DescentBB

Unlike my previous threads, this time around I'd like to discuss the nature of a man. By this I mean, what makes us human.

What is a person? Are they their body? But if that were the case, pulling the plug on braindead patients would be murder, as their bodies are often still functioning, even if they require artificial sustenance. Are they their mind? If this is the case, then brain damaged, retarded, or otherwise mentally impaired persons are in fact somewhat less human than their fully functioning brethren. Is it a bit of both? Something else entirely? Perhaps there is no such thing as 'human' or 'a person' aside from Homo Sapiens sapiens as a species.

Personally, I think a person is, essentially, the collective thoughts, emotions, convictions, and memories within each individual. They are ideas. Concepts. One could argue they are the electrical and chemical signals racing around within the brain, but I don't quite think that's it. I think they are the things represented by those signals.

I don't particularly believe in souls or spirits. I don't know what happens after you die, aside from decomposition. I don't know if there is some sort of afterlife, or reincarnation, or empty nothingness or whatever. But I do think that there is a very real possibility that one could take certain mental data, transfer it into another storage medium, and remain 'human', as long as sufficient measures were taken to replicate and/or simulate sensory and physiological input to the brain.

This raises an interesting question. If a person is truly this mental data and not their body or anything else, would not a sufficiently advanced AI be a person as well? If you were to somehow transfer this sufficiently advanced AI into a human body, would not they then qualify as a human?

Are we not technically artificial intelligences ourselves, seeing as how we are, in fact, manmade?

I would disagree, feeling that one's physical being(body, physiology, etc) are at the core, and essentially determine much of the development of the more cerebral aspects you note. Great approach for a thread.......nice thread to ponder with the morning coffee here! Thanks.

callmeslick wrote:I would disagree, feeling that one's physical being(body, physiology, etc) are at the core, and essentially determine much of the development of the more cerebral aspects you note. Great approach for a thread.......nice thread to ponder with the morning coffee here! Thanks.

Not a problem, Slick. I would like to point out, though, that while I don't necessarily feel that the physical body is the core of what makes a person, I do think that it plays a role to some degree, namely through hormones and other things, which is why I said "as long as sufficient measures were taken to replicate and/or simulate sensory and physiological input to the brain". I think it should be possible to artificially 'recreate' critical input and parameters in virtual space, thus allowing for the mind to exist inside a computer. In fact, there are projects that exist today that are attempting to emulate the human brain using computer hardware that will hopefully shed some light on the situation.

you have to view my responses through the lens of my education, which was biochemistry and human physiology. That said, while efforts ARE underway to simulate human development(brain development in this discussion), my guess is that we have a LONG way to go to replicate both the subtlety and the sheer power of what develops via a mix of biochemistry, electrochemistry and physical development of nerve cells and tissues. Changes in diet, in experience, in prenatal conditions, in pheromone contact all have effects. The complexity of the systems still astounds me today as much as when I was taking neurochemistry or doing graduate research, back in the late Middle Ages.

Is it that the electrical and chemical signals traveling through the physical conduits trigger emotion and other thoughts. Dependant on the condition and state of development of those conduits and their destinations in the brain is the nature of how we process our experiences.

If a conduit or segment destination of the brain is unhealthy or underdeveloped does that unbalance the firing of neurons in the brain? Thus the average person might respond differently to the same experience.

So no matter how complex we find our thoughts to be they are just the result of a molecular level Plinko game?!? Some people have a few too many pegs that result in the wrong level of emotion or negative or positive impulses reaching the destination triggering a response that is an aberration?

DNA is the map to not just our physical development but also to the core of our very sentience?

It's no wonder we invented God, if we actually did, because accepting the nature of what we are would lead to a very dangerous world.

callmeslick wrote:you have to view my responses through the lens of my education, which was biochemistry and human physiology. That said, while efforts ARE underway to simulate human development(brain development in this discussion), my guess is that we have a LONG way to go to replicate both the subtlety and the sheer power of what develops via a mix of biochemistry, electrochemistry and physical development of nerve cells and tissues. Changes in diet, in experience, in prenatal conditions, in pheromone contact all have effects. The complexity of the systems still astounds me today as much as when I was taking neurochemistry or doing graduate research, back in the late Middle Ages.

I am in full agreement, the thing we call human consciousness and the processes that contribute to its continued function and existence are mind-bogglingly complex. I don't think the Blue Brain project - or any other projects similar to it - will result in a sentience anywhere near what we as humans experience, if any. I do think it's a good first step toward the end goal, however. And while, yes, the time and effort required to accurately virtualise every single process that goes toward making us thinking, feeling, conscious individuals will most assuredly be extensive, I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility. With today's knowledge and technology? Undoubtedly. But there will come a day - provided we manage to pull our collective act together long enough to see it - that it will be achievable, I believe.

Will Robinson wrote:So no matter how complex we find our thoughts to be they are just the result of a molecular level Plinko game?!? Some people have a few too many pegs that result in the wrong level of emotion or negative or positive impulses reaching the destination triggering a response that is an aberration?

DNA is the map to not just our physical development but also to the core of our very sentience?

It's no wonder we invented God, if we actually did, because accepting the nature of what we are would lead to a very dangerous world.

I think it's a bit more than that, Will. The physiological aspect is only half of the picture. Our actions, their consequences, and every other bit of input we receive from the world around us is the other half. I guess you could call this half the people playing the Plinko game, shaking it in an attempt to alter or manipulate the outcome, and otherwise operating or interacting with it. As well, there is the gravity affecting the machine, and any vibrations significant enough to affect the results of a game. People are indeed machines, but that doesn't mean that they are easy to predict or control. It is this very reason why we may not see a fully artificially contained human consciousness for many centuries, if not millenia. Still, it's food for thought.

Consider babies. Dirty little parasites that they are, it is no exaggeration to call them miracles. That something so complex and full of potential even exists is amazing. But let's compare a baby to a fully matured human adult.

Babies don't know how to communicate. They cannot take care of themselves in any fashion. In fact, they are incapable of all but the most rudimentary movements, gestures, and vocalisations at birth. Their eyesight is horrendous, their coordination atrocious, their strength is abysmal, their logical thought processes lacking in the extreme. They are for all intents and purposes useless, save for one aspect - their potential to learn and grow.

Without input of any kind, a baby's maturation will be stunted, and they will die relatively quickly. With just the bare minimum interaction and care, they will grow, but fall far short of the standard accepted norm. They cannot survive using only DNA and their innate physiological abilities. They require nurturing to some extent, integration, and teaching. Programming, if you will. Babies are basically blank slates that we imprint with knowledge and experience and beliefs. Only as they grow older and begin to be capable of imprinting themselves with knowledge and experience and beliefs can they become self-sufficient. Likewise, a baby can receive all the care and nurturing in the world from the wisest family, but if its physiological capabilities are limited, it will not reach its full potential. There has to be a balance of the two.

MD-1118 wrote:Personally, I think a person is, essentially, the collective thoughts, emotions, convictions, and memories within each individual. They are ideas. Concepts. One could argue they are the electrical and chemical signals racing around within the brain, but I don't quite think that's it. I think they are the things represented by those signals.

What do you mean by "within each individual"? I'm worried you're begging the question! For instance, if I wrote all of my collective thoughts, convictions, and memories down into a book, that book isn't a person, is it?

I believe that a person is a certain kind of stream of consciousness. For instance, I believe that cryonics cannot be used to preserve someone's life. The guy who goes in dies once his stream of consciousness is completely eliminated, and then a new guy comes out when that body is resuscitated and presumably a new stream of consciousness begins. Would you be comfortable with your body being cryogenically frozen and then resuscitated (assuming that reanimation of your body was guaranteed)?

MD-1118 wrote:..

Will Robinson wrote:So no matter how complex we find our thoughts to be they are just the result of a molecular level Plinko game?!? Some people have a few too many pegs that result in the wrong level of emotion or negative or positive impulses reaching the destination triggering a response that is an aberration?

DNA is the map to not just our physical development but also to the core of our very sentience?

It's no wonder we invented God, if we actually did, because accepting the nature of what we are would lead to a very dangerous world.

I think it's a bit more than that, Will. The physiological aspect is only half of the picture. Our actions, their consequences, and every other bit of input we receive from the world around us is the other half. I guess you could call this half the people playing the Plinko game, shaking it in an attempt to alter or manipulate the outcome, and otherwise operating or interacting with it. As well, there is the gravity affecting the machine, and any vibrations significant enough to affect the results of a game. People are indeed machines, but that doesn't mean that they are easy to predict or control. It is this very reason why we may not see a fully artificially contained human consciousness for many centuries, if not millenia. Still, it's food for thought.

Consider babies. Dirty little parasites that they are, it is no exaggeration to call them miracles. That something so complex and full of potential even exists is amazing. But let's compare a baby to a fully matured human adult.

Babies don't know how to communicate. They cannot take care of themselves in any fashion. In fact, they are incapable of all but the most rudimentary movements, gestures, and vocalisations at birth. Their eyesight is horrendous, their coordination atrocious, their strength is abysmal, their logical thought processes lacking in the extreme. They are for all intents and purposes useless, save for one aspect - their potential to learn and grow.

Without input of any kind, a baby's maturation will be stunted, and they will die relatively quickly. With just the bare minimum interaction and care, they will grow, but fall far short of the standard accepted norm. They cannot survive using only DNA and their innate physiological abilities. They require nurturing to some extent, integration, and teaching. Programming, if you will. Babies are basically blank slates that we imprint with knowledge and experience and beliefs. Only as they grow older and begin to be capable of imprinting themselves with knowledge and experience and beliefs can they become self-sufficient. Likewise, a baby can receive all the care and nurturing in the world from the wisest family, but if its physiological capabilities are limited, it will not reach its full potential. There has to be a balance of the two.

It seems to me that you can still say we are just 'biological machines' and 'the miracle' of babies is simply that we are fragile at the outset so the 'machine' will die without nurturing. The nurturing instinct is just the result of evolution as are so many other attributes and characteristics. Programming is just input from our environment. All programming has to be processed by the biological machine. Some results in immediate results and some tends to find its way into the evolution of the DNA. But it is all just a reaction to the environment.

We marvel at the way the baby develops the way we used to marvel at the way a birds soars on the wind. We now are masters of soaring ourselves and so soon enough we won't marvel at what it is to be human. Instead we will accept it and understand it the way we accept the birds flight.

Jeff250 wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Personally, I think a person is, essentially, the collective thoughts, emotions, convictions, and memories within each individual. They are ideas. Concepts. One could argue they are the electrical and chemical signals racing around within the brain, but I don't quite think that's it. I think they are the things represented by those signals.

What do you mean by "within each individual"? I'm worried you're begging the question! For instance, if I wrote all of my collective thoughts, convictions, and memories down into a book, that book isn't a person, is it?

I believe that a person is a certain kind of stream of consciousness. For instance, I believe that cryonics cannot be used to preserve someone's life. The guy who goes in dies once his stream of consciousness is completely eliminated, and then a new guy comes out when that body is resuscitated and presumably a new stream of consciousness begins. Would you be comfortable with your body being cryogenically frozen and then resuscitated (assuming that reanimation of your body was guaranteed)?

By "within each individual" I mean to say that your thoughts and feelings and so on, for example, are not part of what make me who I am, although they probably affect it to some degree. In that sense I suppose one could argue that they in fact are part of who I am, although if you're going to make that point then you might as well include the entire universe, and that's not very practical. There has to be some hard limit on where you say "this person, the conscious entity, ends here", and everything else is just influence.

I do actually think that if you were to be able to 100% accurately record all of your thoughts, convictions, and memories into a book, it would (at least partly) be you, in the same sense that people say "so and so lives on in all of us". Of course there's more to it than just the signals in our brains and the data they transfer, but I think that is what makes up the core of who and what a person is. Fictional characters, for example, have no real body or existence in any way aside from the medium within which they are represented, and yet they can have a profound and powerful impact on the readers or viewers, almost as if they were living, breathing beings. I've noticed this is usually more pronounced when - surprise! - the characters are more fleshed out and written more intricately.

Would I be comfortable with being cryogenically frozen and then resuscitated? Absolutely, if it were affordable enough. I don't know that I would do it immediately, of course, as there are things I am in the process of doing here and now, but I wouldn't be too worried about it "not being me" that wakes up on the other end. I hold to the stream concept to some degree, but I think that it can be interrupted without incident, aside from the lapse of awareness, of which you would undoubtedly be unaware. Otherwise you would be a different person every morning when you wake up, every time you are knocked unconscious and resuscitate, etc.

Honestly, I think it may be possible that there is some as-yet undiscovered extradimensional property to us that is at the very core of the sense of self, one that reflexively occupies instances which are compatible with the existence of the self. Do I believe this is the case? I don't know. It's a thought I have considered, but it doesn't quite satisfy me. I think consciousness as perception of a self and of existence is a sort of inversion of the anthropic principle. 'You' can exist in a set of parameters, therefore you do. As long as the proper requirements and conditions are met, there is no good reason for you not to exist. How and when you perceive yourself to be in a particular arrangement is, well. Your guess is as good as mine.

Will Robinson wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:I think it's a bit more than that, Will. The physiological aspect is only half of the picture. Our actions, their consequences, and every other bit of input we receive from the world around us is the other half. I guess you could call this half the people playing the Plinko game, shaking it in an attempt to alter or manipulate the outcome, and otherwise operating or interacting with it. As well, there is the gravity affecting the machine, and any vibrations significant enough to affect the results of a game. People are indeed machines, but that doesn't mean that they are easy to predict or control. It is this very reason why we may not see a fully artificially contained human consciousness for many centuries, if not millenia. Still, it's food for thought.

