6 ms·

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines su

by mad44 18y ago

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that much of these stuff and very-near milestones stem very much from wishful thinking by proponents. "Rapture" within lifetime, immortality. I think these are still too far-fetched, and I cannot understand how proponents of singularity swear by this timeline with utmost faith. BTW, does cryonics work now?? --- Since Yehuda's body was not identified for three days after he died, there was no possible way he could have been cryonically suspended. Others may be luckier. If you've been putting off that talk with your loved ones, do it. Maybe they won't understand, but at least you won't spend forever wondering why you didn't even try.

yters 18y ago
Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."
- newsycaccount 18y ago
  Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?
  - hassy 18y ago
    would the atoms get concerned if they were conscious?
    - byrneseyeview 18y ago
      Why treat consciousness as a property of brains, rather than as a property that could be -- but doesn't necessarily have to be -- implemented with one?
- gjm11 18y ago
  It was Allan Konigsberg, not Samuel Clemens.
  - yters 18y ago
    Yep, that's right. Bad on me for not sourcing my quote.
- bd 18y ago
  And what if somebody was slowly replacing your real neurons with artificial ones? Start with one chip-neuron, finish with the whole artificial brain. In all steps of the process your "self" being preserved. Credit goes to Stanislaw Lem "Do you exist Mr Jones?"
  - yters 18y ago
    Yeah, that's a bit more convincing. I'm mainly skeptical about the idea of consciousness replication. My statement was meant to show that even if the brain simulation created a consciousness, it wasn't the same as my consciousness, which would still disappear if I were to die.
jcl 18y ago
I am reminded of a few lines from a talk by Richard Feynman: For instance, the scientific article may say, "The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of the rat decreases to one-half in a period of two weeks." Now what does that mean? It means that phosphorus that is in the brain of a rat -- and also in mine, and yours -- is not the same phosphorus as it was two weeks ago. It means the atoms that are in the brain are being replaced: the ones that were there before have gone away. So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week's potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago -- a mind which has long ago been replaced. To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out -- there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday. I found this fascinating: what we are is patterns. We have a built-in desire to extend the patterns for as long as possible, but at the same time we don't want to preserve the patterns in a fixed state, or we would never learn or grow. Simultaneously, we are part of larger patterns which -- like the atoms in our brains -- we enter into, subtly alter, then leave. Until we have better ways of extending life, our influence on the larger patterns is the most enduring thing we can have. It is some comfort against the prospect of annihilation, however small.

by mad44 18y ago

yters 18y ago

Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."

newsycaccount 18y ago
Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?
- hassy 18y ago
  would the atoms get concerned if they were conscious?
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    Why treat consciousness as a property of brains, rather than as a property that could be -- but doesn't necessarily have to be -- implemented with one?
gjm11 18y ago
It was Allan Konigsberg, not Samuel Clemens.
- yters 18y ago
  Yep, that's right. Bad on me for not sourcing my quote.
bd 18y ago
And what if somebody was slowly replacing your real neurons with artificial ones? Start with one chip-neuron, finish with the whole artificial brain. In all steps of the process your "self" being preserved. Credit goes to Stanislaw Lem "Do you exist Mr Jones?"
- yters 18y ago
  Yeah, that's a bit more convincing. I'm mainly skeptical about the idea of consciousness replication. My statement was meant to show that even if the brain simulation created a consciousness, it wasn't the same as my consciousness, which would still disappear if I were to die.

jcl 18y ago

I am reminded of a few lines from a talk by Richard Feynman: For instance, the scientific article may say, "The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of the rat decreases to one-half in a period of two weeks." Now what does that mean? It means that phosphorus that is in the brain of a rat -- and also in mine, and yours -- is not the same phosphorus as it was two weeks ago. It means the atoms that are in the brain are being replaced: the ones that were there before have gone away. So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week's potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago -- a mind which has long ago been replaced. To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out -- there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday. I found this fascinating: what we are is patterns. We have a built-in desire to extend the patterns for as long as possible, but at the same time we don't want to preserve the patterns in a fixed state, or we would never learn or grow. Simultaneously, we are part of larger patterns which -- like the atoms in our brains -- we enter into, subtly alter, then leave. Until we have better ways of extending life, our influence on the larger patterns is the most enduring thing we can have. It is some comfort against the prospect of annihilation, however small.