Brain uploading (to a computer system) is fraught with existential peril. Do you continue to survive, or have you merely created a clone of yourself that believes it is you, leaving you to die? A more philosophically satisfying solution is the Gate of Theseus.
Like the Ship of Theseus, which symbolically remains the original ship even if every part is replaced, the Gate method proposes replacing every cell in the brain in a procedural manner, rather than all at once. Every second, thousands of brain cells die in a human brain, either metabolically replaced or lost forever. If instead you replace each cell with an immortal micro-machine that replicates its function and relationship to the surrounding cells, and continue in a wave or randomly throughout the brain mass, eventually the original human is now running entirely on a simulated machine brain without even losing consciousness.
This machine emulator can then itself have each braincell machine replaced by an abstraction of the same behavior running virtually in a digital environment, relaying the "output" of the cell back electronically to the machine until the entire brain is virtual, and therefore transferable through a digital Gate of Theseus into any vessel or body desired.
Does this version of electronic immortality belay your spiritual or existential fears about robot uploading? Or do you have no problem with a simple brain-copy method? Thoughts please
I think in the case of brain uploading, it's almost certainly a copy. You will die (not because of transfer, but eventually) and a copy of your awareness will go on, but it will not be YOUR awareness.
If Im understanding your premise correctly you are advocating some way of slowly replacing individual cells or portions of the brain with machine corollaries, retaining consciousness as you go. Repeating this process until there's no "meat" left to your brain, and you have an effectively immortal (through maintenance) machine instead of a meat brain.
This seems much more satisfying than other methods but Im not sure it gets around some of the other problems with an 'upload'. At that point you're still a consciousness in a rapidly dying body. How is the machine powered? Does it require the body? Does it require the organic interfaces for the senses?
Is the end game to this line of thought slowly replacing every part of yourself with a machine analog until there's no meat left?
>>17399262
additionally, this is even assuming that a machine brain is even capable of the function of a normal meat brain. In much the same way that we can replace limbs, the prosthesis are invariably 'lesser' than their biological counterparts, would this not be true for the machine brain as well? It might be capable of longer life in and of itself, but could it repair itself from injury? Is the death/rebirth cycle of those brain cells a vital function of the brain as it is for the skin? This is all even assuming that synthetic components that were sufficient analogs to our organic components could even be built to house our consciousness. I dont think that's even possible at the moment is it?
>>17399244
That could be a solution, I've never thought of it that way.
There's still a problem with that concept. Imagine your brain consists of an autonomous mass of nanorobots that can survive upon itself at the death of the body and still have consciousness. If for example you get stuck in an accident like an avalanche or get stuck in a building collapsing, you would be stuck there forever and be aware of it.
This would be hell
>>17399290
Remember hellboy II? The robot/human cyborg that never dies? He gets buried alive.
>>17399262
>Repeating this process until there's no "meat" left to your brain, and you have an effectively immortal (through maintenance) machine instead of a meat brain.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head there.
>At that point you're still a consciousness in a rapidly dying body. How is the machine powered? Does it require the body? Does it require the organic interfaces for the senses?
>Is the end game to this line of thought slowly replacing every part of yourself with a machine analog until there's no meat left?
The "easiest" premise is that the machine braincells exactly replicate (externally) the chemical and electrical behavior of the cell. Therefore, with a fully converted brain of this kind, the consciousness and body, including the nerve connections to the brain, can't tell the difference. You are essentially a normal human with a prosthetic robot brain.
>>17399290
If you see here in my OP
>This machine emulator can then itself have each braincell machine replaced by an abstraction of the same behavior running virtually in a digital environment, relaying the "output" of the cell back electronically to the machine until the entire brain is virtual, and therefore transferable through a digital Gate of Theseus into any vessel or body desired.
the idea then is to repeat the same process to replace the machine brain, until the entire brain is a virtual system running in a coded computer environment.
(As an aside, being a virtual construction running on code, we can then modify the brain's processes and data content ALSO without the original human losing consciousness.)
That program can then itself go through the process again, replacing each virtual braincell with a relay to a different but identical virtual braincell running in whatever body or shell you like.
>>17399290
this is exactly what I was saying here:
>>17399262
>At that point you're still a consciousness in a rapidly dying body.
a machine brain that retains consciousness after biological host death doesn't solve the problem of mortality it just makes immortality an infinitely terrible possibility.
Bamp
>>17399275
As I try (and maybe fail) to explain here
>>17399298
the complete Gate of Theseus concept is for multiple transfers, to different mediums using the same method, to get you into any vessel you want. If you can remain whole while transitioning to the machine emulator, why can't you remain whole converting that simulation into a virtual one? From there, you are basically a free spirit, unbound by flesh.
The ideal solution would probably be to technically exist on a heavily fortified server farm, existing distributed through the cloud (so immune to storage and hardware failure of single devices), operating remote robot bodies.
>>17399298
>each braincell machine replaced by an abstraction of the same behavior running virtually in a digital environment, relaying the "output" of the cell back electronically to the machine until the entire brain is virtual
I missed that... how is that different than the original problem of a digital copy then? How is the consciousness actually transferred? The only way around this that I see is to first replace the brain incrementally as you suggested and then somehow keep the consciousness of that machine brain alive inside a synthetic body by physically moving the machine from host to host, how is making a virtual system not just the same problem with different hardware?
>>17399310
>how is that different than the original problem of a digital copy then? How is the consciousness actually transferred?
The same way you would remain awake as your braincells are replaced until you are running on a machine, the individual machine cells are replaced with connections to virtual braincells until you are running on a computer.
So you go through both transfers fully conscious, until you are running on a virtual machine.
You're not a digital copy, but your brain is. You're using the virtual brain as a prosthetic to do your thinking, just like your meat brain was. The actual meat or machine isn't you; you are the experience behind the eyes, which isn't interrupted or replaced during your transition to a digital consciousness.
>>17399244
Read Permutation City, by Greg Egan. After that. Read Diaspora, also by Greg Egan.
>>17399310
>The only way around this that I see is to first replace the brain incrementally as you suggested and then somehow keep the consciousness of that machine brain alive inside a synthetic body by physically moving the machine from host to host
Moving your consciousness piece by piece to a machine form wouldn't be special. You can do the same thing to that brain, and then to that brain, again and again as long as you want without the original "person behind the eyes" ever even going to sleep.
>>17399352
>Read Permutation City, by Greg Egan
Garbage that I didn't finish. In my view, copies or backups are ontologically worthless. I don't care if a perfect copy of me exists after I die.
Also the smart contract integrated into everything plot device was so contrived I literally cringed every time it mattered. No human society would accept that kind of arrangement
I refuse to read anything by Greg Egan ever again, I don't need to see Phillip K. Dick imitated poorly with no new ideas brought to the table
>>17399351
>connections to virtual braincells until you are running on a computer.
what happens to the actual hardware copy?
I was with you on replacing individual organic components one at a time, but isnt going from a machine component to a virtual component still just a copy?
>>17399244
> and relationship to the surrounding cells
Haven't you heard that meme that there are more connections between brain cells than atoms in the entire universe. How could you possibly replicate that?
>>17399378
If one single braincell in your brain was replaced with a braincell machine that does exactly what it replaced did, while you were awake, and that single braincell is thrown away, this idea assumes that you are still "you". Even with that one braincell replaced by a prosthetic, you haven't lost anything. You might even still be more "you" than you would have been if that one cell had just died naturally.
Repeat the process until you've replaced everything. One at a time. Take years of normal life to do it if you want. Eventually, your brain is a machine and you might not even have noticed.
If you're happy that this "you" is still "you", why not repeat the same thing with tiny internet connections to virtual ones on a computer?
Eventually, you are running entirely on the computer, with a connection to your body from each virtual cell.
Now, you can just "turn off" the original human body and interface with a different body of your choice.
>>17399385
>more connections between brain cells than atoms in the entire universe.
those connections are made of atoms, you know this is patently false. A single drop of water contains more atoms than their are connections in the human brain.
>>17399385
One brain cell doesn't have thousands or even tens of connections, it's the number of cells that is staggering.
Brain cells are actually very simple chemical-electrical mechanisms, but the overall structure interacts with itself in complicated ways.
>>17399395
This is literally the Ghost in the Shell dilema.
If you organs can be replace, even your brain, and you are still you, then what defines you. What is you, where is the thing that makes you yourself. That's the real question.
>>17399399
>>17399401
Because they are not just single cell connections but pathways of connections that's why they add up to impossible amounts, a connection its a physical link rather an electrical impulse and where it runs
>>17399406
>its a physical link
*isn't
>>17399395
>why not repeat the same thing with tiny internet connections to virtual ones on a computer?
Oh I see, so at some point in this transition you are literally half inside a machine and half not. Im not sure this would even work, but I very much like the premise. I think this would actually be the much much faster portion of the transition.
I think the problem with this concept is the raw amount of space youre going to need to store that kind of thing. I dont believe we have the capacity to do that yet do we?
>>17399406
theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2011/07/cubic-millimeter-of-your-brain.html
you're incorrect.
Ship of Theseus related:
It was believed that at the end of seven years each cell in the body had been replaced by another newer one. ( I know, brain cells don't do this. I'm just repeating what the omnipresent THEY said).. So at the end of 7 years you were sorta someone else. Thus when you broke a mirror with your image in it at the end of seven years you were someone else and the damage to you done by breaking your image was past. Note this is why you come of age at 21, a multiple of seven, and after you passed the 'dangerous' age of 13 you're not a kid anymore, because then you were the multiple of seven 14.
>>17399414
>No, on average there are not more connections in a cubic millimeter of your brain than there are stars in the Milky Way
So that's a reassuring margin for you to start making microchips, you better start getting busy
>ON AVERAGE
lol
>>17399262
Think about this for a moment.
Imagine if you have this robo-brain, following OP's method. At some point, everyone gets shifted over into a computer, or other sort of body.
Your friends do it, they come back and are like 'This is awesome man! It's totally fine, you gotta do it.'
So you do it. You lay down in the chair, they put you under so you can begin the transfer. And you close your eyes.
Two possibilities:
A. You wake up immortal, you're still you, life is cool.
B. You die.
Option B sounds bad...but motherfucker...you just went unconscious. You felt no pain. You weren't aware or fearful you were about to die. You just winked out of existence and you no longer can even THINK about whether or not you're okay with that.
My point: Who gives a fuck which possibility happens?
>>17399424
protip: read the WHOLE thing before you cherry pick one thing that you think supports your argument.
It's ok that you were wrong, just... go learn, come back, and give an educated opinion.
>>17399427
>Who gives a fuck which possibility happens?
Id prefer to keep my consciousness alive, which is the entire point of this thread.
>>17399436
>cherry pick
Don't counter just accuse me of picking something from what you posted. That's okay anon, now get your ass working on those chips I want my robot brain
>>17399444
You wouldn't prefer anything after you lose consciousness.
You're trying to say 'you' preferred to be born before you were born. It's nonsensical.
>>17399469
You sound like a robot. You sure you havent been trading those cells for chips lately? That shit's not ready to go bro, better keep the meat death sentence than being a fucking monotone nofun cunt of a cyborg, soon you won't even be able to pass the captcha
>>17399469
Pic related
>>17399409
>I think the problem with this concept is the raw amount of space youre going to need to store that kind of thing. I dont believe we have the capacity to do that yet do we?
Yeah, no, not yet. The march of technological progress is inexorable, though
>>17399469
no, it;s not nonsensical, I am currently not unborn, or dead, if I know the procedure has a chance to change that, Id rather not undergo it. The entire point of this thread is the continuity of consciousness. So this ontological debate isn't required.
>>17399468
>>17399496
Ill have to take your word for it, you are after all something of an expert on being brain dead, tripfag.
>>17399502
>The march of technological progress is inexorable
Oh we almost there brah
>>17399524
>I am currently not unborn, or dead
Having need to openly state that does tell quite a lot about you aswell, Bro. Clank away.
>>17399530
Apparently it needed explaining to the other anon who needed an ontological explanation of why I would currently not prefer to be dead.
Im really going to have to drop the trip, seriously, at least that way as you keep embarrassing yourself you can at least do it anonymously and not have to drag it around with you.
>>17399541
*going to have to advise you to drop the trip.
Fuck I need to get out of this thread Im literally getting stupider being in your presence.
>>17399541
>why I would currently not prefer to be dead.
Say that out loud robot fucker, you can literally hear beeps in the middle, that's not a person sentence. Now tell how did you get past the captcha this mystery eludes me.
>>17399244
You've just blown my mind and made me feel a little bit better. Thanks anon.
>>17399502
I suppose so, Im still not certain we will be able to outdo nature in that regard any time soon, it's an incredibly efficient storage medium.
