Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Resurrecting the dead / Mind uploading

resurrection nanobots mind uploading

  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#141
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,147 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.
http://www.scienceda...20626172721.htm
Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#142
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,813 posts


4.) since i believe that our consciousness is an illusion, i have a problem dealing with the fact that even if we are going to be able to create an exact replica of ourselves, we wont still be the original. or how about we were able to create two of my "self" at the same time? it would be similar to having conversation with your parrallel self. though, what's horrible about it is that both of you actually exist in the same universe.


If consciousness is an illusion, then neither of you is the real you. If there is no consciousness, there is no 'you'. You are either real or you are not, if you are not then then there is no way for the second person to be less 'you' than the original. (I have two imaginary coins in my hand, which will buy me the most food? Are they of equal value? Are they in fact the same imaginary coin repeated?)

If the original is more you then the duplicate than it fairly well nessecitates some aspect that is not an illusion. thus it's something real and real things can be identified. (I have a silver dollar and a gold dollar. are they the same coin? If I have only the silver dollar left which one is missing?)


i think we have a problem in dealing with the terms: id say that our brain producing these illusions are real as it gets, the senses that it provides are real as is the external world is real. however, everything that we think about ourselves, our desires, every meaninful thing that we keep, or believe, or the very thing that we believe make us as our 'selves' are simply a cocktail of information made by our brain to simulate patterns, meanings in our lives. a projection which our clever brains create in order to cheat ourselves from the reality of death and probably to make us survive longer and thus produce offspring. maybe its not necessarily the 'consciousness' that im referring to in here per se, i could be referring to the "Self".

so yeah, based on that assumption i would say that the 'Self" i am now is not the 'Self' that i was 10 years ago. at present, i am just the product of all the memories and experiences of that self 10 years ago plus the experiences from 10 years ago to the present. if we based that on science, there is not one original cell in my body that 10 years ago existed. the brain only gives me an illusion of continuity of the self. so what gets me confused is if we currently have a technology that could exactly replicate myself into 3 or 4 people; you are saying that, they too are as original as me (based on the criteria you've given me). but how about putting yourself in my shoe and lets amp up the situation even further. let is us say, that i am going to destroy your "self" (self #1) right now only to replicate you in 3 different places at the same time, which also means that I have to replicate you(#1) to 3 indiviuals (self # 2, 3, 4). think of this as a malfunctioned teleport machine. Would You (self #1) safely assume that you (#1) werent snuffed out from existence? If not, How can you (#1) surely say that self #3, 4, 5 are really you and not replicants who believes it is really you? If so, how is this different from your other selves from the hypothetical parallel universes?

Edited by Zeitgeist123, 28 June 2012 - 01:33 AM.

“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#143
Mr. G

Mr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

anyway let me just do a summary if what i think about what kjaggard and Mr. G said.

3.) i think that consciousness is definitely an illusion created by nature for us to survive, live longer and therefore continue reproducing our specie. the illussion that our lives have meaning or things that make our lives meaningful are ultimately subjective. objectively, the "self" has no purpose other than to aid in enforcing evolution.

4.) since i believe that our consciousness is an illusion, i have a problem dealing with the fact that even if we are going to be able to create an exact replica of ourselves, we wont still be the original. or how about we were able to create two of my "self" at the same time? it would be similar to having conversation with your parrallel self. though, what's horrible about it is that both of you actually exist in the same universe.


I had a sort of epiphany last night.

I realized that the feeling of consciousness (or conscious awareness) is what we mistake for consiousness. This feeling of consciousness creates the illusion of the agent or the "I". Evolution selected for this feeling because this heightened awareness of the "self" as opposed to the "other" allows for metacognition. Metacogntion allows people to know what they know, or to think about their thinking. Which of course is very valuable for problem solving.

In reality, there is no "I". There is no agent that controls the operation of the body. This is the illusion. In fact, there are no agents in the universe at all. There is *only* the universe. Our thoughts and sensory mentations are just processes of the chain of what appears to be cause and effect. We don't control our thoughts or actions because "we" don't really exist.

The subjective experience of existence is real and so are our emotions. However, life is more like watching ourselves perform in a real time scripted play than what it appears to be. We don't think our thoughts. We watch ourselves think. We don't act. We watch ourselves act. When we fall asleep the "watching" part of our brain shuts down. When we wake, it takes hold. When we die, it is the same as when we are in deep sleep.

G

#144
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC
It is already known that consciousness is an emergent property of various underlying processes in the brain. We are trying to figure out how and what processes combine to create this "illusion" as you call it.
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#145
Mr. G

Mr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

It is already known that consciousness is an emergent property of various underlying processes in the brain. We are trying to figure out how and what processes combine to create this "illusion" as you call it.


This is a subject that has been under intense debate for centures and is still under heavy debate. You might be aware of recent research, but it is not a verified fact. Even though this is also my conclusion, I truly hope that this is not the case.

What I was referring to in the above post is much more philosophical in nature. I am not sure how you could prove the nonexistence of free will experimentally. Nor am I sure of how to prove the nonexistence of consciousness experimentally.

Are you sure all this is "known"? Or, is this just something that you have read about.

G

#146
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC
Not sure how you can link free will with the miracle of consciousness. We haven't really defined free will very effectively. For now, I think it doesn't exist. Let me ask you this - What happens if you're born without the five senses and your brain still retains the normal functioning capacity? You grow into an adult, and can you tell me what is happening in your head? In that kind of state of mind, can you come up with one single thought or idea? A single inspiration? A dream? Can you really develop the concept of the "self" while you lack all of the five senses that is necessary to shape your frame of reference towards the world/people you live in? This leads to the obvious conclusion that consciousness is an emergent property. Think about it and you might be a little disturbed.

Edited by Raklian, 30 June 2012 - 04:50 PM.

What are you without the sum of your parts?

#147
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
Obvious for a non-scientist maybe. The more intellectual among us don't make such definitive conclusions based on speculative ponderings. You think in 2 dimensions and are unable to comprehend things without allowing your simplistic human biases to shape your conclusions. I have the capacity to think in the third person in 3 or even 4 dimensions, where in essence I can transcend the limitations and biases of the human mind and think in terms of absolute truth and understanding, leading me to know not only when lower beings are wrong, but also why they're wrong and exactly what thought processes led them to these incorrect and sometimes shocking conclusions.

#148
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,813 posts
^^shimmy, which of us are you referring to?

“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#149
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Obvious for a non-scientist maybe. The more intellectual among us don't make such definitive conclusions based on speculative ponderings. You think in 2 dimensions and are unable to comprehend things without allowing your simplistic human biases to shape your conclusions. I have the capacity to think in the third person in 3 or even 4 dimensions, where in essence I can transcend the limitations and biases of the human mind and think in terms of absolute truth and understanding, leading me to know not only when lower beings are wrong, but also why they're wrong and exactly what thought processes led them to these incorrect and sometimes shocking conclusions.


Your arrogance shows. It's going to be your fucking downfall, jeez.

Maybe you're using logic and reason as a way to compensate for what you're missing. *snickering*
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#150
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
Oh come on. Shimmy is our village idiot, and a funny one. We're lucky to have him here. He's pulling your leg :)
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#151
Mr. G

Mr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Not sure how you can link free will with the miracle of consciousness. We haven't really defined free will very effectively. For now, I think it doesn't exist.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that consciousness is an emergent property.

Think about it and you might be a little disturbed.


Free will doesn't need any fancy definitions. You are controlling your actions or you are not. If there is no person willing the body into action than there is no free will. I am saying the "ghost" in the machine doesn't exist, only the machine. I am saying that the "feeling" of consciousness gives us the illusion that we are in control, but that feeling itself is also an illusion. I am doubting the existence of the agent that you might say "emerges" from brian processes. No person at any time is emerging.

I agree that the "feeling of consciousness" emerges from brain processes. I also think that consciousness is not the miracle that it appears to be, but is just another mechanism that helps our bodies survive and pass on our genes. What we define as "consciousness" is really some kind of feedback mechanism that allows us to integrate memories, sensory input and thoughts together to allow for higher order problem solving. As a side effect, the feeling of "I" is created.


As for being disturbed, I already am. This is a distrubing topic.

G

Edited by Mr. G, 01 July 2012 - 04:38 AM.


#152
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC


What we define as "consciousness" is really some kind of feedback mechanism that allows us to integrate memories, sensory input and thoughts together to allow for higher order problem solving. As a side effect, the feeling of "I" is created.


G


That is a statement I generally agree with you. Actually, that is a common sense statement even though most people aren't enlightened about this.

But when it comes down to technical details, it gets too arcane a subject to discuss in here.
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#153
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC


Free will doesn't need any fancy definitions. You are controlling your actions or you are not. If there is no person willing the body into action than there is no free will. I am saying the "ghost" in the machine doesn't exist, only the machine. I am saying that the "feeling" of consciousness gives us the illusion that we are in control, but that feeling itself is also an illusion. I am doubting the existence of the agent that you might say "emerges" from brian processes. No person at any time is emerging.


G


On this subject, there is no question (or thought if you will) more disturbing than asking why our consciousness is unique in each of us rather than being shared or duplicated? It is obvious that each consciousness has its own flavor or fingerprint.

Why do we only have one unqiue state of awareness that gives us the sense our individuality, something which cannot be duplicated by another brain?

It is a question I've struggled with.

One piece of the puzzle I've managed to come up with regards to this question is that the fact no two people occupy the exact position in space, it is impossible for two consciousnesses to be identical or experienced simultaneously.
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#154
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,147 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.
What I keep saying though is that if it's a quirk of the machine, then rebuilding the machine allows for the quirk to continue. If it's a quirk of the machine and I'm not really in existance outside that quirk. Then I can't actually die, because I don't exist to begin with. Creating a new machine that thinks it's me with the quirk it has is just as good as the quirk of me today and the quirk of me tomorrow. But if we are talking about a mind being each of us seperate, has anybody ever wired a couple together such that input to one could be recorded into another? Nope. Then how do we know we are unique or arn't duplicates of each other. That's one of my points when I brought of the alien hand syndrome resulting from splitting the human brain in halves that don't exchange data. If you split a brain and it reacts like two people, what happens when you join two brains? Maybe we aren't unique at all. Maybe we are modular components stuck in independent functioning mode. So if we don't exist as unique persistent self identities and are instead just machines without ghosts and there are no differences between the unique machines, then making a new machine and connecting an old one to it to get it up and running before removing the old one won't harm it any. Making complete duplicates won't harm it any. And letting them think they are a continuation won't harm anything. because they are a continuation just as much as the machine was a continuation of itself from hour to hour. Either we do exist, or we just think we do. If we do and manage to find ways to preserve ourselves, yay. If we just think we exist and we just think we found a way to preserves ourselves, then Yay again. If we find out that we don't exist and therefore don't waste effort in trying to preserves something that isn't there, okay. The only areas of problem for me are: We do exist and just think we found a way to preserve ourselves, or we do exist and we don't preserve ourselves. So out of five option: 2 say try and lead to posative feedback, 1 says don't try and is not posative feedback nor negative feed back. 2 say don't try and consequences are negative. I'd go for two posative or accept a neutral. To allow negatives through inaction seems foolish
Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#155
MarcusAurelius

MarcusAurelius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
I think our grasp on neurology is still very humble and there is alot we do not know than what we do know. But I am excited about what lays ahead with the coming developments and research into neuroplasticity and other brain phenomenon. Alot may think there are some quirks to this old brain of ours that has been overlooked and is soley responsible for this illusion of consciousness. I tend to think its a combination of factors and delving into all those facets will reveal so much about what is consciousness and hopefully how to maintain it into immortality one day.

But although I have read upon the literature extensively and have some ideas of my own that may conflict with the accepted scientific position of today. I have to say that our minds cannot just be so easily dismissed as machinations of a simple evolution of life or genetic complexity that gave rise to our order of species. I think that as a whole, we must be part of a greater process of the universe. Kind of like watching a Mandelbrot set unravelling its complexity infinitely and with such majesty. I recall having a moment of clarity at 3 years old, where I suddenly got it into my head that I was alive. And that this meant something profound for some reason. It was almost like I had survived something catastrophic at some point in the past, and that declaring I was conscious had some significance. Try to bear in mind that at age 3 I had barely been self aware and conscious for 6 months or so, as my earliest memory was walking by a botanical garden with my mother at 2 1/2 years of age and distinctly remembering that I couldn't speak but the idea of non speech didn't alarm me in the slightest. If I had to describe what it felt like, I was just too busy marveling at the flowers and my general disposition was that I was nonplussed about talking or the urgency of it. So back to this revelation at 3yo, I was at home alone and just looking all around me trying to state to the universe that it hadn't beaten me, that I was back. I never had this experience since, being 3 yo also made that feeling even more uncharacteristic to me, because I had no idea why I felt that way. Just that it was important and I was trying to recollect some experience prior to why I felt this way. But it was fleeting and inexplicable to this day. However I dreamt alot of things that year that disturbed me quite abit, some may call it recollections of a past life. But I like to think of it as some quantum entanglement phenomenon of my stream of consciousness from where it was beforehand, which was quickly resolved subconsciously over the years. lol.

And now for some interesting links
http://www.cbc.ca/do...nchangesitself/

http://www.cbc.ca/do...angingyourmind/

http://www.cbc.ca/do.../fixingmybrain/

http://www.time.com/...1580438,00.html

#156
Mr. G

Mr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts



Free will doesn't need any fancy definitions. You are controlling your actions or you are not. If there is no person willing the body into action than there is no free will. I am saying the "ghost" in the machine doesn't exist, only the machine. I am saying that the "feeling" of consciousness gives us the illusion that we are in control, but that feeling itself is also an illusion. I am doubting the existence of the agent that you might say "emerges" from brian processes. No person at any time is emerging.


G


On this subject, there is no question (or thought if you will) more disturbing than asking why our consciousness is unique in each of us rather than being shared or duplicated? It is obvious that each consciousness has its own flavor or fingerprint.

Why do we only have one unqiue state of awareness that gives us the sense our individuality, something which cannot be duplicated by another brain?



It is true that every person has different experiences. The experience is certainly no illusion. Since every person's physiology and life experiences are different, I would assume that this is the source of our apparent uniqueness.

However, I disagree that it cannot be duplicated by another brain.

Our universe is BIG. If it is of sufficient size and is sufficiently uniform there is most certainly a parallel "you", living on a parallel Earth. The reason being there are only so many ways that atoms can be arranged. If the universe is infinite than their will be an infinite number of parallel Earths. But, I digress...

G

#157
Mr. G

Mr. G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

I think our grasp on neurology is still very humble and there is alot we do not know than what we do know. But I am excited about what lays ahead with the coming developments and research into neuroplasticity and other brain phenomenon. Alot may think there are some quirks to this old brain of ours that has been overlooked and is soley responsible for this illusion of consciousness.


I agree. There is a lot to learn. Also, I am still hoping that consciousness is not an illusion. Perhaps there is a physics that we don't know about that governs our brain processes. Penrose and ? wrote a book about possible quantum processes occuring in our brains. Most scientist find serious flaws with it. I am hoping that our brains are even more complex than they look.

G

#158
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas
I've always wondered how we are going to wake up a frozen dead person. Assuming that we can unfreeze a person with no crystallization damage or we find a way to use nanobots to do it, we will be dead. What makes us think that some day we will be able to wake a dead person?

Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#159
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

I've always wondered how we are going to wake up a frozen dead person.

Assuming that we can unfreeze a person with no crystallization damage or we find a way to use nanobots to do it, we will be dead. What makes us think that some day we will be able to wake a dead person?


Let's us just say it is more important right now to find the most efficient method of freezing (a misnomer) people so that there is only the smallest probability of atoms being moved unintentionally to the point they can't be reconstructed. That is what makes or breaks the ability for us to be able to revive a dead body when the technology is ready to so.

At least, that's our current paradigm of understanding.
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#160
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas
Right now we are freezing people. In the next 50 years to preserve someone you won't need to. For now, that is all we are doing. Still, if I had the option when I was say 80 or so to put myself into suspended animation until they could cure aging, I would do it.

Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: resurrection, nanobots, mind uploading

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users