Consider babies. Dirty little parasites that they are, it is no exaggeration to call them miracles. That something so complex and full of potential even exists is amazing. But let's compare a baby to a fully matured human adult.

Babies don't know how to communicate. They cannot take care of themselves in any fashion. In fact, they are incapable of all but the most rudimentary movements, gestures, and vocalisations at birth. Their eyesight is horrendous, their coordination atrocious, their strength is abysmal, their logical thought processes lacking in the extreme. They are for all intents and purposes useless, save for one aspect - their potential to learn and grow.

Without input of any kind, a baby's maturation will be stunted, and they will die relatively quickly. With just the bare minimum interaction and care, they will grow, but fall far short of the standard accepted norm. They cannot survive using only DNA and their innate physiological abilities. They require nurturing to some extent, integration, and teaching. Programming, if you will. Babies are basically blank slates that we imprint with knowledge and experience and beliefs. Only as they grow older and begin to be capable of imprinting themselves with knowledge and experience and beliefs can they become self-sufficient. Likewise, a baby can receive all the care and nurturing in the world from the wisest family, but if its physiological capabilities are limited, it will not reach its full potential. There has to be a balance of the two.

It seems to me that you can still say we are just 'biological machines' and 'the miracle' of babies is simply that we are fragile at the outset so the 'machine' will die without nurturing. The nurturing instinct is just the result of evolution as are so many other attributes and characteristics. Programming is just input from our environment. All programming has to be processed by the biological machine. Some results in immediate results and some tends to find its way into the evolution of the DNA. But it is all just a reaction to the environment.

We marvel at the way the baby develops the way we used to marvel at the way a birds soars on the wind. We now are masters of soaring ourselves and so soon enough we won't marvel at what it is to be human. Instead we will accept it and understand it the way we accept the birds flight.

Pretty much, yes. What is astounding is how something so small and weak utterly lacking in any capacity aside from the capacity to develop a capacity for things can become something capable of splitting atoms, or defying gravity, or any number of other amazing things we've done as a species. This very astounding thing is what makes something as helpless and run-of-the-mill as a baby so incredible.

Just because something is rather ordinary and/or limited does not mean it is not awe-inspiring.

MD-1118 wrote:[.. What is astounding is how something so small and weak utterly lacking in any capacity aside from the capacity to develop a capacity for things can become something capable of splitting atoms, or defying gravity, or any number of other amazing things we've done as a species. This very astounding thing is what makes something as helpless and run-of-the-mill as a baby so incredible.

Just because something is rather ordinary and/or limited does not mean it is not awe-inspiring.

Yea, when put into that perspective my assessment that the 'bio-machine' could become unremarkable falls away missing the mark by a mile.

Imagine if, at the point when humans developed the capability to split the atom that we also passed a test we will never know about....because that was when the creature that created us, our whole universe in a jar, in his fifth level science class, received a passing grade for his rudimentary life force creation and evolution experiment. And the first bit of evidence we humans will discover toward understanding that, millions of years from now, is when we travel to the far reaches of our universe and bounce off of the inner wall of the jar that his mother put on the top shelf of his closet because she saves all of his school stuff...

ok, Will, it may be a bit early for happy hour.........

Will Robinson wrote:Imagine if, at the point when humans developed the capability to split the atom that we also passed a test we will never know about....because that was when the creature that created us, our whole universe in a jar, in his fifth level science class, received a passing grade for his rudimentary life force creation and evolution experiment. And the first bit of evidence we humans will discover toward understanding that, millions of years from now, is when we travel to the far reaches of our universe and bounce off of the inner wall of the jar that his mother put on the top shelf of his closet because she saves all of his school stuff...

We'd still be pretty amazing by virtue of having accomplished all that we have:

We've split the atom.
We've put a man on the moon.
We've put a permanent artificial satellite and space station in orbit.
We've sent not one, but two manmade probes beyond the heliopause.
We've mapped a not-insignificant portion of our observable universe.

These are just a handful of the accomplishments we've made. And far be it from me to deny the existence we live in and the atrocities we commit. The universe is a cold, dark, lonely, inhospitable deathtrap, sure, and we as a species can be brutally cruel and evil. But we are here, still existing despite it all, and we do in fact have a few good, impressive things to show for it in spite of it all. There's something to be said for that, don't you think?

Besides, if his mother saved us, that means we mean something to someone up there. We matter. Even if it's just a mother's love and pride for her child and his accomplishments.

MD-1118 wrote:This raises an interesting question. If a person is truly this mental data and not their body or anything else, would not a sufficiently advanced AI be a person as well? If you were to somehow transfer this sufficiently advanced AI into a human body, would not they then qualify as a human?

An AI representation of ourselves will have distinctly separate evolutionary inputs. While the first generation may be very similar in consciousness, it will diverge with each successive generation. So no, I would say it wouldn't qualify as human. It may have consciousness, but dogs have consciousness and they don't qualify as human either.

There's some excellent commentary in the comic strip "Freefall" (use the binge speedreader if you're not up to date.) In particular, the section with Dr. Bowman (SPOILER ALERT) starting at strip 2467, and again starting at 2537 (2547 is an *excellent* take on how you handle errors.)

MD-1118 wrote:Would I be comfortable with being cryogenically frozen and then resuscitated? Absolutely, if it were affordable enough. I don't know that I would do it immediately, of course, as there are things I am in the process of doing here and now, but I wouldn't be too worried about it "not being me" that wakes up on the other end. I hold to the stream concept to some degree, but I think that it can be interrupted without incident, aside from the lapse of awareness, of which you would undoubtedly be unaware.

Would you be willing to enter a Star-Trek-like transporter wherein your body is encoded into bits, decomposed, beamed over light to another location, and then reassembled? You would consider the reassembled guy "you" and you would consider yourself having survived the process?

What if we leave out the "decompose your body" step, essentially creating a copy? Is the reassembled guy still you? And if so, how can it be you who wakes up in the other guy when you've been standing on the transporter pad the entire time?

MD-1118 wrote:Otherwise you would be a different person every morning when you wake up, every time you are knocked unconscious and resuscitate, etc.

Although we commonly use the term "unconscious" to describe it, I wouldn't describe sleeping as being "unconscious" if that word is taken to mean that your stream of consciousness has terminated. What we know about sleeping is that when you sleep, you actually transition through different states of consciousness.

Jeff250 wrote:What if we leave out the "decompose your body" step, essentially creating a copy? Is the reassembled guy still you? And if so, how can it be you who wakes up in the other guy when you've been standing on the transporter pad the entire time?

That exact thing happened to Riker in a TNG episode, didn't it?

