Would You Transfer Your Consciousness into a Robot?

[PhoenixRising]

There is research being done on creating mechanical avatars that could contain the human consciousness. This would allow people to live for an infinite period of time. The question is, would you do it, and what ethical issues do you foresee with this type of technology? If someone was a human mind in a robot body, what should they be considered, human or machine?

http://rt.com/news/prime-time/avatar-russian-scientists-brain-983/

I'm kind of on the fence. I don't think I would have my consciousness transferred because from my studies I have concluded that consciousness is a sum of all the physical and mental parts of our minds and bodies. Without our specific structure, we may not be able to exist, and even if we could, we may not be "ourselves". It would be cool to be an android with a rocket launcher for an arm and the ability to fly though ^-^

 

[skip]

I wouldn't want to live indefinitely but I have some chronic pain issues that make a robot body look like an interesting alternative.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

1) Only at the end of my days / in a mortal emergency.
2) Only if the continuity of my consciousness would remain intact.

I'm also wary about my human psycho-emotional and sensory systems. I wouldn't want to be a true unfeeling, lifeless robot. I guess I'd prefer being a cyborg to a full-on robot.

Being able to explore underwater or space, or fly would be pretty cool though.

 

[intpz]

I see the possibility of changing biological parts for other materials as a more viable option. I would agree for my body to be reconstructed, as long as my neurons are okay and there's no self-destruct or tracking bullshit.

I would agree for a microchip for a brain only in case I'd be dying. I think it's a poor option overall.

 

[Proletar]

If any type should be turned into cyborgs/mechanical intelligence, it should be the INTP. The INTJ would just turn evil and the sensors would just lose their sanity, like instantaniously.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes. A thousand times yes. I would do it right now no questions asked. Not even a doubt in my mind.

 

[Absurdity]

Only if I was able to smoke with no adverse effects and came equipped with a fully-functional robo-penis of variable length and girth.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Only if I was able to smoke with no adverse effects and came equipped with a fully-functional robo-penis of variable length and girth.

Best answer so far LOL. It reminds me of the movie A.I. with the "love-bot".

 

[Cognisant]

Yes. A thousand times yes. I would do it right now no questions asked. Not even a doubt in my mind.

Ditto x10^10

Ethics?

 

[walfin]

If someone was a human mind in a robot body, what should they be considered, human or machine?

A cyborg. Simple.

 

[Architect]

Yes. A thousand times yes. I would do it right now no questions asked. Not even a doubt in my mind.

Agreed. Hmm, a choice between dying, and living longer (not necessarily forever), it wouldn't be a contest. Of course I'd wait until I was older and the birth body was breaking down, might as well use it as long as you can.

 

[intpz]

Yes. A thousand times yes. I would do it right now no questions asked. Not even a doubt in my mind.

What if your mind image would be created and you get to see your bot looking at you? Wouldn't that make you wonder?

 

[CallumD]

As he says in the video, I would do it as soon as I could.

 

[Architect]

I don't think I would have my consciousness transferred because from my studies I have concluded that consciousness is a sum of all the physical and mental parts of our minds and bodies. Without our specific structure, we may not be able to exist, and even if we could, we may not be "ourselves". It would be cool to be an android with a rocket launcher for an arm and the ability to fly though ^-^

So people who lose their limbs, or are horribly burned aren't fully conscious? What about paraplegics who don't have bodies, as far as their nervous system is concerned?

The fact is that human consciousness is highly adaptable.

 

[Jennywocky]

Stupidly, what ran through my head first was a line from a movie: "The remote controls the robot!"

Then I just thought, "If they build me a robot body, then someone could have a transmitter that could control my robot body... and pretty easily. I don't like that."

 

[intpz]

Stupidly, what ran through my head first was a line from a movie: "The remote controls the robot!"

Then I just thought, "If they build me a robot body, then someone could have a transmitter that could control my robot body... and pretty easily. I don't like that."

