193 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMufflon]

Elton John is dead wrote...

No you can't. You can view it (just like anyone else) but you cannot enter it which is what accessing space means.

Merriam-Webster's English Dictionary wrote...

access,  verb

transative verb

   : to get at : gain access to <accessed the computer by phone> 

Interfacing with a satellite via electro-magnetic signals is accessing.

Yet you cannot propose another explanation.

On the contrary: I can offer plenty of explanations. But just like your explanation they would be baseless speculation. You can't make an argument from a lack of knowledge. So I don't.

Please propose another explanation because I can assure you that your explanation will be illogical.

Yes. It would be illogical. Which is why I won't and why you shouldn't.

So it's either believing in that or the more logical theory which is mine.

"You have to believe in either Faries or Leprachauns."

And that's exactly what they are doing and have done:

Only one of those links contained any actual research papers, and none of those made any attempt to proffer an explanation, nevermind one that includes other "realms/dimensions".  In fact they are concerned simply with categorisation, estimation of frequency, and psycotherapeutic considerations.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 07 août 2012 - 04:02 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

TheMufflon wrote...


access,  verb

transative verb

   : to get at : gain access to <accessed the computer by phone> 

Interfacing with a satellite via electro-magnetic signals is accessing.

Not in the way I used it:

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/accessing 

ac·cess (kss)
n.
1. A means of approaching, entering, exiting, communicating with, or making use of: a store with easy access.
2. The ability or right to approach, enter, exit, communicate with, or make use of: has access to the restricted area; has access to classified material.
3. Public access.

Please drop your silliness now. Your debating tactics aren't helping you and you should reconsider your approach before replying. You don't mean to seriously tell me that you don't know that many words often have several meanings?

TheMufflon wrote... 

On the contrary: I can offer plenty of explanations. But just like your explanation they would be baseless speculation. You can't make an argument from a lack of knowledge. So I don't.


Yes. It would be illogical. Which is why I won't and why you shouldn't.

Yes. Your one IS illogical based on what has been discovered.

TheMufflon wrote... 

"You have to believe in either Faries or Leprachauns."

Do you?

TheMufflon wrote... 
Only one of those links contained any actual research papers, and none of those made any attempt to proffer an explanation, nevermind one that includes other "realms/dimensions".  In fact they are concerned simply with categorisation, estimation of frequency, and psycotherapeutic considerations.

Two actually contained research papers and the others were from the mouths of doctors themselves. They all made an explanation saying it was proof of an afterlife which is considered to be another realm/dimension. You're just ignoring the evidence again and what doctors have actually said.

There's no point continuing this debate if you're going to be ignoring and dismissing all of my sources.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 07 août 2012 - 04:10 .

[eroeru]

TJPags wrote...

eroeru wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Regarding the "conciousness" argument:

If we CAN essentially 'copy' a mind, we would then have 2 equal, exact copies of the same mind, yes? Each would share the same memories, experiences, skills, etc., yes?

From that point, copy A and copy B would experience different things, and would then have different memories, yes? Assuming that the copy can actually do this, of course. So the Copy B is its own conciousness, no?

Now, eliminate copy A - that's you, in your physical body, which is about to die, which is why you're being transferred anyway. So copy A is gone, copy B goes into the machine. At this point, it IS you. It have your memories, your knowledge, your skills, your likes, dislikes, etc. It IS you.

From that point, it continues its life, has new experiences, learns new things, makes new memories, etc. If this is true, then how does it not remain you?

Interesting to see this argument. It is usually applied to the merit of the very opposing objective.

I.e. at the point where "your consciousness" is divided, the situation promptly, momentarily, and without a single moment with you being identical (you'll be at separate points in time and space at the very least) becomes in your opinion such that there's two You's. That is contradictory to the premise that consciousness is subjective.

Unless you want to doubt that premis. Which seems quite quirky.

Not sure I understand you . . . when you make a copy, for a moment, they ARE identical, aren't they?  i.e., when you back up your hard drive or take an image of it, aren't they identical at that moment?

And is conciousness subjective?  Or is it objective?  I'm not pshycologically oriented, so have no background, but I'd assume that conciousness is objective . . it is, or it isnt, concious.  Impression, to me, is subjective . . .but, for instance, I took a class in music - that's objective, I did or didn't.  Whether I liked it, remembered what I learned, etc. - those things are subjective.