MD-1118 wrote:...What makes us human?

If you into this sort of thing, the Manga "Battle Angel Alita" tackles this question continually throughout the series. It takes place in a future inhabited by super-intelligent AI, cyborgs with human brains, humans with electric brains, and any other combination you can think of. Been reading it since the early 90's and it's still in production. James Cameron plans to make a movie based on the series.

In the same vein, the Ghost in the Shell franchise (particularly the amazing Stand-Alone Complex television series) does a ton of fun digging into that concept.

Top Gun wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:What if we leave out the "decompose your body" step, essentially creating a copy? Is the reassembled guy still you? And if so, how can it be you who wakes up in the other guy when you've been standing on the transporter pad the entire time?

That exact thing happened to Riker in a TNG episode, didn't it?

Yes it did. It was where Picard and Riker were in a tribunal to determine if Data was sentient and therefore given rights for a sentient being.

I think he's thinking of the episode where Riker got duplicated in a transporter accident, and one of the dupes went on to have a successful Starfleet career while the other was stranded for years on a remote base.

Maybe that one carried more weight in my mind.

Vander wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:This raises an interesting question. If a person is truly this mental data and not their body or anything else, would not a sufficiently advanced AI be a person as well? If you were to somehow transfer this sufficiently advanced AI into a human body, would not they then qualify as a human?

An AI representation of ourselves will have distinctly separate evolutionary inputs. While the first generation may be very similar in consciousness, it will diverge with each successive generation. So no, I would say it wouldn't qualify as human. It may have consciousness, but dogs have consciousness and they don't qualify as human either.

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying here. An AI in a human body wouldn't 'diverge' at all, would it? And the difference between it and a dog would be that, as I said, the AI would be 'sufficiently advanced', i.e. it would have a similar level of cognizance and sentience as a normal human.

Lothar wrote:There's some excellent commentary in the comic strip "Freefall" (use the binge speedreader if you're not up to date.) In particular, the section with Dr. Bowman (SPOILER ALERT) starting at strip 2467, and again starting at 2537 (2547 is an *excellent* take on how you handle errors.)

Thanks, Lothar. I'll give that a looksee today. I'm always on the lookout for good reads.

Jeff250 wrote:Would you be willing to enter a Star-Trek-like transporter wherein your body is encoded into bits, decomposed, beamed over light to another location, and then reassembled? You would consider the reassembled guy "you" and you would consider yourself having survived the process?

I would, yes, on all counts. Is it possible that the 'original me' is somehow disrupted, destroyed, or otherwise dissimilar to the 'me' that comes out on the other end? Perhaps, but I believe that from my perspective, both arrangements of atoms will seem the same, and that it will indeed still be 'me'. This comic tends to take your approach, but it assumes that sleeping interrupts the stream of consciousness. It also represents the man as - despite being 'different' individuals after each 'death' - being fully aware of the lives of all that came before him and having the memories of those experiences and thoughts, which is, as far as I am concerned, essentially indistinguishable from actually being the same person all along.

Jeff250 wrote:What if we leave out the "decompose your body" step, essentially creating a copy? Is the reassembled guy still you? And if so, how can it be you who wakes up in the other guy when you've been standing on the transporter pad the entire time?

This is a little trickier, but I'll try to answer it as best I can. Are you familiar with the Swampman scenario? I think that, at the moment of the copy's creation, they will be indistinguishable from one another save for one difference - spatial location. That one differing factor will then lead to a chain of slowly but steadily increasing differences between the two, resulting in two unique, independent beings and minds. Sort of like identical twins.

I think that the reason the teleported 'Swampman' in the original scenario here, the one where there is no copy, is still 'me' is because there is no other arrangement of molecules and atoms for me to reside in. Disregarding sleep, there are in fact numerous counts of people losing consciousness to various degrees, up to and including comas and resuscitation from bodily death. Would you say that those people are entirely different persons and no longer the same individual that existed in their body before?

I am reminded of the Ship of Theseus here.

Jeff250 wrote:Although we commonly use the term "unconscious" to describe it, I wouldn't describe sleeping as being "unconscious" if that word is taken to mean that your stream of consciousness has terminated. What we know about sleeping is that when you sleep, you actually transition through different states of consciousness.

How much interruption is too much, would be my question at this point. It's not exactly critical to the other arguments I am making, but the implications are interesting to consider.

vision wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:...What makes us human?

If you into this sort of thing, the Manga "Battle Angel Alita" tackles this question continually throughout the series. It takes place in a future inhabited by super-intelligent AI, cyborgs with human brains, humans with electric brains, and any other combination you can think of. Been reading it since the early 90's and it's still in production. James Cameron plans to make a movie based on the series.

I don't believe I've read that one, thanks for the recommendation!

Top Gun wrote:In the same vein, the Ghost in the Shell franchise (particularly the amazing Stand-Alone Complex television series) does a ton of fun digging into that concept.

I am, however, familiar with this one. GITS has a lot of deep, thought-provoking moments, in particular the chapter/episode in which a scientist implanted his mind into the massive HAW206 prototype he had constructed.

Ferno wrote:

Top Gun wrote:That exact thing happened to Riker in a TNG episode, didn't it?

Yes it did. It was where Picard and Riker were in a tribunal to determine if Data was sentient and therefore given rights for a sentient being.

Lothar wrote:I think he's thinking of the episode where Riker got duplicated in a transporter accident, and one of the dupes went on to have a successful Starfleet career while the other was stranded for years on a remote base.

I vividly recall the former, but not the latter. Guess I'll have to rewatch ST:TNG again.

MD-1118 wrote:I would, yes, on all counts. Is it possible that the 'original me' is somehow disrupted, destroyed, or otherwise dissimilar to the 'me' that comes out on the other end? Perhaps, but I believe that from my perspective, both arrangements of atoms will seem the same, and that it will indeed still be 'me'.

I don't doubt that the other guy will think he's you, but that's not enough for your survival.

MD-1118 wrote:This is a little trickier, but I'll try to answer it as best I can. Are you familiar with the Swampman scenario?

It looks like a similar scenario but different argument--I wouldn't argue that swampman isn't a person, just that he's a different person.

MD-1118 wrote:I think that, at the moment of the copy's creation, they will be indistinguishable from one another save for one difference - spatial location. That one differing factor will then lead to a chain of slowly but steadily increasing differences between the two, resulting in two unique, independent beings and minds. Sort of like identical twins.

I have no doubt of that.

MD-1118 wrote:I think that the reason the teleported 'Swampman' in the original scenario here, the one where there is no copy, is still 'me' is because there is no other arrangement of molecules and atoms for me to reside in.

I don't understand what you mean here. When you say 'me', what is the 'you' that you're referring to? I thought 'you' == your memories, convictions, etc.?

Suppose the reason why the transporter erroneously created a copy was because the Romulans have been bombarding your ship with disrupter blasts. After the failed beam out to the planet's surface below, you're surprised when, over the comm, you hear your voice report that he has successfully evacuated to the planet. But before you could hear him finish his report, the Romulans storm the transporter room. Perhaps because you still haven't recovered from the shock of hearing your own voice over the comm, you fail to get off a single phaser blast at the Romulans before they vaporize you.

Did you survive?

MD-1118 wrote:Disregarding sleep, there are in fact numerous counts of people losing consciousness to various degrees, up to and including comas and resuscitation from bodily death. Would you say that those people are entirely different persons and no longer the same individual that existed in their body before?

Even after bodily death (i.e., when one's heart stops beating), one normally continues to be conscious for a while, albeit not fully. Many people even have long and intricate near-death experiences before being brought back minutes later. It's not clear to me that this state of consciousness is relevantly different from sleeping, until the death of the brain. If someone experienced brain death and their brain was, perhaps using futuristic technology, brought back to life, then I'd argue that the resuscitated person is a different person than the original.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't doubt that the other guy will think he's you, but that's not enough for your survival.

Then I won't survive, according to your definition of the word. My definition is a little different, though.

Jeff250 wrote:It looks like a similar scenario but different argument--I wouldn't argue that swampman isn't a person, just that he's a different person.

Again, if there is no original that survives, I think - as long as the duplicate is exact, or at least exact enough - that it will be the same individual.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't understand what you mean here. When you say 'me', what is the 'you' that you're referring to? I thought 'you' == your memories, convictions, etc.?

It does. That is what I am saying. The reason the 'teleported' body houses 'me' is because that is the only version in which my memories, convictions, etc. reside. There is no other exactly similar arrangement of molecules in existence.

Let's say that we have a unique container. Inside it is a chemical compound that is in a very particular arrangement, one that displays a very specific pattern. Now suppose we break down the container and capture the compound within, and send both to a different location, then reassemble the container and put the compound back into it, arranging it the exact same way as before. The pattern should be there once again.

Jeff250 wrote:Suppose the reason why the transporter erroneously created a copy was because the Romulans have been bombarding your ship with disrupter blasts. After the failed beam out to the planet's surface below, you're surprised when, over the comm, you hear your voice report that he has successfully evacuated to the planet. But before you could hear him finish his report, the Romulans storm the transporter room. Perhaps because you still haven't recovered from the shock of hearing your own voice over the comm, you fail to get off a single phaser blast at the Romulans before they vaporize you.

Did you survive?

I would have to say that I am not certain. One could argue that they are both me, and that, in a sense, I did in fact survive. One could also argue that which one is 'me' depends entirely on which body I, the original consciousness that stepped into the transporter, perceive events from upon rematerialising. Do I perceive things from the failed transport out end? Do I perceive them from the planet's surface? Perhaps I perceive them from both! This too is a possibility, and the issue here is that this is entirely speculation at this point because such a situation has never occurred before in the history of the universe, to my knowledge. We have no way of knowing for sure what would happen, one way or another.

But let's suppose for a moment that we have a way of testing this. We set up the experiment, and lo and behold, the scenario plays out exactly as you said. The doppelganger contacts the ship and lets the original know that he has beamed out safely, shortly before the original is overrun by Romulans and killed. I see all of this from the original's perspective. The doppelganger, meanwhile, finds a place to hide while he waits for rescue from Starfleet. So far, so good.

Now, we rewind time (because we can do that in this case, it's crucial for the experiment) and set the scenario up again. This time, however, I perceive things from the doppelganger's point of view, and the original is killed once again. Here is the important part.

If I, in the doppelganger body, do the exact same thing as my doppelganger did when I was in the original body, then I would likely conclude that both the original and the doppelganger are in fact me. If our decisions remain the exact same no matter how much time progresses, then surely we must be the same exact individual. There is also the possibility that whether it is truly 'me' does not depend on the actions of the body at all, and that it merely depends on whether I perceive things from the body. I don't find this conclusion to be very appealing, however, because the actions of the body hinge directly upon the memories, convictions, etc. of said body, and that is the definition of the self with which I am working.

Jeff250 wrote:Even after bodily death (i.e., when one's heart stops beating), one normally continues to be conscious for a while, albeit not fully. Many people even have long and intricate near-death experiences before being brought back minutes later. It's not clear to me that this state of consciousness is relevantly different from sleeping, until the death of the brain. If someone experienced brain death and their brain was, perhaps using futuristic technology, brought back to life, then I'd argue that the resuscitated person is a different person than the original.

I did a bit of poking around, looking for relevant articles and information, and I found this. It makes for an interesting read, but it doesn't particularly grant any helpful information as I had hoped. For example, it mentions that patients who have been pronounced brain dead have been resuscitated, but the possibility remains that these patients had some form of brain activity going on, and were not in fact entirely brain dead. It does, however, mention anesthesia. I find this interesting, as I went in for oral surgery a couple of years ago to have my wisdom teeth cut out. I was administered anesthesia, and it was the strangest experience. As they were dosing me up, the dentist was chatting away, something to the tune of "Now you won't feel a thing, we'll have these teeth out in no time|and we're done." That | symbol? It's meant to represent the smooth transition in his speech and my perception of it. I can't tell you exactly how I am certain, but I experienced absolutely nothing between the words 'time' and 'and'. Not that those were his exact words, but the abrupt loss of all awareness and the seamless transition were quite jarring. Did I lose consciousness in the sense you are talking about? Perhaps not... after all, certain parts of my brain were still very much active. Was I consciously aware of anything, even the slightest, foggiest thought or sensation or feeling during that time? Not a bit. I didn't even register the passing of time. I had to look at a clock to believe it was over. It was as if my mind were an eyeball, and it had blinked.

Our definition of what constitutes consciousness is shaky at best. We do not, cannot know for certain at this time, aside from personal beliefs. But based on my perceptions, as I seem to be the same individual now as the one that went into oral surgery, I think that consciousness - or the perceptive awareness of it, at least - can be entirely, fully, unequivocally interrupted without it changing the individual.

MD-1118 wrote:I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying here. An AI in a human body wouldn't 'diverge' at all, would it? And the difference between it and a dog would be that, as I said, the AI would be 'sufficiently advanced', i.e. it would have a similar level of cognizance and sentience as a normal human.

Transferring consciousness from one apparatus to another is akin to immortality. If that consciousness is self aware of the transfer, it is altogether something different from humanity, for human consciousness must contend with mortality. The source is human, mortal. The destination is not.

Vander wrote:Transferring consciousness from one apparatus to another is akin to immortality. If that consciousness is self aware of the transfer, it is altogether something different from humanity, for human consciousness must contend with mortality. The source is human, mortal. The destination is not.