That's why I mentioned that I wouldn't want any transmitters in me. I guess that ought to be trusted people.

I wonder if the US government will start injecting nanite trackers when nano technologies will advance to that level... They already put trackers in credit cards, I believe.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

If the alternative was death, (not by old age) then yes.

 

[Cognisant]

Stupidly, what ran through my head first was a line from a movie: "The remote controls the robot!"

Then I just thought, "If they build me a robot body, then someone could have a transmitter that could control my robot body... and pretty easily. I don't like that."

It's possible, with varying degrees of difficulty, if you're in a robotic body then you don't need to be sedated while having an arm replaced and on a primary control level the circuitry should be analogue so it's not like a compromised arm will be able to override the rest of your motor functions and they won't be able to touch your higher level motor function control systems without it being obvious to you, e.g. If the technician is working on your arm he shouldn't be touching your spine, neck, head, torso internals, or wherever your (MMCU) master motor control unit is.

So the the arm could have malicious code in it, but it won't have it's own power supply (if you visually inspect inside the arm a battery would be hard to miss) so if it goes rouge your MMCU should notice the discrepancy almost immediately and cut power to it, likewise even if you missed the RF module and micro-controller during your inspection MMCU will cut power in a second or two, not to mention the EM shielding in your artificial dermis which would render any internal RF transmitter/receiver useless.

An absolute worse case scenario is that either the person who initially built/programmed your body has betrayed you in which case you're utterly screwed, the next worse being that all four limbs a compromised simultaneously and your main RF link (the cellphone in your head) is being jammed so you can't call for help (although that's like using a road flare to hide a cigarette from a IR camera, somewhat counterintuitive) but that's all a great deal of effort/risk to go to for a relative nobody like you in your off-the-shelf body.

Just don't piss off anyone powerful and you'll be fine, just like it is today.

 

[Cognisant]

It's also entirely possible, indeed practical, to design a body with nearly seamless access panels that only open from the inside with all sorts of deadly chemical, electrical and shaped-charge explosive traps underneath.

My body isn't a temple, it's a fortress

 

[Dr. Freeman]

My body isn't a temple, it's a fortress

I have a sudden desire to quote you.

 

[Cognisant]

Go right ahead, the royalties aren't unreasonable.

 

[Jennywocky]

An absolute worse case scenario is that either the person who initially built/programmed your body has betrayed you in which case you're utterly screwed, the next worse being that all four limbs a compromised simultaneously and your main RF link (the cellphone in your head) is being jammed so you can't call for help (although that's like using a road flare to hide a cigarette from a IR camera, somewhat counterintuitive) but that's all a great deal of effort/risk to go to for a relative nobody like you in your off-the-shelf body.

Really?

Why are you assuming it would be someone trying to act out "personally" against me? You've got terrorists who just want to mess with everything, to create chaos. You've got guys who want to build robot armies. Criminals who want to take hostages. Do you think everyone who died in the 9/11 incidents was individually targeted? No, they were just collateral damage to the terrorists, or part of a collective target.

I worked on E-ZPass toll systems long enough to see ways in which such a system could be exploited, and the potential with robots bodies seems even crazier.

 

[PhoenixRising]

So people who lose their limbs, or are horribly burned aren't fully conscious? What about paraplegics who don't have bodies, as far as their nervous system is concerned?

The fact is that human consciousness is highly adaptable.

Well, if you think about it, someone who loses a limb is no longer conscious of that limb. So in that respect, a person missing part of their body is less conscious. You know, it's very interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way before you posed this question.

 

[Hawkeye]

Stupidly, what ran through my head first was a line from a movie: "The remote controls the robot!"

Then I just thought, "If they build me a robot body, then someone could have a transmitter that could control my robot body... and pretty easily. I don't like that."

people can be controlled anyway ^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGQBQst7JQ&feature=player_profilepage#t=418s

 

[Cognisant]

Why are you assuming it would be someone trying to act out "personally" against me? You've got terrorists who just want to mess with everything, to create chaos. You've got guys who want to build robot armies. Criminals who want to take hostages. Do you think everyone who died in the 9/11 incidents was individually targeted? No, they were just collateral damage to the terrorists, or part of a collective target.

