priscilla_halfbreed t1_iwr7bki wrote
brain of theseus
mafian911 t1_iwrrfmz wrote
/thread
xxEnoqxx t1_iws1fdb wrote
came here to say this, knew I'd be too late, take my upvote.
ronnyhugo t1_iwu1p5k wrote
When are you on the way to your destination? Every step of the way there.
Theseus: Just keep the parts you take off and you have TWO boats.
You can just put those synthetic neurons in a new box (skull shaped box) and end up with the original brain AND the synthetic copy.
Lets imagine this thought-experiment:
Imagine that you sit on a tractor-seat and gradually build a really advanced tractor around yourself. A tractor so advanced it can do everything all by itself, including what your brain can do. The tractor thinks in the way you think and has a copy of all your memories. When you step out of the completed tractor the tractor continues on its merry way. Your consciousness never went anywhere.
OR we could gradually hack off pieces of your body and brain, replacing them with tractor parts. Which would obviously lead to your death gradually, slightly more so with every step.
PS: And if anyone goes "but making a synthetic human isn't like this", yes it is, you just make the tractor parts in the shape of the farmer.
Nastypilot t1_iwuattn wrote
Assuming that synthetic neurons would have the same properties and could seamlessly interact with our organic tissue, then it would not be death.
Our body is a ship of Theseus many times over, your cells function, die, and get replaced with new cells on and on.
Neuron replacement is different only so much that neurons typically do not get replaced once the brain is fully grown. But the process would be no different than the natural replacement of your blood every few days, the replacement of your skeleton every 15 years, or the replacement of your skin every few weeks.
Our thought patterns and electric signals would simply take over the synthetic neuronal cells as organic cells become a minority.
Unless of course, the argument is merely a rephrasing of the tech-phobic idea that somehow human-made things are inherently worse.
ronnyhugo t1_iwuztpm wrote
Scenario A: Replace neurons one by one.
Scenario B: Copy neurons one by one, put keep the original each time.
In the first scenario you simply gradually kill the original, and in the second one you end up two minds.
>Our body is a ship of Theseus many times over, your cells function, die, and get replaced with new cells on and on.
Yes, so some part of your body died yesterday.
>Neuron replacement is different only so much that neurons typically do not get replaced once the brain is fully grown. But the process would be no different than the natural replacement of your blood every few days, the replacement of your skeleton every 15 years, or the replacement of your skin every few weeks.
Yes, so some part of your mind died yesterday.
A few brain cells were added also, but you will eventually lose enough cells to get a Parkinson's diagnosis. That is why it is currently in human trial to replace said lost cells; everyone will suffer from Parkinson's sooner or later.
The first symptoms that can't be ignored tend to appear starting when about 1 in 2 cells in the substantia nigra portion of the brain have stopped functioning properly.
By comparison we diagnose cancer when only 1 out of 37 200 cells in the body are dividing without there being a need for them to divide.
This isn't technophobia, its information physics. Whenever your computer "moves" information, it reads it, writes it in another location, then you either write random information over the original OR you keep the original.
When you "upload" to the cloud, you read the original information, it is sent as signals through wires to a computer that writes it, and then your original information is either kept or written over.
Moving information from one medium to another is a completely fantastical concept that doesn't exist even on a subatomic level. You can't move any mind or even a computer program from one to another, you can only read and write it. Which copies it.
Think about it, how do you make a copy neuron? By taking a 3D photograph of the original neuron. Then you print a 3D copy, and then you have two choices:
- Stick the copy neuron in another new titanium skull. Keeping the original where it is.
- Rip out the original neuron and throw it out in the garbage, and stick the new neuron in its place.
Are you a photograph of yourself? Because that is literally what these copy neurons will be. However they are done, in our universe the information in your brain cannot be moved to another. It can be copied, yes, but never MOVED.
And yes that means as we replace lost cells to cure Parkinson's, we will gradually die, and some gradually increasing impostor will take our place. And that's the best we can hope for. So save those neurons, binge-drinking and blows to the head are bad.
ebolathrowawayy t1_ix0kvqk wrote
A synthetic neuron placed into an existing brain is different from placing it in a fully synthetic brain because the synthetic neuron changes state while it is interacting with living tissue. It may be identical to the neuron placed in the synthetic mind at first, but as soon as organic neurons start sending signals to it, it changes.
I don't think you can create a copy of a mind in a 1-by-1 approach. I think that can only be achieved with a snapshot of a brain and assemblage all at once.
ronnyhugo t1_ix2n78w wrote
The synthetic neuron may change but it doesn't get any of the original neuron's consciousness. The original is either still present with the copy elsewhere or the original is ripped out.
ebolathrowawayy t1_ix512qx wrote
I would argue that whatever consciousness is, it is stored in the collection of states within each neuron. I don't think we're in disagreement, I just wanted to point out that the method of copying a mind yields different results. 1-by-1 could result in a copy if you didn't discard original neurons but the synthetic version would possibly be corrupted (or just slightly different) because 1-by-1 isn't instantaneous so state changes between each step.
ronnyhugo t1_ix51o9z wrote
As long as we agree that the original won't move anywhere, we can probably agree on the particulars of the copy being changed compared to the original. save those neurons for ENS. (engineered negligible senescence) (And even ENS will replace some cells we lost and thus make part of our brain partly an impostor)
ebolathrowawayy t1_ix52hrj wrote
However a mind is copied, I don't think there would be an experience to the mind of being "uploaded" or moved. I would think the mind would probably not even be aware of the change unless the procedure was obvious and the copy would think nothing unusual happened unless they're told they were copied or if the procedure was obvious.
ronnyhugo t1_ix52x5a wrote
The original would go into an advanced MRI machine and the copy would only remember it. The original would still be stuck in his/her/they own brain.
The copy would always think the "upload" worked. As long as the original don't survive the process.
ATameFurryOwO t1_iwu86vs wrote
Fuck I was about to comment that
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments