PDA

View Full Version : Would You Transfer Your Consciousness into a Robot?


PhoenixRising
22nd-August-2012, 02:52 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 02:58 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 03:05 AM
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. :borg0: 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
22nd-August-2012, 03:33 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 04:08 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 06:51 AM
Yes. A thousand times yes. I would do it right now no questions asked. Not even a doubt in my mind.

Absurdity
22nd-August-2012, 07:08 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 09:07 AM
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
22nd-August-2012, 09:47 AM
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? :confused:

walfin
22nd-August-2012, 12:13 PM
If someone was a human mind in a robot body, what should they be considered, human or machine?
A cyborg. Simple.

Architect
22nd-August-2012, 01:03 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 01:13 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 01:15 PM
As he says in the video, I would do it as soon as I could.

Architect
22nd-August-2012, 01:27 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 02:03 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 02:27 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 03:17 PM
If the alternative was death, (not by old age) then yes.

Cognisant
22nd-August-2012, 04:23 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 04:33 PM
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 :D

Dr. Freeman
22nd-August-2012, 04:35 PM
My body isn't a temple, it's a fortress :D

I have a sudden desire to quote you.

Cognisant
22nd-August-2012, 05:17 PM
Go right ahead, the royalties aren't unreasonable.

Jennywocky
22nd-August-2012, 06:20 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 06:45 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 06:52 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 07:48 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 08:17 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 09:32 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 10:05 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 10:23 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 10:38 PM
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
22nd-August-2012, 11:39 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 12:30 AM
Amazing... Just like a movie. I want that hand, it could make sandwiches for me.

PhoenixRising
23rd-August-2012, 01:23 AM
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.

higs
23rd-August-2012, 02:37 AM
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
23rd-August-2012, 05:48 AM
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
23rd-August-2012, 06:50 AM
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
23rd-August-2012, 07:26 AM
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
23rd-August-2012, 08:18 AM
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
23rd-August-2012, 02:16 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 02:34 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 04:08 PM
What if when your consciousness is transferred to a computer your memory module fails?

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 04:30 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Cyborgs-Technologies-Future-Intelligence/dp/B007PMF592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345732090&sr=8-1&keywords=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
23rd-August-2012, 04:32 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 04:55 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 05:14 PM
An interesting thought, can you explain?

intpz
23rd-August-2012, 05:32 PM
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. :D 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
23rd-August-2012, 06:26 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/video-friday-talking-vacuums-robotic-buttocks-and-how-not-to-fly-a-spacecraft

PhoenixRising
23rd-August-2012, 06:42 PM
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/video-friday-talking-vacuums-robotic-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
23rd-August-2012, 06:59 PM
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
23rd-August-2012, 07:46 PM
Actually I wanted to showcase the robotic butt.

intpz
23rd-August-2012, 07:50 PM
It's not robotic if it's not making various... actions, ya know. ;)

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 10:10 PM
An interesting thought, can you explain?

I'm saying that, to all the people who don't think a copy of their mind is the same as them, then how do they explain going to sleep and waking up? The brain has a NN pattern which goes quiescent when we sleep. Consciousness is gone. In the morning, the NN starts running again. That is no different a process from making a copy of your mind and putting it in a different body. How would your consciousness know the difference?

Curious, are you implying that we are a different person every day? ...

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?

See above. I'm saying that people have to explain we have continuity, with our circadian rhythm when there is no continuous thread of consciousness. In other words, sleeping and waking is no different from copy and reboot.

intpz
23rd-August-2012, 10:18 PM
When you dream, your unconsciousness is active, isn't consciousness somewhat influenced by it? I think this is relevant on this topic.

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 10:47 PM
When you dream, your unconsciousness is active, isn't consciousness somewhat influenced by it? I think this is relevant on this topic.

Yes exactly. I first thought about this idea when I was knocked out to get my wisdom teeth pulled. When I came to I remember being completely disoriented, my mom was stroking my hand, which I'm really glad she did as I had no clue who or where I was. It took some time for my memories to come back to me and tell me who I was, and therein is the key.

At that moment, before the memories were available, I was like a newborn I think. If you could have replaced my memories with another persons I probably wouldn't have known the difference. This seemed to demonstrate that consciousness is some kind of running program, that uses memories to provide the illusion (?) of continuity. Getting knocked out truly seemed like a reboot, no different from making a brain copy and re-running it elsewhere.

Philosophically this seems to imply that we all have basically the same consciousness, and the difference come from memories and habit.

PhoenixRising
23rd-August-2012, 11:00 PM
Yes exactly. I first thought about this idea when I was knocked out to get my wisdom teeth pulled. When I came to I remember being completely disoriented, my mom was stroking my hand, which I'm really glad she did as I had no clue who or where I was. It took some time for my memories to come back to me and tell me who I was, and therein is the key.

At that moment, before the memories were available, I was like a newborn I think. If you could have replaced my memories with another persons I probably wouldn't have known the difference. This seemed to demonstrate that consciousness is some kind of running program, that uses memories to provide the illusion (?) of continuity. Getting knocked out truly seemed like a reboot, no different from making a brain copy and re-running it elsewhere.

Philosophically this seems to imply that we all have basically the same consciousness, and the difference come from memories and habit.
Really, what you are saying here is that the ego, the personal identity, is what is discontinuous. That is true, self identity is an illusion.

Consciousness itself is always a blank slate, it is the state of simply being aware, being able to perceive without interpretation. We do each have our own distinct consciousness, however. This is kind of the analogy I was making with the computer rebooting. Consciousness is consistent, just as an operating system is always consistent. The ego is like all the programs and personalizations you add to the computer. They are not necessary for the computer to run, but they are what add interactivity to the system. At the most basic level, all conscious life is exactly the same, it is genetic tendency and individual experience that differentiates us.

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 11:13 PM
Really, what you are saying here is that the ego, the personal identity, is what is discontinuous. That is true, self identity is an illusion.

Consciousness itself is always a blank slate, it is the state of simply being aware, being able to perceive without interpretation. We do each have our own distinct consciousness, however.

This sounds like some Eastern bullshit. I can say that because I wasted years of my life in an Eastern Philosophy bullshit group, studying from the bullshit master. In the absence of a religious or philosophical system, the natural state of consciousness is self awareness/ego, and awareness of what our senses our telling us. I'd like to take this as our definition of consciousness, as the Eastern idea is not the natural state, as it is very difficult to achieve.

This is kind of the analogy I was making with the computer rebooting. Consciousness is consistent, just as an operating system is always consistent. The ego is like all the programs and personalizations you add to the computer. They are not necessary for the computer to run, but they are what add interactivity to the system. At the most basic level, all conscious life is exactly the same, it is genetic tendency and individual experience is that differentiates us.

I don't get the analogy. An OS abstracts the computer hardware, sandboxes applications, and provides for interprocess communication. Applications then 'do stuff' - and frankly the OS is nothing more than a process running with a special privilege level.

The brain is a massive NN, and we don't yet know if anything like an OS or programs run on it.

intpz
23rd-August-2012, 11:13 PM
That is immensely interesting. Here's a thought though: how to get knocked out to get "rebooted?" The cases when it feels like you've described seem extremely rare.

Cognisant
23rd-August-2012, 11:25 PM
The brain is a massive NN, and we don't yet know if anything like an OS or programs run on it.
There is no OS, because there's no operator, no central hub, mass parallel processing is totally different to the linear processing methodologies we're accustomed to.

Fukyo
23rd-August-2012, 11:27 PM
What if your cell phone dies with all of your contacts, calendar and pictures?

Phone contacts and pictures aren't comparable to decades of memory.

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?



I'm going to assume the average and probably illiterate person living in 1500's was not exposed to the amount of information we are exposed to today, not even by a long stretch, and the literate ones probably wrote down things much in the same fashion we do today.

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 11:31 PM
That is immensely interesting. Here's a thought though: how to get knocked out to get "rebooted?" The cases when it feels like you've described seem extremely rare.

I suspect any anesthetic has this effect. Waking from sleep is not much different either, the only difference is that I remember dreams. Or I think I remember dreams, really since I'm not conscious I don't know. It could be that we're not dreaming at all but what we think are dreams is simply the mind finding some memory mish mash. I'm not saying this is the case, but rather highlighting our ignorance.

There is no OS, because there's no operator, no central hub, mass parallel processing is totally different to the linear processing methodologies we're accustomed to.

