Comments
marvinthedog t1_iyqav6z wrote
You have no way of verifying that you were conscious one second ago or that you will be conscious in one second from now. The only thing you can verify with 100 % certainty is that you are conscious in this very moment, simply because each conscious moment only experiences its own conscious moment. So what difference would it make wether or not your future you would be physically connected to your current you over time?
Candid-Register-6718 t1_iyquupe 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.
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.
Clean_Livlng t1_iyqk2qq wrote
>You have no way of verifying that you were conscious one second ago or that you will be conscious in one second from now.
But we can hope.
marvinthedog t1_iyql8gu wrote
The previous and next moment most likely is conscious. It´s just that the current moment has no way of verifying it.
/Edit: By the way, I don´t know what the point was that you were trying to make.
Clean_Livlng t1_iyxioar wrote
>/Edit: By the way, I don´t know what the point was that you were trying to make.
That's it's possible that what 'we' are isn't just a brief moment of existence before some 'other' consciousness replaces us. I know that's not necessarily what you were saying, but that it's one of the natural assumptions people make whenever the "We don't know if we're just a moment of consciousness or not" idea gets brought up.
It can really suck to believe that we've just got a brief flicker of consciousness that's 'us'. We can't verify that it's not the case, but since there's no evidence either way we can assume, or hope that it's not the case. If only because this is a comforting thing to believe, and can have positive outcomes.
​
It's the "It could be the case that we don't exist, and there's just the illusion of existing" That by itself would seem to imply there's a chance we do exist, but that's not the experience of that sentence a lot of people will have. Adding "But it's also possible we do exist ad we intuitively thing we do" changes the tone or perception of that's possible or probably people are likely to think is being communicated, even though it's technically redundant.
"Maybe it's possible" has an implicit "Maybe it's impossible" but it doesn't always come across that way to everyone. So there can be value in including the "but maybe it's impossible/possible" so what's meant is explicit and gives a more reliable communication of certainty/uncertainty.
I've written this much because I'm a bit too tired to say the same thing in fewer words.
​
Maybe this is the TLDR:
>"You have no way of verifying that you were conscious one second ago or that you will be conscious in one second from now."
This wording can come across as negative or hopeless. I replied with "but there's hope" to lighten the mood of the impression people may get from the words you wrote. Like guard rails at the edge of a cliff, so people's thoughts wouldn't take a dark tumble down the cliff of despair. Not quite that extreme, but saying "but there's hope" can leave people with a better 'mental 'taste' in their mouth than "This awful (to a lot of people) thing could be true" without "but it could also not be true!" to sweeten it. The sugar is technically unnecessary, but does change the experience of consuming the idea, which itself can be bitter if not phrased in an explicitly cheerful or hopeful way.
Upbeat_Nebula_8795 t1_iysv1oy wrote
there is as much evidence to what your saying as there is evidence against. im no scientist but i would like to stick to the idea that you are just telling people something you heard from someone else. try and be original because i dont believe you really know or believe in what you are saying. as i’ve said no one really knows. i believe i existed from birth untill death. i do not exist in a single second or moment. even if you were right why does it matter if im a copy or not? i am convinced for the past 19 years that i am a singular entity. cant beat common sense so dont fight it
[deleted] t1_iypin7z wrote
[deleted]
DyingShell t1_iyqk0au wrote
Why do you make the claim as though it's true? You literally have no idea if this works or not 😂
cnewman11 t1_iyqtg45 wrote
You've applied no logic to this situation
DyingShell t1_iyqtuah wrote
you have merely applied assumptions, dummy.
cnewman11 t1_iyqw64x wrote
Oh no, a personal attack when unable to articulate a response to refute my assertion. Whatever shall I do?
An Ad Hominem attack used after being told you didn't use logic proves everying I need to know about the validity and strength of your position.
DyingShell t1_iyqyfoh wrote
Haha still you're using assumptions, like please. Gave me a good laugh though!
cnewman11 t1_iyqz1v2 wrote
Alright, I'm going to mute this thread, you're not adding anything here and I'm not going to be continuing to discuss this with you.
You may, of course, respond to get in the last word, if that's what you need.
Have a nice day. Jesus loves you..
Shelfrock77 t1_iyomssm wrote
When you dream at night, you walk around your dream realm with all five senses. Is it really you though?
cnewman11 t1_iyoomxn wrote
Are you being serious with this?
ThoughtSafe9928 t1_iyooyd0 wrote
What? Who knows? I’d rather you provide a direct reason this is correlated to digital copies instead of posing a thought-provoking question, though.
Shelfrock77 t1_iyopj9p wrote
Gym_Vex t1_iypqh9x wrote
That’s a movie :|
You know that’s not real right?
Shelfrock77 t1_iypwi7u wrote
https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Braindance
Nothing is real
Redvolition OP t1_iyoh4vn wrote
Here is the company’s own article.
Their key innovation is using glutaraldehyde for brain preservation. The article is worth reading. They argue that long term memory is made possible not by the electrical pattern of the brain, or any individual neuron, molecule, or synapse, but rather by the overall structure that these constituents form. From the Nectome’s article:
>Glutaraldehyde reacts rapidly with tissue to form a densely crosslinked, stable gel-like form which can withstand major changes in pH, temperature, osmotic stress, and other ordinarily destructive insults. Virtually all proteins and mRNAs can be labeled and analyzed after aldehyde fixation. (…) Taken together, clinical, neuroscientific, and biochemical evidence suggests that glutaraldehyde fixation comprehensively preserves the information that encodes an organism’s long-term memories. (…) Glutaraldehyde fixation is so comprehensive that it allows differentiation between even slight differences in mRNA, protein distribution and nano structural changes at a single synapse, or changes in gene expression in a single neuron. These minor differences are far below the level of physical changes which would be behaviorally observable in a living organism [, and still not interfere with memory preservation, such as ischemia, deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, concussions, anesthetic, MRI scans]. In summary, the signal the nervous system employs to create a long-term memory (robust self-perpetuating biochemical changes at multiple synapses) is greater than the noise introduced by glutaraldehyde fixation (which can preserve even functionally irrelevant changes at a single synapse).
wealT_sla t1_iyric1p wrote
Why are people so negative about this? If it's the only option to reach LEV, I would use it, even if the probability of returning is small.
aperrien t1_iyrul45 wrote
People have strong emotions on this issue, and react vigorously regarding it. In my thoughts, the questions can be summed up like this:
- Are neurons the basis of how our brains and minds work?
- Is the process that neurons operate off of physical, hence mathematical?
- Is the process that neurons operate off of mathematically replicable?
- Is it possible for that process to be extracted from neurons?
If so, brain preservation just seems to be a matter of detail and scale.
Original_Ad_1103 t1_iyurih0 wrote
The ones I talk to about it, who unanimously don't want to cryonify, seem to be morally objected to it, but they don't know explicitly that they are morally objected to it. It's not really morals. It's more like an ill-defined value system that hasn't been examined . Like I've heard "well it's just weird. I mean it's not natural you know." Yeah I do know, the natural thing is dying, which I'm not into.
It just seems like a value judgment because most people don't explore or think about the fact that they're going to die all the time. Like I expect many cryonicists actually do. I bet that most people in our group are thinking oh boy, I don't want to die and I think of that all the time and that's why cryonics is like. Hey, maybe you won't. Yeah, maybe he's good enough for me. That sounds like a pretty good reason to try something that works on other organisms. Sure.
But if you've never thought about that and if you've grown up with either a religious upbringing where there is supposedly a guaranteed afterlife or you are just brought up where you've seen your grandma and grandpa die and then someone when you were younger told you that this is the way of life. This is the natural thing you are born. You grow old and die. Then most people I think have a very permanent view of life and death.
They think all right. Well I'm going to get old and die and there's nothing I can do. And if you say well there might be something you can do. Everyone will think you're crazy because you're speaking outside of their fish bowl.
You're giving someone perspective. What is a concrete reality in their mind? You're trying to convince them that it is a more malleable concept.
As technology develops, it'll become less antithetical to people. You know you couldn't explain what a bullet train was going to be to someone living 200 years ago. They'd be like look. I know horses, horses don't go that fast and you'd be like no no, this is not a horse. It's totally different. This is a new thing. They wouldn't believe you, but now everyone knows what a bullet train is.
Before germs were scientifically pinpointed it was whatever your particular folk story was. There was a demon in you that day or it was an ill wind that made you act a certain way and now we're all like. Oh yeah it's germs.
With death people think. Oh yeah that's death. I know what that is. That's that thing where you stop, it's that solid wall that is inevitable that everything living hits at some point, but it isn't that at qleast I don't think it is. I think it's a series of mechanical biological processes that deteriorate slowly until they cease functioning all together but they don't have to.
Kinexity t1_iypiptp wrote
Why do we have to go over that fact that copy if the brain is not the original. All this "mind uploading" and "brain preservation for recreation in the future" has been proven to be bullshit since it was thought up. It doesn't matter if the copy is indistinguishable from me if the main person interested in me not dying - that is me - has died.
JohnLemonBot t1_iypsknx wrote
Every cell in your body gets replaced by the time it's 7 years old. You're currently a copy of your old self. No reason such an ever changing system could not adapt to a synthetic mind and body gradually. I do not believe that the old "you" would die at all.
Brief_Telephone_5360 t1_iyq50ps wrote
This just is not true. Although there is evidence of neurogenesis in certain areas of the brain, many of our other neurons live as along as we do unless they are destroyed. Neurogenesis is not the complete “replacement” of old neurons for new ones.
I did not know that neurogenesis happened in adult brains at all until I read you comment and went to pull an article to show you that we don’t make new neurons. But I was wrong. We do. We just keep the old ones too.
So thank you.
Shelfrock77 t1_iyq0mf3 wrote
This. Consciousness is “wireless” even though wireless in technical terms is still wired but just invisible to our eye. Switching between one body and the other would basically feel like your switching places with your clone. For example: You change channels on a TV. You break your iphone and that data is still in the cloud (main menu), the same logic can be applied to a mechanical suit that has a brain. Think of the wiring as the membranes, like plant roots, veins . If Siri and Alexa switched bodies, it would still appear to us observers that they didn’t switch bodies. We wouldn’t be able to tell apart once we start putting exoskeletons in sex dolls. We would need a scanner to verify who is human or an AI. Biological clones and Machine clones can very much look alike on the outside, but very much different on the inside.
https://www.livescience.com/27975-human-body-system-the-nervous-system-infographic.html
Observe. The brain and it’s veins ^^^
https://quizlet.com/278967515/shark-brain-and-nervous-system-1-diagram/
Google the animals nervous system you want to see, i’ll post a link for each reply.
IronJackk t1_iyrklvu wrote
Even if it’s not the real me, I would gladly preserve a clone of myself with all my memories and thought processes. Hopefully my clone will thank me one day!
Redvolition OP t1_iyswc76 wrote
Yes, our clones would technically be even more related to us than our own children. So if you would desire mind uploading for your offspring based on relatedness, you should logically desire it even more for a clone of yourself.
Lifeinthesc t1_iypzoi6 wrote
Oh look a company promising magic. I will totally just give them all my money.
[deleted] t1_iyqn0y7 wrote
[deleted]
cnewman11 t1_iyoi4u5 wrote
That's a copy, not me. I'm going to die unless there is a solution to physical aging.