So if a human consciousness were to be transferred into, say, a computer capable of perfectly simulating every possible input that person would experience in their human body, then it would no longer be a human consciousness? I can agree from a purely semantic viewpoint, but that's about it. It's functionally identical to the previous body. Also, what if the new artificial body simulates aging at a normal rate, and the consciousness dies, as it would have in its original body? Is it still human then?

In addition, your argument seems to contradict itself. If this AI - for the sake of the discussion we'll say that it is indistinguishable from a human consciousness - is transferred once, and only once, from a computer to a human body, it would in fact become mortal, would it not? Would it not then fit your criteria for humanity?

The question is, is the human conscience a separate entity from memories in the brain, a "soul" in other words? Our memories are made up of constantly changing and growing neural connections over the passage of our lives, which would mean that the conscience would normally die when the brain dies. Or here's another idea, does each human start out with an existing conscience that's been transferred from another human who's died earlier, which has lost any previous memories during the transfer, so it's essentially starting out fresh all over again. In other words, the soul is being wiped clean and recycled over and over again? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, if a soul is energy, so why would it disappear once the being died? Religion has all of us going to another plane of existence after death, but why would that have to be the case? Maybe we're stuck here for all of eternity, to be reborn over and over again.

There is sparse evidence of reincarnation and residual past memories that might support the idea that our consciences are separate energy forms from our brains and that they can be transferred from human to human from death to conception. Just thinking........

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/ch ... tlives.htm

MD-1118 wrote:So if a human consciousness were to be transferred into, say, a computer capable of perfectly simulating every possible input that person would experience in their human body, then it would no longer be a human consciousness? I can agree from a purely semantic viewpoint, but that's about it. It's functionally identical to the previous body. Also, what if the new artificial body simulates aging at a normal rate, and the consciousness dies, as it would have in its original body? Is it still human then?

It ceased being human at the time of transfer, and is now a computer simulation. The accuracy of the simulation is irrelevant.

MD-1118 wrote:In addition, your argument seems to contradict itself. If this AI - for the sake of the discussion we'll say that it is indistinguishable from a human consciousness - is transferred once, and only once, from a computer to a human body, it would in fact become mortal, would it not? Would it not then fit your criteria for humanity?

I don't see a contradiction. A simulation of the human condition, no matter the accuracy, is still only a simulation. It is not genuine.

tunnelcat wrote:The question is, is the human conscience a separate entity from memories in the brain, a "soul" in other words? Our memories are made up of constantly changing and growing neural connections over the passage of our lives, which would mean that the conscience would normally die when the brain dies. Or here's another idea, does each human start out with an existing conscience that's been transferred from another human who's died earlier, which has lost any previous memories during the transfer, so it's essentially starting out fresh all over again. In other words, the soul is being wiped clean and recycled over and over again? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, if a soul is energy, so why would it disappear once the being died? Religion has all of us going to another plane of existence after death, but why would that have to be the case? Maybe we're stuck here for all of eternity, to be reborn over and over again.

There is sparse evidence of reincarnation and residual past memories that might support the idea that our consciences are separate energy forms from our brains and that they can be transferred from human to human from death to conception. Just thinking........

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/ch ... tlives.htm

On the concept of human consciousness as energy, here's a link I found a while back that you might find interesting. Also relevant is the TOW article on the matter.

Vander wrote:It ceased being human at the time of transfer, and is now a computer simulation. The accuracy of the simulation is irrelevant.

[...I

I don't see a contradiction. A simulation of the human condition, no matter the accuracy, is still only a simulation. It is not genuine.

Fair enough, I suppose, although I do wonder why you would make such an arbitrary distinction as 'human by birthright', as it were. What is it that causes the consciousness to cease being 'human' upon transference, and do you still consider them a person? A sentient being? Alive? In light of this, I'd like to revisit your previous statement:

Vander wrote:Transferring consciousness from one apparatus to another is akin to immortality. If that consciousness is self aware of the transfer, it is altogether something different from humanity, for human consciousness must contend with mortality. The source is human, mortal. The destination is not.

What if a human consciousness is never transferred in any way, but a scientific method of prolonging life - indefinitely, even - is devised and applied to this person's body? They no longer have to 'contend with mortality'. Do they stop being human then, despite not being a simulation, despite having occupied the same human body their entire life?

MD-1118 wrote:Fair enough, I suppose, although I do wonder why you would make such an arbitrary distinction as 'human by birthright', as it were.

I don't really see it as arbitrary. "Human" has a specific definition. Everything else, is, well, else.

What is it that causes the consciousness to cease being 'human' upon transference

The consciousness no longer occupies the body which it is intrinsically tied to. It is no longer that person.

do you still consider them a person? A sentient being? Alive?

Person is probably a stretch, as that is used to describe a human. Sentient being, perhaps. Alive, if it fits the technical description.

What if a human consciousness is never transferred in any way, but a scientific method of prolonging life - indefinitely, even - is devised and applied to this person's body? They no longer have to 'contend with mortality'. Do they stop being human then, despite not being a simulation, despite having occupied the same human body their entire life?

If we achieve physical immortality through science, I don't know if "Human" would still apply. Descended from homo sapiens, maybe. In my opinion, this is a different ethical can of worms.

MD-1118 wrote:I would have to say that I am not certain. One could argue that they are both me, and that, in a sense, I did in fact survive. One could also argue that which one is 'me' depends entirely on which body I, the original consciousness that stepped into the transporter, perceive events from upon rematerialising. Do I perceive things from the failed transport out end? Do I perceive them from the planet's surface?

I already have to stop you here because I'm already confused. Before, the definition of 'you' that you gave me was you == memories, convictions, etc. Now, it seems like you're falling back to a stream of consciousness position to resolve this, which is what I've been advocating the entire time!

MD-1118 wrote:Our definition of what constitutes consciousness is shaky at best. We do not, cannot know for certain at this time, aside from personal beliefs. But based on my perceptions, as I seem to be the same individual now as the one that went into oral surgery, I think that consciousness - or the perceptive awareness of it, at least - can be entirely, fully, unequivocally interrupted without it changing the individual.

I was also sedated when I had my wisdom teeth removed. When you're sedated, the drug you are given blocks memory formation, which can betray you into thinking you were unconscious (like being in a good black out drunk ), but you were likely awake, possibly even talking, albeit in a stupor (also like being in a good black out drunk ). But I don't find being sedated to be a significant threat to my stream of consciousness, just my memory formation.

Regarding general anesthesia, I have no personal experience with that, but I suspect, given the large amount of people who report dreaming under general anesthesia, that there's more than enough consciousness still at work under the hood so as not to pose as a sufficient interruption to it.

Vander wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Fair enough, I suppose, although I do wonder why you would make such an arbitrary distinction as 'human by birthright', as it were.

I don't really see it as arbitrary. "Human" has a specific definition. Everything else, is, well, else.

What is it that causes the consciousness to cease being 'human' upon transference

The consciousness no longer occupies the body which it is intrinsically tied to. It is no longer that person.

do you still consider them a person? A sentient being? Alive?

Person is probably a stretch, as that is used to describe a human. Sentient being, perhaps. Alive, if it fits the technical description.

What if a human consciousness is never transferred in any way, but a scientific method of prolonging life - indefinitely, even - is devised and applied to this person's body? They no longer have to 'contend with mortality'. Do they stop being human then, despite not being a simulation, despite having occupied the same human body their entire life?

If we achieve physical immortality through science, I don't know if "Human" would still apply. Descended from homo sapiens, maybe. In my opinion, this is a different ethical can of worms.

So for you, 'human' includes the body as well as the consciousness, and only in the form of a natural Homo Sapiens sapiens? In that case you're right, it's not arbitrary. It even makes sense to a degree, but it seems like it defines what a person (or 'human') is by the wrong parameters. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Jeff250 wrote:I already have to stop you here because I'm already confused. Before, the definition of 'you' that you gave me was you == memories, convictions, etc. Now, it seems like you're falling back to a stream of consciousness position to resolve this, which is what I've been advocating the entire time!

If you'll notice, I listed both possibilities. Both could be me, or the 'real' me could entirely be dependent upon which end I view it from. What happens if I perceive things from both ends simultaneously? Wouldn't that make it both a matter of memories, convictions, etc. and stream of consciousness?

It's not that I'm 'falling back' on anything. I'd genuinely like to incorporate your view in this thought experiment and consider it as a possibility. Based on my personal, preconceived notions, I'm inclined to think that both are me, and I sort of hope I would experience both existences simultaneously because that would be mindblowing.

Jeff250 wrote:I was also sedated when I had my wisdom teeth removed. When you're sedated, the drug you are given blocks memory formation, which can betray you into thinking you were unconscious (like being in a good black out drunk ), but you were likely awake, possibly even talking, albeit in a stupor (also like being in a good black out drunk ). But I don't find being sedated to be a significant threat to my stream of consciousness, just my memory formation.

Regarding general anesthesia, I have no personal experience with that, but I suspect, given the large amount of people who report dreaming under general anesthesia, that there's more than enough consciousness still at work under the hood so as not to pose as a sufficient interruption to it.

Hmm. I've only encountered a blackout on that level one other time aside from at the dentist's, and it was from a time long ago that I'd rather not recall. What I mean is, back in my drinking days, no matter how sloshed I was, I never once hit that state of total incapacity of any and all sensory awareness as well as imagination (dreaming, thinking, any sort of consciously aware mental activity). Perhaps this is bias, and I am overstating the importance of these two incidents, and it is indeed a simple matter of memory formation being inhibited. Regardless, it's certainly quite an experience... or should I say a lack of one?

If a body senses something but there is no record or awareness on the individual's part, is it still experience?

MD-1118 wrote:If you'll notice, I listed both possibilities. Both could be me, or the 'real' me could entirely be dependent upon which end I view it from. What happens if I perceive things from both ends simultaneously? Wouldn't that make it both a matter of memories, convictions, etc. and stream of consciousness?

It's not that I'm 'falling back' on anything. I'd genuinely like to incorporate your view in this thought experiment and consider it as a possibility. Based on my personal, preconceived notions, I'm inclined to think that both are me, and I sort of hope I would experience both existences simultaneously because that would be mindblowing.

I think you're attributing some wildly magical properties to consciousness.

The way I would analyze the scenario is like this: when the transporter copy is made, your consciousness never magically leaves your body. A duplicate consciousness awakens in the transporter copy. When you are vaporized in the transporter room, you die when that stream of consciousness is terminated, plain and simple. There's no magically resuming life in the duplicate just because he physically resembles you.

MD-1118 wrote:If a body senses something but there is no record or awareness on the individual's part, is it still experience?

Or a similar question I've been pondering: if someone could provide you your best vacation imaginable at enormous discount (or perhaps even for free) with the caveat that after it's over, you won't get to have any memories of it, is that an offer worth taking? It touches home because, I'd seem to want to say no, but yet, when we die, we won't remember any of this either, so the answer to that question seems to have some consequence for the meaningfulness of life in general.

MD-1118 wrote:...the thing we call human consciousness and the processes that contribute to its continued function and existence are mind-bogglingly complex. I don't think the Blue Brain project - or any other projects similar to it - will result in a sentience anywhere near what we as humans experience, if any. I do think it's a good first step toward the end goal, however. And while, yes, the time and effort required to accurately virtualise every single process that goes toward making us thinking, feeling, conscious individuals will most assuredly be extensive, I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility. With today's knowledge and technology? Undoubtedly. But there will come a day - provided we manage to pull our collective act together long enough to see it - that it will be achievable, I believe.

To chime in here, I believe that a distinction must be made between *simulating* consciousness and *creating* it. I believe that, with a sufficient number of lines of code, consciousness can be simulated with enormous accuracy just like with a sufficient number of lines of code a nuclear explosion can be simulated with enormous accuracy. But if you want to actually blow some ★■◆● up, then you're going to need to split a few atoms. I believe that consciousness has similar physical requirements that can never be satisfied by simply throwing more processing power or lines of code at a simulation, just like there's no number of lines of code or CPU cycles that can turn a simulated nuclear explosion into a real one.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone currently understands the physics of consciousness, but it's something that's going to require attention if consciousness is to ever be created, not merely simulated, in artificial life.

MD-1118 wrote:it seems like it defines what a person (or 'human') is by the wrong parameters. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

It's just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, transferring ones consciousness as you describe would certainly create an entity with many similarities. I just think it would be a mistake to view it as 'human.' Such an endeavor would require trial and error. At what point do you claim success? And isn't it only success until the next error becomes perceptible?

Jeff250 wrote:I think you're attributing some wildly magical properties to consciousness.

The way I would analyze the scenario is like this: when the transporter copy is made, your consciousness never magically leaves your body. A duplicate consciousness awakens in the transporter copy. When you are vaporized in the transporter room, you die when that stream of consciousness is terminated, plain and simple. There's no magically resuming life in the duplicate just because he physically resembles you.

We don't know that though, do we? No one's ever had a perfect duplicate in this universe, and we can't communicate with the dead, so there's no way of knowing what would happen, realistically. That being said, assuming that your stream of consciousness idea is the correct one, then no, there would be no 'magically resuming life' in the duplicate, because it would not in fact be you by virtue of it, well, not being your stream of consciousness.

I don't see it as "magically leaving" your body or "reentering". I see it as spontaneously ceasing to exist and reemerging, similar to quantum tunneling, I suppose. The 'self' exists because all of the right pieces are in place - it's the pattern, not the parts, and if the parts are arranged in just the right way, then the pattern will exist.

Jeff250 wrote:Or a similar question I've been pondering: if someone could provide you your best vacation imaginable at enormous discount (or perhaps even for free) with the caveat that after it's over, you won't get to have any memories of it, is that an offer worth taking? It touches home because, I'd seem to want to say no, but yet, when we die, we won't remember any of this either, so the answer to that question seems to have some consequence for the meaningfulness of life in general.

Holy ****, that is a very good point. I'm not at all sure I'd be comfortable giving a straight answer to that question.

Jeff250 wrote:To chime in here, I believe that a distinction must be made between *simulating* consciousness and *creating* it. I believe that, with a sufficient number of lines of code, consciousness can be simulated with enormous accuracy just like with a sufficient number of lines of code a nuclear explosion can be simulated with enormous accuracy. But if you want to actually blow some **** up, then you're going to need to split a few atoms. I believe that consciousness has similar physical requirements that can never be satisfied by simply throwing more processing power or lines of code at a simulation, just like there's no number of lines of code or CPU cycles that can turn a simulated nuclear explosion into a real one.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone currently understands the physics of consciousness, but it's something that's going to require attention if consciousness is to ever be created, not merely simulated, in artificial life.

The difference here - and this is why I think it should be possible to actually create consciousness rather than "just simulating" it - is that blowing stuff up with a nuke involves actually interacting with the outside world on a different level than thinking does. I can think and imagine and the only real physical effect it has is to shuffle around some electrons and chemicals, which represent the thinking and imagining in the first place. The difference between a simulation of consciousness and actual consciousness, then, would be for the simulation to run itself, instead of being controlled by an external source.

I think the Blue Brain project will be a simulation, and I don't think "throwing more processing power or lines of code" at it or anything like it will necessarily make it a selfaware consciousness. What will make a difference is if the proper input is given to a sufficiently advanced system, much like raising a child, until it reaches a point where it can do things on its own on the same level as a human. If it can do that much, then at the very least there will be no point in making the distinction between 'consciousness' and 'simulation', for one simple reason. Can you prove that I or anyone else around you are selfaware consciousnesses like yourself? We could be simulations so good that you just can't tell the difference. For that matter, what's to say that you aren't a simulation that thinks it's a "real person"? How do you know you aren't?

Vander wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:it seems like it defines what a person (or 'human') is by the wrong parameters. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

It's just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, transferring ones consciousness as you describe would certainly create an entity with many similarities. I just think it would be a mistake to view it as 'human.' Such an endeavor would require trial and error. At what point do you claim success? And isn't it only success until the next error becomes perceptible?

Not all humans are identical, in fact, none of them are. Does this mean that there is only one 'human' in the world, across all of history? Don't many humans, in fact, suffer from 'errors' that differentiate themselves from the established 'norm'? Does that make them any less human than the rest?

Why should it be any different in this case?

MD-1118 wrote:Why should it be any different in this case?

Because the new creation isn't human.

It's probably some sort of defense mechanism I have that inhibits my ability to cede empathy to such an object. I worry about the ramifications of AI, so I refuse to confer humanity to it.

Vander wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Why should it be any different in this case?

Because the new creation isn't human.

It's probably some sort of defense mechanism I have that inhibits my ability to cede empathy to such an object. I worry about the ramifications of AI, so I refuse to confer humanity to it.

Too much time spent in the mines, I'd wager.

MD-1118 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:The question is, is the human conscience a separate entity from memories in the brain, a "soul" in other words? Our memories are made up of constantly changing and growing neural connections over the passage of our lives, which would mean that the conscience would normally die when the brain dies. Or here's another idea, does each human start out with an existing conscience that's been transferred from another human who's died earlier, which has lost any previous memories during the transfer, so it's essentially starting out fresh all over again. In other words, the soul is being wiped clean and recycled over and over again? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, if a soul is energy, so why would it disappear once the being died? Religion has all of us going to another plane of existence after death, but why would that have to be the case? Maybe we're stuck here for all of eternity, to be reborn over and over again.

There is sparse evidence of reincarnation and residual past memories that might support the idea that our consciences are separate energy forms from our brains and that they can be transferred from human to human from death to conception. Just thinking........

http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/ch ... tlives.htm

On the concept of human consciousness as energy, here's a link I found a while back that you might find interesting. Also relevant is the TOW article on the matter.

Now you're referring to "self awareness". Not every being or animal is self aware. So does that trait indicate that there may be a "soul", or is it only a higher brain function? Only those beings or animals with large, complex brains show self awareness, which may indicate that this is purely a brain function. If self awareness indicates the presence of a soul, that would mean that certain higher animals also have a soul.

There is also "sentience", or the ability to be conscious, feel and perceive one's surroundings. That's also a trait that only those beings with large, complex brains can process, which again may only be a brain function and not evidence of a soul. But if this is the second requirement for having a soul, then can we possibly extend those 2 traits into a machine? If that's the case, can a computer be created that has both sentience and self awareness? Would that machine then have a soul? Would we even want to create a machine like that?

tunnelcat wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:The question is, is the human conscience a separate entity from memories in the brain, a "soul" in other words?

[...]

There is sparse evidence of reincarnation and residual past memories that might support the idea that our consciences are separate energy forms from our brains[....]

On the concept of human consciousness as energy, here's a link I found a while back that you might find interesting. Also relevant is the TOW article on the matter.

Now you're referring to "self awareness". Not every being or animal is self aware. So does that trait indicate that there may be a "soul", or is it only a higher brain function? Only those beings or animals with large, complex brains show self awareness, which may indicate that this is purely a brain function. If self awareness indicates the presence of a soul, that would mean that certain higher animals also have a soul.

There is also "sentience", or the ability to be conscious, feel and perceive one's surroundings. That's also a trait that only those beings with large, complex brains can process, which again may only be a brain function and not evidence of a soul. But if this is the second requirement for having a soul, then can we possibly extend those 2 traits into a machine? If that's the case, can a computer be created that has both sentience and self awareness? Would that machine then have a soul? Would we even want to create a machine like that?

I don't particularly believe in 'souls', as such. I think it's possible that the pattern we call human consciousness might have a hyperdimensional energy component that could, very loosely, qualify it as a 'soul' of sorts, much like I think that an alien entity or natural phenomenon of sufficient capability - again, possibly hyperdimensional - could exist that - again, very loosely - fits the definition of 'god'. I dislike using these words, however, as they tend to carry a connotation of mysticism.

There is another qualifying condition for consciousness (in the sense of personhood) aside from sentience and self-awareness that I believe should be considered, and that is sapience. Sapience can be considered wisdom; it can also be considered the ability to act prudently, to reason, and to demonstrate proper judgement.

Will we one day be able to design and construct computers or some other form of technology capable of sentience, sapience, and self-awareness? I believe so. Should we do so? I think we should, yes, if for no other reason than to attempt to further understand ourselves. Would it have a 'soul'? I'm not at all sure.