3 ms·

Maybe. If you had bits of your brain replaced with identically functioning machinery, would you still be you? What if you had your whole brain replaced pieceme

Maybe. If you had bits of your brain replaced with identically functioning machinery, would you still be you? What if you had your whole brain replaced piecemeal like that? What about if you had a prosthetic thalamus or visual cortex?

Cushman 14y ago
Assuming we are defining consciousness objectively as the pattern which encodes my brain state: I would continue to be me through the copying procedure, which can presumably be less disruptive to my consciousness than falling asleep. I would then begin to alter my brain state (without which process I would not be me), and, in the course of time, become something which bears no more resemblance to Me' than any other biological brain does. At this point, the effort of copying my brain state may begin to feel like a waste of time.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  You're missing the point - there's strong evidence that your brain is composed of multiple bits, all working in concert. If, in the future, you get a brain injury and are treated with a prosthetic thalamus implanted with micro-robots, are you still you? Extend that to treatment for memory loss, old age or other sorts of brain damage - are you still you? If it gets to the point where your whole brain is replaced, are you still you?
  - Cushman 14y ago
    I don't think I've missed the point, though it's possible I'm talking past you. I've granted what you're saying-- I don't think synthetic replacement of parts of my brain should alter my identity or consciousness any more than a nap does. But that's a kind of pointless philosophy, because I'm definitely not the same person I was ten years ago, and in ten years I'll certainly not be who I am now. Synthetic replacement wouldn't change that-- if it did, then it would not be me. And if that process were enabled by technology to continue at its current pace indefinitely, I don't think that Me+100years would have much more claim to being Me' than my grandchildren would; both would be radically altered derivative products. It follows that I don't see how a synthetic brain is supposed to maintain my consciousness in the long term more than having children will. Or in brief: I don't see the question "would I still be me" as particularly interesting or useful.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Well, that was the question originally raised, if you follow the thread. A synthetic brain would maintain your consciousness in exactly the same way that a synthetic heart would - by keeping you alive. Perhaps not a bit deal for you now, but if you get an acquired brain injury, or start getting old you might see things a bit differently.

Cushman 14y ago

Assuming we are defining consciousness objectively as the pattern which encodes my brain state: I would continue to be me through the copying procedure, which can presumably be less disruptive to my consciousness than falling asleep. I would then begin to alter my brain state (without which process I would not be me), and, in the course of time, become something which bears no more resemblance to Me' than any other biological brain does. At this point, the effort of copying my brain state may begin to feel like a waste of time.

anthonyb 14y ago
You're missing the point - there's strong evidence that your brain is composed of multiple bits, all working in concert. If, in the future, you get a brain injury and are treated with a prosthetic thalamus implanted with micro-robots, are you still you? Extend that to treatment for memory loss, old age or other sorts of brain damage - are you still you? If it gets to the point where your whole brain is replaced, are you still you?
- Cushman 14y ago
  I don't think I've missed the point, though it's possible I'm talking past you. I've granted what you're saying-- I don't think synthetic replacement of parts of my brain should alter my identity or consciousness any more than a nap does. But that's a kind of pointless philosophy, because I'm definitely not the same person I was ten years ago, and in ten years I'll certainly not be who I am now. Synthetic replacement wouldn't change that-- if it did, then it would not be me. And if that process were enabled by technology to continue at its current pace indefinitely, I don't think that Me+100years would have much more claim to being Me' than my grandchildren would; both would be radically altered derivative products. It follows that I don't see how a synthetic brain is supposed to maintain my consciousness in the long term more than having children will. Or in brief: I don't see the question "would I still be me" as particularly interesting or useful.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Well, that was the question originally raised, if you follow the thread. A synthetic brain would maintain your consciousness in exactly the same way that a synthetic heart would - by keeping you alive. Perhaps not a bit deal for you now, but if you get an acquired brain injury, or start getting old you might see things a bit differently.