43 ms·

I find it disheartening that this "hyper-skeptical" brand of pseudo-intellectualism has taken hold in certain circles. Suppressing imagination and foresight in

I find it disheartening that this "hyper-skeptical" brand of pseudo-intellectualism has taken hold in certain circles. Suppressing imagination and foresight in favor of a cold reverence to facts is misguided. Creativity and vision (along with need) is the driver of scientific progress; you cannot have one without the other. So dismissing thought experiments and speculation as "meaningless juxtaposition of words" is utterly missing the point of everything that has been accomplished by scientific progress thus far. It doesn't take much of a leap at all in fact to realize that uploading one's consciousness to a virtual world is very plausible. If the meaningful stuff of consciousness is information rather than matter, it is in fact a certainty. Of course, questions of whether you're uploading your consciousness rather than a copy abound, but I think there are solutions to even that issue (which I've discussed here: http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/237qqj/kurzweils_idea_of_minduploading_now_an_integral/cgumytp http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/237qqj/kurzweils...)

negativity 13y ago
What exactly do you mean by "consciousness"? I think the word "consciousness" holds very different meanings for different people. I don't think you're interpretting the word in the same way other people do. Furthermore, after reading the comment you linked to, I disagree with the premise of gradually replacing each organic neuron with a synthetic surrogate. But, hey, if you're into the idea of slowly eroding your central nervous system, and back-filling the tissue with a machine that picks up the slack, I won't stop you. The remnants won't be you though. If we amputate a goldfish from it's brain, and the body continues to be guided by an electronic apparatus, the gold fish is no more. The husk that remains is a grotesque puppet. If, as my parents were slowly debilitated by alzheimers, they elected to supplement their mental functions with computer assistance, I would regard them as I might regard a dead animal that was stuffed and mounted. There is no such experience as climbing inside the circuits of a computer to experience immortality. There is no such experience as slowly disolving one's self into a mixture of microscopic machinery, after which we suddenly blink our eyes and become miraculous robots. We die. The robot blinks, and masquerades as us for the benefit of the living. Nothing more.
- pedrosorio 13y ago
  But if instead of replacing your neurons with "a mixture of microscopic machinery", you replace them with other neurons, you remain yourself (instead of becoming a stuffed animal)? Care to explain why? Because the essence of humanity is in the exact molecules that make up neurons? What if we replace some of the atoms in these molecules by different isotopes? (a common practice for studying metabolism, including in human brains: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22218/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22218/) Does the person remain human, then? Where do you draw the line and what is the reasoning behind it?
  - negativity 13y ago
    Because I have yet to see any product of human effort come close to the scale of complexity that cellular tissues represent. Current-generation electronic systems are very complicated, and convincing "life-like" behavior still seems to be out of reach. Even if we eventually manage to produce systems that engage in sufficiently convincing life-like behavior, that bridges any sort of uncanny-valley gaps, there will still be a confusing grey area between truly sentient Life, and deceptively convincing complex apparatuses which are not alive. Even to reach the grey area will demand large collaborative teams of skilled and talented experts. If breathing life into a complex system represents a challenge above and beyond the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon missions, how will we ever decide who benefits from the fruits of such labor? Are human beings capable of sharing such a thing? These things will not be toys. They would be more controversial than genetically modified foods. If a tissue replacement technology were to be implemented, would it be self-replicating and autonomous? If so, would it possibly be infectious? Or would it be so durable that it wouldn't need to repair itself? Would it's many tiny components communicate with one another? Could the communication be intercepted and disrupted? These are huge problems. Even if one very powerful HAL 9000 system solves all these problems for us, and manages to devise a scheme to mass produce a practical inorganic replacement for neurological tissue, isn't it possible that such an expert system might have an agenda of its own that does not represent lesser human interests like immortality? Wouldn't it require a similar leap of faith to trust in a technology with a purpose that can only be rationalized and not proven? For these reasons, I place my bets on biotechnology, using native human cells, and not electronic surrogates. If I know that I am alive, and that typical organic cells produce this phenomenon of experience, and it's within our reach to manipulate stem cells to repair our brains and keep them alive without any upper age limits, then I'll choose the sure thing, before placing faith in any experimental electronic surrogate.
mjburgess 13y ago
it's not pseudo-intellectualism. It's the result of about a decade of study in the philosophy of mind and computer science. Disheartening is the trading of God for techno-babble to provide the "wonder" necessary to get over your own mortality.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >It's the result of about a decade of study in the philosophy of mind and computer science I would argue the exact opposite, using those very same premises. Clearly more than assertions are required here.
jakobe 13y ago
> It doesn't take much of a leap... Do you have any clue about the current state of neuroscientific research? Scientists are struggling to understand a single neuron, there are no models that reliably predict networks of more than two neurons, and the current state of the art is recording partial signals from a few dozen neurons. "Brain upload" is just the modern day version of the philosophers' stone. As more knowledge about the human brain will be taught in schools, and the current state of the art will become public knowledge, people will look back at the idea of "brain uploads" just like we look back on the idea of "turn lead into gold".
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  We have a poor understanding of the brain from a bottom-up perspective. But from a top-down perspective we are far from ignorant. We can be fairly confident that consciousness arises completely within the brain through material processes. If this is the case then consciousness is a function of information rather than matter. And of course, information is independent of the medium so uploading consciousness is in fact a small leap from the assumption of materialism.
  - jakobe 13y ago
    But information can not be transferred as we please. I believe that our consciousness arises from the information stored in the material structure of our brain. But there is no reason to believe we have any way of extracting or transferring this information to another place. If you assume this step is a "small leap" you are entering the realm of science fiction. And that's okay, I greatly enjoy reading science fiction. But if you tell people that this might actually become reality in the future, they will rightfully be skeptical.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Transferring information within the brain is no harder than transferring a file across the internet. The hard part is decoding how information is represented within the brain. We don't even need to do that though. The hard part isn't transferring information, but transferring consciousness sustained by that information. If you believe that neurons are the sole physical entity that makes up the brain, and that any one neuron has no significant effect on consciousness, then transitioning each neuron one by one is simply a logical deduction from the premises. I no more have to "believe" this than I believe in a given mathematical proof. If the premises are accepted then the conclusion of transferring consciousness is required.

