3 ms·

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 inj

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.

3 ms·

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 inj

by anthonyb 14y ago

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.