What is Digg?166 Comments
- Brocclibob, on 06/16/2008, -4/+37Wouldn't this be the same as cloning? Because you can't actually transfer your consciousness, you are dead, but to everyone else, you seem the same.
- MacEnvy, on 06/16/2008, -2/+28Who says you can't transfer you consciousness? The point is to slowly incorporate inorganic pieces into your living neural network, slowly replacing them until bit by bit you have your neural "software" running on new inorganic "hardware".
Consciousness is a tricky concept, but I see no reason why it can't be transferred to an inorganic substrate. - KingBunny, on 06/16/2008, -3/+28Umm.. what if you upload everything while you're still alive? Does that mean you can shoot yourself and it "doesn't count"?
And besides, how do you know that the brain wouldn't just be a SIMULATION of you? If it's a computer, it doesn't function like the brain. It would have to SIMULATE brain functions (I assume). Unless it's made of neurons or something.
Humans exist as colonies of 100 trillion cells. These individual cells don't know that they exist. There is nothing special about each cell in your body or brain. It is their arrangement that makes you, you. Sort of like there's no such "thing" as the internet, but we all know it exists. (Where is it?) You are the RESULT of an arrangement of cells, but NOT the cells. (IE, think of the internet) Therefore you are a concept, which is ALREADY eternal. This plan only works to save MEMORY, which is the only thing you lose when you die, and are (temporarily) unable to express your existance with your body and brain. - Eivo, on 06/16/2008, -2/+19Like sitting around at the computer all day?
Or like buying groceries from a store instead of hunting and gathering?
Or like wearing clothes?
Or like driving a car? - hugoguzman, on 06/16/2008, -0/+12Someday "people" (whatever that might be) will look back and laugh, as undoubtedly, this idea will eventually be an outdated and primitive technique.
- deathsythe, on 06/16/2008, -0/+12They would need several TBs of data just for music and song lyrics alone.
- inactive, on 06/16/2008, -0/+11that sounds more like a description of the transporter from star trek.
- merlin5, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10How would we know if we werent already digitized and existing within a virtual reality? Can anyone say...Matrix??
- Andrwmorph, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10I have a policy of never saying never.
- Risingashes, on 06/16/2008, -8/+17Even if you copy your memories on to a computer, and program it so that it acts 100% like you- that does not mean that it is you.
We are a complex interaction of chemicals and organs. Once those organs die: so do we. If you can exist both in electronics and in organics simultaneously then you have failed. A 'you' flavoured cyborg is not you, a 'you' flavoured cyborg is a 'you' flavoured cyborg.
I am so sick and tired of people who claim to be geniuses who fail to understand the simple difference between imitation and reality. A refresher in magic 101 could sort this all out.
(PS it's the same problem as with cloning yourself without a subsequent brain transplant.) - rawg, on 06/16/2008, -1/+10I think it'd be more like a back up or save point. If only this was available before I saw Goatse or 2 girls 1 cup. God I wish I could unsee it... the horror...
- luckyguy2000, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8if you can do it slow, why cant you do it fast?
- NanoStuff, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8That's an eternal misconception. Many people think that, despite having the same "mind", for some inconsequential reason it would not be the same person, when it's exclusively that very thing that makes you who you are.
It makes no difference whether you change your brain matter progressively or all at once. In either case, everything you were is still there. An epiphenomenal soul would be the worst thing in the world. Not having it gives us the freedom to move our consciousness around as we please, given the technology. - jfsimard79, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8This is exactly what I was going to point out. It's not that you copy/paste and then kill your old self. It's a slow replacement of each bit until you are a transhuman.
- WhenCanIStop, on 06/16/2008, -6/+14"What if they ended up creating a race of elite superhumans bent on enslaving the unmodified masses, or unwittingly programmed an army of self-replicating nanobots that would turn us all into grey goo?"
It beats the current system of creating a race of subhumans, who we put in charge of the country, bent on enslaving the unmodified masses. - ninewhereman, on 06/16/2008, -2/+10Makes you think about Kurzweil's prediction of this working for humans by 2050. Maybe he isn't too far off.
- treedude, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7Considering how big of a role computers have in our lives, does this really seem like science fiction? I have read most of Singularity is Near (still in the process of reading it) and what he talks about does not seem far fetched. It is not like one day you will wake up and be able to download your brain onto a PC. It is a gradual process of integrating computer enhancements with the human brain in an effort to better our intelligence.
We already have a camera that can help blind people to see (not very good, but it is a step forward) by sending information directly to the brain. The more we understand about the brain the more things we will be able to integrate into it.
Also it is not about cheating death, that is not the goal. It is about redefining life. - Risingashes, on 06/16/2008, -1/+8I happen to like life.
Maybe if people didn't believe in the empty fantasy of eternal happiness they would work harder to make living for everyone that little bit better.
No one coming back from the dead doesn't lend any kind of validation to there being an afterlife, no one coming back is what one would expect. - hugoguzman, on 06/16/2008, -1/+8Over the years, many have said the same thing about countless other inventions and discoveries, only to have time prove them wrong.
- hugoguzman, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6Let's try it and see what happens before you dismiss it impossible.
- Demener, on 06/16/2008, -1/+7You seem angry. What would you have to be angry about there champ?
- satyr9us, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6all your brains are belong to us
- Ratteler, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6It all sounds great until the RIAA/MPAA lobotomize You2.0 because you remember all the copyrighted works of your 1.0 life.
Or the government prevents certain other "Terrorist ideas", like belief in the Constitution, Liberty, and Free Speech from being transfered.
