November 21, 2006

• oh man...
• What's a "spirit" or "soul"? Is it the same as self awareness? In what way?
• Are you really stoned???
• well rpm, this is an interesting question. I'm not in a particularly philosophical mood right now, but I have definitely known people I find it more difficult to believe have any sort of "inner life" or true "depth" than most. generally I have tended to ascribe that to my own snobby "I'm so deep" elitism (I'm so deep it hurts, people. all that angst and artistical yearning. no one understands what it's like..../har) however, I think that as long as terms like "spirit" and "soul" are so completely poorly defined or understood (which I think they are) it's somewhat moot. How can I even begin to create a framework upon which to map the differences in my emotional/spiritual/consciousnessy experiences from those of another person? I don't even know what building material to use, and I certainly don't have a blueprint...
• I do not have a soul.
• But you do have rhythm!
• Sorry, couldn't help it. If you mean people who deal with eveyday life, it's probably impossible to know what anyone's consiousness looks like, maybe excepting your own. People may be too shy or too repressed to show what's going on inside. But, I did take care of a few patients who were not conscious by any definition I know. The one I remember best was a 10 year old whose development stopped in a fetal state. He was the size of a newborn, and at least had a sucking response that allowed him to take a bottle, but do think that was it. You'll never meet him on the street.
• Most people live in a trance. They are hypnotized. I recommend reading about G.I. Gurdjieff. I know this because I live in a trance when I do not make an effort to break out of it. The trance is created by conventional society. We think that if we act an automatic, learned way we will be safe and accepted. Accepted, yes, safe, maybe not. Wake up. Pay attention to your body and your breathing and soon you too will realize how out of touch you are with your emotions and true 'self'. Indeed, most people have many selfs - different at work than with the family than arguing with someone on the highway. Different standards of conduct, essentially different people in one body. Gurdjieff says we do not have a soul - we have to create it. I think this is correct. Seriously though, try to pay attention to the minutae of your life and if you do so constantly a world of meaning will be revealed to you, if only for a few minutes at a time. I'm dead serious. Your observation is right. They do not have a soul because they don't have a self - just an 'I' who gets offended when you talk about politics or religion, or and 'I' that wants a PS3, or an 'I' that isn't as nice when it is hungry or tired. I am the same way with one key difference - one of my me's knows that I have other I's and that to transcend this utter confusion I need to observe myself and forge in the smithy of my soul the unborn consciousness of a single 'me'. Experience the clarity and bliss once. I have and although I don't know how to make it permanent I know I need too.
• Man that comment makes me sound like a brainwashed idiot.
• So yeah they don't have souls, and you should practice vipassana meditation. (Seriously). Forget the seeing form as emptiness for now, just try to observe your ever changing thoughts and emotions as you breathe.
• Oh, and the book "Waking Up" is probably the exact text you need to read. It is by Charles M. Tart, a stanford expert on hypnosis and Gurdjieff. Unless you meant the soul in, you know, less practical ways.
• >>Has anyone (monkeys or noted philosophers) given weight to the idea that some people may be devoid of a consciousness? Wait...some people think other people HAVE a consciousness?!?
• You need to read Descartes. He touched on this. Start with the Meditations. His purpose is much broader, to develop an entire metaphysics, and it's half full of shit, but he's one of the biggies (maybe the first? Fuck, it's been awhile) to look at that question in passing. Solipsism overlaps? Yes, it's the ultimate endpoint of what you're talking about. Bottom line: you have no way of knowing that anyone actually has consciousness/soul/spirit/whatever the hell you want to call it. You have only your perceptions. You can know nothing apart from your perceptions, so you cannot prove anyone else has a mind/consciousness/&c. But what's really going to blow your mind is when you realize that if you can't know anything other than your perceptions, then your perceptions may be all there is, and so it may be that nothing exists (here comes solipsism again), or maybe it's just matter that doesn't exist, but mind does, and our perceptions of matter are just ways for spirits/souls/minds/fuck if I know to interact in a meaningful way that they can process. Continue on in this vein for four years and you will have earned a B.A. in Philosophy. *bows*
• In all seriousness, though, a good study of Continental philosophy during the Renaissance/Enlightenment is what you want to focus on, if you really want to study up on this kind of stuff. Metaphysics was a huge focus in those days, in a way it hasn't been since Kant, so look at, oh, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and go from there. Wait, I think I have a good textbook at hand... Nope. I don't know what goes through my head sometime. Good survey text on modern philosophy I leave at my parents' house in Missouri, but I lug Richard Goddamn Rorty across two states. What a fucknut am I.
