Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2012, 01:11 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
I think before we can answer this question we must first have the answer to another. Are you the same person you were before you read this question?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dark Light's post
06-10-2012, 01:16 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(27-08-2012 11:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 11:45 AM)nach_in Wrote:  but would it be a continuation of my conciousness or not? and if not, how can we prove it? because the copy would say it is, but maybe it isn't... it's a conundrum!

Depends. It is not likely that a testing model could be invented, which would meet ethical standards, which could get the system maker advanced enough to test absolute "identicalness", as both the copy, and a real consciousness would, if running, instantly diverge. Assuming a copy could be made...if a system is running 1 copy, and the one it was copied from is dead, then until a second copy is made, or a second system boots up the copy, (in which case there might be two), it is you, if one copy runs. If two copies are begun simultaneously, (exactly), then "you" are two, etc, and there is no longer 1 "you". You would have to re-name each copy, as a sufficiently complex model, would mean they would instantly become non-identical. You could, hypothetically, *decide*, which "you" to copy, (later), if one of the "yous" decided to do that. Control of the copied "you" would be a problem.

So I have thought about this, a bit.
Right now, we can upload, and download various machine elements to and from biological systems, known as human beings. For example my mother's pacemaker/ICD is programmable, and when she goes to the cardiologist, they upload the history, and download updates to it's software, as often as they might wish to, or need to. That sort of thing will eventually happen, (either by external scans, or by internally implanted , (or injected) nanobots, at the molecular, and atomic level in brains, and the patterns saved, in the not too distant future. The *patterns* will be stored. However, (as the last post said), the biological or running system continues running after the *save* point, so "you" are instantly not the saved copy, unless there is a feature of some sort of "auto real-time continuous update" built in. The problem is, what are we going to run the info copy on, and how would that work. Just having the info from the copying, doesn't mean we have a platform to run it on. That's the big problem. The platform.

Perhaps this might be a new way we could reproduce. As we could, if there were a platform, instantly make 1000 copies of the save point, which, when "started", would all instantly diverge, and I would instantly have 1000 brothers. Ugh. One of "me" is enough, my bro just said. Tongue

As Kurzweil says, the first aliens we are likely to encounter, are more likely to be some sort of evolved machines, which have learned how to self-evolve in order to adapt, and not biological systems.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(06-10-2012 01:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 11:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Depends. It is not likely that a testing model could be invented, which would meet ethical standards, which could get the system maker advanced enough to test absolute "identicalness", as both the copy, and a real consciousness would, if running, instantly diverge. Assuming a copy could be made...if a system is running 1 copy, and the one it was copied from is dead, then until a second copy is made, or a second system boots up the copy, (in which case there might be two), it is you, if one copy runs. If two copies are begun simultaneously, (exactly), then "you" are two, etc, and there is no longer 1 "you". You would have to re-name each copy, as a sufficiently complex model, would mean they would instantly become non-identical. You could, hypothetically, *decide*, which "you" to copy, (later), if one of the "yous" decided to do that. Control of the copied "you" would be a problem.

So I have thought about this, a bit.
Right now, we can upload, and download various machine elements to and from biological systems, known as human beings. For example my mother's pacemaker/ICD is programmable, and when she goes to the cardiologist, they upload the history, and download updates to it's software, as often as they might wish to, or need to. That sort of thing will eventually happen, (either by external scans, or by internally implanted , (or injected) nanobots, at the molecular, and atomic level in brains, and the patterns saved, in the not too distant future. The *patterns* will be stored. However, (as the last post said), the biological or running system continues running after the *save* point, so "you" are instantly not the saved copy, unless there is a feature of some sort of "auto real-time continuous update" built in. The problem is, what are we going to run the info copy on, and how would that work. Just having the info from the copying, doesn't mean we have a platform to run it on. That's the big problem. The platform.

Perhaps this might be a new way we could reproduce. As we could, if there were a platform, instantly make 1000 copies of the save point, which, when "started", would all instantly diverge, and I would instantly have 1000 brothers. Ugh. One of "me" is enough, my bro just said. Tongue

As Kurzweil says, the first aliens we are likely to encounter, are more likely to be some sort of evolved machines, which have learned how to self-evolve in order to adapt, and not biological systems.

A physical copy of you wouldn't be you because this copy wouldn't experience the outside world in the same exact way, they may see a movie and like different parts or see something and have a slightly different opinion, and the most obvious reason, a physical copy of you wouldn't grow up in the same environment, so no it wouldn't be you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
08-10-2012, 05:17 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(08-10-2012 05:05 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-10-2012 01:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So I have thought about this, a bit.
Right now, we can upload, and download various machine elements to and from biological systems, known as human beings. For example my mother's pacemaker/ICD is programmable, and when she goes to the cardiologist, they upload the history, and download updates to it's software, as often as they might wish to, or need to. That sort of thing will eventually happen, (either by external scans, or by internally implanted , (or injected) nanobots, at the molecular, and atomic level in brains, and the patterns saved, in the not too distant future. The *patterns* will be stored. However, (as the last post said), the biological or running system continues running after the *save* point, so "you" are instantly not the saved copy, unless there is a feature of some sort of "auto real-time continuous update" built in. The problem is, what are we going to run the info copy on, and how would that work. Just having the info from the copying, doesn't mean we have a platform to run it on. That's the big problem. The platform.

Perhaps this might be a new way we could reproduce. As we could, if there were a platform, instantly make 1000 copies of the save point, which, when "started", would all instantly diverge, and I would instantly have 1000 brothers. Ugh. One of "me" is enough, my bro just said. Tongue

As Kurzweil says, the first aliens we are likely to encounter, are more likely to be some sort of evolved machines, which have learned how to self-evolve in order to adapt, and not biological systems.

A physical copy of you wouldn't be you because this copy wouldn't experience the outside world in the same exact way, they may see a movie and like different parts or see something and have a slightly different opinion, and the most obvious reason, a physical copy of you wouldn't grow up in the same environment, so no it wouldn't be you.

No (I)diot and (I)diot, I^2, double idiot, idiot squared
The copy of the neural pathways would have chemically encoded the SAME experiences, up to the point of the copy. AFTER the copy, they would diverge. Do you know what the word "copy" means ? Try harder.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2012, 05:27 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(08-10-2012 05:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-10-2012 05:05 PM)I and I Wrote:  A physical copy of you wouldn't be you because this copy wouldn't experience the outside world in the same exact way, they may see a movie and like different parts or see something and have a slightly different opinion, and the most obvious reason, a physical copy of you wouldn't grow up in the same environment, so no it wouldn't be you.

No (I)diot and (I)diot, I^2, double idiot, idiot squared
The copy of the neural pathways would have chemically encoded the SAME experiences, up to the point of the copy. AFTER the copy, they would diverge. Do you know what the word "copy" means ? Try harder.

After the copies they would diverge and have their own experiences, making them different, therefore not you.

didn't you say you thought about this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2012, 05:46 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(08-10-2012 05:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(08-10-2012 05:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No (I)diot and (I)diot, I^2, double idiot, idiot squared
The copy of the neural pathways would have chemically encoded the SAME experiences, up to the point of the copy. AFTER the copy, they would diverge. Do you know what the word "copy" means ? Try harder.

After the copies they would diverge and have their own experiences, making them different, therefore not you.

didn't you say you thought about this?

I did. And that's exactly what I said in the posts above.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2012, 02:19 AM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
"la trahison des images"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (1928-29) by Rene Magritte
oil on canvas
Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Los Angeles, California

This is Not a Pipe 1973 by Michelle Foucault, a favorite philosopher of mine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes depat's post
09-10-2012, 07:29 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(09-10-2012 02:19 AM)depat Wrote:  "la trahison des images"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (1928-29) by Rene Magritte
oil on canvas
Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Los Angeles, California

This is Not a Pipe 1973 by Michelle Foucault, a favorite philosopher of mine

I got "Hoc non est tabula rasa." on my otherwise blank whiteboard at work. Big Grin

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-10-2012, 09:40 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(09-10-2012 07:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-10-2012 02:19 AM)depat Wrote:  "la trahison des images"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (1928-29) by Rene Magritte
oil on canvas
Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Los Angeles, California

This is Not a Pipe 1973 by Michelle Foucault, a favorite philosopher of mine

I got "Hoc non est tabula rasa." on my otherwise blank whiteboard at work. Big Grin

Shouldn't that be "Hic tabula rasa non est" ?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-10-2012, 10:15 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(09-10-2012 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2012 07:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I got "Hoc non est tabula rasa." on my otherwise blank whiteboard at work. Big Grin

Shouldn't that be "Hic tabula rasa non est" ?

Beats the fuck outta me, never studied Latin. ... Google translates them both the same. ... But I do notice that very few who come to my office get it. ... The one's that do, I pay more attention to. Wink

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: