2 ms·

I think the idea that the brain can be copied entirely is a false belief based on a positivistic worldview. In other words, there is a lot that we cannot know a

I think the idea that the brain can be copied entirely is a false belief based on a positivistic worldview. In other words, there is a lot that we cannot know about the brain and in all likelihood are "locked out of" knowing permanently by virtue of being in the world. If this weren't the case, it would imply that we, humans, are somehow external to reality, which doesn't seem like a good argument to me. The effects of millions of years of evolution on perception are a good example. We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. So, at best, the brain simulation will just be a mediocre imitation, not a true copy. Beyond that, though, I think I just reject the notion that the brain is equivalent to identity. This idea is very traceable to European culture circa the Enlightenment, which to me indicates that it's not an accurate understanding of the human Self. This means that the Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. Side note: I'm not really sure how you're connecting this to my original comment, which was not normative in nature. I wasn't suggesting that "doing away with consciousness" was a good or correct thing, just that it will pragmatically happen. Fact-value distinction and all that.

eterevsky 3y ago
I don't quite get your arguments about requiring us to be "external" to reality to be able to understand brain. First of all, I don't see why you can't study something of which you are a part of. Secondly, even if you accept this supposition, Alice is external to Bob and Bob is external to Alice, so Alice could study Bob's brain and Bob can study Alice's brain. > We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. What do you mean "we can't"? Of course we do know that "something is missing", because we can't build a good predictive theory of how consciousness work. > Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. So you consider a person with an amputated arm a different person, not just the same person, who just can't use their arm anymore?
- keiferski 3y ago
  1. Both Alice and Bob are together in the world. Neither is external to the world itself. My argument is that whatever knowledge we have of the brain, it is almost certainly incomplete, as we only know what we can observe empirically. Ergo, we can't have a complete picture of the brain and therefore can't copy it. 2. Evolution has taken us down certain perceptual pathways. We don't know what other pathways exist. They are "unknown unknowns." Ergo, again, we can't have a complete picture of the brain, so we can't have a perfect copy of it. 3. That's not really a good counterexample to the point I'm making, which is that the act of embodiment is intertwined with the concept of the Self. The idea that the Self developed independently of the body is false. So again, if we were to copy the brain and put it in a digital environment, it would not be a copy of the person, nor would it remain the same, as it no longer has a body. Patterns of thought would change, concepts of Self would change. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ All of these are just various ways of saying that you could not make a 100% digital copy of a flesh-and-blood human being. It would not be the same person.
  - eterevsky 3y ago
    1. I think most traditional approaches to epistemology disagree with you. 2. Doesn't the same logic apply to basically everything else? It doesn't rely on any specific properties of the brain. 3. Replace an arm by a car. Would a person sitting at the steering wheel of a car be different from the same person outside of it? If no, then what's the salient difference between an arm and a car?
  - paulluuk 3y ago
    But then what's the difference between a brain and, say, a rock, in this case? Both exist in this world, and neither is external. Can we therefore not understand or do a full simulation of a rock? Not being sarcastic here, genuinely curious what you think and why. edit: Oh, I think I understand a bit more now: we're not talking about creating a simulation of "a brain", but a simulation of a specific brain, and whether that's still the same "person" as the original person the brain belonged to. That's a very different discussion.

eterevsky 3y ago

I don't quite get your arguments about requiring us to be "external" to reality to be able to understand brain. First of all, I don't see why you can't study something of which you are a part of. Secondly, even if you accept this supposition, Alice is external to Bob and Bob is external to Alice, so Alice could study Bob's brain and Bob can study Alice's brain. > We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. What do you mean "we can't"? Of course we do know that "something is missing", because we can't build a good predictive theory of how consciousness work. > Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. So you consider a person with an amputated arm a different person, not just the same person, who just can't use their arm anymore?

keiferski 3y ago
1. Both Alice and Bob are together in the world. Neither is external to the world itself. My argument is that whatever knowledge we have of the brain, it is almost certainly incomplete, as we only know what we can observe empirically. Ergo, we can't have a complete picture of the brain and therefore can't copy it. 2. Evolution has taken us down certain perceptual pathways. We don't know what other pathways exist. They are "unknown unknowns." Ergo, again, we can't have a complete picture of the brain, so we can't have a perfect copy of it. 3. That's not really a good counterexample to the point I'm making, which is that the act of embodiment is intertwined with the concept of the Self. The idea that the Self developed independently of the body is false. So again, if we were to copy the brain and put it in a digital environment, it would not be a copy of the person, nor would it remain the same, as it no longer has a body. Patterns of thought would change, concepts of Self would change. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ All of these are just various ways of saying that you could not make a 100% digital copy of a flesh-and-blood human being. It would not be the same person.
- eterevsky 3y ago
  1. I think most traditional approaches to epistemology disagree with you. 2. Doesn't the same logic apply to basically everything else? It doesn't rely on any specific properties of the brain. 3. Replace an arm by a car. Would a person sitting at the steering wheel of a car be different from the same person outside of it? If no, then what's the salient difference between an arm and a car?
- paulluuk 3y ago
  But then what's the difference between a brain and, say, a rock, in this case? Both exist in this world, and neither is external. Can we therefore not understand or do a full simulation of a rock? Not being sarcastic here, genuinely curious what you think and why. edit: Oh, I think I understand a bit more now: we're not talking about creating a simulation of "a brain", but a simulation of a specific brain, and whether that's still the same "person" as the original person the brain belonged to. That's a very different discussion.