• I can think of many people thru history that believed certain segments of the human population to be 'soulless', less than human... but let's not go there. Automaton. Guess many people living in big urban areas, maybe working under high-stress can feel like that now and then. I know I do. You start feeling the days as a succession of dates, whos swoosh faster and faster, banal events punctuating them. You do what you do because that's what one supposed to, because that's what's one has to, being it work, play or social interaction. It's when, like AS mentions, one stops for a moment to analyze our surroundings and actions when that 'soul' might erupt, starts asking questions and raising doubts.
• If you think you may have encountered an automoton just ask it this question: "You are in the desert. You see a tortoise lying on his back in the hot sun. You recognise his plight, but do nothing to help. Why?" As far as your line of questioning go with Rene D. as earlier suggested. Medatations is a good read. It will probably be the longest seventy odd pages you have ever read. Descerates and Bacon founded the modern philosophy movement. If you want to end up doubting everything you have ever learned, check out my personal favorite David Hume, specifically An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
• David Chalmers has been working with the idea of AI, and concepts tangential to consciousness. He'd be a reasonable place to start, rolypolyman.
• Compassion neccesitates that you believe other people, and indeed other beings, are similar to you and can experience suffering. Believing that they have no "soul" (and that you yourself do) seperates you from them in an essential way, and allows you to deny them compassion. Therefore, I believe that adopting a belief such as the one you elucidate is, in fact, morally irresponsible.
• I've always believed that there's nothing special about the state of being alive. Life is a force of nature like the wind and the tides. Our passing shapes the world and once conditions are no longer suitable for us, we cease. I guess it's not the same as being an automaton, but I'd rather equate myself with the wind than a toaster.
• Something as complicated as a toaster did not just come into being one day. Someone had to make it. Do you really think that it 'evolved' from a torch or something? Hmm? When riding on the train in the morning, in my suit and raincoat, either just thinking, or reading, or with the earbuds in, I sometimes come across people who clearly don't identify with the working masses, who may even be looking smug in their difference. I wonder what they think of me in my 'uniform', packed in with all the other suits. I sometimes get paranoid and self-concious - am I a drone? Then I think, "Sod you". It may not look like it, but my inner life is active, and just because I staring into space at that moment means nothing. Once again, my beloved could probably weigh in on the philosophy and psychology stuff, if only she were a monkey.
• Monkeyfilter: if only she were a monkey
• Beeswacky is on the right track, David Chalmers is the guy you are looking for as he coined the term philosophical zombies, he has a whole page devoted to articles on the topic. It is usually used as a method of argument against physicalism, on a basis of mental states and metaphysical qualia. Cognitive Science in philosophy is primarily focused on issues of how consciousness (which has become the successor to soul in this regard) interacts with the physical, if it does indeed exist. For example, epiphenomenalists believe that there is a conscious mind (dualistically) but it cannot interact with the physical world and only physical events may influence other physical events.
• You could go about cutting peope open.
• People, that is. Don't cut the Pope open. His bodyguards don't take kindly to that kind of shit. Not to say that the Pope isn't a person. I just meant people in general. Non-Papal people. The Pope is the Pope, I hope, I hope. And no-one cuts open the Pope, Nope, nope. Because the Papal people come And bonk you on the head! Just Zoloft and caffeine, I swear.
