/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't believe human consciousness can be transfered onto a computer. It's not a soul or something techno utopians would have you believe to be true, with our limited understanding of human consciousness as is. They're only true in the sense of their artistic origin.

>>10882959
Suppose it can. Who said that consciousness is getting any processing time?

>>10883047
most atheists new age science theists claim that

>The Singularity is NEAR!
>solving all the problems of a system that practically a black box at this point within a decade
Sure Ray, sure. Keep hitting the boomer bong and you will believe anything.

>>10882933
In view of everything we've said up to this point, and in view moreover of the fact that the techies' vision of the future is based on pure speculation and is unsupported by evidence, one has to ask how they can believe in that vision. Some techies, e.g. , Kurzweil, do concede a slight degree of uncertainty as to whether their expectations for the future will be realized, but this seems to be no more than a sop that they throw to the skeptics, something they have to concede in order to avoid making themselves too obviously ridiculous in the eyes of rational people. Despite their pro forma admission of uncertainty, it's clear that most techies confidently expect to live for many centuries, if not forever, in a world that will be in some vaguely defined sense a utopia. Thus Kurzweil states flatly: "We will be able to live as long as we want... ." He adds no qualifiers-no "probably," no "if things turn out as expected." His whole book reveals a man intoxicated with a vision of the future in which, as an immortal machine, he will participate in the conquest of the universe. In fact, Kurzweil and other techies are living in a fantasy world.

>>10883047
if you can somehow do that, it also means you can copy and paste that same consciousness. If that happen who's to say which one is the real you. And secondly no one still knows what consciousness is

The techies' belief-system can best be explained as a religious phenomenon, to which we may give the name "Technianity." It's true that Technianity at this point is not strictly speaking a religion, because it has not yet developed anything resembling a uniform body of doctrine; the techies' beliefs are widely varied. In this respect Technianity probably resembles the inceptive stages of many other religions. Nevertheless, Technianity already has the earmarks of an apocalyptic and millenarian cult: In most versions it anticipates a cataclysmic event, the Singularity, which is the point at which technological progress is supposed to become so rapid as to resemble an explosion. This is analogous to the Judgment Day of Christian mythology or the Revolution of Marxist mythology. The cataclysmic event is supposed to be followed by the arrival of techno-utopia (analogous to the Kingdom of God or the Worker's Paradise). Technianity has a favored minority-the Elect-consisting of the techies (equivalent to the True Believers of Christianity or the Proletariat of the Marxists). The Elect of Technianity, like that of Christianity, is destined to Eternal Life; though this element is missing from Marxism.

Historically, millenarian cults have tended to emerge at "times of great social change or crisis." This suggests that the techies' beliefs reflect not a genuine confidence in technology, but rather their own anxieties about the future of the technological society-anxieties from which they try to escape by creating a quasi-religious myth.

>>10883060
>same
>consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

Epstein's plans to have his frozen head and penis resurrected in this future, to run wild on a cyborg body chasing lolis, are now scattered to the wind like tears in the rain.

Transhumanists are nuts.

>>10882959
who says it should? there's no proof that consciousness is required for intelligence.

>>10882933
>singularity is near
only because he's old. that's called wishful thinking.

>>10883070

go read Julian Jaynes's book..this is drivel

Why are physicists believing consciousness to be something fundamental and not just subjugated the rest?
Is there a paper with mathematical proof somewhere?
Something to do with collapsing wave functions?

Please spoon feed!

>>10883217
Everyone is a schizo here dancing along accordingly to Jewish psychologists hypothesis. There is no mathematical proof, only media control and suggestive explainations that gullible zoomers adopt to be good goys.
Buy the herb, it's just like a medicine!

>>10883092
Redpill me on Julian Jaynes

>>10883217
>Is there a paper with mathematical proof somewhere?
Here you go m8. Avshalom Elitzur considers himself to be a reluctant dualist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>10882959
>>10883047
This is why you must attach your brain to a tertiary digital cortex. You will gain superintelligence but retain your biological component always. Most of you in terms of data may end up being stored on a computer, but ultimately your brain is under the whole thing
That is how we defeat artificial intelligence (which would probably never have consciousness and thus be an unfeeling perfect acting agent)
Elon Musk is fucking right, if humans want to stay relevant, we have to evolve
And the fastest evolution is digital

>>10882933
off by 80 years

>>10883665
>le ebin magic fake and gay nonsense buy my new dream catcher technology goy

>>10883831
That was a very coherent argument
Try again, Sloth

>>10883853
hi

>>10883665
This. If we just link a storage device with all human knowledge, or at least all pertinent knowledge (all mathematical theorems, all of known chemistry, all of physics, all knowledge of biology, all the great works of art and literature, all history knowledge, etc) then we would essentially be "us" but with a super intelligence and incredible memory capacity. We could also boost our working memory exponentially whilst still retaining our original "consciousness" (not to be defined here but you all know what I mean) while not being at risk to be "hacked" and "Mind controlled" over the internet, because we're all airgapped computers.
Then we all become super intelligent beings that are unhackable and we gain all the abilities that we would have if we were connected to the internet, but locally, so it would even be faster than having to connect to external storage and download new knowledge, and we still get to keep our fundamental humanity. Then, in terms of importing new knowledge, we just read the data from a tablet or computer device at incredible speed (our eyes and image and data processing can be enhanced) so it's effectively the same as being connected to the internet but it's immune from exploits.
This is the only way forwards if we as a species are serious about cybernetic enhancements. We gain all the benefits of super-intelligence, immortality, etc. without the risks.
But it's also sci fi shit so whatever.

>>10882933
Fuck no. There's some truth to the AI singularity but if you dig into his ideas you'll see that he essentially uses nano-technology as a secular substitute for magic. That field hasn't seen remotely the progress he predicted and as a result the singularity he envisions won't come to pass.

>>10883511
Elitzur is quite based in general.