So what difference does being a in a robotic body make?
If anything you'll be harder to kill.

I worked on E-ZPass toll systems long enough to see ways in which such a system could be exploited, and the potential with robots bodies seems even crazier.

Oh every system can be exploited, even our biological bodies, with a robotic body at least someone couldn't chloroform you and with a good anti-virus you'll certainly be more immune to disease.

 

[PhoenixRising]

So what difference does being a in a robotic body make?
If anything you'll be harder to kill.


Oh every system can be exploited, even our biological bodies, with a robotic body at least someone couldn't chloroform you and with a good anti-virus you'll certainly be more immune to disease.

But, what if the person trying to kill you was a cyborg as well? Or what if it was a guy in a fully-armed Japanese mech? Like this one.. but with real rockets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iZ0WuNvHr8&feature=player_embedded

btw, I REALLY want one of these!

 

[Vladimir]

I would want a cyborg-type body. I've thought about it before: have my skeletal structure infused with some sort of mineral or metal so that my bones would become indestructible. Then I could do a lot more things than I can now. But to leave my body completely, it doesn't appeal to me. I feel our biological bodies are much quicker and more well-calibrated with our minds than a robot could ever be.

 

[Hawkeye]

our robots are improving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJG3Ku9E7Q&feature=related


Wouldn't it be awesome if we could react as fast as that robot hand?

 

[Architect]

Industrial robotics are amazing these days.

Two of the leading AI researchers - one of which I took an AI class from recently and personally met - are saying that this will likely be the decade of robotics. Similar to the 1980's. In 1980 hobbyists were making their own personal computers out of codging parts together, by the end of the decade you could buy a capable computer off the shelf.

They think we are at the same spot, and I agree. Today you can build a capable robot on your own. In 10 years you'll be able to buy one off the shelf.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

our robots are improving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJG3Ku9E7Q&feature=related


Wouldn't it be awesome if we could react as fast as that robot hand?

It's amazing how it caught the cell-phone with such precision.

 

[Jennywocky]

Wouldn't it be awesome if we could react as fast as that robot hand?

Okay, I am very impressed. I haven't really looked at robotics for a long time and had no idea things had advanced to this degree. I mean, the motions being performed in this video weren't just equivalent to human ability but seemed to exceed it.

It's amazing how it caught the cell-phone with such precision.

Yeah, it caught it on the edges, not on the wide flat area -- that amazed me.

 

[intpz]

Amazing... Just like a movie. I want that hand, it could make sandwiches for me.

 

[PhoenixRising]

our robots are improving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJG3Ku9E7Q&feature=related


Wouldn't it be awesome if we could react as fast as that robot hand?

Very impressive indeed. I have a friend who builds robots. He has one named Nina that can bring you things from the other side of the house and such. It's fun, not quite as impressive as the mechanics being shown in this movie though.

 

[kora]

What ethics? Our bodies are machines, made of organic material. I would do it, provided I kept all my 5 senses + the robot was a looker.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Hawkeye
Wow that was fucking impressive. Just as Jennywocky said, I had no idea robotics had advanced this far. This is really quite exciting!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What ethics? Our bodies are machines, made of organic material. I would do it, provided I kept all my 5 senses + the robot was a looker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqGTn7PCBw

I imagine soon it'd be possible to control the robot body's physical presentation whether through light/holograms or some other invention. Would be pretty interesting.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

What if your mind image would be created and you get to see your bot looking at you? Wouldn't that make you wonder?

Yes, exactly! This would mean that they are simply creating a robot with all of your memories inside the hard drive. For some reason I don't think transferring consciousness in this way is possible.

 

[dala]

A copy of a person is not that person. Unless you actually take the physical brain out and hook it up to a machine, that person still irrevocably dies no matter how many times you back up or transfer their consciousness.

I probably wouldn't consider either one. Living forever would get boring, and the overpopulation would be ridiculous.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, exactly! This would mean that they are simply creating a robot with all of your memories inside the hard drive. For some reason I don't think transferring consciousness in this way is possible.

I remember considering this at the same time I was considering transporter beams a la Star Trek.

Essentially the transporter isn't much more than something that destroys the original and recreates a new one at the other end. (I mean, they say they convert it to energy and beam it, but it seems more likely that you scan something in its current state, send the blueprint, and have them build it again at the other end.) In that case, consciousness isn't really something that transfers; you're likely to be dying each time they beam you somewhere, it's just that your duplicate wouldn't realize it; to it and everyone else, you look like you were transported, but technically the beamed you is dead.

Turn off the destruction end of things on the beaming pad and you can essentially clone people with a transporter.

Anyway, the robot wouldn't be you, it would just be a copy of you... unless you stuck your brain in there.

 

[Architect]

In that case, consciousness isn't really something that transfers; you're likely to be dying each time they beam you somewhere, it's just that your duplicate wouldn't realize it; to it and everyone else, you look like you were transported, but technically the beamed you is dead.

...

Anyway, the robot wouldn't be you, it would just be a copy of you... unless you stuck your brain in there.

A hotly debated philosophical point ... To make sense of it we first have to define what 'you' are. Are you tied inextricably to your brain? But your brain isn't the same brain you were born with, in size or function, how could 'you' be the same person you were as a baby?

Further, we commonly lose complete consciousness, when we sleep and are knocked out, or under the influence of an anesthetic. Where are 'you' when you sleep, or on the operating table? Here's a thought experiment, pretend some trickster aliens who had this beaming technology beamed you onto a hard drive at night when you slept, and kept your body in the transporter pattern buffer, as was done on ST a few times. Before it was time for you to wake up they transport you back. How would that be any different from your normal pattern of sleeping and waking? How would you know it happened? During normal sleep, when you wake up in the morning, your consciousness picks up where it left off, but where was your consciousness? As far as we know it doesn't exist. The brain functions aren't active; the program isn't running.

We do know for certain that everything we think occurs in the brain, in neural net activations. Artifical Neural Nets (ANN's) replicate this remarkably well, and are used all the time now for visual recognition, just like how your visual system works. However, in your brain, if the nets aren't running, then 'you' aren't there. But the potential for you to be present is there, just like on a computer.

These are all brain in a vat musings. Personally I suspect that consciousness can be transferred to a computer and it wouldn't know the difference from reality, given a good enough simulation. As it is already are brain is in a vat, it sits in our skull and depends on the rest of the body to feed it information. We're already replacing parts of the body with computers (cochlear implants, visual implants, etc), brain-in-a-vat is just an extension of what we are already doing, and running the neural nets on a computer is replacing the CPU frankly.

 

[intpz]

What if when your consciousness is transferred to a computer your memory module fails?

 

[Architect]

What if when your consciousness is transferred to a computer your memory module fails?

What if your cell phone dies with all of your contacts, calendar and pictures?

Back in the 1500's people had to remember all this themselves, it was probably considered uniquely human to have the ability to remember these details. Certainly no machine could take the place of human memory?

Now people are in the habit of recording their thoughts elsewhere. And reminding them when it's time. Haven't we already transferred a small part of our consciousness onto the phone? Certainly we have, read Natural Born Cyborgs for a discussion.

Humans are wonderfully adaptive of their cognitive abilities, and greedy at acquiring more of them through the use of machines (in the broadest sense - recording your information on pencil and paper is small difference to using a phone).

Another example; have you ever had the experience of reading something you wrote, but you have zero memory of saying or thinking that? Obviously you didn't record that in your memory NN's (glial cells I think is where that goes), but doesn't that mean you 'lost' part of your consciousness? Certainly that was part of your consciousness at the time, but now it's not, so what is the 'I' that continued?

