Do you expect to die?

[Borachio]

Yes, indeed. I can see that.

It's just that the subjective self-conscious experience may not be dissociable from the biological basis for it.

Look. Put it this way. If you copy all the data from your hard drive onto another hard drive. And then destroy the first hard drive with a hammer, has the data that's actually on that hard drive been lost or hasn't it?

I say it has. (Though I could be wrong.) [What you're left with is a copy and not the original. Though they may be indistinguishable by an outside observer.]

But if it hasn't, then what's to stop you copying your consciousness innumerable times? Then where is the thing that's you? Is it everywhere?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But if it hasn't, then what's to stop you copying your consciousness innumerable times? Then where is the thing that's you? Is it everywhere?

Interesting point to ponder...

Maybe that's already been done and you aren't anywhere near as unique as you think you are.

 

[tetley]

A sentient creature has a metaphysical presence that a hard drive does not have. Hence I would argue that data is preserved so long as one copy of it exists, whereas a creature can never be copied like that. The metaphysical properties that I have no way of scientifically proving exist forbid it.

 

[Kennigit]

Our consciousness is just electrical signals firing in the meat. Unless there is something special about the medium, there's no reason it can't fire equally well in electronic circuits.

We have those pesky neurotransmitters and probably junk like ATP consumption to worry about

It's probably harder to try to convert a junky organic blob (human) than just create a robot we can call our child

Which if people want to end up in an artificial organic or synthesized shell, may as well start out that way. If people can extend humanexperience outside of our flappy meat bodies, just incubate a nice test tube baby with your genetic material (or go the entire robot route, but I suspect people won't call a robot their "child")

 

[Colonel]

Given the trend in this thread toward cybernetics and uploading one's consciousness into said creation I think I must ask the question. If it were possible wouldn't this mean the eventual death of our race as we know it? Eventually, everyone would be transformed and procreation would stop, at least in a biological fashion. Our race would eventually be a race of machines, albeit with a human consciousness. Then comes the question that since it is in the human nature to war with one another would we take this concept with us. Would we as our "robot" selves wage war on those who chose to stay as regular humans, or would the regular humans wage a war on the "robot" humans.

This is where I say, I've seen this show (Battlestar Galactica anyone?)

 

[Bootstoots]

I expect to die, as ~100 billion have before me. I both do not believe we can "cure" aging, nor do I think that would be a very good idea; we have enough ecological problems with rich humans averaging ~80 years. Based on my family history of cancer (my mom died in July at 55; 3 of 4 grandparents had cancer of whom one died of it), my own recurrent and fairly serious depression (also runs in the family and depresses life expectancies in ways other than the obvious one), and my rather poor eating habits, I would peg my life expectancy around the mid 60s as a median, but with a huge 90% confidence interval of something like 46-92.

I'm the sort of person who looks up actuarial tables like this one (for the USA) and uses them to calculate average numbers of deaths for given populations and longer time-frame death probabilities for single individuals. I've attached a simple example, showing the probability that any given individual will die in the next 10 years, for all ages up to 60. For example, as a 25-year-old male, I die by this day in 2024 1.42% of the time, ignoring all factors besides age and sex. The plateau for males in their late teens to late twenties is different than the female curve and mostly reflects higher rates of death by accidents and homicide.

As you can tell, I am the life of most parties.

 

[Quintillus]

Rationally and scientifically, yes. The chances of immortality being achieved in our lifetimes are not particularly high. Higher than in the past, yes, given the higher number of people doing health research and the improved state of medical technology. But not high enough to realistically expect a breakthrough in the next 75 years, by which point even if I do exceptionally well health-wise it probably would be too late.

Emotionally, no. I feel great, am healthy, and haven't had any serious health issues. At the current rate, I could live to be 200. Or put another way, while I know rationally it's not possible, at this point I still feel 21 and invincible.

I do agree with those who advocate quality over quantity (to a reasonable degree - not to the point of riding motorcycles without a helmet or smoking at gas stations). We've gotten pretty good at prolonging life, but for a lot of people the later years aren't very high quality. Having seen grandparents at late stages of life, it's often not something that I'd want. On the other hand, there are other people who are over 90 who are still in decent shape, so I definitely wouldn't want to drive off a cliff at 60 like someone I knew in college once planned to do.

 

[El_Machinae]

Given the trend in this thread toward cybernetics and uploading one's consciousness into said creation I think I must ask the question. If it were possible wouldn't this mean the eventual death of our race as we know it? Eventually, everyone would be transformed and procreation would stop, at least in a biological fashion. Our race would eventually be a race of machines, albeit with a human consciousness. Then comes the question that since it is in the human nature to war with one another would we take this concept with us. Would we as our "robot" selves wage war on those who chose to stay as regular humans, or would the regular humans wage a war on the "robot" humans.

This is where I say, I've seen this show (Battlestar Galactica anyone?)

Yes, it's very likely a second race of post-humans would start up. Meat humans might stay around, since some people want to stay meat. I am really concerned about the economic system they'll suffer through (I'm totally taking ALL their jobs when I upload)

So, maybe not the end of humans. Not right away, anyway. All species eventually disappear.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'll let them keep their jobs when I upload. All I'll need money for is electricity, I won't need to work very much when I'm an awesome robot .

 

[Borachio]

Interesting point to ponder...

Maybe that's already been done and you aren't anywhere near as unique as you think you are.

Ha!

In an everyday sense, of course I'm not a unique person. I'm unusual in no regard I can think of. Apart from the very obvious observation that there's only me occupying this particular position in space and time. Or is this right? WE might be Legion, we suppose.

In a bizarre sense: when I was 20 I went to a small railway station that I'd never been to before in my life, afaik. I went up to the ticket window and before I had a chance to say anything at all the guy there said to his co-worker: "Look who's turned up!" and to me "You've decided to show your face, then". Me: "What?!" Total confusion all round.

 

[Daw]

What about replacing your neurons with synthetic copies, cell by cell? It's not really mind uploading, but it's way better.

Practically unfeasible.

Neuron has plenty of "roots" and "branches" with which it is connected with others (some known to be over 1.5m long) and the connection system is everything but logical, and 3D, and the thing you're going to replace overall looks like this:

Spoiler :

You can replace it only after you figure out how to do it without damaging everything around it. It'll be like untying a dense knot (or rather macrame) of microscopic thin and very fragile strands.

The other name for the macrame to untie is the "white matter".

A much more feasible way than replacing dead neurons is to try to prevent neurons from dying. The known way of doing it is learning as much as you can and thinking about everything you know. It may sound like a banality, but the truth is that neural death rate is largely based on atrophy - similarly to how muscles get weaker and smaller if you don't use them.

 

[Mise]

What if "you" are not defined by the biological fact of cells and neurons, but by who you consider yourself to be? Of all things, I would expect identity to be quite subjective.

 

[Daw]

What if "you" are not defined by the biological fact of cells and neurons, but by who you consider yourself to be? Of all things, I would expect identity to be quite subjective.

It definitely is subjective.

That's why "mental uploading" will hardly work: someone (something?) else appears which is knowing all you know and thinks exactly as you do, but it's still not you.

Moreover, if you and your "mental clone" live in parallel, you will start noticing differences. Same like in monozygotic twins, who are in fact clones of each other, which makes them very alike but still somewhat different.

And, importantly, each of such twins has own identity as individual. That makes them different people, although initially they are carbon copies of each other, including having totally identical neural network btw.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Somehow gender and our reproductive organs seem to have a large part in our perceived identity. Even if all other things are replaced with robotic parts, I can imagine some meaty parts remaining.

 

[Daw]

Somehow gender and our reproductive organs seem to have a large part in our perceived identity.

Our gender is coded in DNA. That also specifies how our endocrine glands will work and that, in turn, largely affects our brain activity. Robots don't need DNA. Neither they need endocrine glands. To hell with sexism.

Even if all other things are replaced with robotic parts, I can imagine some meaty parts remaining.

Also, well developed technology for replacing body parts with machinery suggests that old-school reproduction is also old fashioned and obsolete. And so are those meaty thingies you call... whatever you call them.

After all, you can experience constant ever-lasting orgasm by stimulating specific brain areas with electricity. Experiments were held on rats, who only had to push the button to have an orgasm. You know what? They starved to death.

 

[bhavv]

I remember chatting to ex muslim online who was now calling himself an Atheist. However, he wasn't willing to give up on the idea of eternal life, and he tried turning to quackery science fiction stuff to believe that eternal life would be possible within our lifetime.

His idea was that he believed that stem cell research / genetics would advance to the point where a whole replica body could be created, and that his brain could be transplanted into a new cloned body.

I felt sad and told him that he shouldn't have given up believing in religion. He seemed to want to put his faith in eternal life into science instead, bur that's not going to happen.

 

[Borachio]

A much more feasible way than replacing dead neurons is to try to prevent neurons from dying. The known way of doing it is learning as much as you can and thinking about everything you know. It may sound like a banality, but the truth is that neural death rate is largely based on atrophy - similarly to how muscles get weaker and smaller if you don't use them.

Is this really true, I wonder. It makes some intuitive sense, but we all know how unreliable intuition is.

Isn't there some evidence that practiced meditators have much healthier brains than others? And isn't meditation precisely the practice of not thinking at all?

A very great deal of thinking is actually rumination: thinking the same things over and over. Maybe that's what's harmful?

 

[Mise]

It definitely is subjective.

That's why "mental uploading" will hardly work: someone (something?) else appears which is knowing all you know and thinks exactly as you do, but it's still not you.

Moreover, if you and your "mental clone" live in parallel, you will start noticing differences. Same like in monozygotic twins, who are in fact clones of each other, which makes them very alike but still somewhat different.

And, importantly, each of such twins has own identity as individual. That makes them different people, although initially they are carbon copies of each other, including having totally identical neural network btw.

Well what I'm saying is, if you don't consider this clone to be "you", then it's not "you". But if you do consider the clone to be "you", then it is "you".

Consider this: the person I will become in 10 years is still me, even though every single cell in my body will have died and have been replaced with new ones by then. Biologically, factually, it isn't the same me. But I still consider that 10-years-from-now facsimile to be "me" -- and therefore I care about its well-being. I care enough to exercise and not eat too much now. I care enough to not take drugs and to save money for retirement. I care enough about this future version of myself to do a whole host of things that don't benefit "me", but instead benefit "future me". Why do I do this? Because, in spite of the biological fact that I share no cells in common with "future me", I still consider "future me" to be "me".

So why can't I apply the same thinking to a "future me" that is some sort of mental clone? Biologically, factually, neither "future me" nor "mental clone me" are really "me". But I might still care about "future me" even if "future me" took a form that I, presently, might find unfamiliar. I care about "future me" even when "future me" is not biologically the same as "present me". So as long as I perceive "future clone me" to be "future me" in the same respect as "future biological me" is, then, really, it is still "me" we're talking about.

Hope that all makes sense...

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Our gender is coded in DNA. That also specifies how our endocrine glands will work and that, in turn, largely affects our brain activity. Robots don't need DNA. Neither they need endocrine glands. To hell with sexism.

Also, well developed technology for replacing body parts with machinery suggests that old-school reproduction is also old fashioned and obsolete. And so are those meaty thingies you call... whatever you call them.

After all, you can experience constant ever-lasting orgasm by stimulating specific brain areas with electricity. Experiments were held on rats, who only had to push the button to have an orgasm. You know what? They starved to death.

Soo.. the robotic revolution would end feminism and gender studies for the price of my wiener?

 

[Daw]

Is this really true, I wonder.

Allegedly it is. Solving math problems, listening to or writing music, working with visual data, etc., increases blood circulation in respective brain areas leading for better nutrition and preservation of neurons.

Isn't there some evidence that practiced meditators have much healthier brains than others?

If there is some evidence, I'd like to be introduced to and inspect such evidence before I can comment. Right now I'm quite skeptical.

A very great deal of thinking is actually rumination: thinking the same things over and over. Maybe that's what's harmful?

No, it's not the thinking I meant, and yes, it's harmful of course. I meant thinking to find solutions or come to ideas you haven't found or came to before. Like exploring, learning (grasping, arguing and verifying previously unknown ideas) and inventing (it doesn't matter if you end up inventing stuff you didn't know to have been previously invented by someone else; you still independently invented it yourself and that's your invention).

Well what I'm saying is, if you don't consider this clone to be "you", then it's not "you". But if you do consider the clone to be "you", then it is "you".

[...]

Hope that all makes sense...

I somehow feel it does. Let's verify. Is what you've just said somewhat similar to that below (though posted in another thread's context):

Spoiler :

"Having 7 deaths is impossible, having 1 is inevitable." (a saying)

I think that when a person dies, he/she dies. That's over then for that individual. I don't believe in afterlife or bodiless consciousness.

However, there are similarities between parents and children. So, the individual's offspring is that individual's extension/prolongation in life.

Generations of my ancestors made this world for me, their extension, to live in and they contributed to its advantages and flaws with their deeds, thoughts (or thoughtlessness and inactivity). I, in turn, contribute to thoughts, deeds, thoughtlessness and inactivity of my generation that will form the future world for my successors to live it.

That future world, formed partly with what I think or not, do or not, say/write or not, etc., will be heaven or hell for myself and my ancestors living in my offspring (one of them can be oddly resembling myself actually, who knows?).

...not that I personally will ever see it or feel anything about it after I'm dead as individual.