/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11351081
>disprove this
Uploading your brain doesn't work and even if it did it would do nothing because you also need a peripheral nervous system or an equivalent of it.

Both individuals can coexist and interact with eachother if desired.

>>11351170
Not for long since the original will soon die thus negating all meaning of mind upload.

>>11351081
It can't be disproven, because it's correct. The people who dream about having their mind uploaded are completely delusional at best and retarded at worst.

>>11351205
It's not that clear cut. Do you consider yourself to be the same 'you' as ten years ago, despite the fact that every cell in your body has renewed in that time?

Our consciousness seems to hold some continuum with our past, physically distinct self.

Until the nature of consciousness is better understood it's unclear what limits might exist in 'digitising' ourselves. It's unclear what that even really means at the present level of understanding.

>>11351253
You're one of the retards. If someone makes a clone of you and inserts all of your memories into it, it's still not you.

The only alternative to uploading the brain is to slowly replace it with technology locally.

>>11351253
>Our consciousness seems to hold some continuum with our past, physically distinct self.

Only due to memories.

>>11351296
>If someone makes a clone of you and inserts all of your memories into it, it's still not you.

The person who existed one second ago isn’t “you” either. Who cares?

>>11351081
Not science or math.

>>11351308
This. Continuity is a big fat illusion. Useful, yes, but not the actual state of things. We are as disconnected from the past as we are to the future.

>>11351312
>The person who existed one second ago isn’t “you” either.
Yes it is, you imbecile.

>>11351308
This is false. If this were true, we'd give people new identities any time amnesia occurred. Philosophical zombies out in force this morning.

>>11351317
>Yes it is, you imbecile.

Nope. That person died instantly and you inherited their memories.

>>11351319
>This is false. If this were true, we'd give people new identities any time amnesia occurred

Non sequitur. People who have lost their last memories are not the person they used to be in any way and will make their own identity whether you like it or not.

>>11351317
Every moment of consciousness is spent in its respective present. Even memories, fickle as they are, can only be experienced in the present. There is nothing else.

>>11351320
Wrong. You also don't die when you go to sleep.

>>11351328
>Wrong.

Right.
See how that works? :)

> You also don't die when you go to sleep.

You do, but you also “die” every waking moment, so it’s a meaningless distinction to make.

Your only argument is “Nooo the illusion of continuity caused by memories is too strong!!11”

>>11351333
Yeah, you're an idiot. Everything you're saying is pure sophistry to back up your poor understanding of identity. You have this poor understanding of identity because you're a literal NPC. You lack identity, so you yourself can't understand it. You think you know how to quantify it, so you can disprove it, but you fail miserably at doing so.

>>11351352
>I can’t argue but I can insult you!

Chalking another victory up rn.

>>11351359
Your arguments are dogshit. I can claim stupid shit too. Every time you get on a plane you actually die because your consciousness changes with altitude.

>>11351365
>Your arguments are dogshit.

Explain.

>Every time you get on a plane you actually die because your consciousness changes with altitude.

Altitude and time are different things.

>>11351359
But let me condescend to retards such as yourself as to why you're absolutely wrong about sleep "killing" you. When you take a step with your right foot during walking, you next take a step with your left. This doesn't mean your body was destroyed to change this state. Similarly, when you sleep, your consciousness simply enters a different mode. I'm not sure what you idiots even think death is, but what it actually is is the cessation of life. You don't die by going to sleep. This is fucking caveman tier understanding of life and death.

>>11351369
See: >>11351371

>Altitude and time are different things.
See? This is the problem with just claiming stupid shit. When you do it, everyone is free to do it. That's why you shouldn't do it.

But let me go even further, because I'm sure you p-zombie morons will persist in your delusion that identity doesn't even real.

Living beings are composite things. They are made of many variables. That means you can't simply remove one non-vital variable and cause the cessation of that being. Being awake is not a necessity of an organism, therefore you can't end the organism by making it sleep. If I blow up a ship, I have destroyed the ship. If I park it in a harbor, I have not destroyed the ship.

>>11351371
> When you take a step with your right foot during walking, you next take a step with your left. This doesn't mean your body was destroyed to change this state.

Future bodies are constantly created by present bodies on the Planck scale. There is no continuous body.

>>11351378
>But let me go even further, because I'm sure you p-zombie morons will persist in your delusion that identity doesn't even real.

Identity is 100% made up and you’ve failed to ever prove otherwise.

> Living beings are composite things.

Composite things don’t exist. It’s just individual things you’ve decided to pretend are one thing for convenience.

>>11351385
>Future bodies are constantly created by present bodies on the Planck scale.
This is idiotic. You literally think the Langoliers is real life and you're stupid for it. You think using physics jargon makes you smart, but it just makes you all the more annoying.

>>11351394
>haha I insult you

You’re big gay.

>>11351393
>Composite things don’t exist.
NUFFIN DOESN EVEN REAL

Okay, I'm glad you've conceded that it's a waste of time to even acknowledge your existence. I will stop doing so now.

>>11351397
> NUFFIN DOESN EVEN REAL

Things exist, but not identities of those things.

>>11351081
"It would just be a copy" fags don't go far enough.
Look, here are three body-moments.
If you line up three rocks, do they magically begin to share in the same identity?
If yes, then OK. That's a weird opinion and I don't see why anyone would believe in it, but you're at least being logically consistent then.
If no, then expand out from 3D space to 4D space-time and ask the same question.
If you line up three body-moments along the temporal axis, do they magically begin to share in the same identity?
In both cases if you believe they DO begin to share in an identity, what specific module is making this work? Why is nearness conferring identity?
This is the sort of thing the "if you make a copy of someone is it the same person" thought experiment should make you realize is bullshit. Having a copy that's exactly alike in structure and exactly alike in mental activity doesn't magically make a person's "self" teleport into the copy's brain. And of course it wouldn't since no "self" ever magically teleports from one body-moment to the next to begin with even before the novelty of a copying machine is even added to the equation.
Take the buddhism-pill. "Self" is an empty concept i.e. a fiction of convenience used to help society function through the benefits it confers with tax collection and criminal justice. It doesn't exist as a literal physical object any more than other abstract reference points like a "center of gravity" or the "US dollar" do. They're treated as though they do exist through the behaviors surrounding them e.g. we use pieces of paper to represent money and the way physical objects predictably behave in space is used as the basis for abstracting out a center of gravity for them.

Reality is just electrical signals interpreted in the brain.

Upload me before Corona-Chan arrives.

>>11351352
>NPC
Please leave. Grown-ups only here.

>>11351081
Just unlock biological immortality, jeez. It would be orders of magnitudes cheaper and quicker and the duplication problem would be solved on top. If we allocated 10% of world GDP we could do it in a couple of decades, probably. There's dozens of plants and animals in which we can observe biological immortality, we already know it can be done we just need to apply it.

Copying your brain? Yeah sure, it wouldn't be you. It'd just be a copy of your brain. Uploading your brain however, it would be your brain. If it wasn't possible you wouldn't be here right now, unless you believe that "you" are merely a copy yourself every second and the original "you" has already died probably from birth.

Do you also believe "you" are merely a copy if you suffered any kind of brain damage as well?

every night you go to sleep and your brain shuts off (unconsciousness). when you wake up, a new you is born.

>>11352021
>Do you also believe "you" are merely a copy if you suffered any kind of brain damage as well?
No, the idea is the concept of self never had any substance to it to begin with, not that it's real and constantly dying.

>>11351081
what's the assertion?

>>11352030
So then you're of the belief that there is no distinguishable difference between uploading yourself and living moment to moment.

>>11351314
shut up nerd

>>11352048
brainlet nigger

>>11351419
Identities also exist.

>>11351446
Yes, they share in the same identity.

>>11351536
Ok npc.

>>11352065
Three rocks lined up next to each other share the same identity?

>>11352023
Wrong.

1900:YOU CANT FLY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE LMAO
1700: YOU CAN'T USE ELECTRICITY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE LMAO
1500: THE EARTH CAN'T REVOLVE AROUND THE SUN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE LMAO

Yeah dudes, it's totally "impossible" you sure showed us

>>11352053
Oh so you were just speaking irrelevant nonsense in the first place. YOUR self doesn't have any substance, I can see why you would say that since it wouldn't make any difference if your stupid nigger ass dropped dead right now or didn't exist in the first place.

Play soma.

>>11352094

Great game to be honest, the end was really fucking disturbing. I still feel like I am there, down deep in the darkness.

>>11351081
bam, done.

>>11351205
Based and ro

>>11352098
But your clone is in space so it's fine :^)

>>11352068
Yes.

>>11351317
>The ship of Theseus is the same if rebuilt in place but different if rebuilt adjacent to the original.
Based retard.

>just read every neuron BRO

>>11351296
I mean it basically is.

>>11351083
low iq
>>11351170
low iq
>>11351194
low iq
>>11351205
low iq
>>11351253
low iq
>>11351296
ok iq
>>11351303
medium iq
>>11351308
low iq
>>11351312
low iq
>>11351314
lowish-medium iq
>>11351315
low iq
>>11351317
ok iq
>>11351319
ok iq
>>11351320
ok iq

>>11352895
same person stay mad

>>11351446
>Having a copy that's exactly alike in structure and exactly alike in mental activity doesn't magically make a person's "self" teleport into the copy's brain.
I thought this was obvious by now and the "consensus" was that you'd have to transition gradually into an artificial copy to maintain the illusion(I'll concede you that) of preserving your identity?

>>11353104
0Mhz

>>11351253
>Do you consider yourself to be the same 'you' as ten years ago, despite the fact that every cell in your body has renewed in that time?
Except that's wrong. That stupid bullshit myth that all your cells are replaced every 10 years just won't die. The neurons in your brain for example (the organ of discussion here) last your entire life. I mean how the fuck could people spend 20 years in school learning shit if their brain supposedly completely replaced itself TWICE in that time?

>>11353251
>how the fuck could people spend 20 years in school learning shit
They don't, unless you count temporarily memorizing and then forgetting mostly useless bullshit to be "learning". You're right about neurons though.

>>11351081
It's correct, the right way of doing it is being a brain in a jar that is stimulated in such a way that creates the simulation.

what if you were split into two perfect copies, meaning there is no original and no copy. you both have the exact same memories and body. you both remember up to the point of the split.

which one is "you"?

what if you actually do die at some instant every time you go to sleep? you wake up with the same body, experiences, and memories. you are for all intents and purposes still you.

I'd argue that both of you are you. That is your divergence point where you'll do things differently and be two different people, but each has the right to be.

>>11353743
Wouldn't you describe "you" as a consciousness? If you upload your brain, that's not your consciousness, because your conciousness is still here. That's just an artificial intelligence now. If my friend dies and I go on a holodeck and have lunch with a computer version of him, that's still not him. His conciousness is apparently gone because he's dead. Even if you made a biological clone that's still not you, that's a different conciousness you have no control over. That's like twins at birth being the same person, it's two different people despite having shared the same experiences.

>>11353764
That's like, your name is John and you have a clone of yourself. That clone is John, but that john isn't you. You have no control of that clone's thoughts, you don't feel his emotions, your biological functions are separate, your consciousnesses are separate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXKUcsvhQc

>>11351205
Presumably after you go under the machine you have a 1 in 2 chance of waking up as the immortal version. Great deal if you are old or dying

>>11353534
Better way to do it is to replace your brain one part at a time with a computer simulating only that part. Eventually your whole brain will be running on resilient hardware without ever running multiple copies at a time or breaking continuity

>>11351371
Don't even bother, it's pure cope and they gueninely think they can live forever.
Mentally they're children in the sense they are not even at step 1 of accepting their mortality.