Again, I may be misunderstanding you.  Either way, I'm curious and would appreciate if you could explain.

Yeah, I'm not very fluent in English so I think that might be a problem to my posts.

Anyway, I mean, for one thing, in your example, the very moment there are 2, these two are not identical in the stricter sense.

And secondly, I find it accurate to define consciousness through the subjective experience. It is in fact subjective experience. And subjectiveness presupposes a strict meaning of "identity" here - personal identity is as strictly "defined" as possible, due to the requirement of a continuous, "one", and connected "stream of consciousness".

Basically, what I'm saying is that consciousness as pure subjectivity presupposes strict personal identity - you as one cannot be two - and consciousness as I understand it is understood as an explanation of this "you".

[eroeru]

TheMufflon wrote...

eroeru wrote...

The other problem is logic. We cannot say human reasoning is built on logic

But brains are logical. The behaviour of a neuron is just as predictable and deterministic as the behaviour of a computer. Human reasoning is, quite literally, built on logic. That we perceive the effect as illogical is simply because we do not fully understand the cause, that our internal model for the phenomenon is to simple and therefore fails to accurately predict the result. Our mind is an epiphenomenon arising from the interaction of neurons, but there is no reason the same type of epiphenomenon could be produced from other types of interaction.

I personally believe it is strictly otherwise, involving some undeterministic quantum stuff or whatnot. AI is built on logic.

Eugh. I sincerely wish people would stop doing this. And by "this" I mean the whole "I don't know quantum mechanics from shinola, but I'm going to pretend that it supports my opinion and hope that no one else knows anything about it either" fallacy. While few know much about it, and no one can really claim to know how to physically interpret it, we do know what it's not: an automatic "I win"-button for arguments. So please stop pushing it.

Oh, and a computer would be just as affected by the uncertainty principle as a brain.

First off, excellent post, aside the emotional/unsmart "I win button" and "eugh" comments.
As hinted in the beginning of my post, my intention wasn't to prove or disporove nor to be very "high and mighty" or "the last instance of truth" on an internet forum. 
My not-so-sure position was also expressed by "whatnot". I'm fairly certain you're not an expert on quantum mechanics theory yourslef, or that of similar undeterministic-by-nature theories or their connection to the understanding of the world (as a more-encompassing theory).

However, the comment wasn't meaningless, even if not "finalizing" in any way. It gave my hazy yet very own perspective on very problematic topics.

Secondly, your statement that the mechanics how a neuron work are deterministic by nature, and the premis that consciousness IS neuron activity don't hold, as far as I know. If you'd like to argue otherwise, be my guest, I'd welcome any material that would change my view on this (though I doubt this happening here).

As for electons on a microchip working the same way - again, that's the mighty difficult problem of analogy. They most certainly don't work exactly the same way - but are the similarities enough for deciding they have the same (near-impossible-to-assess) outcome of consciousness? What are the differences and how much weight do they hold in defence of either position for this problem?

And I did end my post by stating that I merely presented 2 lines of thought that do seem probable and convincing even if only intuitively and in merit of having less(-weighty) objections, whilst there are none that would "prove" otherwise except an overly(-intuitively)-acclaimed behavioristic argument (which is in my opinion a fallacy, as I stated, for the reasons I stated).

Really my post was meant to address and criticize the position of "(obviously!) robots can have consciousness" and to express the most painful point of it having the unrelevant and more problematic than of merit basis (of behaviorism).

Modifié par eroeru, 08 août 2012 - 12:01 .

[TEWR]

To give this thread a bump -- as I feel it's a perfect candidate for philosophical discussion -- I recall reading in this thread a mention that the problem with what these guys are trying to achieve is that you can't copy the soul.

To that I'd like to give my own beliefs on the matter: I believe that the brain contains the soul. If the brain suffers severe damage, then the soul is damaged. If your brain is so damaged that you're left in a vegetative state, could it not be said that your soul is incapable of doing anything because your brain is so far gone? Meaning that a functioning brain equals a functioning soul, as the soul exists within the brain.

Or something like that. Admittedly, I had this better thought out hours ago.

But it's one of the reasons I enjoy Ghost in the Shell so much. It delves into these types of discussions, ranging from the nature of the soul in a high-tech world to the scope of politics and everything else that makes the series great.

[naughty99]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

To give this thread a bump -- as I feel it's a perfect candidate for philosophical discussion -- I recall reading in this thread a mention that the problem with what these guys are trying to achieve is that you can't copy the soul.

To that I'd like to give my own beliefs on the matter: I believe that the brain contains the soul. If the brain suffers severe damage, then the soul is damaged. If your brain is so damaged that you're left in a vegetative state, could it not be said that your soul is incapable of doing anything because your brain is so far gone? Meaning that a functioning brain equals a functioning soul, as the soul exists within the brain.

Or something like that. Admittedly, I had this better thought out hours ago.

But it's one of the reasons I enjoy Ghost in the Shell so much. It delves into these types of discussions, ranging from the nature of the soul in a high-tech world to the scope of politics and everything else that makes the series great.

Don't know about differentiating between one's brain and one's soul, etc., but I think it's extremely unlikely that there would be any sort of way to digitize the human brain and stored memories, etc., within the time frame these folks are proposing.

Seems like we are probably centuries away from something like that.

Modifié par naughty99, 13 août 2012 - 04:38 .

[TEWR]

Oh I too doubt we'll actually come close to doing all this by 2045. Still, the actual topic -- and assuming they're not con-artists -- is interesting nonetheless.

[Fast Jimmy]

I believe that the soul could be copied... but it would be a very risky and resource-consuming process.

Keep in mind that the average human brain has more connections and synapses than there are known stars in the universe (with each galaxy containing over a hundred billion stars and there being hundreds of millions of known galaxies). Regardless of I'd you think the soul is in the brain or not, that level of fidelity transferring all that data to a digital medium would be like recreating the universe in a computer simulation and have a single star or planet be out of sync on what their velocity or trajectory should be. Maybe in 2045, this could be possible - but able to be done quickly, accurately and on a scale massive enough that anyone besides billionaires could afford it?

I highly doubt it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Currently, the only way to truly image, scan and determine exact synapse connection strength, thickness, connectivity and directionality... is by destroying said connections. fMRI scans, tissue staining, PET scans - all of them can give us an aggregate picture of the brain, but it does not give us any information on the molecular, cellular level.

More than likely, the only way to replicate the human brain would be a systematic disassembly of it, with measurements of exact composition. So, in essence, unless our brain imaging technology increases in clarity, intensity and detail, there would be no way to have a conversation with your robotic/organic self.

Then again, this entire conversation is based on theoretical science and technology, so I may be raining on the parade unnecessarily.

[naughty99]

Bryan Singer produced an interesting new web series about transhumanism and augmentation gone awry.

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Episode 4

Episode 5

Episode 6

Modifié par naughty99, 14 août 2012 - 02:40 .

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

To give this thread a bump -- as I feel it's a perfect candidate for philosophical discussion -- I recall reading in this thread a mention that the problem with what these guys are trying to achieve is that you can't copy the soul.

To that I'd like to give my own beliefs on the matter: I believe that the brain contains the soul. If the brain suffers severe damage, then the soul is damaged. If your brain is so damaged that you're left in a vegetative state, could it not be said that your soul is incapable of doing anything because your brain is so far gone? Meaning that a functioning brain equals a functioning soul, as the soul exists within the brain.

Or something like that. Admittedly, I had this better thought out hours ago.

But it's one of the reasons I enjoy Ghost in the Shell so much. It delves into these types of discussions, ranging from the nature of the soul in a high-tech world to the scope of politics and everything else that makes the series great.

What do you consider the "soul"?

A person is simply memories, attitudes, emotions, knowledge, instinct, all of which respond to stimuli in a certain way.  Of that, the only thing which perhaps can't be programmed is instinct - although maybe it can be.  If the brain is copied, the instinct may likely be copied as well.

So, define "soul" for me, and we can discuss whether it would cause a problem or not.

[Chaoswind]

this technology is going to happen sooner or later (2045 sounds like a long shot), and why the **** no?

Upload me to a space ship, I think i will last longer than most before reaching rampancy and the Terminator/Matrix people need to take a chill pill, this is going to happen, unless our advancement is halted by (something).

[RedArmyShogun]

Nothing is set in stone I've seen many "THIS WILL HAPPEN" by so and so. And also well before 2045 some experts find it likely Japan will be at War with Russia and China (and get crushed big time) and the US will be at civil war (South Korea and Canada will suffer likewise, which cuts out the nations doing this minus Europe which is set to fracture and revert to statesism). Nevermind megaflares from the Sun and the Effects of EMP, or the various other events that are ticking time bombs atm that would pretty much turn the technological order on its head, and unforseen events like Impacts from asterial bodies.

This is the same as Saying the world will end tomorrow, and saying back in 62 I'll have a flying car in my yard in 98 with floating sky cities.

Unlikely, stupid, and not happening. Plus War, resource grabs, and you can be damn sure if you want a switch to get the lower class to revolt, tell them the same bosses and figures that push them around everyday are now almost immortal.

You can only push a man so far before he pushes back, and given the political splits and poor economics for now and the far off future...well that would just be one more cause in the list of problems for right and left to crush "the man" and everyone else not part of there ideal. Plus your assured that various fundamentalist groups, genetics research groups (some of whoms research into regeneration and gene splicing has made more inroads in recent years and would not be happy haveing money cut out for what is a more.."natural" science) won't stand for it.

Hell at the End of the day you'll have a four way battle of leftist lower class, transhumanist, genetic super soldiers, and the Religious....and given current research in weapons...well it will be a conflict I'm sure our primitve cave dwelling survivors will paint on cave walls, then later on some new advance society would confine the battle to myth and legend.
 
Humans collectively can't get along short of via an even status qou, breaking it will...well look at history, one group gets too strong it will topple, and there are always have nots in this world. Heck look at the recent upheavals i nthe Mideast, the west promotes democracy, the Arabs (or other peoples of the region @_@) take it then seem to have the mind of thanking them by burning the west.

The fact is we all CAN'T get along, and some of us would rather kill you than have you have your way. Space exploration and long reaching colonization is really the only hope for us till then we become too diverse and seek to wipe the other sects out. Which distance will help prevent. Humans need space differing ideas always clash at somepoint.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 14 août 2012 - 04:23 .

[naughty99]

Looks like Disney is already working on manufacturing our avatars.

http://youtu.be/WnE4vcvHxo8?hd=1

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Nothing is set in stone I've seen many "THIS WILL HAPPEN" by so and so. And also well before 2045 some experts find it likely Japan will be at War with Russia and China (and get crushed big time) and the US will be at civil war (South Korea and Canada will suffer likewise, which cuts out the nations doing this minus Europe which is set to fracture and revert to statesism). Nevermind megaflares from the Sun and the Effects of EMP, or the various other events that are ticking time bombs atm that would pretty much turn the technological order on its head, and unforseen events like Impacts from asterial bodies.

This is the same as Saying the world will end tomorrow, and saying back in 62 I'll have a flying car in my yard in 98 with floating sky cities.
...

Well said. Transfer Your Consciousness to a Robot Avatar by 2045 is like a blind wish. And you know the end of this Modern Civilization is coming soon! Or at least the United Nations...
Because of less or no oil, food and transportation for more people who are increasing day by day.
More struggle and fighting for getting more budget and dismissing other side's claims will get severe and dire. No more toleration!
and other things that bear explained.

Happy Transferring Your Consciousness to a Robot Avatar by 2045, when there is fallout winter everywhere or some towns trying to rule some tiny land by using Feudalistic policies! *dumbed down future too much for more impression*  

[TEWR]

TJPags wrote...

What do you consider the "soul"?

A person is simply memories, attitudes, emotions, knowledge, instinct, all of which respond to stimuli in a certain way.  Of that, the only thing which perhaps can't be programmed is instinct - although maybe it can be.  If the brain is copied, the instinct may likely be copied as well.

So, define "soul" for me, and we can discuss whether it would cause a problem or not.

To me, the soul is what defines all animal life. It's that spark of life that causes us to be more then just a series of instinctual processes the body works by. While the body functions a certain way, I think the soul is inherent in that form.