• There is no such thing as "a soul" (in the metaphysical/religious sense) or even "consciousness", per se. They're nothing more than abstractions, descriptions of processes. There's no little man at the controls. "Consciousness" is not a thing, it's a process. The best I can define it -- and, much like "intelligence", there is plenty of contention over the definition -- it's just the process of an active brain working, neurons firing. Now the brain can't work without oxygen -- supplied via blood, oxygenated by the lungs, circulated by the heart. So in that sense, we're all automatons -- just biological machines. "Consciousness" is a subset of "life", which is simply the process of a biological machine functioning correctly. Does your car gain a soul when you start it up? Does it "die" when you turn it off? I think the concept of a "soul" was invented to explain why a lifeless body is, in fact, lifeless. "Gee, he looks fine, but how come he ain't talkin? I guess the little man left the building..." -- when, actually, he lost blood pressure due to an arterial leak and couldn't keep his brain running... and cells left without oxygen break themselves down, making the damage irreversible. Game over. But science couldn't provide these answers way back when, so people invented their own and (generally) wrapped them up with religion. I firmly believe that someday, scientists (possibly using nano-tech) are going to cure death. We'll look back in horror on the days when we just buried great minds in the dirt to decompose. The concept of a soul will be utterly dispelled when the general public starts seeing people that have been "dead" for several weeks repaired and back "alive" again. I just hope the religious world is up for the change. also, puff puff pass, dammit..
• Compassion neccesitates that you believe other people, and indeed other beings, are similar to you and can experience suffering. And empathy let's you know you're right to believe it.
• They're called background people.
• It's funny that this comes up, since the 9 years education I mentioned in another thread here was in philosophy. Honestly, idle speculation aside, is there any serious reason for thinking that other people ... who act pretty much exactly like you ... experience things radically different from you? Sure, it's always possible, but this type of "possibilty" ... mere possibility ... is not really of interest to anyone but the clinically insane. Lots of things not worth considering for a moment are possible in this empty sense. I see that Descartes has been mentioned, but what many people fail to mention and/or notice with Descartes is that the first part of his inquiry ... the destructive part that leads to the possibility of solipsism ... is based on a methodological principle that he is using only for the purpose of his inquiry. He isn't asserting that 100% certainty is a principle we should be following in everyday life. You essentially cannot get a plausible version of skepticism going without assuming some truly outdated and ridiculously false version of empiricism.
• Shameless self-post.
• Ah, come on, what am I going to do, type it all out again?
• Nice bit o' writing, pleggers, and self-illustrated too, I see. I'm surprised at what a relatively high percentage of former Philosophy students there are here! Me too.
• I firmly believe that someday, scientists (possibly using nano-tech) are going to cure death.... I just hope the religious world is up for the change. Froget religion, what about the impact on society and the environment? How would immortal people sustain themselves, or if they were only to be a certain, 'select, worthy' few, who gets to choose?
• I'm surprised at what a relatively high percentage of former Philosophy students there are here! What the hell else are they going to do?!
• Heh. Heh-heh-heh. Bwa-hah-ha-ha-HA! *sob*
• what about the impact on society and the environment? How would immortal people sustain themselves, or if they were only to be a certain, 'select, worthy' few, who gets to choose? Strangely enough, I very much enjoyed the exploration of these concepts in the {red,green,blue} Mars novels by Kim Stanley Robinson. What does a relationship between individuals look like when the relationship lasts for centuries? A small theme in the book is the impact of the life-prolonging treatment on those who can't afford it in the Third World, for example -- since it's a novel, there are revolutions, but anyway.