>>11353825
>Better way to do it is to replace your brain one part at a time with a computer simulating only that part. Eventually your whole brain will be running on resilient hardware without ever running multiple copies at a time or breaking continuity

Best way would be to regenerate your body so you can live for a very long time and enjoy existence with a healthy body.

>>11353251
He means the atoms in your neuron. The neurons remain in the same place, but the matter that makes them up gets switched out.

>>11351081
>being a closed individualist

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

>>11353764
what is consciousness?

>>11354113
donate here to help this guy afford clothes

>>11353104

>>11353825
>Presumably after you go under the machine you have a 1 in 2 chance of waking up as the immortal version.

No you don't. This is like saying if I gave a lift for a guy to collect his lottery money I'd have a one in two chance of being the lottery winner in the car
You have to be fundamentally retarded to see the world this way

>>11354184
No, it is the default conclusion without assuming anything immaterial about the mind and mental experience: your mind and experience exist because your body is running a mental algorithm. When you make the simulation now your mental algorithm is running twice, with half of you being immortal. They would begin to diverge immediately, but at the moment the switch is flipped they are in an identical state. You could even get better odds by making many immortal copies

>>11353104
faggot

>>11354113
based, anon knows open individualism is the answer.

OPEN INDIVIDUALISM SOLVES THIS, you circumclampinated fucks

>>11353825
You would be killing the guy anyways. It just makes it subtler. I mean, take the bits of brain you are subtituting and join them together after you are done "transfering" the consciousness and you still got the fleshy you hanging around in the real world. We are our flesh, it sucks.

>>11354374
This is retarded, your mental algorithm is running twice but in two different machines, your consciousness will always remain in your original machine. Just imagine that I have a perfect and updated copy of your mind, if I run a simulation of it in another machine, there's absolutely no chance that your actual consciousness will magically teleport to my machine. No, you wouldn't notice any difference, even if I run a million perfect simulations of your mind.

>>11354393
I don't agree. I absolutely wouldn't mind if you replaced a single neuron in my head with a synthetic one. And I wouldn't mind if you replaced another single neuron tomorrow. And then another. We all do occasionally lose neurons, do we not? And we don't consider that to be death or even notice it at all

Of course at the end you could take all the swapped out neurons and build a whole brain out of it to get another fleshy me. So just don't do that. Avoiding multiple copies of yourself existing is the whole point of doing it bit by bit

>>11354423
What makes you think there is such a thing as an "actual consciousness"? When you boot up your copy and talk to it it would say that its consciousness teleporting to your machine is exactly what happened. One moment it was experiencing the life of its original body and then suddenly it was in the machine talking to you. If you talk to the bodily me it would say that it was experiencing the life of its original body and then it just kept experiencing the life of its original body. What I'm saying is that neither of these is your "actual consciousness", they are just two consciousnesses that descend from the same source

>>11353764
but if both of the perfect copies experience a contiguous consciousness from your childhood all the way past being split into two, both of them will believe they are you, and I think both would be correct.

Are you trying to argue that this scenario kills you because there are two of you who can't control each other?

>>11351081

>Your duplicate consciousness is uploaded to the servers
>Someone hacks the servers and turns it into a literal version of Dante's inferno
>Your duplicate consciousness is now stuck in hell, in a non one to one time ratio (meaning one second in nonelectronic reality could be a million in electronic reality), until the heat death of the universe with no means of escape or altering the hell "simulation"

No way that could possibly go horribly wrong.

>>11351083
What a dumb reply, your digital brain would obviously be embedded in a simulation which feeds it with sensory input and receives the brains response

>>11351205
>it is correct
yes
>that means you cant have your mind uploaded like people imagine
I argue that it is purely a matter of your philosophical views, one might be willing to get killed during the procedure and accept that they will live on im the virtual world. If you consider that person to be a continuation of yourself is purely a matter of opinion (I never heard a proper argument for either case)

>>11354652
>advanced enough to upload minds into machines
>too stupid to remember that hackers exist
This argument is the "but who would build the roads?" of mind uploading.

>>11354696
"Sensory" input being one bunch of numbers on one part of a ram drive mixed up with data computing the brain mixed in with other parts or the computer memory

This is where this shit breaks down. You're running an algorithm where you have numbers representing an environment scrambled up with numbers representing a brain. Corresponding actual physical biomatter with numbers seems metaphysically unsound.
Am I to believe pausing the running of the script and simply editing variable values in a computer which drastically alter the simulation is actually corresponding to any physical entity? When it's really just a detailed drawing of it.
So much foolishness at stake

We're at the level of thinking drawing a picture of a smiley face actually makes the picture feel anything just because it corresponds to a smiling person

>>11355127
Well you're starting to hit on the problem that our concepts of "consciousness" and "entity" just dont work out im the end.
An arbitrarily large simulation can approximate a section of the physical world to arbitary accuracy. you might claim this is not true but this is the basis of all talk about virtual worlds and digital minds anyways.
If you accept that then you end up with the problem that the concept of a conscious entity doesnt really work anymore. I believe that what is an entity is completely up to interpretation. Under the right interpretation, the random motions of atoms in a plasma might represent a simulation of something. Who al I to say there couldnt be some alien civilization that has a programming formalism and unit system where the positions of the atoms correspond to a recording of a simulation?

>>11352015
This, holy shit. Too bad we'll never get any serious research on biological immortality made available to us unwashed masses, cause the corporate asshats and technofascists are too greedy.

>>11352015
>If we allocated 10% of world GDP we could do it in a couple of decades, probably.
lol probably?

>>11355192
>cause the corporate asshats and technofascists are too greedy.
>spend trillions of dollars of other people's money on me so I can be a neet forever, you greedy capitalist oppressor!

The method you'd have to use is slowly, carefully replacing every neuron in your brain with some sort of cybernetic equivalent in a sort of 'Ship of Theseus' deal where you would, say, have nanomachines replace the neurons with structures that performed exactly the same task, but could also interface directly with digital technology.

If you 'died' at any point during this process, well you, or whatever replaces you, wouldn't notice it.

>>11355192
lmao, robofascists expressly want to do research into this kinda stuff.

>>11351081
Just replace a small chunk of your brain with a synthetic copy, repeat until only synthetic material remains. Problem solved.

>>11355318
>just place your finger with a block of wood and keep chopping pieces off until you become a tree
This is just as retarded as making a copy but fools people with 5 more IQ points

I can't wait until we fool all dumb people to kill themselves and then just turn off their computer

>>11355470
Can't kill themselves when the self doesn't exist in the first place.

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose I have a few instruments and some knowledge.
>I have a scanner that lets me know the exact state and configuration of any neuron in your brain
>I know how to build circuits equivalent in biological function to a neuron
>I have a swarm of nanobots taking commands from the scanner to physically destroy a neuron and then replace it with an electrical equivalent

The nanobots turn your brain to mush and it slowly drains out if your nose over a few hours as they replace neurons, only ever working one at a time. You stay awake the whole time, doing whatever; read a book, chat with a friend, do a triple integral. By the end, the inside of your skull is a completely non-biological affair. I replace one of your eyes with an electronic equivalent, then the other. Then a limb, and so on. At what point did you cease to be yourself?

What prevents me from just pumping any signal for sight, sound, touch, taste or smell into this new electronic brain, and having a computer listen in on signals trying to cause the body to move and moving a corresponding virtual body in a simulation of some sort?

>>11351312
>The person who existed one second ago isn’t “you” either. Who cares?

No one actually believes this, even you

If someone strapped you in a chair and said they were going to torture you on life support for weeks, you wouldn't find solace in the bullshit that you've already faded into oblivion before they finished that sentence. And every future instantiation of you is going to only experience a few milliseconds of pain or some other arbitrary slice of time.

>>11351081
>upload brain structure
The brain is just a storage unit for memories and an antenna to connect with the akashic realm and pull minor consciousness through (aka you)

>>11351081
Why is the scientist with the knife dressed so weirdly?