A NN and a CPU state machine are Turing equivalent. In other words, you can run Linux on a NN if you wanted (think of a net with a single node, for example).

Phone contacts and pictures aren't comparable to decades of memory.

That was merely an example. I'm presently running an experiment in life recording, I have a recorder on me 24 hours a day, and I have various solutions to take pictures and videos automatically. It all gets archived to a 10TB 4X redundant disk array. I'm also on the Glass Explorer program to get Google Glass prototypes next year.

While that is a different topic, I'll tell you that preliminary results (I've been doing it for two years) are that personal memory is a fucked up source of what really happens in your life.

intpz
23rd-August-2012, 11:33 PM
in the same fashion we do today.

iPads and iPhones? :D

Cognisant
23rd-August-2012, 11:33 PM
I'm going to assume the average and probably illiterate person living in 1500's was not exposed to the amount of information we are exposed to today, not even by a long stretch, and the literate ones probably wrote down things much in the same fashion we do today.
I think I read somewhere that the average 20+ person today has been exposed to more new information (science, news, entertainment, etc) than has even existed in the entirety of mankind prior to their birth.

No wonder we're increasingly relying on external memory.

PhoenixRising
23rd-August-2012, 11:43 PM
This sounds like some Eastern bullshit. I can say that because I wasted years of my life in an Eastern Philosophy bullshit group, studying from the bullshit master. In the absence of a religious or philosophical system, the natural state of consciousness is self awareness/ego, and awareness of what our senses our telling us. I'd like to take this as our definition of consciousness, as the Eastern idea is not the natural state, as it is very difficult to achieve.



I don't get the analogy. An OS abstracts the computer hardware, sandboxes applications, and provides for interprocess communication. Applications then 'do stuff' - and frankly the OS is nothing more than a process running with a special privilege level.

The brain is a massive NN, and we don't yet know if anything like an OS or programs run on it.
The idea that consciousness is separate from self identity isn't unique to Eastern religion. It's something that is debated and researched in psychology and neuroscience. Personally, I don't find it difficult at all to "wipe the slate clean" and temporarily suspend my personal identity. I've gone for a few days without recalling anything about my personal identity, my beliefs, thoughts, preconceptions, it's a very relaxing experience. Your experience when you woke up from having your teeth pulled sounds very similar to what I've experienced. Would this not suggest that your consciousness is separate from your self identity? You were awake, you could perceive, but you didn't recall anything about "who" you were.

I am not saying that consciousness is absolutely parallel to an OS. It's just a loosely-fitting metaphor. The OS on a computer is the background on which applications run. Each application has a specific use.

Architect
23rd-August-2012, 11:56 PM
The idea that consciousness is separate from self identity isn't unique to Eastern religion. It's something that is debated and researched in psychology and neuroscience. Personally, I don't find it difficult at all to "wipe the slate clean" and temporarily suspend my personal identity. I've gone for a few days without recalling anything about my personal identity, my beliefs, thoughts, preconceptions, it's a very relaxing experience. Your experience when you woke up from having your teeth pulled sounds very similar to what I've experienced. Would this not suggest that your consciousness is separate from your self identity? You were awake, you could perceive, but you didn't recall anything about "who" you were.



Fair enough. Perhaps we are in violent agreement, I'm not sure.

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
24th-August-2012, 02:37 AM
It's not like your blood stops flowing when you fall asleep, your subconscious mind is still active isn't it? Plus for those of us who lucid dream we are quite conscious while we are sleeping. I've heard some people don't believe in it but I think it's silly since I do it practically every night. I'm trying to make my dreams seamless with reality.

Hawkeye
24th-August-2012, 02:42 AM
I imagine death is like passing out. I mean, the sensation of fainting is:

*Eyes open* - usually stood up

*Blink* <--- what you think you are doing

*Eyes open* - either horizontal or in a completely different room with absolutely no understanding of how you got there.

You don't even dream because the length of time it too short to trigger them.


you. ]

PhoenixRising
28th-August-2012, 02:08 AM
I imagine death is like passing out. I mean, the sensation of fainting is:

*Eyes open* - usually stood up

*Blink* <--- what you think you are doing

*Eyes open* - either horizontal or in a completely different room with absolutely no understanding of how you got there.

You don't even dream because the length of time it too short to trigger them.


you. ]
Interesting thought. Are you suggesting that death is like passing out and staying unconscious, or that you pass out and wake to find yourself in another dimension of some sort?

addictedartist
28th-August-2012, 04:22 AM
I had a dream where I was immortal, I lived through all time (or what felt like an eternity) saw many things until everything became darkness, I arrived to a place where I met a hooded figure who looked like the led zepellin hermit or else the angel of death with brown cloak, who spoke without speaking directly to my soul in a dark cave with torch light surrounding two wooden doors which were barred, who I conversed with about my thoughts on the universe, I was at a really melancholy point of my life in regards to my career path and the direction I was going to moving towards and I was also experimenting with lucid dreaming and have since stopped because of the stress it put on my brain feeling like I was living two lives, remembering these vivid dreams whilst trying to listen to the teacher explain the latest math equation, To me death sanctions new life and my concern would be if my memory would be entirely intact or at least cognitive functions be suffecient to deal with the ever changing enviroments of reality. my point being is that if the robot was human like or even created in succession of humans which is to say better in every way then regardless wheather you 'exist' you will eventually cease to exist or else what were once useful functions of your body or mind become obsolete and you will hafto renew your experience to the new standard of living or survival. If you were to transfer your consciousness into a robot would you lose any or would it be amplified? I would, however; technology is not advanced enough to were I feel my body would be inadequate by any means and I trust my nervous system given by mother nature which is flexable to something manufactured which would sooner be rigid than the former. I awoke from the dream in a cold sweat when this hooded figure told me I had to leave because the place where I was did not exist (all time had passed and I was merely sustained to a new plane of existence from my not being able to die or be killed) I only remembered one word when I awoke which was 'sheol'(which I had never heard in my life besides this dream) , I remember not being tired but spiritually exausted however my body felt like brand new and since have taken up my career pursuits. Id like to think that it would be no benefit to consciousness to have prolonged existance if it is not nessecary or improves the quality of an individuals life. :borg0:
the inverse of this question is would you want to depend on life support to continue being alive?:smoker:
the reason I have stopped forcing myself into lucid dreams or at least inducing them because I feel it more important for my soul to connect with other souls in a mutual exchange of values in everyday life because now when I do remember my dreams they leave me with a feeling of elation and renewed faith in the mysteries of life rather than fear of comprimising the integrity of my character. ;):p

Cognisant
28th-August-2012, 04:49 AM
http://buttersafe.com/comics/2010-08-26-ToBeAlive.jpg

Hawkeye
28th-August-2012, 01:25 PM
Interesting thought. Are you suggesting that death is like passing out and staying unconscious, or that you pass out and wake to find yourself in another dimension of some sort?

Passing out and not so much staying unconscious, but rather turning off completely. You don't come back.

Otherwise we would have zombies walking around everywhere. ^^

intpz
28th-August-2012, 02:50 PM
Shit, we need proof of what is true and what is not. Many possibilities here, I'm leaning towards what Architect proposed, but it still isn't proven, it's just a theory.

Architect
28th-August-2012, 04:19 PM
intpz, I suspect we won't know for sure until we try. Personally I'm working on the problem in my work doing software modeling and architecture.

intpz
28th-August-2012, 06:20 PM
I'm more attracted to cybernetics. The video below illustrates my point, it isn't an inspiration or something like that, I haven't even played the game...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EcEix-iNots

Hawkeye
28th-August-2012, 06:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0KTUysrwgQ

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 06:17 AM
I had a dream where I was immortal, I lived through all time (or what felt like an eternity) saw many things until everything became darkness, I arrived to a place where I met a hooded figure who looked like the led zepellin hermit or else the angel of death with brown cloak, who spoke without speaking directly to my soul in a dark cave with torch light surrounding two wooden doors which were barred, who I conversed with about my thoughts on the universe, I was at a really melancholy point of my life in regards to my career path and the direction I was going to moving towards and I was also experimenting with lucid dreaming and have since stopped because of the stress it put on my brain feeling like I was living two lives...

Holy shit, eternity? You're serious? No, you can't be... Dafuk?!

Well don't leave me hanging, tell me what you did during all of that time!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0KTUysrwgQ


Mind blown.

PhoenixRising
29th-August-2012, 06:46 PM
Holy shit, eternity? You're serious? No, you can't be... Dafuk?!

Well don't leave me hanging, tell me what you did during all of that time!





Mind blown.
Eternity is really the absence of time. What Addicetedartist seems to be talking about is infinity, the forever forward passing of time. This experience only exists in universes like ours, outside of that time does not exist.

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 07:24 PM
Oh well. When it's too good to be true it is.


Edit:

e·ter·ni·ty (-tūrn-t)
n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.
3.
a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.
4. A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

in·fin·i·ty (n-fn-t)
n. pl. in·fin·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics The limit that a function is said to approach at x = a when (x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.
5.
a. A range in relation to an optical system, such as a camera lens, representing distances great enough that light rays reflected from objects within the range may be regarded as parallel.
b. A distance setting, as on a camera, beyond which the entire field is in focus.


Absence of time? Explain please.

addictedartist
29th-August-2012, 07:29 PM
what I saw was the end of this world, It was everything I thought was wrong and right with the world, and how it affected itself, the sensation was similar to be being unborn, everything started slow and then rapture happened quicker than I could realize, I wondered what life would be like if I were the only one who could escape its clutchs and before I knew it I was in the womb of forgotten consciousness'. what I experienced was romance adventure and a collision of harmonic dissonance which ruptured time and space as those who experienced it had ceased to exist. what I took from this dream was that no matter what I do in my life, if I have nobody to share it with then it is meaningless and futile, I never learned the secret to my vitality in the dream because it was absent, I would merely outlive others which served no purpose besides alienating me from those I am close to. The idea of humans turning into robots is inevitable to me, either that or zombies with no consciousness whatsoever, however I still think that the only way it will be possible to get there is together, and that our role in the universe is important; whatever it may be.

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 07:39 PM
Wait but did you literally live for "eternity" inside the dream before waking up? As in you experienced all of time in one night of sleep? So at this point you would feel billions of years old?

Hawkeye
29th-August-2012, 07:50 PM
Wait but did you literally live for "eternity" inside the dream before waking up? As in you experienced all of time in one night of sleep? So at this point you would feel billions of years old?

Only Dwellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dweller_(Banks)) live for billions of years

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 08:09 PM
Cool, They should make a movie.

PhoenixRising
29th-August-2012, 08:21 PM
Oh well. When it's too good to be true it is.


Edit:

e·ter·ni·ty (-tūrn-t)
n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.
3.
a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.
4. A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

in·fin·i·ty (n-fn-t)
n. pl. in·fin·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics The limit that a function is said to approach at x = a when (x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.
5.
a. A range in relation to an optical system, such as a camera lens, representing distances great enough that light rays reflected from objects within the range may be regarded as parallel.
b. A distance setting, as on a camera, beyond which the entire field is in focus.


Absence of time? Explain please.
I was speaking more of a literal experience than a textbook definition. Eternity, as I have experienced it, is timelessness. Infinity, as I've contemplated it, is endless time.

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 08:28 PM
How does one experience eternity?

Hawkeye
29th-August-2012, 08:31 PM
How does one experience eternity?

They say time flies when you are having fun. However, when you are bored out of your brains, time appears to move slowly or "stop".

"It felt like I was in that queue for an eternity."

Eternity is pseudo-forever.




We don't know of anything to be infinite.

addictedartist
29th-August-2012, 08:33 PM
how does one experience infinity?

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 08:51 PM
Hawkeye

That's just exaggeration, just a thing people say to emphasize their feelings.

addictedartist

Apparently in a dream, Lol. It might be possible if you fall asleep within your dream and then fall asleep within that dream and so on, like in the movie Inception. Eventually you will be so deep in your dreams that one second in the "real world" will be hours, days, or years in the dream world, not to mention that you get to be god in that world. For now this is all theoretical as the closest I've done to this consciously is waking up in another dream from a dream about five times in a row. It freaked me out a lot to keep waking up in another dream but still, I've never actually consciously fallen asleep within a dream and decided to stay there.

Hawkeye
29th-August-2012, 08:56 PM
Hawkeye

That's just exaggeration, just a thing people say to emphasize their feelings.



Yes, they feel like that have experienced timelessness... Eternity isn't something that is quantifiable. I basically paraphrased an example used in the definition of eternity posted by yourself :p




how does one experience infinity?

