I would like to be me again! I have some very reliable people who can/will ensure that is the case — Agent Smith

But do they want you to be you again.... If they can assure me that, I want you to be you again too... :wink:

But do they want you to be you again.... If they can assure me that, I want you to be you again too... :wink: — Haglund

:grin:

If someone told me they were going to duplicate and replace my brain with a mechanical one (and dispose of the organic one), I would consider that death. However, if they could replace it incrementally and guarantee I was conscious the whole time, I don't consider that death, Does anyone else share this intuition? — RogueAI

-I would say....someone would be meshing with you. We currently don't have a way to replicate the structure, function and stored "information" of a biological brain. No matter what method you choose to proceed, you are dead.

If we assume that its was technically possible....at some point we will need to replace the Ascending Reticular Activating System ....and that would be the moment where you are going to lose all your conscious states.
When your new mechanical "ARAS" is up and running, Its when you will be conscious again.
The problem after that will have to do with all the other inputs that produce your conscious content and how your Central Lateral Thalamus connects all the different areas of your brain with every conscious state you experience.
I guess I have to say, good luck being yourself again....because the chemical setup and function/connectivity of your brain plus all your life's inputs are what generate your conscious content, yourself, your memories,your subjective preferences etc.

we find it almost unnaturally easy to think of consciousness as something distinct from body, — Manuel

What do you mean by "unnaturally easy"? Is it so evident?
Almost all scientists, as well as most philosophers and people in this forum, believe that consciousness is created by and located in the brain. Even if that has never been proved or established! (For me, it doesn't even make sense.) So, I guess that for most people it is rather "unnaturally difficult" to think that! :smile:

It would be great though if it were indeed "unnaturally easy" ... It would save us a lot of futile discussions! :smile:

I agree, so what happens when that continuity is broken by periods of non-consciousness? Death and rebirth? — RogueAI

Not if one considers that consciousness is separate from the body. Death and rebirth concern the body. Although I believe that such an experiment would create such a shock for the individual that he could not survive it.

I said that a year ago, when I got here. I probably would phrase it quite differently now.

I'd say something like, for many people, there is such a thing as a soul, to which we can attach certain aspects of mind.

But, the more one looks into these things, the less likely one is to be a strong kind of dualist.

book, "Artificial You"? It was written by Susan Schneider, — Bret Bernhoft

I just gave a look about the book and saw that it talks about AI.
I think that discussions relating AI/computers to brain/consciousness have been exhausted in here (and elsewhere) and the results --based on unrefuted and unrefutable arguments-- have classified them as "sci-fi material". (Yet, I' am afraid that this is far from being accepted by most people.)

Realizing, establishing and accepting widely that consciouscness is separate from the body and cannot be incorporated in a machine --including the human brain-- would be a huge and real progress for humanity!

Replace one half of the brain by a synthetic. Dream along... — Haglund

Yet, it seems that a lot of people prefer dreaming ... It's more thrilling! :smile:
(Only that dreaming has no place in here and in philosophy in general ...)

It is the same way my laptop is unable to imagine the kind of intelligence that is in my brain — Angelo Cannata

You think your laptop is able to imagine?

Yet, it seems that a lot of people prefer dreaming ... It's more thrilling — Alkis Piskas

Yes! Dreams are great! Let them try to program one! :wink:

he Ship of Theseus. What if we reassemble your brain parts. What then? — Agent Smith

Interesting point.
It has been said that this problem —quite old indeed!— was answered by Heraclitus with his famous saying "No man ever steps in the same river twice". However, this is not so right, because he should talk instead about **the waters of the river**, since the river is always the same. Its **identity** does not change. The same applies to the ship of Theseus. Its wearing down, damages etc. do not change the fact that this is the same ship.
We use to say, *“After that, I was never the same person”*, when an event has affected us deeply. But this is only a figure of speech. We are always the same person, for us and the other people.

Now, if we disassemble and reassemble the brain parts of a person, and assume of course that he will survive --I doubt that-- although his identity will not change, i.e. we will refer to the same entity, the same person, his mind and consiousness would be so messed up that he would most probably look a different person ...

the particles being you, can never be you again. — Haglund

Are you indeed "your particles"?

But do they want you to be you again — Haglund

:grin:

for many people, there is such a thing as a soul, to which we can attach certain aspects of mind. — Manuel

Oh, where? Not in here I guess ... I have met only a couple ones here ...
I' am afraid I'm contacting the wrong people! :grin:

Dreams are great! Let them try to program one! — Haglund

Right. As a cartoon maybe ... :smile:

I have in mind ordinary people, say many who are religious, which may amount to more than half of the world population. It's my impression that they often do think there's something more to mind than brain.

Of course, in a forum like this, it's going to be very rare. But I think the intuition, though wrong, is not irrational. It was very much alive in the neo-Platonist tradition up until, roughly after Newton.

just gave a look about the book and saw that it talks about AI.
I think that discussions relating AI/computers to brain/consciousness have been exhausted in here (and elsewhere) and the results --based on unrefuted and unrefutable arguments-- have classified them as "sci-fi material". (Yet, I' am afraid that this is far from being accepted by most people.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, Alkis my man, I'm afraid too. And the people who take it seriously are even assumed scientists, clinging to the dream of a programmable mind emerging, according to their outview, as an inescapable part of natural evolution. Conscious computers as the crown on evolution. Just look at SF movies. "A.I", "Ex Machina",
"The Matrix" (though technically consciousness is already present there, it's just fooled to impossible extent, by a hole on your back... yeah, yeah...). People though are impressed by science somehow and continue the myth, projecting the possibility into the future. Not realizing that mind is the product of a natural, non-programmed processes which had their start at the big kaboom. With a slow emergence if conscious mind in creatures interacting continuously interacting with the world at day and retreating to their inside world at night (or vice versa), on the natural rhythms of the universe. So basically, for creating conscious mind, one has to recreate a big kaboom and just let it evolve, instead of trying to accomplish it by a hyperspeedy clocktime and massive quantities of data, following sophisticated programs. Recreating the big kaboom seems one bridge too far... :smile:

Right. As a cartoon maybe ... :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Hell, yes! "Mickey Mouse Meets Meta Mickey" :smile:

Why not? It is, of course, a very limited kind of imagination, but, about this, we have, I think, two only choices:

1) there are infinite degrees and qualities of imagination. The consequence is that what we call “imagination” has no limits, no boundaries, so it must be referred even to stones and single atoms. In atoms, obviously, imagination happens simply in the form of phisical things that can happen in atoms, I am not referring to anything special or supernatural; my human imagination is just more complex.

2) There is a jump, a difference, between human imagination and any other kind of phenomenon that we would like to compare to human imagination. The consequence of this is that it becomes impossible to define where and how the jump happens, considering that animals, or new born babies, or even babies that are not born yet, can show signs of imagination. If it is impossible to define where the jump happens, how can we say that there is a jump?

Why not? — Angelo Cannata

Well, that's exactly what this thread is about. Imagination occurs in creatures constantly involved in monitoring, simulating, the world. Resonating with the world or making the world resonate in return. This continuous evolving process can't be programmed.

1) there are infinite degrees and qualities of imagination. The consequence is that what we call “imagination” has no limits, no boundaries, so it must be referred even to stones and single atoms. In atoms, obviously, imagination happens simply in the form of phisical things that can happen in atoms, I am not referring to anything special or supernatural; my human imagination is just more complex. — Angelo Cannata

I agree but don't see the link with objects. These objects have no epistemological cut and don't imagine a world.

There is a jump, a difference, between human imagination and any other kind of phenomenon that we would like to compare to human imagination. — Angelo Cannata

What do you mean with this jump?

What do you mean with this jump? — Haglund

Sorry for my bad English, perhaps I should use another word. By “jump” I mean discontinuity, point of discontinuity, the point where something ends and something different begins.

I agree but don't see the link with objects — Haglund

The same problem applies between objects and living things: where is the point of discontinuity? Is a virus a living being or just a complex organizations of molecules? If we are unable to determine the point of discontinuity, then there is no exact difference between objects and humans.

The same problem applies between objects and living things: where is the point of discontinuity — Angelo Cannata

I think the shifts develop slow and continuous. From shapeless oneness of matter and mind, to the divide between the physical and the mind with bodies in between.

I have in mind ordinary people, say many who are religious, which may amount to more than half of the world population. It's my impression that they often do think there's something more to mind than brain. — Manuel

Oh, I see. Certainly there are. But, as you say, they "think there's something more to mind ...". Well, I don't consider this enough, i.e. a "solid" awareneness, but it is certainly better than not thinkg that at all! And we are speaking of people in the West. Because in the East, people are more spiritiual and have a quite "solid" awareness regarding this subject. One can realize this from the difference between Western and Eatern tradition, philosopy, etc.

Of course, in a forum like this, it's going to be very rare. — Manuel

Exactly. And this is what worries me. I find it somewhat "unnatural" ...

It was very much alive in the neo-Platonist tradition up until, roughly after Newton. — Manuel

True. I don't know though when "things" started to change and why ... It's something worth exploring ...

And the people who take it seriously are even assumed scientists, — Haglund

Indeed. How "unscientific" this is, eh? :grin: A big irony, isn't it?

People though are impressed by science somehow and continue the myth — Haglund

I'm much impressed with science too, but one has to put things in their right perspective ... "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ..."

just let it evolve, instead of trying to accomplish it by a hyperspeedy clocktime and massive quantities of data, following sophisticated programs. — Haglund

Right. Let them try ... (Although they could invest their time in much more productive things...)

Not one: :up:
Not two: :up: :up:
But:
:up: :up: :up:

Maybe a bore for debate, but that's the way it is! Indeed, so many better things to spend time on. Computers are great, needless to say, but AI is AS, artificial stupidity.

Re cartooning and animation: Their heroes are so much alive and intelligent ... Some people might believe that some day they will acquire a mind and consciousness of their own! :grin:

AI is AS, artificial stupidity — Haglund

Well, AI is among my programming fields and interests! :grin:

(I will have a break now and let you ponder at it .. :smile:)

If someone told me they were going to duplicate and replace my brain with a mechanical one (and dispose of the organic one), I would consider that death. However, if they could replace it incrementally and guarantee I was conscious the whole time, I don't consider that death, Does anyone else share this intuition? — RogueAI

I don’t think it matters at all if you were conscious. We lose consciousness all the time and still manage to retain our identity. A more interesting question is if the copy were altered somehow, think Manchurian candidate, and your new self wouldn’t realize the difference. The perfect sleeper agent.

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ..." — Alkis Piskas

Caesar tried to become an autocratic despot. I applaud those who killed him.
Caesar stole the majority of what he 'had.'
I hope future transhumans will be wise enough not to use positive quotes in regards to vile historical humans such as Julius Caesar. I'm sure Putin would say 'give me Ukraine because after all, it does belong to me.'

Well, have you pondered on it?
Have you checked what AI (Artificial Intelligence) actually is? Do you still believe it's something stupid?