I say all animal life, because I believe that even animals -- dogs, cats, gorillas, fish, etc. -- have a soul*. I've seen animals shed tears at the lost of a loved one, be it a human companion or their own sibling animal. I've heard them cry out in pain, to which it always pains me. I've seen them experience joy and love. I've seen animals display so many things that I find it impossible to not believe they don't have a soul.

One of the core things about the soul -- in my personal view of the concept -- is that despite the fragility of the human body, there's an unbelievable resiliency to the human spirit. We can suffer innumerable hardships that would seem to be able to break a person, but through it all we can overcome such experiences and persevere. We persevere and move forward, be it of our own accord or through the joint efforts of our companionship with other people.

That, to me, is the definition of the soul. That, to me, is why when a person suffers damage to the brain it causes the soul to be damaged as well. Because the soul is in us. It is, quite simply put, who we are. It's how we live. It's what drives all of us to survive.

As a result of all that, the soul being able to be transferred to a robotic body doesn't seem to pose a problem in my mind, so long as the brain is transferred as well -- unless it turns out that transferring the soul doesn't require the brain to be transferred as well.

And that's assuming we can safely transfer the brain, which seems nigh impossible by our current technological levels. Despite the fact that, according to reports centuries ago, people decapitated were still alive briefly, we'd have to have a technological level far more advanced then what we currently have.

*I'm also of the mind that the world, the land, the rivers, the oceans, and whatever else has its own soul. Not the same type to which I refer to here, but a soul nonetheless.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 août 2012 - 11:01 .

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

TJPags wrote...

What do you consider the "soul"?

A person is simply memories, attitudes, emotions, knowledge, instinct, all of which respond to stimuli in a certain way.  Of that, the only thing which perhaps can't be programmed is instinct - although maybe it can be.  If the brain is copied, the instinct may likely be copied as well.

So, define "soul" for me, and we can discuss whether it would cause a problem or not.

To me, the soul is what defines all animal life. It's that spark of life that causes us to be more then just a series of instinctual processes the body works by. While the body functions a certain way, I think the soul is inherent in that form.

I say all animal life, because I believe that even animals -- dogs, cats, gorillas, fish, etc. -- have a soul*. I've seen animals shed tears at the lost of a loved one, be it a human companion or their own sibling animal. I've heard them cry out in pain, to which it always pains me. I've seen them experience joy and love. I've seen animals display so many things that I find it impossible to not believe they don't have a soul.

One of the core things about the soul -- in my personal view of the concept -- is that despite the fragility of the human body, there's an unbelievable resiliency to the human spirit. We can suffer innumerable hardships that would seem to be able to break a person, but through it all we can overcome such experiences and persevere. We persevere and move forward, be it of our own accord or through the joint efforts of our companionship with other people.

That, to me, is the definition of the soul. That, to me, is why when a person suffers damage to the brain it causes the soul to be damaged as well. Because the soul is in us. It is, quite simply put, who we are. It's how we live. It's what drives all of us to survive.

As a result of all that, the soul being able to be transferred to a robotic body doesn't seem to pose a problem in my mind, so long as the brain is transferred as well -- unless it turns out that transferring the soul doesn't require the brain to be transferred as well.

And that's assuming we can safely transfer the brain, which seems nigh impossible by our current technological levels. Despite the fact that, according to reports centuries ago, people decapitated were still alive briefly, we'd have to have a technological level far more advanced then what we currently have.

*I'm also of the mind that the world, the land, the rivers, the oceans, and whatever else has its own soul. Not the same type to which I refer to here, but a soul nonetheless.

This is a pretty damn good definition and explanation of your idea of a soul.  I say "your idea" not as an insult, but because this seems to be a pretty personal definition, one I've not seen expressed before.

That said, what you describe seems to me to be in the realm of emotion: sadness, closeness, determination.  I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm simply saying I see it a different way.    But then, I'm not the most introspective, philosophical or what have you person.  I stay very much in the realm of logic, black and white kind of things.

If you're correct, then this would NOT be capable of duplication on a computer, not perfectly, anyway.  If I am, I think it is something that can be programmed, or at least programming that can be interpreted by a computer eventually.

I'd love to live long enough to find out.