're in a new body

 

[SilverThief]

Well would the copy of "you" function at the level it was cloned at for the next 200 years? Or would it be capable of "growing" and learning like the real "you" is?

If the answer to that is yes, then yes I would.

 

[d1abolic]

Of course it would be able to learn! What do you think this thread is about, $4.95 Kmart calculators?

 

[Brutuskend]

Would there be SEX?

I like sex.....

If no sex and or sensation, then I would say.

NO

 

[Martin]

I said yes for several reasons:


1. I would do it near the end of my biological life and then kill off my biological counterpart (it'd be weird...two of us in one place..identical)

2. The possibilities of extending your own body are astounding.....perhaps I will have a brain powerful enough to do all the stuff I never gcould with my biological one? I am a curious person, imagine knowing EVERYTHING there is to know? Having every single bit of reference in your brain? Being able to do calculations like a computer? having eagle-eye vision? or being able to see in spectrums possible with bioparts (ultraviolet, infrared etc). The possibilities are countles.

3. If I get bored, of feel there is nothing more for me to do, I could always kill myself. Nothing says I HAVE to live forever.

Its a win-win situation anyway you look at it.

 

[Ryan]

You would still die - so no. Your clone might live on, but you will die.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

If you knew "everything there is to know" I think you'd probably flip out and lose all ability to function.

 

[nirgis]

<I would do it near the end of my biological life and then kill off my biological counterpart (it'd be weird...two of us in one place..identical)>

What makes you think by killing of the biological counter-part you wouldn't be killing off your consciousness?

Really, what's to assure you that your consciousness doesn't die off in the process of transfer?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Have you read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines"? He talks alot about it and this thread reminded me of that book. If you hadn't read it, I recommend picking it up. I thought it was pretty good.

 

[Martin]

<< If you knew "everything there is to know" I think you'd probably flip out and lose all ability to function. >>



I meant, as in possesing ALL current knowledge. For example, knowing everything from the mating rituals of shellfish, to the latest math concepts to the the latest in astrophysics.

If your brain is powerful enough, why shouldnt you be able to hold and process all that info?




<< What makes you think by killing of the biological counter-part you wouldn't be killing off your consciousness?
Really, what's to assure you that your consciousness doesn't die off in the process of transfer? >>



I think Elledan meant, if you took into consideration your conciousness, personality, memory..in short EVERYTHING.

 

[Deleted member 54998]

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

 

[xaigi]

I thought it was curiosity which drives innovation? Please explain how mortality is
more important than curiosity. IMHO mortality has an insignificant effect on
innovation, but I could be wrong.

There are rather widely accepted theories that innovation, as well as most other things that people do, is indirectly driven by the need to procreate. To make a long story short, (WARNING: NOT A PROVEN THEORY) most of the things that we do are done to display the successful nature of our genetic material and impress the other sex so that we can get laid and pass that genetic material on to a new generation. I'm not going to go into it right now, but there is (loose) evidence that the drive for sports, exercise, art, creativity, etc. are all tied to the need to advertise one's genes to the opposite sex.

I think his (the poster's) theory is that if you have immortality, you have no need to pass on your genes and therefore no need to display your genes by doing creative and inventive things. I disagree, however. Even if the need to pass on one's genetic material is taken away, our brains are heavily imprinted with the need to execute the mechanisms (sex) associated with creating children. The fact that children would not be required would not dampen the need to seek sex.

In closing, I feel that the type of immortality that you speak of would be disasterous for the human race. Without a normal cycle of deaths and new births, there would be no way to break cultural and psychological monopolies. The minds that could live hundreds of years would use the wisdom of age to accumulate mankind's wealth and sink it into a well of conservatism. The children of those who decided not to have thier minds transferred to a computer would either submit or rebel.