• Froget religion, what about the impact on society and the environment? Well, see below, but I think the religious implications for the masses would be greater than the environmental (resource consumption) implications. Now societal..., it may well depend upon just how much (more) wealth and power a Bill Gates type character could amass, given a few hundred more years, and what that person's intentions may be for the rest of us... How would immortal people sustain themselves, or if they were only to be a certain, 'select, worthy' few, who gets to choose? Prolly like everything else: money. I imagine the "death immunization" would be hella expensive if it's a nanotechnology. So, for better or worse (probably worse), multi-billionaires with their sights set on immortality would be the first to get the treatment. A little background: Of course, when a human (okay, animal) cell stops receiving oxygen anymore, it stops working and shuts down. As I understand it -- and this is where I'm a little hazy -- at this point, enzymes then physically break the cell down, so that even if oxygen were restored, the cell is damaged and won't work. My idea is that if we could disable these enzymes, then oxygen deprivation need only temporarily disable cell function, causing no permanent/irreversible damage. Restore the oxygen, and everything cranks right back up. So it really is a limited form of "immortality", not a total "cure" for death, and wouldn't systemically address aging at all. If you die of asphyxiation, no worries -- we'll just jumpstart ya. If you get a stake through the heart, yeah we can fix that, though it might take a few weeks to procure a replacement heart -- maybe biological, maybe mechanical. If you get thrown in a wood-chipper, melted by acid, or consumed by fire, you're outta luck. As for aging, well there's nothing stopping that at a cellular level. Skin will still wrinkle (fixed by plastic surgery), arteries will still harden (nanites may help here?), and organs will still need to be replaced as they fail. You might be able to extend a life another 100-200 years, but indeed they might end up looking like a geriatric Frankenstein's monster. I, for one, think a cure for aging will be harder than a cure for death. (I smell a sci-fi novel...!) The real "immortality" will come when we transcend our human bodies, dumping our brain states ("souls", if you will) into a computer matrix, making the Real World mostly irrelevant for most "people". This would have the side effect of solving the resource consumption issue, as it takes less to sustain a 1.8TB cluster than an organic human body. And, yeah, The Matrix freaked me out, cuz I had thought of all that before, sans kung fu shoot 'em up scenes. The first "pod" scene, where Neo wakes up in the real world and the camera pans back to show the many racks of pods... I had seen that same scene a hundred times in my head, although it more electronic & mechanical and less organic in my version. SERIOUSLY weirded me out to see it on the big screen. I like my justification -- resource conservation -- much better than the "humans are batteries" explanation. It means we did this to ourselves -- we put ourselves in the Matrix!! / not a psychologist, just a humble coder...
• ...er, philosopher. Ahem. Whatever.
• but indeed they might end up looking like a geriatric Frankenstein's monster. There's a character in W. Gibson's 'Count Zero', a mega-tycoon that ends up 'surviving' as a net-based presence, while his cancer-ridden body keeps sprawling into a trailer-sized mass kept alive via machinery. Not something I'd like to experience at all...
• Well, I'll tell you one thing: if you can convince enough people that you've identified these automata, you're half way to instigating genocide. The monotheists and the Marxists used this same technique, and it seems to work pretty well.
• Inconceivable!
• Wow, this has been an awesome thread. Thanks, everyone. It did occur to me that perhaps one tangent to start digging around in is the "Star Trek teleporter argument". In other words, if you teleport the atoms of a person from one place to another, is that person exactly identical? (And hell, what happens if you can somehow have it make a copy?). I'm sure that's been hashed over and over, so maybe I can Google that a bit.
• There were some interesting points about 'downloading' a mind and the consequences of cloning and copying a person on this previous thread, but the subject is ample enough for further discussion.
• I'm reminded of the item that was making the rounds a couple of weeks ago about the idea of a divergence in the human species, leaving a superior race with presumably shiny pretty souls and an sub-species of inferior, soul-less drones.
• So if you believe that God will save you from death, you're a sap with an "imaginary friend"... but if you believe that computers will save you from death, you're a Visionary Transhumanist! Humans have catastrophically altered the climate, all but sterilized the oceans, and launched four and a half global holocausts- all in the course of inventing a way to GET ACROSS TOWN. We'll be lucky if ANYdamnthing survives our attempts to "transcend our bodies". We are meat, and meat only lasts so long, even in the frig. IMHO, of course.
• So if you believe that God will save you from death, you're a sap with an "imaginary friend"... but if you believe that computers will save you from death, you're a Visionary Transhumanist! If you say so. I just enjoy exploring ideas, but I suppose we can get into advocacy, what we *should* do, if you like -- not my strong suit. Humans have catastrophically altered the climate, all but sterilized the oceans, and launched four and a half global holocausts- all in the course of inventing a way to GET ACROSS TOWN. We'll be lucky if ANYdamnthing survives our attempts to "transcend our bodies". Indeed. Which, ironically, may drive the desire to "transcend our bodies" -- to escape an overpopulated, depleted Earth of 100 years hence. Dump our brain states into code, then discard the bodies. Problem solved, only we're all dead -- at least our bodies are. A whole new twist on the concept of a holocaust. But if the simulation is good enough, it is indistinguishable from the Real World (ala, The Matrix). Oooor, maybe the simulation is "heaven" -- a virtual paradise, an amazing Second Life that nobody would trade for reality. If we're code, just states in silicon, we're no longer meat. (Hell, we might be already! It figures, God is a programmer...) Then again, teh nooks will prolly kill us all. Or teh microbes. Or teh gheys. Honestly, I never thought I'd live to be 30, so this is all just gravy.
• I think we are our bodies, and it's a kind of category error to mistake information about us, or about our 'brain states' for us ourselves. It's meat or nothing for us, if you ask me.
• >>to escape an overpopulated, depleted Earth of 100 years hence. Dump our brain states into code, And we all disappear into computers? Which will be built, maintained, supplied with electricity, and paid for how? All mankind draws straws and the one guy with the short one stays behind to pedal the bicycle that powers the whole thing? And then we've traded a perhaps-100-years-long human lifespan for the lifespan of digital recording media and the mechanical parts? And the software which will accomplish all this- will it be a Microsoft product? I'll take my chances out here with the leopards, thanks. I don't want to die any more than the next guy, but in the final analysis I think the desire for more time is just like the desire for more oil- we don't want to have to use what we have thoughtfully; we just want an unlimited supply so we can burn through it with our eyes closed.
• What Plegmund said.
• The real "immortality" will come when we transcend our human bodies, dumping our brain states ("souls", if you will) into a computer matrix, making the Real World mostly irrelevant for most "people". Entropy is a law. Every single aspect of the universe has a finite life-span. Death is no more curable than momentum or friction.
• Plegmund: I think we are our bodies, and it's a kind of category error to mistake information about us, or about our 'brain states' for us ourselves. It's meat or nothing for us, if you ask me. Sure, humans are a lovely collection of arms, legs, organs, etc., arguably all to support the brain (and, I suppose, reproductive organs). If I lose my arms and legs in a horrible goat-related accident, I am still "me". If I'm a severed, disembodied head, kept alive by some amazing future-medical support system of blood pumps and artificial lungs, is that still "me"? I'd say so; you may disagree. If I am a brain in a jar that communicates via Hawking-esque computer voice, it may not look like me anymore, but there's still all my thoughts and ideas there. What if the brain was transplanted into a perfect replica of my original body? What's the difference between a brain in a jar and a circuit board? Why the hard distinction between carbon-based life ("meat") and silicon-based life if the silicon can run the program of "me" exactly right? Stan: And we all disappear into computers? Which will be built, maintained, supplied with electricity, and paid for how? Old sci-fi standby: cold fusion. Haha, I kid... But I do think it'd take way less energy to maintain software images of our brain states than to maintain our meat bodies and shuttle them about. Buildings, transportation, cities, farms... all obsolete. Hell, solar power on all that unused space might be enough. It's certainly a part of the story to explore! And then we've traded a perhaps-100-years-long human lifespan for the lifespan of digital recording media and the mechanical parts? Well, assuming solid state storage, no moving parts. Besides, if one component fails, replace it and restore the brain state from backup. I think we could keep a piece of software "alive" for several hundred years if properly motivated. And the software which will accomplish all this- will it be a Microsoft product? Na, linux. ;o) All mankind draws straws and the one guy with the short one stays behind to pedal the bicycle that powers the whole thing? ... I'll take my chances out here with the leopards, thanks. You just answered your own question. There'd be some sort of balance -- many people would welcome the idyllic virtual world, but many would prefer the now less-crowded actual world. Of course, they'd be kept in line and supporting the Matrix by virtually-controlled mech warriors... (But, really, that's a good question -- why *would* they maintain the Matrix? Coercion? Self-preservation? Money??) Actually, a central plot element to my book idea is that a certain number of people don't want to be placed into the "artificial heaven" (it's mandatory, For the Good of Humanity, doncha know) and actively fight it, forming a small resistance movement. So, FWIW, you are the hero in my book idea. Yes, I think I'll name him Stan. The bat is his side-kick and smokes a lot of weed. The kids will love him. Nickdanger: Entropy is a law. Every single aspect of the universe has a finite life-span. Death is no more curable than momentum or friction. Indeed, the universe itself presumably has a finite lifespan, if several trillion years. But friction can be reduced, to great effect, and life-spans have already been extended far beyond what they were several hundred years ago. Is extending a life another hundred, another thousand, or another hundred-thousand years trivial simply because it's still finite? Also, consider that with fast enough processors, you could live many lifetimes in the space of a year of real time. How about "cure death as we know it"? (By destroying life as we know it!)
• How about "cure death as we know it"? (By destroying life as we know it!) Well, there's your problem right there. You don't extend a book's length into the infinite just because you stop reading on the second to last page and decide to play video games instead. All you're doing is distracting yourself from the inevitable.
• Nickdanger: Well, there's your problem right there. You don't extend a book's length into the infinite just because you stop reading on the second to last page and decide to play video games instead. All you're doing is distracting yourself from the inevitable. So...... 100 years is just as good as 100,000, because they're both finite?? Hell, if death is inevitable, why not kill yourself right now? Not a rhetorical question: why not?
• A country road. A tree. Evening. So...... 100 years is just as good as 100,000, because they're both finite?? As you say, the measures you imagine that could prolong life would "destroy life as we know it". What is that but another kind of death? And really, what is the point of another 100,000 years? See a sun explode, have sex with more people, finally arrange your living room so that its "perfect". . . Maybe 100,000 years and 100 years are just as good. What would you do with the time? It's not like there are victory conditions we just aren't living long enough to achieve. Hell, if death is inevitable, why not kill yourself right now? Not a rhetorical question: why not? Why hurry the inevitable? You're alive now, you will be dead in the future, what profit is there in killing yourself? You'll get there anyway. Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think. Vladimir: That passed the time. Estragon: It would have passed in any case. Vladimir: Yes, but not so rapidly.
• >>What's the difference between a brain in a jar and a circuit board? Human brains manifest human consciousness. Circuit boards don't. Might something like a circuit board someday support something like consciousness? For the sake of argument, sure- why not? But it won't be anything remotely like human consciousness. >>Why the hard distinction between carbon-based life ("meat") and silicon-based life if the silicon can run the program of "me" exactly right? Because you're not a computer program. There may be broad analogies between some of the things computers do and some of the things brains do, but there's no reason to think you could 'run' yourself on a computer any more than you could meaningfully install Windows on your brain. But, more to the point, even if you could create a copy of yourself on a computer that would never fail or run out of power, you still wouldn't BE the copy. Your consciousness would still reside in meat. You haven't have achieved immortality- all you've done is make a computer that wants to sleep with your wife.
• Nickdanger: Whaaa,huh? The reason I may want to live another 100, 1000, or even 100,000 years is the same as why you want to live another 50 (guessing here) -- to experience life. Maybe 100,000 is too much. Maybe you'd get bored after 5,000. Or maybe 500 is all anybody wants. Maybe 100 is all you want. Fine, you have that option. But maybe I would like to fall in love 50 more times or to see my great, great, great, great grandchildren grow up. Maybe I *do* want to see a star explode. Are you a religious person? Do you believe you'll go to heaven when you die? Is not heaven eternal life? Will you say, "no thanks, I'll pass -- 100 years was plenty"?
• Are you a religious person? Do you believe you'll go to heaven when you die? Is not heaven eternal life? Will you say, "no thanks, I'll pass -- 100 years was plenty"? No, I don't believe in "Heaven". Not any human conception of it, at least. Here's what I do believe: Death is not something to be feared, it's not a disease with a cure, it's not unnatural. It's utterly natural and as much a stage of life as puberty. When someone speaks of death as a problem to be solved, it seems to me that they're like the child who doesn't want to grow up. A fear of a change that they can't concieve of, but can't avoid either. Why be fearful of such a thing? Maybe 100,000 is too much. Maybe you'd get bored after 5,000. Or maybe 500 is all anybody wants. Maybe 100 is all you want. Fine, you have that option. But maybe I would like to fall in love 50 more times or to see my great, great, great, great grandchildren grow up. Maybe I *do* want to see a star explode. Good luck with that. I personally don't see the sense in it. A lifetime is a lifetime, whether 70 years or 100,000. At some point you will have to let go. And you probably still won't be entirely confident with the color of that throw-rug. But, even if such a thing were possible, my issue isn't so much with the concept of extending life, as with the idea that Death is an enemy to be defeated, that it CAN be defeated. It can't. And, perhaps paradoxically, I believe it is better for one's quality of life to accept that.
• Stan the Bat: Human brains manifest human consciousness. Circuit boards don't. Who made that rule up? Just saying it's true doesn't make it so. Might something like a circuit board someday support something like consciousness? For the sake of argument, sure- why not? But it won't be anything remotely like human consciousness. Efforts are already underway to simulate the human brain, down to the molecular level. If the simulation is accurate -- and it someday most certainly will be -- it will behave exactly like a human brain, with consciousness being one of its properties. Otherwise it's not accurate, see? There may, indeed, emerge other forms of "consciousness", but when the human brain is accurately modeled, human consciousness is a necessary result. Because you're not a computer program. There may be broad analogies between some of the things computers do and some of the things brains do, but there's no reason to think you could 'run' yourself on a computer any more than you could meaningfully install Windows on your brain. If the computer-simulated brain is accurate and configurable to the state of my brain, then yeah I can "run" "myself" on it. I cannot run Windows on my brain because my brain cannot simulate an Intel/AMD processor. (Bad comparison.) Actually, that's not true. I *can* simulate an Intel processor, just a really, really slow one. I can do math ops, memory ops,... given enough time even paint "pixels" on a "screen" using little squares of construction paper, but I'm so slow that my "simulation" is damn well useless. But, more to the point, even if you could create a copy of yourself on a computer that would never fail or run out of power, you still wouldn't BE the copy. Your consciousness would still reside in meat. You haven't have achieved immortality- all you've done is make a computer that wants to sleep with your wife. See, I think that's arguable. If I make an exact copy of myself, down to the molecule (including brain state -- memories, thoughts, etc.), then incinerate the original -- and I do all this out of your sight -- how could you possibly tell that the copy is not "me"? Indeed how would the new copy know that it's not "me"?? I seem to remember a sci-fi transporter device that created an exact remote copy, then destroyed the original. Same thing, really. But, yeah, I'd make a heckuva firmware for ladies' sex toys...
• LordSludge: Dude, did you see "The Prestige"? Go see it now, you'll like it.
• Nickdanger: Yeah, I've heard about it, and it's definitely on my list. (just gotta find a torrent, heh) Didn't feel comfortable using it as an example, as such, but I *think* the philosophical puzzle is the same as ours. Thanks for the reminder.
• If I make an exact copy of myself, down to the molecule (including brain state -- memories, thoughts, etc.), then incinerate the original -- and I do all this out of your sight -- how could you possibly tell that the copy is not "me"? Indeed how would the new copy know that it's not "me"?? But see, whose eyeballs would you be looking out of when you incinerate the original? It doesn't matter if you can fool me, or even the copy, all that matters is whether or not the orignal you thinks your alive. And you won't. Cause you'll be dead.
• >>>Human brains manifest human consciousness. Circuit boards don't. >>Who made that rule up? Just saying it's true doesn't make it so. Well, just now, it's a statement of fact. Show me a circuitboard that manifests human consciousness. Saying that someday we'll make magic circuitboards that will be alive and aware doesn't make it so, either. I think that's a fantasy that's based on some fundamentally wrong assumptions about consciousness and humanness. I don't think human consciousness is a substance that is separable from human bodies, and can somehow be extracted from them and poured into another container. >>how could you possibly tell that the copy is not "me"? Indeed how would the new copy know that it's not "me"?? I couldn't. The point is that YOU could tell. Making a copy of your consciousness isn't the same thing as TRANSPLANTING your consciousness into something non-perishable. Making an immortal copy of yourself wouldn't make YOU immortal, any more than letting a really good-looking person use your name and live in your house would make YOU good-looking.
• ...not to suggest that you're not good-looking.
• I don't think human consciousness is a substance that is separable from human bodies, and can somehow be extracted from them and poured into another container. No, consciousness is not a substance; it's a process -- the process of a human brain working. I think we're in agreement here. My contention is that someday the human brain will be accurately simulated. And *IF* an actual human brain state can be read in a snapshot (states of every synapse, which neurons are firing, hormone levels, etc.), then the simulated brain could be setup exactly like the human brain. And if the simulation is accurate, it will have the same "memories" as the human, and the same "thoughts" will result for a given input. >>how could you possibly tell that the copy is not "me"? Indeed how would the new copy know that it's not "me"?? I couldn't. The point is that YOU could tell. I don't think I could. Because *I* would be both me and the copy. Don't get me wrong: I certainly see what you're saying, but I just don't think it's provable. Making a copy of your consciousness isn't the same thing as TRANSPLANTING your consciousness into something non-perishable. Actually, that's an interesting scenario: keep the meat "me" and generate a simulated "me". Let them interact in wacky adventures. (Dang, there's another novel right there!) Lemme ask, since (I think!) we agree that consciousness is the process of a human brain functioning: If I make a bit-wise copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4, then delete the original, is the copy still Leisure Suit Larry 4? Or, hell, what if I keep the original. Do I now have two Leisure Suit Larry 4s? Or do I have one Leisure Suit Larry 4 and one copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4? Just call me Leisure Suit Jerry. Making an immortal copy of yourself wouldn't make YOU immortal, any more than letting a really good-looking person use your name and live in your house would make YOU good-looking. Bad example -- the "other" person here would not have my exact memories, thought processes, body (down to the molecular level), loves, hates, fears, nor my legendary schlong that more than makes up for my substandard appearance.
• So, say you make an exact copy of yourself, down to every last little detail, and you don't incinerate the orignal. Are you telling me that now your consciousness would be spread between the two copies? You'd be simultaneously looking through two sets of eyes? That you'd be in control of each body?
• Lemme ask, since (I think!) we agree that consciousness is the process of a human brain functioning: If I make a bit-wise copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4, then delete the original, is the copy still Leisure Suit Larry 4? Or, hell, what if I keep the original. Do I now have two Leisure Suit Larry 4s? Or do I have one Leisure Suit Larry 4 and one copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4? More pertninently, when you play one copy of Leisure Suit Larry 4, are you, in fact, playing every copy ever made? Or are you, in fact, just masterbating to one soft-porn adventure game?
• >>I don't think I could. Because *I* would be both me and the copy. This really don't make no sense to me at all. The copy of you has its own body, its own brain, its own eyeballs- right? Between the you and your copy, there are four eyeballs, and unless we're really sailing off into the land on make-believe, you can only see out of two of them. >>Bad example -- the "other" person here would not have my exact memories, thought processes, body (down to the molecular level), Nor would any copy of you, made by any means. As soon as you make a copy of yourself, it stops being identical to you. As soon as it's made, you're over here, and it's over there. Your perspectives diverge from the first instance of its existence. And how in the hell could it have your 'exact body down to the molecular level'? It can't be made out of the same molecules you're made out of as you're already using them. This is getting a bit silly... I'm reminded of the joke about George Washington's axe. "This is the VERY AXE, the selfsame legendary tool, that the father of our country used to chop down the cherry tree. We had to replace the handle. ...And the head. -But it occupies THE SAME SPACE as the axe that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree..."

• Begin with a function of arbitrary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then, take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness.

  -Prokhor Zakharov, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
• oh, and apropos... this might be worth reading