>>17399548
>literally
>not a person sentence
>now tell how did you...
>this mystery eludes me
Many things seem to elude you, including basic grammar.
>>17399557
Good old banter now we getting more personal, I like this side of you better.
>>17399565
>banter
Oh wait, are you Australian? That would explain a lot.
>>17399244
i started this meme about the components of the brain being replaced, I posted a thread about it on /sci/ asking them about 1 and a half years ago asking them what would happen in the hypothetical situation which an identical copy of our brain lie in a machine near you, fulling functioning, and if 1 by 1 your brain cells were replaced by that one in the machine, at what point were you no longer you? note: the brain is atomically identical. i also posed the question: why were you conscious in your own brain but not the other one?
someone did link the ship of Theseus, though at the time I hadn't heard of it.
>>17399570
Way off.
Anyway I just get ticket off when someone compares people to machines and you seemed to be saying he could through becoming some sort of machines attain some immortality. It's kinda insulting to me mostly because I think death is a integral part of the human experience, and that the physical aspect by itself doesn't define you, meaning you can replace ALL the cells you want but what you really are is not in those cells.
>>17399583
Im not comparing people to machines, I dont think anyone here is, we are examining where the seat of consciousness truly lies. Don't you see the contradiction in your statement?
You believe that human existence is above and beyond our physical body yes? Otherwise why make that argument.
If you believe this, and you believe that what truly makes us, us, is beyond the physical realm, then what difference does it make what physical shell it resides, or does not reside in. The important part of "us" is beyond that shell.
I am not advocating that humans become machines, I am stating that we remain human regardless of our physical shape (or lack thereof in the case of a virtual consciousness) for the very reason that our consciousness seems to be more than a physical thing.
The only reason to argue against this type of scenario is if you think that the only thing that truly makes us alive or human is our physical shell (the only part which gets replaced). If you believe this, then why should you feel insulted that someone would compare it to a machine, since at that point without a higher consciousness, it basically is.
>>17399577
>asking them asking them
sorry for redundancy was in a hurry to time that. it's also notable to realize that every atom in your body is replaced every 3 months or so I believe it is. it begs the question, from what derives consciousness, from what derives you, if not the physical nature of your body?
>>17399636
>time
fucking hell wright*
>>17399620
>I am not advocating that humans become machines, I am stating that we remain human regardless of our physical shape (or lack thereof in the case of a virtual consciousness) for the very reason that our consciousness seems to be more than a physical thing.
Here it is. Now then why would you need to replace anything. See all these loops to make a virtual consciousness just ignores that you already have that, without a backup stored somewhere. You lose the outer coil but nothing strips you of that thing that is not the outer body. You were saying if we copy the brain and upload it somewhere we would still exist even without the brain, but what I say is you still exist even without the upload.
But still we can clone someone aswell and make a perfect copy of you, only you will readily accept that the clone is not you but an entity with similar code (adn), in the same sense this virtual consciousness would function. Even if it had your memory it's point of reference in it's world would be it's own not yours. And in that sense yes, the body does define you, and the experience of death, and your surroundings define you, it's what you human, and makes you you.
>>17399667
>Now then why would you need to replace anything.
Because we die.
>all these loops to make a virtual consciousness just ignores that you already have that, without a backup stored somewhere.
Theoretical at best.
>You lose the outer coil but nothing strips you of that thing that is not the outer body.
Then there's literally nothing to lose by trying, if the physical body is unnecessary, then it's unnecessary whether meat or machine, and when the machines give out, it will continue on anyway.
>You were saying if we copy the brain and upload it somewhere
That's not what were saying, its not a copy, that's the point.
>but what I say is you still exist even without the upload.
Again, theoretical, and also, irrelevant to the process if the physical body is irrelevant.
>But still we can clone someone aswell and make a perfect copy of you
We know that's not us, thats why were discussing this.
>And in that sense yes, the body does define you,
You just got finished telling us how your body is not you... which is it?
>and the experience of death, and your surroundings define you, it's what you human, and makes you you.
I argue that the experience of death does not make us human, surroundings can and do change all the time and that's fine, and I argue that stating that the only thing that makes us human is our surroundings, and our experience of death is insulting to literally everything that we are, not only would science disagree with you, but philosophers and all religions.
To say that death defines us is a monstrously pessimistic and ugly worldview and Id rather not subscribe to it. If you want to live for death, that is your prerogative but I consider it a mockery to the human soul.