Well memories are just database elements, and computers are far better at that than the wetware. The primary question we need to answer is the same that people have been trying to figure out for millennia; what is 'I'?

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

By then it won't matter, it will all be in the cloud. If something breaks you get it replaced and your latest memories get downloaded again.

I don't particularly like the idea of the original me dying and having someone else who thinks they are me running around. As to who I actually am, I'm not very sure. I'm still debating on the concept of the soul because although I have no proof I like the idea.

 

[Architect]

I don't particularly like the idea of the original me dying and having someone else who thinks they are me running around.

Then you must hate the 'you' who is the running program tomorrow morning when you wake up. An impostor who only shares some memories with the you (the running instance of your consciousness) of today.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

An interesting thought, can you explain?

 

[intpz]

What if your cell phone dies with all of your contacts, calendar and pictures?

Another example; have you ever had the experience of reading something you wrote, but you have zero memory of saying or thinking that? Obviously you didn't record that in your memory NN's (glial cells I think is where that goes), but doesn't that mean you 'lost' part of your consciousness? Certainly that was part of your consciousness at the time, but now it's not, so what is the 'I' that continued?

I did die about a month ago actually. I didn't care much, was a bit annoyed because at the moment my cousin and godfather was calling me, and before answering the even older phone the first time, knowing who's calling would've given me a great advantage. But after receiving the first call from one of them, I didn't care at all.

I have, however that was only related to things that hold no interest to me. Something absolutely meaningless. I have never had such an experience about something I have said or something that could impact my life in any way, whether negatively or positively.

I do use a GTD software (now, thanks for introducing that to me. ), which is useful due to the fact that I do things as I want, not according to a strict plan: "13:00 I'll do this, 13:56 I'll do that, 15:34 I'll do that."

I also use notes to note things I have to research when watching a movie or reading something, or think of something while doing something else. It's obvious that it's easy to forget these thoughts unrelated to what you are doing at the moment. For example: I'm writing an article and I have an unrelated idea due to something I just wrote about a game I'm developing, a part of algorithm. I write it down, I don't stop in the middle of the sentence and launch Visual Studio, and it's almost certain that I'll forget it after another 3000 words, I will be thinking about a totally different thing for another 2 hours, and after that I might not even get back to programming.

But yea, that's specific, most people do note a lot of things: cameras, camcorders, planning of what to do every minute for a week ahead, etc.. You always see some guy who wouldn't take his eyes off of the LCD screen on his camera all evening in some event, and he's not working there as a photographer... You ask him something about his marriage and he can't tell you shit because he had the camera in his hands all the time, except when listening to the priest...

 

[Cognisant]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/...otic-buttocks-and-how-not-to-fly-a-spacecraft

 

[PhoenixRising]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/...otic-buttocks-and-how-not-to-fly-a-spacecraft

Indeed, because it is very important to be prepared for the robopocalypse. What if humanoid robots take the form of androids though? Then wouldn't they be waterproof and capable of climbing trees?

 

[PhoenixRising]

Then you must hate the 'you' who is the running program tomorrow morning when you wake up. An impostor who only shares some memories with the you (the running instance of your consciousness) of today.

Curious, are you implying that we are a different person every day? If that is true, doesn't that mean we are a different person entirely every moment? Physically, the chemicals in our bodies are replaced by new chemicals, but it takes much longer than 8-12 hours for that process to make a complete cycle. And some substances, like the DNA in our hippocampus that stores the molecular component of our memories, stays with us intact for the duration of its existence.

Perhaps you are speaking on a philosophical level? If we think of the human consciousness like a computer operating system, then every time we sleep we "reboot". However, when you reboot a computer, it still has the same operating system, and the same quirks and applications. Just because it has ceased to run certain programs doesn't mean the framework of the operating system has changed. Just because I close my browser doesn't mean it no longer exists, it is just temporarily inactive.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your meaning?

 

[Cognisant]

Actually I wanted to showcase the robotic butt.