4 ms·

What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts t

What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation.

TelmoMenezes 7y ago
> What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". Why? What makes you you? Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long That can also be said of the passage of time. Every moment there are forks in the road, and whatever you are is constantly diverging from what you were -- otherwise nothing would be happening to you.
- deltron3030 7y ago
  >Why? What makes you you? My history until now. >Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? It doesn't matter.
  - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
    > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind >> Why? What makes you you? > My history until now. ? > that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation. >> Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > It doesn't matter. ? You seem to be arguing against yourself.
    - deltron3030 7y ago
      >You seem to be arguing against yourself. No, you don't understand that the "you" that is the sum of your experience and history, and the "you" of a clone are different you's. If you die and clone lives on, you won't wake up the next day in the body of the clone, your history has come to an end. Your copy is only like you, but not you. It doesn't matter if you're emulated, because the same would happen to the emulation, a fork of a emulation won't mean that the emulation would wake up in the body of the fork.
      - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
        > No, you don't understand that the "you" that is the sum of your experience and history, and the "you" of a clone are different you's. In what sense are they different? Consider that the molecules that make up a person's body are completely replaced over the course of n years. One decade ago you were a different chunk of matter, but the same person. > Your copy is only like you, but not you. Ok, let's assume you are right. The copy will still be 100% convinced that it is me. How do I know this is not happening to me already, that I am not a "fake" already? > It doesn't matter if you're emulated, because the same would happen to the emulation, a fork of a emulation won't mean that the emulation would wake up in the body of the fork. Organisms wake up and feel whatever they feel. An organism with an exact copy of my memories and processes will be 100% convinced that it is "me". This could already be happening to me, how could I tell? I am just repeating trivial arguments from an ongoing philosophical discussion that has been going on for millennia. You propose to solve this discussion with authoritative proclamations, but I would rather read your arguments.
satori99 7y ago
> not your actual mind, or "you" Without spoilers, this is pretty much how his story explains it. Yet, many people choose to be simulated toward the end of their natural life span (scanning is destructive) despite this knowledge. Most consider it as a better option than simply being completely dead.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
I've been thinking about this, and I believe with what we know today about neuroplasticity, if you take a multiple-year approach to "uploading" at the end of your biological life, assuming one is able to couple digital and biological neurons transparently enough, there is no reason to believe that the brain wouldn't shift all parts over to the digital as the biological went down. This would definitely be "you". I think the main question is whether we will achieve a sufficiently transparent digital neuron anytime in the next few centuries, and whether your personality would change during the "upload". A more scary thought is, what if we develop human-to-human transfer capabilities long before we develop digital neurons? Then I think it os inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans and transfer to those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some dystopian nightmare. Or maybe it will turn out to be the ultimate version of marriage, if the two "selves" remain distinct in the merged brain.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Hm, the ultimate marriage is not that IMHO. It's some kind of horror movie version of marriage.
- wruza 7y ago
  “Then I think it os inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans and transfer to those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some dystopian nightmare” Depending on how you see it, that already happens by having “a son who will continue my deed”. People give a birth to people, pass down genes, knowledge, viewpoints, behavioral patterns. What you mean is probably that ‘self-aware thing’ that could teleport to a new body. But in fact there is no teleportation, since there is no evidence of such ‘thing’. You could make a fresh copy of your body (or a machine) and maybe copy your brain contents to it, but you will not see from these new eyes. Someone completely un-different will do. Because no soul; sensory gaps define borders between us, your original eyes are still in place and your sad brain is still there. Your copy will be happy that they are alive for yet another century, but it is no different than when someone very similar is already young and happy while you’re slowly decaying. Why not just tell them all your stories and fade out then? That brings us into the situation where dystopian nightmare already exists (it ain’t me, it ain’t meee) and you’re doomed to live in your body no matter what till the death.
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
Our biological you also forks now, I wonder how far down you go before you are not the old you anymore here either. Depending on your viewpoint it could be seconds or minutes or decades.
- deltron3030 7y ago
  That's development and evolution (mutation), not a fork. A fork implies a 1:1 copy, an instance.
Sharlin 7y ago
That is way too strong a claim to make given that we’re still utterly confused about the hard problem of consciousness.
JetSpiegel 7y ago
https://wondermark.com/c1485/ https://wondermark.com/c1485/

TelmoMenezes 7y ago

> What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". Why? What makes you you? Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long That can also be said of the passage of time. Every moment there are forks in the road, and whatever you are is constantly diverging from what you were -- otherwise nothing would be happening to you.

deltron3030 7y ago
>Why? What makes you you? My history until now. >Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? It doesn't matter.
- TelmoMenezes 7y ago
  > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind >> Why? What makes you you? > My history until now. ? > that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation. >> Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > It doesn't matter. ? You seem to be arguing against yourself.
  - deltron3030 7y ago
    >You seem to be arguing against yourself. No, you don't understand that the "you" that is the sum of your experience and history, and the "you" of a clone are different you's. If you die and clone lives on, you won't wake up the next day in the body of the clone, your history has come to an end. Your copy is only like you, but not you. It doesn't matter if you're emulated, because the same would happen to the emulation, a fork of a emulation won't mean that the emulation would wake up in the body of the fork.
    - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
      > No, you don't understand that the "you" that is the sum of your experience and history, and the "you" of a clone are different you's. In what sense are they different? Consider that the molecules that make up a person's body are completely replaced over the course of n years. One decade ago you were a different chunk of matter, but the same person. > Your copy is only like you, but not you. Ok, let's assume you are right. The copy will still be 100% convinced that it is me. How do I know this is not happening to me already, that I am not a "fake" already? > It doesn't matter if you're emulated, because the same would happen to the emulation, a fork of a emulation won't mean that the emulation would wake up in the body of the fork. Organisms wake up and feel whatever they feel. An organism with an exact copy of my memories and processes will be 100% convinced that it is "me". This could already be happening to me, how could I tell? I am just repeating trivial arguments from an ongoing philosophical discussion that has been going on for millennia. You propose to solve this discussion with authoritative proclamations, but I would rather read your arguments.

satori99 7y ago

> not your actual mind, or "you" Without spoilers, this is pretty much how his story explains it. Yet, many people choose to be simulated toward the end of their natural life span (scanning is destructive) despite this knowledge. Most consider it as a better option than simply being completely dead.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

I've been thinking about this, and I believe with what we know today about neuroplasticity, if you take a multiple-year approach to "uploading" at the end of your biological life, assuming one is able to couple digital and biological neurons transparently enough, there is no reason to believe that the brain wouldn't shift all parts over to the digital as the biological went down. This would definitely be "you". I think the main question is whether we will achieve a sufficiently transparent digital neuron anytime in the next few centuries, and whether your personality would change during the "upload". A more scary thought is, what if we develop human-to-human transfer capabilities long before we develop digital neurons? Then I think it os inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans and transfer to those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some dystopian nightmare. Or maybe it will turn out to be the ultimate version of marriage, if the two "selves" remain distinct in the merged brain.

jacobush 7y ago
Hm, the ultimate marriage is not that IMHO. It's some kind of horror movie version of marriage.
wruza 7y ago
“Then I think it os inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans and transfer to those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some dystopian nightmare” Depending on how you see it, that already happens by having “a son who will continue my deed”. People give a birth to people, pass down genes, knowledge, viewpoints, behavioral patterns. What you mean is probably that ‘self-aware thing’ that could teleport to a new body. But in fact there is no teleportation, since there is no evidence of such ‘thing’. You could make a fresh copy of your body (or a machine) and maybe copy your brain contents to it, but you will not see from these new eyes. Someone completely un-different will do. Because no soul; sensory gaps define borders between us, your original eyes are still in place and your sad brain is still there. Your copy will be happy that they are alive for yet another century, but it is no different than when someone very similar is already young and happy while you’re slowly decaying. Why not just tell them all your stories and fade out then? That brings us into the situation where dystopian nightmare already exists (it ain’t me, it ain’t meee) and you’re doomed to live in your body no matter what till the death.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

Our biological you also forks now, I wonder how far down you go before you are not the old you anymore here either. Depending on your viewpoint it could be seconds or minutes or decades.

deltron3030 7y ago
That's development and evolution (mutation), not a fork. A fork implies a 1:1 copy, an instance.

Sharlin 7y ago

That is way too strong a claim to make given that we’re still utterly confused about the hard problem of consciousness.

JetSpiegel 7y ago

https://wondermark.com/c1485/ https://wondermark.com/c1485/