|
i have to assume that, given the trajectory of life, uploaded consciousnesses will restructure themselves as trojans embedded w/in pdfs
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
nomadologique posted:not without a lot of needless bloodshed we won't. this statement is self-contradictory. if you can categorically declare that it won't happen without bloodshed, then (assuming your declaration is accurate) that bloodshed would not be "needless", by definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Oh no, my mind processor is being hacked!!1 oh no now the hacker is corrupting my optics oh god the world is turning into cocks, I am turning into a cock now the cocks are loving me, all the cocks are loving me
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:supposing you could make a direct copy of your consciousness in a computer, i imagine it would be just like you at the moment of copying, and immediately begin to diverge. no, we couldn't predict that divergence. that divergence would be based on the new situation of the copy, ie, with a robot body or whatever. i imagine if the consciousness did not have a body it would become unrecognizable to us almost instantly. in fact i can't see how you could copy over a consciousness in the first place, and in the second, without a body for it to refer to, i don't know what it would become; so much of our consciousness is predicated on our body, which is part of it (probably the vast part of it). our thoughts are very "loud" but i doubt they make up the bulk of our consciousness. I think in order to upload consciousness you would need to provide a sensorium emulator that allowed you to monitor and control an avatar body in a real or virtual environment. That actually seems the simple part, neurologically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Ahundredbux posted:you'll be uploading a copy so you'll still die making it all pointless from your perspective this is my problem with A) Star Trek transporters, and B) going to sleep
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
i drive my moms soul around and fight monsters
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:I think in order to upload consciousness you would need to provide a sensorium emulator that allowed you to monitor and control an avatar body in a real or virtual environment. That actually seems the simple part, neurologically speaking. only for a bit, to prevent psychological trauma. the human mind is very plastic, they have hooked up extra robot arms, and electrodes to see through your tounge, and magnet sensors, and all kinds of poo poo. the brain adapts to new inputs and outputs like your plugging in a new USB device it would only be a matter of time, (getting used to being an avatar) before you could allow your form to take on much more exotic shapes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:i drive my moms soul around and fight monsters 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
BluPotato posted:Lexx was a weird show that I'm surprised was aired as long as it did... that said I think it was pretty awesome. It was literally the best. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they WANT the nerve system to work properly after the surgery, which is why the preparations are taking years. One of the guys working on the project is a Chinese surgeon who has supposedly managed to connect hundreds of mouse heads to foreign mouse bodies while preserving neural functions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Which cyborg body enhancement would you guys buy at the Cyborg Store
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Which cyborg body enhancement would you guys buy at the Cyborg Store I have problems with one of my eyes and I am actively following developments of visual prosthetics in hopes that I'll be able to get it replaced with one of those in the near future. they've got the physical device working and have even figured out how to wire it into the brain so that the user receives signals from it the way they should with a "real" eye. the only thing left is the firmware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Which cyborg body enhancement would you guys buy at the Cyborg Store an incinerator stomach that can destroy what I eat so I can stay skinny despite the tub of cream cheese filling I devour
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
i would buy the thing that would let me feel "love"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:i would buy the thing that would let me feel "love" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
I was talking about an unlimited credit to buy Thai whores, but I guess your thing is deeper
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Which cyborg body enhancement would you guys buy at the Cyborg Store i would get double jump and air dash
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
we still don't really know at what level the complex system called consciousness is formed, but if it's anything close to the complex systems that are individual neurons then we're pretty hosed about the whole mind uploading thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
haha hell we don't even know what all of the different types of glutamate receptors in the CNS do to the neurons yet, and we'd probably need to know a lot about the underlying mechanisms of neuronal networks like that in order to even estimate if we can produce equivalent emergent behaviour through other systems and then you have to consider the amount of plasticity even on the level of individual neurons such as different types of synapses eg axosomatic since you'd probably want to model all that in simulation for a billion cells imagine the sort of Bitcoin factory that would take to calculate
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
and then of course you have to consider that this simulation of yours must faithfully recreate processes that render human perception of the world possible such as the a priori concepts of time and space which do not have an external origin according to Kant anyway and must be already present in the mind in order to shape sensory information into the human experience
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
There's a bit of conflation between the teleporter scenario and virtual consciousness going on. For a real time simulation, you aren't going to model everything at a cellular or molecular level. The mind will interface with the avatar body via a very simplified controller, 640 muscles, with maybe 16 numbers in each. Sensory data will be unwrapped to 2D textures, 32bits per pixel will be enough even for the eyes. This is assuming the virtual consciousness receives it's input from a virtual world. A living brain could potentially be transplanted into that sort of environment and completely accept the virtual body as itself, the psychological barrier there is surprisingly low. From there, the brain could choose to enhance, optimise, expand and automate certain functions of self, and that process could continue over time until the meat brain is redundant, you could pull the plug and the being would not even lose consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
I always lol at these nerds or transhumanists who are all like yeah i can't wait till 2050 when i can replace all my limbs with robotic ones!! Fun fact dork, the current arm you possess is way cooler+better than any gay cyborg one will be. Your current arm can: Become stronger, weaker or change depending on needs over time Has nerves and stuff Lasts like your entire life Runs on a fuel that can be obtained from almost anything and is constantly being made Can repair itself kinda some other stuff i probs forgot. Also if you want to become immortal in this current time just get cancer and become an immortal cell line, jeez. So what happens if you have alzheimer's or dementia and your mind gets uploaded, does this mean you spend an eternity as someone with dementia or what, I think that would be quiet terrible don't you think? I'M A loving MORON probably Matty fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Matty posted:I always lol at these nerds or transhumanists who are all like yeah i can't wait till 2050 when i can replace all my limbs with robotic ones!! Fun fact dork, the current arm you possess is way cooler+better than any gay cyborg one will be. A well-designed prosthetic hand would indisputably have greater potential for precision and strength of its grips. Prosthetic lower legs are better at transferring momentum and absorbing shock than human lower legs are, probably because our feet used to be hands due to our arboreal ancestry. If our legs were better adapted for running, we'd be digigrade rather than plantigrade, but that happening naturally is probably impossible now. But I just want to get my eye replaced with an artificial one because it would stop me from getting migraines and reduce my risk of cancer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:that just means you'd both be wrong Why would you use the word "both" to describe one person? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
for the same reason I would if I were responding to a sentence in which a person referred to their present self and future self as distinct people. artifact of language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:for the same reason I would if I were responding to a sentence in which a person referred to their present self and future self as distinct people. artifact of language. Too late, I've already interpreted it as a Freudian slip that reveals you secretly can't stop yourself from thinking of two identical beings as different people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:Too late, I've already interpreted it as a Freudian slip that reveals you secretly can't stop yourself from thinking of two identical beings as different people. well, if we want to get technical, all people are really two beings. the two halfs of the brain are fairly distinct, and there have been experiments where the brain is split in half and still works fine, so they are basically independent. every person is basically Demogorgan, a combination of two personalities that exist with each other so long that they become almost one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:this statement is self-contradictory. if you can categorically declare that it won't happen without bloodshed, then (assuming your declaration is accurate) that bloodshed would not be "needless", by definition. shut the gently caress up. there could be a set of bloodshed that is needful and a set of bloodshed that isn't, and the first entails the second without necessitating it. holy gently caress you are annoying. nomadologique fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
A challenge: present a definition of "self" or "consciousness" that is more than Popeye-esque "I yam what I yam"-kind of circular reasoning; or "I shitpost, therefore I am".Buddha posted:To uproot the pride of egoism: To equate my being with this meat puppet whose strings I am pulling to type these very characters is reductionist. From whence do these impulses issue? And yet, to say that there is a "pilot" to this vehicle borders on the magical. What is the nature of such a pilot? Perhaps the "blue light" of Applewhite's sketches, existing outside of, and yet controlling the flow of events that, at this very moment, is typing out these words. And yet, even as "I" write, what "I" say is this: there is no "I", and there might not even be any writing! Speaking of writing, another theme ITT has been the possibility and nature of life after death. Well, compared to the tavern bantern of yester-year, at least some of our thoughts and conversations will resonate - as if our talks had been transported into an echo chamber! These very musings will possibly outlive their creators. Even now, we have a life online and a life offline. How curious, that the online one (different as though it might be to the offline one) should survive, even after the expiry of the offline, meat-bound life! If, in the future, human beings manage to transfer some semblance of their thinking process (what "Ghost in the Shell" calls the Ghost; or what I previously called a "pilot" - the Primus Motor) into the substrate of what "Serial Experiments Lain" calls "the Wired" (pretty much the then-version of our current Internet), how these beings must look on us, who exist merely as echoes! That is, unless we, or some of us, actually live to get some version (a copy) transferred into a form that can come back to this thread and post "look ma, no meat puppet!". So, what does "the Ghost" boil down to? I'd say if you were to sum up my learned thought patterns (the synaptic channels in the sand of my brain), my taste in films and music; in short, the "contents" of my brain, you'd get a believable avatar who would have no more nor less claim to "being me" than I do. However, I posit that the reason all lists of "what to copy when transferring over a consciousness" seem lacking are because, to begin with, the self is not there. Therefore, the problem is not that "I am more than my memories and thoughts, past, present and future"; the problem is that "I am simply not there to be defined". Buddha posted:"'I am' is an act of conceit. 'I am this' is an act of conceit. 'I shall be' is an act of conceit. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is an act of conceit. An act of conceit is a disease, an act of conceit is a cancer, and an act of conceit is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of acts of conceit.'" Now, it seems that I've established a sort of dualism between the "meat puppet"/marionette vehicle, and the Prime Mover. However, such a view is not made to last. This Form Vehicle, the body, is a flickering light, soon extinguished. So is any spirit that is bound to it. But this raises a question we've been skirting around ITT: how bound are we to this body? What about astral travel? Out-of-body experiences? Remote viewing? Dreams? Hallucinations? Suppose the body is suspended in an isolation tank, á la the movie Altered States, or the movie Johnny Got His Gun. Suppose that, due to the lack of external stimulus, a new world of experience is created. Has the "self" now passed on to the next world? Again, it neither has nor has it not; it was not in the Old World to begin with, and it continues not to exist in the New World. "I" is perhaps the ultimate fallacy. Am I the same person I was when I began to write this message? There is continuity between the self-states at the beginning and end of this message, but that does not mean that a self exists that has survived the writing-out of this message: there is continuity, in the sense that there was no self to begin with, and there is no self now. I might say that I died a thousand million little deaths during the writing of this message; or that I suffered none. At best, the self that might be said to exist is like a candle in this sad husk we call the body of a man, flickering in the wind. The sooner the wind blows out the candle, the sooner it shall stop casting its pale glow onto this word, self, scrawled onto the inner wall of the cavern in which it exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:shut the gently caress up. there could be a set of bloodshed that is needful and a set of bloodshed that isn't, and the first entails the second without necessitating it. if it can't be done without the bloodshed, then the bloodshed needs to happen, rendering the "needless" descriptor wrong. and loving lol that you are crying over this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
lol. there are so many ways that one can read what i said without coming to the conclusion you did, even supposing i wasn't aware of the categorical contradiction. you are just annoying, consistently. that you seemingly do not understand language in a way that is not beep boop is a big part of why you are so annoying. this statement is false. oh no what are you going to do now, it has a self-contradiction and there is no way you can process it anymore! your idea of need is overstrong for the situation. B can follow from A without being necessitated by A because C might have followed from A. my statement can be taken as a rhetorically condensed statement of probable outcomes: "this overwhelming probably will not happen without bloodshed that might not have happened." because that is the way people really use language, especially in a casual (non JD) context. it could be taken as an observation about the way people tend to behave in similar situations: with undue violence. it could be taken as a joke. it could be taken as all sorts of things that don't intend to enter themselves as part of a strict logical demonstration of some outcome. you made a casual statement into a categorical declaration, but there are other forms of utterances. you should be well aware of that, given your purported background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
here's a great example: when your dad loses interest in the football game and turns it off saying "it's over" but there are 9 minutes left, what do you think he means by that? i mean, categorically, boy it would be easy to put your dad right in the dumpster. i hope you do. i hope you're that kind of son.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:loving lol that you are crying over this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
HELLOMYNAMEIS___ posted:A challenge: present a definition of "self" or "consciousness" that is more than Popeye-esque "I yam what I yam"-kind of circular reasoning; or "I shitpost, therefore I am". I would first define a conscious system: A reasoning system that incorporates its own composition to cause a mutated composition, whereby a causal chain of such systems may as a subsystem coarsely simulate potential causality of alternative compositions. After successive mutations the resultant systems may build higher-order models of patterns of its state, called representations. A member of a chain of causally-linked conscious systems may conclude that it has representations that can not be directly mutated. These are called observations, and the set of these are called the sensorium. The representation of all state which is directly mutated, and can be simulated, is called the self and is now meaningful to the system, which is now a 'self-aware' system, as are its successors, for as long as they contain such a representation. Self-aware systems may ascribe consciousness to other observed systems when when those systems' observed behaviour requires a similar level of complexity to predict as themselves. chaosbreather fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
HELLOMYNAMEIS___ posted:A challenge: present a definition of "self" or "consciousness" that is more than Popeye-esque "I yam what I yam"-kind of circular reasoning; or "I shitpost, therefore I am". we're social creatures, so it is important that we understand what other social creatures are going to do. we create simulations of other people in our mind, in order to predict what they do, so we know when they are hungry or want to mate with us or whatever. the "self" emerges when the mind turns this prediction model towards its own behavior, creating a bit of a feed back loop
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:I would first define a conscious system: A reasoning system that incorporates its own composition to cause a mutated composition, whereby a causal chain of such systems may as a subsystem coarsely simulate potential causality of alternative compositions. I like this answer, but it implies the weather is sentient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:we're social creatures, so it is important that we understand what other social creatures are going to do. we create simulations of other people in our mind, in order to predict what they do, so we know when they are hungry or want to mate with us or whatever. yeah this is probably the best answer
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
obviously u come back
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
herhehejhrekjashsd posted:obviously u come back you are proof
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
o nice
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
The brain has 100 billion neurons, and trillions of dendritic connections between those neurons. That kind of complexity won't be replicable on some sot of computer network for a long, long time. Not in your lifetime. Or even you grandchildren' s lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:31
|
|