Nobody can experience infinity. Nothing is infinite. It is not even possible to imagine infinity.

addictedartist
29th-August-2012, 09:03 PM
Cool, They should make a movie.

And this is why I became an animator, the idea of my movie has been under wraps because of these twisted origins however it is about a point in time in the future where the end of the known universe is approaching and a machine is built to be sent back to the beginning of the known universe, in order to safe guard its existence only to find that, the end of time is unpreventable as the anscestors of the creator of the machine must recreate the machine because they cannot depend on their own mortality to survive and subsequently cause their own destruction despite any efforts of the machine to preserve them because it is their natural coarse of fate to perpetuate their personalities into the creation of the creator who is the ultimate perpetrator of 'evil' and must be killed in order to prevent the creation of the machine or activation which would cause the 'known' universe to enter into a loop where the creation is trapped within the parameters of its creator and its freewill happens to be following its primary directives of freeing the universe of tyranny, and when it completes its mission then it dissolves from existence by a quantum time signature unique to the creation installed by the creator which erases it from being by the very powers which had created it however the question that arises is the space within time that we inhabit justified or is there any justification in self preservation, as injustice is natural does it make justice unnatural and a mystery of selflessness in the effort to be more effecient in accordance to universal law.:confused:

what goes up must come down, in turn
what goes down must come up.:p

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 09:32 PM
Yes, they feel like that have experienced timelessness... Eternity isn't something that is quantifiable. I basically paraphrased an example used in the definition of eternity posted by yourself :p


Well it isn't quantifiable as long as eternity is an infinite amount of time. If time can be represented by a line that goes left and right indefinitely then no, you can't count how many years there are in eternity because there are always more appearing(?)

I want you to read a section from an article that explains what the ancient Indians believed about the concept of time. I know it's religious but I think it proposed a very interesting idea. I'm not going to say I have faith in or believe this but I will say that I "like" the idea :p

Ancient Indian Cyclic Time System
In the Indian system, Years are named and there are 60 names. Once the 60 names are finished, the next year starts with the first name again. This goes on in a cyclic manner. Beyond this level there are 4 epochs or Yugas, namely, Krita Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga, and Kali yuga. They are not equal in the length of time. Duration of each epoch is as follows:

1. Krita-yuga: 1,728,000 years
2. Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 years
3. Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 years
4. Kali-yuga: 432,000 years

All these four Yugas together is called a Chatur Yuga, which means "four epochs". 71 cycles of Chatur Yuga is called a manvantara. At the end of each manvantara period, there comes a partial devastation period, which is equivalant to the duration of krita yuga. This means after every manvantara period, the world is partially destroyed and recreated.

According to Hindu scriptures, in this cyclic process of time, 1000 chatur yuga period is called a Kalpa, and period of time is equal to a daytime for the Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe. These scriptures put Brahma's age at 100 years in his unique time scale. Therefore Brahma's life span is equal to 311,040,000,000,000 human years. This period in named as maha kalpa. A universe lasts only for one maha kalpa period. At the end of it the universe is completely destroyed together with the creator Brahma and a new universe would be created with a new Brahma. This cycle goes on endlessly. The Vedic universe passes through repetitive cycles of creation and destruction. During the annihilation of the universe, energy is conserved, to manifest again in the next creation.

I just noticed how incredibly off topic we were :o

addictedartist

It'll make a good movie I'm sure but that was hard to follow.

:storks:

Hawkeye
29th-August-2012, 09:58 PM
Well it isn't quantifiable as long as eternity is an infinite amount of time. If time can be represented by a line that goes left and right indefinitely then no, you can't count how many years there are in eternity because there are always more appearing(?)

I want you to read a section from an article that explains what the ancient Indians believed about the concept of time. I know it's religious but I think it proposed a very interesting idea. I'm not going to say I have faith in or believe this but I will say that I "like" the idea :p



Eternity doesn't have a value but differs from infinity. It is a concept of timelessness. By this, a period of 5 minutes can be perceived to be "eternal" under the right circumstances.

Smoking weed for example drastically alters how one perceives time, as does dreaming. Dreams last minutes yet feel as though they last hours.

Elves in the Lord of the Rings live effectively eternal lives from the perspective of man.

Eternity is a long period of time relative to the norm.

Each of those epochs is an eternity within itself.
What that Indian system implies is that the universe is infinite as it is based on the "Big Crunch" idea (something that no longer seems the likely end to our Universe) that will lead to another "Big Bang".

ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε
29th-August-2012, 10:08 PM
Yes, I've also heard of this "Big Crunch" idea before. When I read about it, it actually made me think about what I previously read about the Indian's beliefs about how the universe is destroyed and then starts over again...

The Big Crunch doesn't seem so unlikely to me but I don't know... Like always, that's where I end up.

Here's a similar theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaImVFRpOR8&feature=related

Tempestas
29th-August-2012, 10:35 PM
I'd be afraid that the robotic consciousness was actually a copy instead of an actual transfer, so the current me would just die. But no one would ever know because the copy is exactly like the original, and believes it is.

addictedartist
30th-August-2012, 01:01 AM
nothing is absolute.nothing is eternal.nothing is infinite.
thats my concern, that even though the robot can think like I can, Do what I would want, I would not be able to survive the process people can believe anything they want about anything the robot thinks or says or does but I would experience nothing.

addictedartist
30th-August-2012, 06:39 AM
Elves dont fuck around:kilroy:

Hawkeye
30th-August-2012, 02:20 PM
Elves dont fuck around:kilroy:

Nice double entendre. :Emotifin2-1:

Heat-Shock
9th-September-2013, 02:27 PM
If I Could I'd Go With Computer/Console,So I May Play game's At A New Level,Like Skyrim...

Jennywocky
9th-September-2013, 04:37 PM
I'd be afraid that the robotic consciousness was actually a copy instead of an actual transfer, so the current me would just die. But no one would ever know because the copy is exactly like the original, and believes it is.

I always wondered if that was what actually was happening on Star Trek when they beamed someone around. The actual molecules that make up that person would be irrelevant; they are just recreating a person. Couldn't the transporter double as a clone machine, if the safeguards were removed?

Also thought of it in connection with the machine in The Prestige.

But what does that say about the nature of consciousness?

just george
9th-September-2013, 04:42 PM
What if the next place your consciousness decides to inhabit is better than the experience offered in a robotic body?

So I say no. I'm cool.

Cognisant
9th-September-2013, 05:13 PM
But what does that say about the nature of consciousness?
The abstract self is illusionary, it's like wondering what the colour blue really looks like when the colour blue is a wavelength of light interpreted by photosensitive cells in the retina which transmit a bioelectric signal to the brain. The question is absurd because being able too see something is predicated on having eyes to see with and a brain to interpret the input, it's a recursive chicken & the egg kind of thing, the sensation of blue and the stimulus you identity as blue are equally contrived.

The wavelength is mere physical fact.

Consciousness is the same because it's likewise mechanism dependant, y'know rocks don't think and we know this because even if they inexplicably could what would they think about?

Your belief in your identity is inherent to your mechanisms, if I replicate you perfectly then the perfect replication of you will of course believe it is you, or rather itself and in that sense it's not wrong, which dosen't mean you're not you anymore just that there's now two, independant, individual version of you. Basically identity is something we give to objects to differentiate them from other objects, it's not inherent to the object itself even if the observations we make of that object are consistent with the properties that define the identity because those properties are also contrived.

Blah nihilism blah blah more nihilism blah blah blah nihilism.

Jennywocky
9th-September-2013, 05:44 PM
I don't think I answered the original question, ever.

I'd consider it if my body still felt organic (rather than like a tin can), and especially if I got some cool powers out of the deal.

There's still a concern, though, about control devices being built into the mechanoid. No one enjoys being possessed or self-destructed.

The abstract self is illusionary, it's like wondering what the colour blue really looks like when the colour blue is a wavelength of light interpreted by photosensitive cells in the retina which transmit a bioelectric signal to the brain. The question is absurd because being able too see something is predicated on having eyes to see with and a brain to interpret the input, it's a recursive chicken & the egg kind of thing, the sensation of blue and the stimulus you identity as blue are equally contrived.

The wavelength is mere physical fact.

Consciousness is the same because it's likewise mechanism dependant, y'know rocks don't think and we know this because even if they inexplicably could what would they think about?

Your belief in your identity is inherent to your mechanisms, if I replicate you perfectly then the perfect replication of you will of course believe it is you, or rather itself and in that sense it's not wrong, which dosen't mean you're not you anymore just that there's now two, independant, individual version of you. Basically identity is something we give to objects to differentiate them from other objects, it's not inherent to the object itself even if the observations we make of that object are consistent with the properties that define the identity because those properties are also contrived.

Blah nihilism blah blah more nihilism blah blah blah nihilism.

Well, that's all from the outside, from observing. We assign identities from the outside to label a person as "Not Someone Else" so we can tell them apart.

What about this bizarre artifact of "self-awareness" that is experienced internally? This self-labeling, self-distinguishing, self-monitoring mechanism? It seems confined to the brain, as you can have other body parts destroyed/damaged removed without really changing sense of self much, but as soon as you muck with someone's CPU, well, that's the kicker?

I do of course think a great experiment would be the "insta-clone" device, as we would immediately recognize whether consciousness is apart from the physical or whether it is manifest as the product of a complete body. If you can Xerox someone and they're immediately conscious and view themselves as the same as the target -- the same people -- then boom, you'd know it was purely a byproduct of the physical state.

BTW, I didn't mean to repeat something I said earlier in the thread. That's the problem with necro'ing threads -- I think my last posts were over a year ago and I didn't remember I made them.

Cognisant
9th-September-2013, 06:22 PM
Ditto.

What about this bizarre artifact of "self-awareness" that is experienced internally? This self-labeling, self-distinguishing, self-monitoring mechanism? It seems confined to the brain, as you can have other body parts destroyed/damaged removed without really changing sense of self much, but as soon as you muck with someone's CPU, well, that's the kicker?
Self awareness is initially external, once the observation/action feedback loop is established then you have a concept of self and can think in terms of self reference, that self referential thinking creates another feedback loop which gives us self determination, EVERYTHING is derived from observation because the brain is essentially a recognition engine, it receives input, formulates relationships between inputs (based upon various validity determining mechanisms) and those relationships are the basis of the properties we use to define our concepts.

The self concept is comprised of the properties used to define it, if the record of those properties (comprised of associated inputs) is lost then self referential thinking would cease and self determination would be meaningless, in effect the subject becomes a living P-zombie, people with advanced neurodegenerative conditions are like this, the fragments of their mind still functioning and unaware that the whole is not.

I could be typing away right now entirely convinced that what I'm writing makes sense and have no idea that it's utter gibberish because I'm not self conscious of my mind's dysfunctional state, like a NPC in a glitchy videogame acting out a broken script over and over.

When broken down to our parts we really are just sophisticated autonoma.

nil
9th-September-2013, 06:44 PM
To answer the OP: yes, probably. To be honest, I really don't care too much about how one defines consciousness, it's all to fleeting and vague, as are most (all) things which have been defined. I will say, however, that making the leap to a 100% robot is far different from how I imagined cybernetic organisms coming about. I expected like, certain parts to be replaced with better biomechanical parts, etc. A few years back I decided that if someone wanted to start testing with this, I would volunteer in an instant. I have no clue why. Maybe I find life really that boring?

But I still don't want to live forever. You can pull the plug on my consciousness in 25-50 years.

Marshall
25th-September-2013, 02:34 AM
Transfer my consciousness for what? So I can live even longer in this meaningless world fulfilling our meaningless existence. Wait until we die a meaningless death never to return to consciousness, even more nothingness awaits us in the after life.

Rook
2nd-October-2013, 01:18 PM
Aah yes, but to extend the adventure in the form of a robot is surely more exciting than the inherent void that is set to swallow us?

Pyropyro
2nd-October-2013, 01:55 PM
Sure why not? It's like a mechanical lich-hood :) There's lots of stuff to discover in this Universe and a self-repairing body would serve me well.

Deep_in_thought
6th-October-2013, 06:37 AM
I personally would, so long as it was an organic robot so I could maintain my senses. Wetware technology I would think would make this possible, being squishy and full of liquids may be considered fragile, but I prefer it to being solid and metallic.

paradoxparadigm7
6th-October-2013, 05:28 PM
Would my consciousness retain memory of my past in a sensing, deteriorating body? If so, that might be the definition of hell. A type of "I must scream but have no mouth". The memories of physical touch and the craving of touch would drive me mad as my robot body could in no way connect and my isolation would be so utterly complete that I would want my consciousness snuffed out. That's also assuming I would continue to have emotions.