Before can we transcend, we must end the tyranny of elitism that will undoubtedly censor our new lives with a point and a click, as surely as they are censoring our current lives with fear and oppression. - luckyguy2000, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6> The point is to slowly incorporate inorganic pieces into your living neural network, slowly replacing them until bit by bit you have your neural "software" running on new inorganic "hardware".
nice argument. i always thought it may be impossible to transfer "consciousness", but your sentence makes me think again. if i can receive a replacement of a neuronal cell and still be the same person, i could also replace them all and still be the same person.
the only mindboggling problem is still: if you can accurately put a brains content and state into a perfect replacement and be the same person... why couldnt you do it a second time? is it a copy? where did your once unique consciousness go in person a) or person b)?
waaaaaaaaah.
sometimes i think it boils just down to the fact that we're different person every second. consciousness is just a lie :D - protodon, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5In the future i believe there will be many paths to choose in order to lengthen your own lifespan and which path you choose will pretty much determine what species/race/class/group/caste you belong to.
- sykopath79, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5So essentially, they want to make Cylons?
After all, all of this has happened before, and will happen again... - NanoStuff, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5"Umm.. what if you upload everything while you're still alive? Does that mean you can shoot yourself and it "doesn't count"?"
As anti-preservative as it sounds, that's exactly it.
"And besides, how do you know that the brain wouldn't just be a SIMULATION of you? "
There's no difference between an exact "simulation" of the real thing and the "real thing". Both are the real thing from their own perspective. Computers are a meta-modulation or reality, not false and inconsequential. Just as the real universe could be a simulation, we'd never know because it's all relative (recursive simulations may be the only thing that exists). Simulated matter in a computer would be physical from the perspective of any being in the computer.
"If it's a computer, it doesn't function like the brain."
There are a number of things you can read, particularly the Church-Turing thesis, that will reliably demonstrate to you that this is false. An abstract summary would be "A turing-complete machine (every modern computer) can replicate any other information system within it's architecture." - nogwater, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6Every night when you go to sleep, you become unconscious. Every morning, your consciousness is recreated in the same meat. You're still the same person even without the continuity. If you woke up in non-meat one day, you would still be you (same memories, same personality, same way of thinking, etc...).
- lejake, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Or the Thirteenth Floor, much lesser known but still pretty good.
- codebuster11, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Wake me up when I can get a copy of Cortana
- PuffyWalrus, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Ghost in the Shell seems more accurate to me.
- inactive, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4lol funny thing is i got this avatar by typing "smiley" into google image... there was no real thought behind it... seems to be working well though
- suntzusputnik, on 06/16/2008, -2/+6you'll just be making a copy of yourself. i see no way to pass on your conciousness in that way.
- NanoStuff, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5If you don't value your life enough to prefer life over death, maybe you should already be dead.
- Andrwmorph, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5Your not invited to the robo-apocalypse.
- inactive, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5Reminds me of the book Altered Carbon. Amazing to even think of this being possible.
- NanoStuff, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4"You know that this copy thinks he's the real you"
If there are two copies of me, there is no "real" me. There's an original perhaps, but both are just as real at that point.
"However he's been put in a prison and is brutally tortured all the time. Do you feel compelled to save him?"
I sure do, although perhaps not as compelled as if it were my particular instance that was in the situation where I would have to save myself. This is merely a flaw of human self-preservation. It works with natural selection but is unsuitable for a world where such evolutionary traditions no longer apply. The human body and brain were not designed to live in the modern world, so I see the compelling incentive to change these defects. - Demener, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4I find it amazing that so many people have such blind faith that they cling to terms like 'humanity' and 'afraid of death' to rationalize ignorance and stand against technological advancement.
- rhartman, on 06/16/2008, -2/+6That's a bit of a flawed comparison, however creative. Your "unconscious" mind is still active and all the parts that make up your "conscious" mind (memories, personality, etc.) are still intact. Nothing is being recreated when you wake up again.
- sotose, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5You'd probably just incorporeally masturbate to porn.
- Demener, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Whats sad is I actually started agreeing with your paranoia as I continued to read it.
- inactive, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4how the hell would you know? get a call from a dead relative recently?
- diablo2032, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3You're suppose to fear the unknown, how do you think humans made it this far? its in our genes
- edwinjose, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3If I am a copy in a machine, I would love to have a precise interface to my mental faculties. For example, I will need orgasms when I want them, and a copy of my first love with a tendency to love me. Then I will re- live my life without my migraines or accidents with her until I die a simulated death (a reset) to re- live that life over and over again with my love.
- thecatcantalk, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the Halo reference...Cortana was a cutie-pie lol
- Risingashes, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4While exponential technology growth is theoretically predictable- upcoming problems such as pharmaceutical patents on base genes and fanatical religious opposition to tampering with life creation will likely have a significant slowing effect.
- renzien, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Suppose there is a teleporter that would analyze your body, destroy it, and then send the data to a new location and materialize a new body there. You seem like the kind of person that would be cool with this and jump right on board.
However, take out the destruction step. Your clone has been materialized, however you (the analyzed body) can't feel what it feels and experience what it does. Why would the act of destroying your body make that any less true? - 1dog, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3How much is this going to cost, and will it only be offered on a infomercial?
- treedude, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4You know this for a fact? Just because that is what you believe, doesn't make it true. No one really knows what would happen. If we could fundamentally create a computer that logically worked the same way as our brain (it is being worked on), who is to say we could not then transfer ourselves to said computer? No one is going to know until we reach that point technologically. So don't just say it is not you. We can replace a heart with an artificial one. It is only a matter of time until we can do that with every organ in the body.
- i4ybrid, on 06/16/2008, -2/+5I haven't read the article yet, but does this remind anyone of Ghost in the Shell?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is