Candid-Register-6718 t1_iyquupe wrote
Reply to comment by marvinthedog in Don't think you will make it to Longevity Escape Velocity? No worries: meet Nectome, the company promising to preserve your brain and memories. by Redvolition
By this logic nothing at all matters.
I agree with your premise that we don’t really have any possibility to verify anything other than something conscious exists.
But your conclusion that continuity doesn’t matter could be extended to anything.
If we can’t verify continuity why even bother about this mind uploading stuff?
Maybe you switched consciousness with a bird today and your memories are just implanted.
marvinthedog t1_iyqy9z0 wrote
All conscious moments throughout all of space and time in the universe matters equally. Don´t you agree?
​
Memory matters because memory is a tool to create value for conscious moments later in time. (You learn something that is usefull later.)
​
If both these are true then how can you arrive at the conclusion that nothing matters?
Candid-Register-6718 t1_iyrbkms wrote
I would not necessarily agree with your premise that all conscious moments matter equally.
To be of relevance (matter) requires some kind of context in wich it would matter.
If you can’t decide what to eat for dinner. Not all conscious moments are of equal matter for you.
Since we do simply not know the greater context of the universe it can’t be known if they are of equal matter.
What you are describing boils down to the philosophy of ethics/ aesthetics in the end there is no definitive agreement on this. ——————-
Your description of memory is build on the assumption that time passes in a linear manner. There is no consensus on this either. Actually the current academic understanding suggests that past and future exist simultaneously. ————
Fazit: there is simply no way to verify anything beyond undefined existence.
I think we can still all agree that some aspects of existence are different from others. Eg a chair is different enough from air to make a distinction.
We can’t ultimately know what a chair is or what air is on a fundamental level.
But we can agree that some things are different enough so we can try to describe the differences.
When you say all moments are of equal important. You can say that as a personal truth.
If you like all moments equally it is your personal belief that is true by definition.
But when you say it as an absolute truth that is independent from you true for anybody.
It is just unfounded assumptions and speculation.
marvinthedog t1_iyrmkhw wrote
>If you can’t decide what to eat for dinner. Not all conscious moments are of equal matter for you.
What the current conscious moment has the most control over, with the help of memory, is specifically the later conscious moments that will cook and eat the dinner. By focusing on increasing value for the specific conscious moments that the current conscious moment has the most control over it will also contribute towards increasing the overall value of all conscious moments in the universe.
​
>When you say all moments are of equal important. You can say that as a personal truth.
My main point is that there is no specific reason why your future moments would matter more than person2s moments, or why person2s moments would matter more than person3s moments.
Yes, from the context of being this current conscious moment in your particular life this current moment has the most control over specifically your future moments so those future moments are this current moments main responsibility. But the fact that something has more control to influence something rather than something else doesn´t say anything about which things matter most in a true sense.
​
>Your description of memory is build on the assumption that time passes in a linear manner. There is no consensus on this either. Actually the current academic understanding suggests that past and future exist simultaneously.
I don´t know what the point is that you are making here. I don´t see how this changes anything.
Candid-Register-6718 t1_iyrpte0 wrote
My point is that your theory is full of assumptions that are not really justified.
Your premise that current conscious moments have some kind of control or significance is build on unfounded assumptions about: -time -free will -determinism …
And more, that are just not justified by any evidence.
I’m not saying anything about the importance of one moment in time over another. Or that some person is somehow more important.
I’m simply saying we do not understand these things at all and your theory is not based on science but rather subjective speculation.
marvinthedog t1_iysgdhu wrote
>By this logic nothing at all matters.
>
>I agree with your premise that we don’t really have any possibility to verify anything other than something conscious exists.
>
>But your conclusion that continuity doesn’t matter could be extended to anything.
>
>If we can’t verify continuity why even bother about this mind uploading stuff?
>
>Maybe you switched consciousness with a bird today and your memories are just implanted.
Even if we disregard most of my value reasoning we have been discussing I still don´t see how you would arrive at the conclusion that nothing would matter.
​
If other conscious moments exist (regardles of whos brain they belong to) isn´t it extremely reasonable to assume they hold value? After all, they are conscious. And if the decissions of a current conscious moment can influence other future conscious moments we can have an influence on value. Ergo things matter.
​
But then you mentioned that I am wrong about free will and determinism or something. And I don´t see what this has to do with anything. If anything that would equally affect both your and my world view the same because then nothing would actually matter in neither your or my world view, if I have understood you right.
Candid-Register-6718 t1_iysp9y2 wrote
No I’m saying we don’t know if it matters and if it matters we don’t know the context for what is good or bad.
Basically that humanity doesn’t know if there is objective morality.
It’s a philosophical question from the field of ethics / value theory.
I wasn’t introducing any world view of my own as much as I was just criticizing your theory about the importance of physical connectedness for one’s mind upload/copy.
We simply do not know the context so we can’t know if it is important to have continuity or if the mind upload would be the same thing. And if it’s not the same thing maybe it’s better to just die and have body decompose back into nature and become reborn in the cycle of life this way.
I’m not saying I know I’m just asking questions and criticizing answers 😅
marvinthedog t1_iysujiw wrote
Ah, I see.
>We simply do not know the context so we can’t know if it is important to have continuity or if the mind upload would be the same thing. And if it’s not the same thing maybe it’s better to just die and have body decompose back into nature and become reborn in the cycle of life this way.
For me, I can´t find any arguments to even assume that the upload, for all intents and purposes, wouldn´t be the same thing though. I would probably be to afraid to do it myself but only for the same reason people fear flying or taking the elevator, I would say.
​
What I have been reading about objective morality and value theory has really puzzled me lately though. I have for a long time thought it was a given that objective value/disvalue was directly proportional to how much pleasure/suffering consciousnesses experienced throughout all of time and space. But during the last couple of years I have come to realize that this doesn´t seem to be the general consensus. This is very puzzling to me :-P
Candid-Register-6718 t1_iyszdvs wrote
As I see it things don’t exist on an exact scale where you can clearly separate one from the other.
But rather a continuous spectrum of existence where everything is connected as one thing but still has different aspects/ properties to it that contain enough information for us to differentiate.
A bit like a color spectrum where the color blue is not exactly defined and might be more of a dark purple to one person but most would still agree it’s a completely different color from yellow for example.
All this to say that in my personal opinion the mind upload would definitely be something different but you could say the same every moment when your mind or the particles that make up your body make even the slightest change. (Like a minimal change in hue could be classified as a different color)
The question is how much different it would be? I think it would be quite a difference since so much of what makes us human is anchored in our biological anatomy. Our imperfections and desires, social, biological or sexual they are very much a product of our physical bodies.
Would we try to keep them somehow or would the mind upload be like a perfect mind free of impulses and vices?
I agree that ethics is a very puzzling field. I have my own theory that might be a bit to long to elaborate here. But I must say that over all the judicial system is doing a surprisingly good job in having a nuanced and differentiated view on ethics, at least in theory. How we differentiate murder from manslaughter for example is quite an advanced level of logic, that I sometimes miss in other branches of Society.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments