Is John human?

[El_Machinae]

The problem is we have an archetype of a person's life: a person is born then lives for a certain amount of time then dies. We are very used to thinking that way, so used to that idea that we think it must be that way. Our idea about "me" is very strongly tied to that archetype. Really though that's not the way it must be. It's a matter of circumstance that it happens to be that way. As we change those circumstances our concept of "me" must also change.

It's not just that. A specific consciousness is a real thing. It can only be housed in one location at a time. If you want *that* consciousness to be a different place at a different time, then you need to pick up that brain and move it there.

Now, we lose continuity every time we fall asleep. And if we were to have copy/cloning, a subset of people would very quickly adapt because it wouldn't be dissimilar enough from falling asleep and having someone move you. Experientially, anyway.

But, outside of falling asleep (etc.) consciousness does have continuity. If you lie someone down and copy their brain, they'll not be continuous with the clone. Their consciousness wouldn't split, there'd just be a new person.

Now, a strong case could be made that if all the quantum information was captured and sent (necessitating the destruction of the original), then the reformed consciousness is the same consciousness. But most 'copying' scenarios don't include that level of fine-tuning, and they all the multiple-copy outcome.

 

[Narz]

[

Now, we lose continuity every time we fall asleep.

No we don't, it may feel that way (though it doesn't to me) but its not actually true.

The falling asleep analogy is a very bad one. Our brain stays quite active during sleep & maintains some level of awareness. If I pour freezing (or boiling) water on you while you are sleeping you will wake up instantly. A sleeping person can distinguish dangerous sounds from benign ones & even sleepwalk & get a sandwich.

Wakeful awareness is only one part of who we are. I am certainly myself while I'm sleeping, my dreams, sleeping posture, breathing patterns are very much influenced by my waking life.

Just like heartbeat there is no offline-mode for the brain.

Now, a strong case could be made that if all the quantum information was captured and sent (necessitating the destruction of the original), then the reformed consciousness is the same consciousness.

Sounds pretty woo-woo to me.

 

[El_Machinae]

I meant a discontinuity in your consciousness. There are levels of sleep when the consciousness is gone, and reflexes are used to renew it if there's some outside stimuli

 

[Narz]

A human being is more than waking consciousness.

 

[El_Machinae]

Obviously so. I was just talking about how we lose continuity in our consciousness

 

[madviking]

A human being is more than waking consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

 

[Hygro]

Not necessarily, no.



A robot can function as a human functions. It's a matter of definitions in this case, and that's true *regardless* of whether a theoretical consciousness is transferred or "merely" copied. I suspect in practice there would simply be new terminology for entities with consciousness and legal rights, especially given that people already have pushed similar laws for animals. John would be a thinking entity with full rights, and likely defined as a robot, cyborg, or something else entirely simply to conveniently distinguish his body type from that of completely organic people. The transferal of a unique consciousness in this instance is irrelevant.

Whereas we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, I think the furthest apart we could morally consider John is a Homo Sapiens Android, and really only if John was down with that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Such as? As I see it our perception of a singular indivisible self Is the problem. It's a useful fiction that makes life easier but it isn't a logical necessity. We need to learn to get over ourselves.

It most certainly is not a logical necessity, as you say. However, it would be a mistake to assume that some transferrable element of singular consciousness can't exist under any circumstances, in large part due to the limited nature of our own perception and understanding of it.

FWIW, I lean against the notion that such a thing exists because we don't have any evidence for it. But if we're going to do this experiment, we should do it properly and not assume it necessarily doesn't, if it's at all possible to measure.

Whereas we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, I think the furthest apart we could morally consider John is a Homo Sapiens Android, and really only if John was down with that.

Knowing someone is made of metal or flesh is a useful distinction, even if your legal rights and most capabilities are identical. In this scenario a new term for people like John is to be expected, for convenience sake if nothing else. I guess "human" could be back-adjusted as an umbrella for both, and some new term could be used as subsets, but in practical day to day speech with current associations with the word "human" I find John's hypothetical body being recognized as such to be doubtful, and would expect language to progress differently.

 

[Borachio]

What happens if John turns out to be morally superior to human beings in every way?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

This.

Humans are a sort of Ship of Theseus actually - afaik our cells continuously die and are replaced - except brain cells, which typically last a lifetime.

Muscle cells can last just as long. So can cells in bones and adipose tissue.

Once specialized cells like neurons are fully differentiated they cannot reproduce, but the brain retains some stem cells (which can reproduce) throughout one's life which can differentiate into more of those type cells to replace those that die off. Such stem cells in the brain are not very active in adults, but there are plenty of new brain cells growing during childhood and even teen years.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not really 'plenty'

 

[Borachio]

I thought that brain development in infancy was largely about trimming away excess neurons rather than growing new ones.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What happens if John turns out to be morally superior to human beings in every way?

Morally superior is a necessarily subjective evaluation.

 

[Borachio]

OK.

What happens if human beings evaluate John as being morally superior to them in every way?

 

[El_Machinae]

Then we'll get more people to do the procedure! Starting with convicted criminals

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then we'll get more people to do the procedure! Starting with convicted criminals

What happens if human beings evaluate John as being morally superior to them in every way?

If we're operating on the theoretical, is cost an object in this case? I think the fair assumption is that it is (when is it ever not). This means a mass exodus to a refurbished brain is unlikely unless it's inexpensive, in which case you'd see lots of people do it, and lots of people afraid of it for religious reasons, basic fear of the unknown/unnatural, resulting in major discrimination and possibly war.

Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that "morally superior" is to enough of a degree to be very significant. If robot brains are only marginally superior on the moral compass by organic human standards, and they still lie/cheat/steal/kill, then a more gradual transition is likely and it might be a less emphatic process.

 

[warpus]

Obviously so. I was just talking about how we lose continuity in our consciousness

The subconscious doesn't, though. When we sleep I mean. I don't think we should be only looking at our conscious part of our consciousness here (as odd that might sound when I write it out).

 

[madviking]

Morally superior is a necessarily subjective evaluation.

kant (and others...) would disagree

 

[El_Machinae]

The subconscious doesn't, though. When we sleep I mean. I don't think we should be only looking at our conscious part of our consciousness here (as odd that might sound when I write it out).

Well, there's subconscous and there's unconscious processes. I don't think our subconscious is 'on' 24/7

 

[warpus]

Well, there's subconscous and there's unconscious processes. I don't think our subconscious is 'on' 24/7

I might be using the wrong terminology then, but you get what I mean.