What's the consensus on whether or not it will ever be possible to transfer a human consciousness into a new carrier - either by somehow 'uploading' it to a computer (either with or without a robotic body) or by transferring the brain into a new body?
>Consensus
>2000+ year old philosophical dilemmas
Lol.
You're also muddling a number of topics together.
>>8194775
Uploading will never, ever happen. It just doesn't even make sense when you think about how neurons work.
Brain transfer might happen, though. I think they're supposed to attempt a head transplant next year in Italy on some paralyzed Russian electrician.
>>8194776
>philosophy
>producing anything useful
>ever
It's a field that's better left ignored.
>>8194781
Philosophy produced science. More specifically, science is a formalized subset composed of certain epistemological and ontological positions. If you don't think philosophy is useful, on a science board, maybe you ought to just
g
t
f
o
.
>>8194787
Science and philosophy have long since parted ways. Science focuses on
>what is the nature of the universe and how do we quantify it?
but all philosophy gives you is
>How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
>>8194791
How can photographs be real if cameras aren't eyes?
>>8194791
Nah, none of those things are true.
Read a book, or better yet, learn to brain* properly. You'll begin to see the underlying elements that connect things together.
*One who cannot into lateral thinking is one who cannot brain.
>>8194775
What do you define as conscious? You mean the soul?
Because if you say no then your question is irrelevant. If you say yes then
>religion
>>8194796
I think we've already spoken in another thread.
Don't really care anyway though. No sense in arguing with narrow minded people who don't care about braining. Though for what it's worth I feel a bit of sympathy. You were either robbed, or never provided something important, which is why you are how you are.
>>8194804
Oh fuck off you retard. I've met loads of pseudointellectuals just like you who invest all of their effort into giving an appearance of being intelligent and insightful. Let me guess, you like to sit in your chair by the fireplace and surround yourself with the smell of old books? Face it: you're putting on an act to appear smart. No amount of acting high and mighty will ever change the fact that pseudointellectual dumbasses like you are a dime a dozen, and that your demographic has done more to hold back human progress than just about anyone else.
There really are such things as stupid questions.
Hey, it's just a friendly discussion. Why you two heff to be mad?
>>8194811
Bet you're being incredibly productive, surfing /sci/ and all.
>>8194815
I have it open in the background while I work on code for my research. :^)
>>8194811
Lol. I haven't read a book in years. Your disposition, and how you interpret other people, says as much about you as anything else (in your case, much more).
I drank a bit of kava the last few days, which probably upregulates GABA receptors or otherwise increases lipid solubility. Also inhibits dopamine secretion, and inhibits norepinephrine reuptake in the frontal cortex. Today I ingested a bit of phenibut in an attempt to kill some pain, or at the least, skew my perception of stress. I ate some powdered guarana seeds. Then I ate a lot of chocolate.
Now I'm listening to Visions, by Grimes, and it's extremely relaxing. Feeling relaxed and apathetic, generally. I just don't care to go through the fuck around, you know? Reverse engineer your psychology, watch your outputs, infer your background, why you think what you think, and how you're generating your outputs. What value is there in it. You probably don't have anything I want, much less need.
I'll probably switch over to Art Angels and do some programming soon. Have a nice night full of meaningful and valuable exchanges from those of the highest and most truly true intellectual standing, Anon. No sarcasm intended.
>>8194822
Lua...
Lua?
Fucking lua.
300 lines. Looks like some tough code, man.
>>8194827
Also, I didn't even begin to go into Babylonian mathematics and philosophy, which is often omitted in favor of the more recent Greeks but very important nonetheless.
I'd suggest looking into that as well. It becomes readily apparent how much it's impacted the modern world to this day.
>>8194780
If that works then it could at least spell virtual immortality for rich people
>>8194827
Suppose that tomorrow morning you wake up and find that either A.) epistemology or B.) the scientific method no longer exists. Under which circumstance do you expect to still have a computer to turn on so that you can run your mouth off on 4chan?
>>8194828
It's actually javascript and it's at 400 lines and counting. That's actually really short considering how much my code is doing. I'm using Node because this bit of code is supposed to control a loosely networked cluster of about a hundred computers spewing out data, so I need lots of concurrency.
>>8194804
>I think we've already spoken in another thread
No, I don't think that was the anon you're replying to, as I think it was me.
>Grimes
Good shit.
