3 ms·

Belief that your mind can be moved is a dogmatic belief, if you hold it, seeing as our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it. That isn't to

Belief that your mind can be moved is a dogmatic belief, if you hold it, seeing as our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it. That isn't to say a machine cannot be conscious, or that a different type of consciousness cannot exist.

meowface 5y ago
I'd say certainty in such a belief would be dogmatic. But I don't think it's at all dogmatic (or wrong) to say that in the distant future it could maybe become possible. If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower. I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true. We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information. The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.
parineum 5y ago
Current scientific understanding is inconclusive. You can't prove a negative so it definitely doesn't preclude it.
fighterpilot 5y ago
Why does current scientific knowledge preclude it? Is a simulation of the entire human body impossible in principle, or alternatively is it known that such a simulation won't be conscious?
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Because from our current understanding, the mind is an emergent property of the brain, not some ethereal thing contained by the brain. It might be possible to create artificial consciousness, to find consciousness that occurs in different ways, but to move a human mind out of a brain, as far as we can tell, is impossible.
  - meowface 5y ago
    I don't understand how these are mutually exclusive. Why should it being emergent mean it's absolutely impossible to move it out of the brain? Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    There's a lot of unresolved debate in the philosophy of mind about how the mind might come about from the brain. Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting. So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.

meowface 5y ago

I'd say certainty in such a belief would be dogmatic. But I don't think it's at all dogmatic (or wrong) to say that in the distant future it could maybe become possible. If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower. I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true. We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information. The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.

parineum 5y ago

Current scientific understanding is inconclusive. You can't prove a negative so it definitely doesn't preclude it.

fighterpilot 5y ago

Why does current scientific knowledge preclude it? Is a simulation of the entire human body impossible in principle, or alternatively is it known that such a simulation won't be conscious?

betwixthewires 5y ago
Because from our current understanding, the mind is an emergent property of the brain, not some ethereal thing contained by the brain. It might be possible to create artificial consciousness, to find consciousness that occurs in different ways, but to move a human mind out of a brain, as far as we can tell, is impossible.
- meowface 5y ago
  I don't understand how these are mutually exclusive. Why should it being emergent mean it's absolutely impossible to move it out of the brain? Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  There's a lot of unresolved debate in the philosophy of mind about how the mind might come about from the brain. Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting. So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.