>>17399701
>If you want to live for death, that is your prerogative but I consider it a mockery to the human soul.
It's not mockery, it's accepting an essential part of what this cycle is about, and you seem to be doing all this effort to avoid it. Religion is not about avoiding death. It literally means re-connecting. Now re-connecting with what exactly? It doesn't seem that you lose something when you die, as you are implying, more that you lose something when you are BORN, and that's why we need to "re-connect" with it.
>>17399719
>Religion is not about avoiding death
No clearly, from your perspective it is about embracing and encouraging it. THAT is why it is a mockery of life. This life, the one were currently in, in all its mystery, both explainable and inexplicable.
I take back what I said earlier, there are only two reasons to oppose this type of research or transition of consciousness:
Either you believe that humans are nothing more than meat and chemistry and we will fail to be human if you change our physical shell.
or
You truly and ultimately wish and pray for death, and place more value on the state of death (whatever it may or may not entail) than you place on the state of living.
That, in my opinion and philosophy, is shitty.
>>17399745
>You truly and ultimately wish and pray for death, and place more value on the state of death (whatever it may or may not entail) than you place on the state of living.
I don't but some people do. Figuratively and literally, hell anon some people even kill themselves.
And I don't oppose your research, people always wanted to life forever, and have different conceptions about it.
I'm more about letting nature follow it's course, going through the motions, completing the cycle. And you better believe it anon, that is the cycle we are in, and research as you may there is not a god damned thing you can do about it. As sure as you were born and you are going to die.
>>17399777
check'em
Not the guy but ain't the whole point of Uploading a 'break the cycle' kind of thing?
I wholly respect your Zen brah but a conception of 'Death and Rebirth' or 'Cycle' is absolutely human thing.
To put it differently. We evolved into and out of this cycle so we can't conceptualize and know any better.
This is the whole point of Uploading into a Machine. Saying fuck you to Universe in a way. To truly became a made man, a god.
Because in the end, we have NO fucking clue at this moment what the existence really is and who is to judge what can or cannot be done about it.
>>17399796
>I wholly respect your Zen brah but a conception of 'Death and Rebirth' or 'Cycle' is absolutely human thing.
Well with nature it's like that aswell, cycles, seasons, the moon, the stars, earth, everything seems to spin in orderly fashion. Then there's funky shit all around too, explosions, funky ass comets, fucking voids of perpetual sucking darkness I mean yeah there's nothing truly figured out, and I'm not saying death is by any means a final, check-mate kinda of situation, every end is a new begining and all that, but it is part of it. Don't blame me. I didn't make it.
>>17399777
>I'm more about letting nature follow it's course, going through the motions, completing the cycle.
Then strip naked, wander into the wilderness, fend for yourself, take no medicine, take no fire, and survive as nature intended.
>and research as you may there is not a god damned thing you can do about it.
yes yes, and the black plague was gods judgement, and natural disasters, and whatever else. Let's all just lay down and die. What a preposterous position to take up regardless of your beliefs. Mans struggle has always been against death, we are hardwired to survive by the very "natural course" you are claiming to champion here.
>As sure as you were born and you are going to die.
Death is probably assured for me as Im not confident technology will develop that far in time, but to state that death is an unavoidable finality for everyone, forever, I think, is shortsighted at best. And that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just secretly praying and wishing for death in some eschatological power fantasy in which you're granted a better existence after it. I mean, Im going to assume thats not who you are because that's as you said you dont do that...
>>17399244
It's also known as the "Moravec Transfer".
>>17399815
Dude technology it an extension of ourselves and we ARE nature, I'm not talking agaisnt any technology or technological advances.
Why are you acting like I'm trying to kill everyone?
>>17399828
Because youre arguing as if you are a ludite, who values death above life.
This thread is discussing whether death, is merely a technological problem. The same discussion weve been having since before we had words to properly form arguments.
Can we, prevent or postpone death through technological means. Medicine has helped, fire has helped, clothing has helped, many things have helped, and this concept of the transference of consciousness into a more stable host is just the most recent in a long line of discussions about how we can postpone, or eliminate, the inevitable.
Im not sure why you cannot see that.
>>17399810
>>17399810
I didn't blame you, don't brush it off.
Everything will pass, sure.
Nowhere did i typed anything about ignoring natural circles and physical forces and laws.
My point is that we don't know much about this cycles yet.
There is nowhere an absolute LAW that says we humans must be finite. That is a limitation not a law. Limitations are our speciality by evolution. We can get out of that cycle by 'reinforcing' our 'being'. Robotic brain will still be bound by natural laws. Energy will still be required. We will still fight the entropy.
We would be just more smart, durable and who know, with that kind of body we could have a jump start when REAL shit hits the fan.
Like you know, collapse of Universe be it by heat dispersal or crunch and shit. We could make our OWN universes to and stuff.
Ironically, no matter how advanced and godly we become, all of it will be assigned to that exact push here and now by our wholly natural survival instinct and pressure to know and survive.
So its all Natural still baby.
>>17399427
Why would a painful death matter at all then? You wouldn't remember it, after all.
To me, dying is just inherently bad. I won't care when I'm dead, but I'm not dead.
>>17399839
>we can postpone, or eliminate, the inevitable.
You can appreciate you this self defeats.
>inevitable
It's you saying it not me this time.
>>17399851
I'm not saying it would be ignoring them, just using the natural cycles as an example to our own.
This serves for both: consciousness, whatever it is, seems to need cycles to develop. Think about human technological advancement, it's not a straight line, rather works by big cycles, like the technology for hunting, then being able to herd animals ---> agriculture ----> on and on.
Now what I'm saying is for this consciouness to develop, the death of the individual is a necessity, in the same way plants need to die to make the soil fertile again. Persistence of the individual would lead to stagnation. So death is a natural process with a specific purpose to guarantee diversity, so more adaptability. hence eliminating death would have the reverse effect of setting us back, because it would stiffle novelty.
>>17399745
>Either you believe that humans are nothing more than meat and chemistry and we will fail to be human if you change our physical shell.
>or
>You truly and ultimately wish and pray for death, and place more value on the state of death (whatever it may or may not entail) than you place on the state of living.
>That, in my opinion and philosophy, is shitty.
My nigga.
This discussion is like pondering how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.
Singularity / transhumanism / "futurology" is a religious cult for atheistic compugeeks who probably read The Oatmeal comics everyday, with a superficial "love of science," and who are unbelievably arrogant because they can code iphone apps. It's proof that even while traditional religions are dying, it doesn't matter because gullible pseudointellectuals will simply take the same mythical promises and snake-oils and update them to whatever is hip and trendy.
>>17399940
>You can appreciate you this self defeats.
I do not understand what you are saying.
I think you are saying that the statement is self defeating, you actually mean it is not internally logical. Meaning, me saying it is both inevitable and able to be eliminated is inconsistent, it is. However I was arguing it in that fashion because of your viewpoint, I do not personally see death as an inevitability and am clearly arguing from that standpoint.
>It's you saying it not me this time.
Im just reiterating your belief. I am stating, now, unequivocally that I do not believe that death is by definition inevitable. I do not feel we are prepared for this, technologically or mentally yet, but that doesnt change my belief that eventually, it will be eliminated as a concern if we as a species survive long enough to achieve it.
>consciousness, whatever it is, seems to need cycles to develop.
No it doesn't, what are you talking about? What do you think conciousness is? Either you think it was evolved over time in which case it doesnt require cycles it requires incremental development. OR you believe it was granted by a higher power, neither of these are a "cycle".
>human technological advancement, it's not a straight line, rather works by big cycles
No it doesn't its a gradual curve up, theres no "cycle" involved. Each development is based upon prior development over time.
I think you're having trouble expressing your thoughts on this due to a language barrier, Im not sure we can work around it.
>>17400001
humanity 4evr
>>17400022
>a religious cult for atheistic compugeeks
No religion involved, its theoretical neurochemistry/bio-chemistry mostly with an awareness that we're still not entirely aware of where the consciousness resides, or originates, and that we may be able to maintain a human consciousness without an organic brain.
>who are unbelievably arrogant because they can code iphone apps
You really think theres a causal relationship between being able to code iphone apps and singularity/transhumanism? That's interesting, I kind of doubt it though. What's more interesting to me is that I don't really consider this to be "transhumanism" since the argument that is inherently being made here is how we can maintain our humanity through a transfer to a synthetic state. Im not arguing for a rise "above" or "away" from humanity, Im looking for a technological way to extend its longevity.
>It's proof
that word doesnt mean what you think it means, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
>while traditional religions are dying
Traditional religions are demonstrably stronger than they have ever been at any point in human history, what are you talking about?
>gullible pseudointellectuals
there's been no ad-hominem and insults being thrown around yet just good discussion, do you really need to introduce that to the party?
>mythical promises and snake-oils and update them to whatever is hip and trendy.
We're not saying it CAN be done, or that it WILL work, we're simply discussing the concept. If someone told you right now that they could transfer you to a machine, Id call the cops on them for being a charlatan. Do you see some substantive reason that we shouldn't be at least pursuing the concepts if it means dramatically extended longevity or even an elimination of mortality in some sense? If so, why? And moreover, if you have such a strong resistance to humans seeking technological ways to extend longevity, why not strip naked and wander into the wilderness as nature intended?
>>17400022
>the same mythical promises and snake-oils and update them to whatever is hip and trendy.
No, dude. Soiothe your jimmies. It's pretty much impossible that we won't ever create technology that is better than the organic equivalent, especially because organic chemistry is such a shitty substrate for what the brain is trying to do (literally be a computer).
>>17399290
those nanorobots would need a fuel source
>>17399262
You are constantly changing, constantly replacing parts of yourself, if this was the case then every moment would be a new state of awareness. Similar to the last, but not "THAT" awareness, not "that" you. You have already died, you're just a clone, not the real you. Not the baby. Not the child. Not the original. Just a new thing, made from the cells of other things, in a pattern that started from a point now dead.
>>17399244
Humans have reached their ultimate biological form. Our next step to become even more ultimate would be by upgrading ourselves with immortal materials to last longer, and computers to make us think faster. With that, we should be able to access the world wide web whenever we want, where ever we're at. What was sci-fi in the 50's is now humanity's next step to becoming the most ultimate beings in this universe. I am fascinated by the possibilities of this because we will be able to upgrade our natural components.
>>17400765
>if this was the case
if what was the case? That post made no sense.
>>17399244
>Do you continue to survive, or have you merely created a clone of yourself that believes it is you, leaving you to die?
Depends on whether or not you accept the copy as a legitimate version of yourself. The Theseus ship analogue is that you become digital the moment you accept that you're ready to become digital. At that exact moment, you're ready to start upgrading more and more of your component aspects.
>>17400153
>>17400153
This is the sort of ignorance-based arrogance I'm talking about. The human brain is 30 times more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer, which consumes 600,000 times as much energy as a brain. Our computers are laughably shit compared to biological brains for everything except mathematical computation, which they of course excel at.
In terms of utilizing chemistry and engineering on very small scales, we absolutely suck compared to the technology biological evolution has developed. The study of the human brain and life in general is analogous to studying alien technology far more advanced than ours: we've been able to slowly reverse engineer it, and find a few hacks here and there, but we still aren't able to come close to doing anything similar ourselves.
Our technology is mostly based upon releasing and controlling large amounts of energy, such as in automobiles, manufacturing, and mining. To make up for our lack of technological skill we throw massive amounts of energy at problems.
Meanwhile silicon-valley singularitards with little knowledge outside of coding except for popsci claim that the singularity is near because exponents.
>>17399244
You watch to much Ghost in the Shell.
Souls do not get moved without permission from EUE RA and/or D.
MIB
>>17401381
>using TEPS as a comparison number for brains and computers
shiggy diggly
>we absolutely suck compared to the technology biological evolution has developed
so far
>but we still aren't able to come close to doing anything similar ourselves.
This is largely a matter of funding and hardware, it's not a theoretical problem, its a material problem.
>claim that the singularity is near because exponents.
I don't think anyone in this thread made the statement that it is "near" stop projecting your own insecurities with others on us. We're discussing the theory and the possibility. Not the likelihood in the near future.
also why are you so mad about this?
I always want to fuck rachel when I see that pic
sultry noir girls are so great. Why isn't this an in fashion
>>17401450
>Why isn't this an in fashion
muh feminism
also because it takes a lot of effort to maintain that look.
>>17400054
You didn't adress my point about death being a natural mechanism to ensure diversity.
Also to deny that technological development worked in big cycles dependent how certain specific improvements, is to be dumb and blind.
>>17402540
>death being a natural mechanism to ensure diversity.
birth ensures diversity, death fertilizes the ground. You seem to be overemphasizing this concept you have of cyclical existence. Fertilizer is a technological issue and has been since the neolithic, don't get hung up on it now. If you're so committed to this idea of death being necessary for health and diversity, why are you still alive? Your philosophy is practically screaming at you that you need to die. I do not support this line of thinking and I wish you a long and fulfilling happy life, but you need to get over your death obsession.
>Also to deny that technological development worked in big cycles dependent how certain specific improvements, is to be dumb and blind.
Now you're just outright being insulting for no reason because someone disagrees with you. Wheres your human decency bro?
Technology does NOT move in cycles, its not cyclical, every advancement stands upon previous advancements, it arcs upward, it doesnt circle back around on itself. Im not going to call you dumb for disagreeing with me, and if you have a way of explaining how technology develops in cycles, Im interested to hear it, but I think you're incorrect.
>>17402574
Stop pretending to be a human robot bro you literally want to replace your parts so you live forever.
1 - Taking away what makes you human
2 - Removing the experience of death, that actually is what really makes life matter, because it will end. To live forever would make everything meaningless and boring.
Now I was talking about cycles in the development of consciousness and used technology as an example. The cycles in technology are what I said, for example the era of hunting, gathering, that was a cycle, with a certain needed time to pass through it, then at the end of that time certain improvements allowed the begining of another cycle, with herding and agriculture, also with a certain needed time spend there in order for progression to occur.
Now consciouness is the part where we arent fully getting on the same page with. Because what I'm standing for is that consciouness is not a standing, is or is not, but rather a process that also develops, whitin yourself as a person and on the whole a the species in general, and for this process to develop the experience of death is a necessity, think about it in death, rebirth kind of thing, and the example I used of pants dying to fertilize the ground still stands (again this is a metaphor, you're constantly taking it literally and arguing agaisnt it like that).
>>17399244
Go on and read Battle Angel Alita: Last Order. It might be Insightfull
>>17399244
Even if it's just a copy, I'd probably go with it. Just as a back up. Leave it to pursue the things I'd want, and stay "alive" as long as possible. Besides, wouldn't it be a kind of hilarious that this board could appreciate, to have a mental clone look into the occult and possibly have an existential crisis about being a copy if it gets into the soul aspects of the occult. I should learn to write and make that a book if it isn't already, which I kind of doubt. Don't steal it kthx?
>>17402677
>To live forever would make everything meaningless and boring.
Is life less meaningful and more boring now that our life expectancies are growing and infant mortality is at an all time low?
>>17406997
You confuse longevity with immortality.
And YES. Stop asking stupid questions.
>>17407626
No confusion on my part, buddy. its pretty obvious they're not the same thing, but you need to understand that longevity is a stepping stone to immortality. By your own metric, as life expectancy approaches infinity, meaning must decrease towards zero. Except it hasn't. Religion and belief in an afterlife is quickly shrinking and people are increasingly building their own meaning. Do you really think people were happier when they lived under prefect that could crucify them at a moments notice? Where's the meaning when your village can't even fucking survive a simple cold or flu outbreak?
>>17409125
>Except it hasn't.
Oh but it has! Have you met the suburbs, my friend?
>>this is what the reptiles want from you to enslave you even more
>>hey, look, we have a human in a chip now!
>>eats you
>>17401453
I'd settle for the dress
>>17409398
The reptiles don't want to eat you, just control you
>>17409407
that's what they want you to believe
sadly they see human flesh as a delicacy like we see steak
>>17409426
How do you know this?
>>17409441
http://tryinghuman.com/
A fortified server base? You've not prevented death you just changed the logistics of murder. There are numerous scenarios in which you could be deleted.
Even worse, there are numerous scenarios in which you are stuck inside a computer indefinitely. What happens if for some reason there is no one to prepare your physical host? Who's going to own this technology? You won't be god, whoever is facilitating your transfers into new hosts will be god. What if they decide to leave you on the server, forever, or delete you.
Finally, imagine if at some point in this transfer you are in fact no longer "you". The transfer is made but the consciousness moved on, to heaven, reincarnated back on earth, ascended to a higher dimension, whatever. So now you just essentially have a computer program that thinks its you and thinks its conscious. Meanwhile "you" are actually existing somewhere else. Now imagine thats all we are now, virtual remnants of a beings long passed on replaying on various loops within the original network.