>>8194834
The scientific method is a formalized subset of philosophy. Assuming you mean "never came to exist", answering your question is senseless speculation that's difficult to substantiate. Losing the scientific method is preferable if you ignore that the shift from natural philosophy to science was a gradient and largely semantic, as it leaves human mental faculties intact and changes little. We'd just be living in some variant of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Choosing A lobotomizes the human species and leaves us braindead husks that would have went extinct with the rest of nature's invalids.
Badly formed question, honestly. Shows how little you actually understand either science or philosophy.
>>8194838
Hello again anon. Good to know it isn't you, but you never know. People can be unexpectedly multifaceted.
>>8194840
Not that anon, but what use is philosophy in this day and age?
You can change use to application or whatever, I'm sure you understand what I mean.
>>8194840
>Choosing A lobotomizes the human species and leaves us braindead husks that would have went extinct with the rest of nature's invalids.
I hope you enjoy cholera :^)
>>8194841
Yeah, people are one step away from straight up schizophrenic reasoning here.
I think our correspondence ended rather amicably.
>>8194843
You can read through the post chain I linked above.
Kava + phenibut + cacao nets out as something like drunk, hyperaware, but also sleepy and lacking much motivation. Okay painkiller though.
Maybe another poster will have something to add as well.
>>8194857
>*incoherency intensifies*
lel, I guess that's to be expected when speaking with a philosophy major
>>8194859
I never pursued any higher education.
>*assumption generator intensifies*
>>8194871
Lol, so it's true then. You really are a world-class pseudointellectual.
Also your reply to the other anon doesn't even remotely make sense based on his original question.
>>8194830
>immortality by brain transplant
Sooner or later there would be brain cancer.
>>8194781
>t. have never read philosophy
What's the point of preserving the minds?
If the technology existed to scan and upload the contents of brains, it would be better to just combine them all into the mind of one super intelligent entity, rather than keep them all separate.
>>8194878
>start reading Leviathan
>all it talks about is religious shit and obvious shit that any 5 year old could tell you
>throw it away like the trash that it is
seriously, I think that "philosophy" was just an excuse for ancient NEETs to sit around and do nothing all day
>>8194885
>I think that "philosophy" was just an excuse for ancient NEETs
That's what the theoretical departments of research institutes of today are like, however replace 'nothing' with 'thinking'.
My six month placement at a research institute is coming to an end in a few weeks and then society is going to make me contribute, by teaching and speaking at conferences.
I just want to sit around thinking all day.
Pls don't make me function.
Pls.
>>8194926
just imagine that you're talking to your tulpas
>>8194775
Several major problems still exists that wont allow anything like this to happen. I'm not saying it wont one day happen, but it WONT happen in our lifetimes (100 yrs).
>>8194885
>teach Alexander the Great
>nothing
>>8194927
What if they heckle me?
>>8194822
>Codemonkey
Back to /g/ you go.
>>8194935
>Think up atoms in 500 BC
>Nothing
>>8194944
for you
>>8194944
(Although Buddhism and related philosophies did the same thing. They asserted the world and human experience was composed of granular base units that transferred energy, though less directly than what Democritus formalized into Atomism)
>>8194938
then pull out your peanus weanus
>>8194950
Ok cool.
>>8194958
It's good to see an anon's problems all immediately solved.
>>8194881
This guy gets it.
Planetary hivemind soon.
>>8194945
'Cause I'm only a man, and I do what I can.
> consciousness exists
kek
>>8195010
then what are you?
>>8195064
a complex reducible function approximator.
>>8194775
Ok so topical question for OP:
The make a robot clone from you and want to copy (not transfer!) you mind into the robot. After completion the robot wakes up and is sure it's you (probably thinks you are the robot).
But surely it isn't because you are still in the same position as you were before.
Ok, now we do the same but this time we transfer the information into the robot... what changes? Is the information on your brain deleted like harddrive? If so it would still not change the fact that the procedure on the robot side looks exactly the same for it, it got input and is convinced it is you.
I don't think 'uploading' works, somehow or something in the position you are in makes you you (but maybe it's only the trick of your brain because it knows what's up)
>>8195092
Cogito Ergo Sum
Your existence is the ONLY absolutely certain (to you) fact.
You can label it "self", "consciousness", or "complex reducible function approximator", but that doesn't change the fact that your mind MUST exist.
Now stop playing with semantics (pic related).
>>8194775
The lazy bastards who study the human mind won't or can't make any progress towards our understanding of consciousness. For all we know consciousness is an EM field fed by neurons or some quantum bullshit magic. Without knowing what we are we can't really say but if the EM theory is correct then it might not be that hard.
>>8195995
Except that's not even remotely true and you just made all of that up. Open a neuroscience textbook.
>>8194775
>thinking consciousness is some sort of 2sp00k4me quantum skeletons.
>it's a "/sci/ can't stop bickering for 2 minutes to actually have a conversation" episode
>which is every episode
shit board m8e
>>8194775
The consensus is you're a memeing retard
>>8196004
>Except that's not even remotely true
I didn't assert that any theory of consciousness was true.
>and you just made all of that up.
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm
These kinds of things are all over the place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>Open a neuroscience textbook.
No mere textbook in the field of neuroscience has anything to say on consciousness that could possible answer the question of mind uploading.
>>8194991
nice
>>8196273
That's a
>prove me wrong, protip: you can't
tier theory. It's complete bullshit that isn't based on any observational evidence whatsoever.
>>8196297
I am not it's advocate but EM fields can be worked with and the theory can be tested. It's a physical thing which can be interacted with.
>>8196301
Bruh, do you even neural networks?
>>8196304
>Bruh, do you even neural networks?
This is why answers can't be found. The priests with their sacred dogmas.
Read up on this and then tell me about your holy synapses.
https://www.caltech.edu/news/neurobiologists-find-weak-electrical-fields-brain-help-neurons-fire-together-1671
>>8196313
Consciousness is a product of neural architecture, not the underlying physiology. It arises from recurrent self-reference, and recurrent neural networks are being used as prototypical conscious agents. That's how Google Deepmind is able to do all that stuff
Really it's just a matter of scaling it up and integrating some other features like working memory and one shot learning.
>>8196325
>Consciousness is a product of neural architecture
If that is the case then mind uploading should be impossible because it would merely create a clone.
>not the underlying physiology.
This would mean that neurons could be gradually replaced with something better while preserving the person.
It's not very intuitive, especially when computers are basically going to develop and use their supreme knowledge to eradicate humans and kill off the planet. Your brain will be uploaded and eventually rewritten by other data because they will be prepared. Not only mentioning that being alive as a machine is not the same as a human, and after the transfer your brain data is turned into a robot. Clarifying, what makes you what you are isn't only your brain but your whole body as well. The brain gives the orders, the body obeys. Hence the brain-computer transfer is an entirely pointless process, unless you are trying to transfer the brain data to a storage device and then to a lab-produced organic brain transplant and then back to the receiver.
>>8196332
Read this http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/8/807.full
No voodoo magic necessary
>>8195064
I'm a philisophical zombie :^}
>>8196332
>If that is the case then mind uploading should be impossible because it would merely create a clone.
>This would mean that neurons could be gradually replaced with something better while preserving the person.
You're not wrong on both counts.
>>8194795
>What do you define as conscious? You mean the soul?
>Because if you say no then your question is irrelevant. If you say yes then
>>religion
Just because you fail to understand the question does not render the question or the premise irrelevant.
>>8194775
Tbh, the 2045 project is a meme.
Anyways, when this becomes possible (think 2100), it will consist of some kind of gradual replacement of the brain, because all other processes lead to the direct death of the person (copying and rebuilding). It will be achieved by directly cutting off parts of the brain and rerouting their function to a computer while the replacement is installed or by a nanobot swarm that over time eats away, replaces and reestablishes the connections of the neurons at a rate that doesn't kill you.
>>8196028
this season really jumped the shark
>>8194775
Not possible, not for meatbags like us.
Evidence of the being being a sum of the parts of the mind is the damage to the personality upon physical damage to components of the brain.
However, creating an entirely artificial replication of the brain with non of the flaws of the natural one might be possible, it just won't be yours and this troubles us organics, made of things which makes us temporary with no escape.
Perhaps even copy your workings into a mechanical brain, but it'll be a copy of you and those copies diverge into unique forks of 'you', no longer being you, the minute they open their senses in a different position than you upon activation.
In short:
Possible for us, me and you, and every organic lifeform? No.
Possible for lifeforms created that way? Absolutely, if we can figure out how to create a brain out of better, more durable components. We could even go further and create brains that stretch across distances, or are multiple brains working in unison as one mechanical brain, we could blur what it means to be a single unit with knowledge of how one unit exists by itself.
