4 ms·

> But what do I do for fun once there? "You" can never be there, so "you" won't do anything there. You are limited to your own body.

godelski 6y ago
This is the thing why I'm always confused why people want to download their brains. It's a copy. So shouldn't we focus on things like senescence? Neural link seems like a middle ground, where you're a cyborg. But when the meat dies you do. A simulation of you can go on in another media but is that helpful to you or just others who would miss you?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I don't know about you, but I would be quite fond of making a copy (or multiple) of me iff it seems that they would have a pleasant subjective experience. It won't do anything directly for the copy/instance of the 'present-me' that would stay in my body, but indirectly it does raise some positive expectations for me. Perhaps it's because of some alignment with our instincts for raising children, perhaps because of some instincts for strengthening a like-minded tribe (what could be more like-minded than a copy of you), perhaps for some other reason I don't understand, but the feeling certainly is there that I would prefer having some additional instances/copies of me existing in the universe. It's not very strong, certainly not on the strength of self-preservation or preventing harm to my loved ones, not a strong desire but more like a preference - but still positive, like, I'd do that if it doesn't cost too much. On the other hand, e.g. sharing half of my wealth or half of the time with my spouse would definitely be too much, so probably that would be a sufficient reason not to make copies unless they'd be living in a virtual world wher they could get the things they want without a need for scarce resources - which raises the question whether copies of me would actually have a pleasant subjective experience given these constraints.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- XorNot 6y ago
  A copy doesn't know it's a copy though. Your subjective experience of continuous consciousness doesn't really exist - this is most notable under general anesthetic (even people who report dreams - don't have them - you dream in the moments you're awakening, not while you're under). Sleep is the same - you only dream in the minutes of the morning, not through the night - not through deep sleep. How would a copy know the difference? You lie down on a bed, are put under, and wake up - the copy having been made. How do you know you're not the copy? How do you know which one woke up?
  - godelski 6y ago
    > you only dream in the minutes of the morning, not through the night This is just absolutely false. You can even easily prove it, keep a dream journal. Besides, the simulation is still running on your wetware. It is as much you as your daily activities. > How would a copy know the difference? That's not what matters to me, what matters to me is that YOU know the difference. Why upload yourself into a universal paradise if YOU don't get to experience it. Realistically what happens is you get uploaded, a copy of you is running around in that paradise AND you with your wetware just git to sit and watch in envy. Sure, the copy is in paradise and doesn't know any difference. Doesn't change the fact that there's a being watching in envy.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      This is just absolutely false. You can even easily prove it, keep a dream journal. No, it’s true. Your memory of having dreamed all night is actually constructed moments before you awake. You are not aware of this, because you are asleep but EEG has proved it.
wruza 6y ago
There is no "you". All this subthread is welcome to the observer problem¹ anxiety. ¹ Don't google, it has many names but this one is actively used in quantum physics. If someone knows a proper name for it, please comment.
- warrenpj 6y ago
  Quoting Wikipedia: >In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
  - wruza 6y ago
    I think it is more along the lines of "atman is brahman", when considering hindu things.
- antonvs 6y ago
  You may be thinking of the quantum "observer effect." But that doesn't say observers don't exist - on the contrary, it assumes the existence of observers. It is about how the act of observing has an effect on the system being observed - e.g. to see, your eye absorbs photons which are transformed during that process. There's also the somewhat related "measurement problem." This one calls into question what it means to be an observer, so that may be what you're really thinking of. The measurement problem is about how a quantum system changes from being in a state of superposition with no single defined state, to having a single state. In some quantum interpretations, this is considered to be a consequence of "observation" or "measurement," but that only raises the question of what it means to measure or observe something. This does not, in and of itself, mean "there is no you." In fact it's the opposite in some interpretations, the existence of observers is assumed. The conclusion that "there is no you" requires imposing an additional philosophical perspective.
ghkbrew 6y ago
That entirely depends on how you define things. We are each a ship of Theseus[0]. What happens if I slowly replace my organic parts (even my brain) with cybernetics. When do I stop being me? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
- fs_tab 6y ago
  I think this is a question that only you will be able to answer.

godelski 6y ago

This is the thing why I'm always confused why people want to download their brains. It's a copy. So shouldn't we focus on things like senescence? Neural link seems like a middle ground, where you're a cyborg. But when the meat dies you do. A simulation of you can go on in another media but is that helpful to you or just others who would miss you?

PeterisP 6y ago
I don't know about you, but I would be quite fond of making a copy (or multiple) of me iff it seems that they would have a pleasant subjective experience. It won't do anything directly for the copy/instance of the 'present-me' that would stay in my body, but indirectly it does raise some positive expectations for me. Perhaps it's because of some alignment with our instincts for raising children, perhaps because of some instincts for strengthening a like-minded tribe (what could be more like-minded than a copy of you), perhaps for some other reason I don't understand, but the feeling certainly is there that I would prefer having some additional instances/copies of me existing in the universe. It's not very strong, certainly not on the strength of self-preservation or preventing harm to my loved ones, not a strong desire but more like a preference - but still positive, like, I'd do that if it doesn't cost too much. On the other hand, e.g. sharing half of my wealth or half of the time with my spouse would definitely be too much, so probably that would be a sufficient reason not to make copies unless they'd be living in a virtual world wher they could get the things they want without a need for scarce resources - which raises the question whether copies of me would actually have a pleasant subjective experience given these constraints.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 6y ago
A copy doesn't know it's a copy though. Your subjective experience of continuous consciousness doesn't really exist - this is most notable under general anesthetic (even people who report dreams - don't have them - you dream in the moments you're awakening, not while you're under). Sleep is the same - you only dream in the minutes of the morning, not through the night - not through deep sleep. How would a copy know the difference? You lie down on a bed, are put under, and wake up - the copy having been made. How do you know you're not the copy? How do you know which one woke up?
- godelski 6y ago
  > you only dream in the minutes of the morning, not through the night This is just absolutely false. You can even easily prove it, keep a dream journal. Besides, the simulation is still running on your wetware. It is as much you as your daily activities. > How would a copy know the difference? That's not what matters to me, what matters to me is that YOU know the difference. Why upload yourself into a universal paradise if YOU don't get to experience it. Realistically what happens is you get uploaded, a copy of you is running around in that paradise AND you with your wetware just git to sit and watch in envy. Sure, the copy is in paradise and doesn't know any difference. Doesn't change the fact that there's a being watching in envy.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    This is just absolutely false. You can even easily prove it, keep a dream journal. No, it’s true. Your memory of having dreamed all night is actually constructed moments before you awake. You are not aware of this, because you are asleep but EEG has proved it.

wruza 6y ago

There is no "you". All this subthread is welcome to the observer problem¹ anxiety. ¹ Don't google, it has many names but this one is actively used in quantum physics. If someone knows a proper name for it, please comment.

warrenpj 6y ago
Quoting Wikipedia: >In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
- wruza 6y ago
  I think it is more along the lines of "atman is brahman", when considering hindu things.
antonvs 6y ago
You may be thinking of the quantum "observer effect." But that doesn't say observers don't exist - on the contrary, it assumes the existence of observers. It is about how the act of observing has an effect on the system being observed - e.g. to see, your eye absorbs photons which are transformed during that process. There's also the somewhat related "measurement problem." This one calls into question what it means to be an observer, so that may be what you're really thinking of. The measurement problem is about how a quantum system changes from being in a state of superposition with no single defined state, to having a single state. In some quantum interpretations, this is considered to be a consequence of "observation" or "measurement," but that only raises the question of what it means to measure or observe something. This does not, in and of itself, mean "there is no you." In fact it's the opposite in some interpretations, the existence of observers is assumed. The conclusion that "there is no you" requires imposing an additional philosophical perspective.

ghkbrew 6y ago

That entirely depends on how you define things. We are each a ship of Theseus[0]. What happens if I slowly replace my organic parts (even my brain) with cybernetics. When do I stop being me? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

fs_tab 6y ago
I think this is a question that only you will be able to answer.