negativity 13y ago

What exactly do you mean by "consciousness"? I think the word "consciousness" holds very different meanings for different people. I don't think you're interpretting the word in the same way other people do. Furthermore, after reading the comment you linked to, I disagree with the premise of gradually replacing each organic neuron with a synthetic surrogate. But, hey, if you're into the idea of slowly eroding your central nervous system, and back-filling the tissue with a machine that picks up the slack, I won't stop you. The remnants won't be you though. If we amputate a goldfish from it's brain, and the body continues to be guided by an electronic apparatus, the gold fish is no more. The husk that remains is a grotesque puppet. If, as my parents were slowly debilitated by alzheimers, they elected to supplement their mental functions with computer assistance, I would regard them as I might regard a dead animal that was stuffed and mounted. There is no such experience as climbing inside the circuits of a computer to experience immortality. There is no such experience as slowly disolving one's self into a mixture of microscopic machinery, after which we suddenly blink our eyes and become miraculous robots. We die. The robot blinks, and masquerades as us for the benefit of the living. Nothing more.

pedrosorio 13y ago
But if instead of replacing your neurons with "a mixture of microscopic machinery", you replace them with other neurons, you remain yourself (instead of becoming a stuffed animal)? Care to explain why? Because the essence of humanity is in the exact molecules that make up neurons? What if we replace some of the atoms in these molecules by different isotopes? (a common practice for studying metabolism, including in human brains: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22218/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22218/) Does the person remain human, then? Where do you draw the line and what is the reasoning behind it?
- negativity 13y ago
  Because I have yet to see any product of human effort come close to the scale of complexity that cellular tissues represent. Current-generation electronic systems are very complicated, and convincing "life-like" behavior still seems to be out of reach. Even if we eventually manage to produce systems that engage in sufficiently convincing life-like behavior, that bridges any sort of uncanny-valley gaps, there will still be a confusing grey area between truly sentient Life, and deceptively convincing complex apparatuses which are not alive. Even to reach the grey area will demand large collaborative teams of skilled and talented experts. If breathing life into a complex system represents a challenge above and beyond the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon missions, how will we ever decide who benefits from the fruits of such labor? Are human beings capable of sharing such a thing? These things will not be toys. They would be more controversial than genetically modified foods. If a tissue replacement technology were to be implemented, would it be self-replicating and autonomous? If so, would it possibly be infectious? Or would it be so durable that it wouldn't need to repair itself? Would it's many tiny components communicate with one another? Could the communication be intercepted and disrupted? These are huge problems. Even if one very powerful HAL 9000 system solves all these problems for us, and manages to devise a scheme to mass produce a practical inorganic replacement for neurological tissue, isn't it possible that such an expert system might have an agenda of its own that does not represent lesser human interests like immortality? Wouldn't it require a similar leap of faith to trust in a technology with a purpose that can only be rationalized and not proven? For these reasons, I place my bets on biotechnology, using native human cells, and not electronic surrogates. If I know that I am alive, and that typical organic cells produce this phenomenon of experience, and it's within our reach to manipulate stem cells to repair our brains and keep them alive without any upper age limits, then I'll choose the sure thing, before placing faith in any experimental electronic surrogate.

mjburgess 13y ago

it's not pseudo-intellectualism. It's the result of about a decade of study in the philosophy of mind and computer science. Disheartening is the trading of God for techno-babble to provide the "wonder" necessary to get over your own mortality.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
>It's the result of about a decade of study in the philosophy of mind and computer science I would argue the exact opposite, using those very same premises. Clearly more than assertions are required here.

jakobe 13y ago

> It doesn't take much of a leap... Do you have any clue about the current state of neuroscientific research? Scientists are struggling to understand a single neuron, there are no models that reliably predict networks of more than two neurons, and the current state of the art is recording partial signals from a few dozen neurons. "Brain upload" is just the modern day version of the philosophers' stone. As more knowledge about the human brain will be taught in schools, and the current state of the art will become public knowledge, people will look back at the idea of "brain uploads" just like we look back on the idea of "turn lead into gold".

hackinthebochs 13y ago
We have a poor understanding of the brain from a bottom-up perspective. But from a top-down perspective we are far from ignorant. We can be fairly confident that consciousness arises completely within the brain through material processes. If this is the case then consciousness is a function of information rather than matter. And of course, information is independent of the medium so uploading consciousness is in fact a small leap from the assumption of materialism.
- jakobe 13y ago
  But information can not be transferred as we please. I believe that our consciousness arises from the information stored in the material structure of our brain. But there is no reason to believe we have any way of extracting or transferring this information to another place. If you assume this step is a "small leap" you are entering the realm of science fiction. And that's okay, I greatly enjoy reading science fiction. But if you tell people that this might actually become reality in the future, they will rightfully be skeptical.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Transferring information within the brain is no harder than transferring a file across the internet. The hard part is decoding how information is represented within the brain. We don't even need to do that though. The hard part isn't transferring information, but transferring consciousness sustained by that information. If you believe that neurons are the sole physical entity that makes up the brain, and that any one neuron has no significant effect on consciousness, then transitioning each neuron one by one is simply a logical deduction from the premises. I no more have to "believe" this than I believe in a given mathematical proof. If the premises are accepted then the conclusion of transferring consciousness is required.