>>11351081
Personal identity is an illusion (all particular identities are). The only reason this argument makes people feel uneasy is because low iq people think being made up of some matter and not some other matter is what makes you you. This is obviously nonsense. Whats ACTUALLY you is not your body, not even your brain, its electrons sapping around in your brain, and these are swapped out several times a second. People also put a lot of weight on stuff like keeping a "continuity" of consciousness. This is obviously also nonsense, as consciousness is interrupted in dreamless sleep. Its also meaningless, because you have no way to tell when your consciousness is interrupted, as long as its contents dont change much.

>>11353104
low iq

>>11351446
Based. Self is a social construct.

>>11353127
Thats probably how it would be implemented, but not for any rational reason, its just because the thought of having the matter that currently constitutes your body destroyed makes normies feel bad.

>>11351253

> I know enough not to mistake the body for the self but harbor the delusion this somehow means the mind is independent of it despite literally zero evidence in all of human history a mind can exist outside of a body

You need to read Schizmatrix and learn why even if this were possible (which it isn’t) you should be completely terrified at the idea of participating in it.

Thats not how its gonna happen anyway.
What we will do at some point is replacing our brain bit by bit. We already have stuff like pacemakers etc. So what will happen is that we replace damaged brain parts with artificial ones and then go on to extend our brain beyond our current capabilities. At one point we will be more machine-brain than soft tissue brain. Who then says that I can't just in the end replace the rest of it and go on?

>>11356146
>At what point did you cease to be yourself?
Ship of Thesus

Also.

the structure of the brain represent yourslef and that would remian the same largley,

Like you can make the number 6 out of metal or wood, but same information of a 6 at the information level.

>>11351081
The scanning process would probably need to be destructive. The best approach we have to scanning brains involves blasting away tissue with a focused ion beam and imaging it with a scanning electron microscope layer by layer.

>>11353127
>the "consensus" was that you'd have to transition gradually into an artificial copy to maintain the illusion(I'll concede you that) of preserving your identity
That could be done, but it wouldn't accomplish anything. It'd be better just to accept the memories and bodily similarity are all there ever was to identity to begin with and just not make a big deal with the "it'd just be a copy though" spiel when there was never anything more than that in the frame by frame temporal nearness of body-moments that make up a "non-copied" identity. "Me" at 1 second ago and "me" now don't ever really teleport into each others heads and neither would "me" 20 years from now with "copy me." The whole thing is predicated on overrating what's happening from moment to moment ordinarily and assuming there must be some special identity continuity module that's always getting carried over when really the much more natural and obvious arrangement is our "identity" is just a convenient decision to group a bunch of similar body-moments together and call them one thing.

Disprove this

>>11358510
It is true though. The "=" sign doesn't mean "equal to," it just means "similar enough"

>>11358510
It's true (in L1-norm).
Also pi is exactly 4.

>>11351081
To everyone ITT who thinks a neuron-by-neuron upload would still just result in a copy with the original you being dead:
How is that process different from your natural metabolism replacing every atom in your body in a 10 year period? If I annihalate you and then rebuild an identical copy with different atoms, then you're still dead. But when you just live for a decade, the same happens, just slowly atom by atom. If uploading a mind in this way still results in a different person, then you must admit that you'll be dead in 10 years and haven't lived for more than 10 years either, everything beyond those time horizons is just a similar clone.

>>11358481
Ok, O don't disagree, I'm that poster and I accepted my mortality a few years ago. I'm fine with being just a little variable in the whole universe, we can still try and have some impact in its evolution is my belief and that's fine by me.

>>11351081

>not understanding that we all exist in a semi-solipsistic timeline of our own in an MWI scenario and that the longest-lived version of "you" is always "you"
>this is why that stupid bike stunt you did as a kid didn't break your neck and kill you
>in another causal potentiality (timeline), it did

>>11358992
Don't do this Anon, I barely escaped death in my car last year and the thought of leaving my gf of that timeline alone haunts me.

>>11358992
A short story about this very thing:

https://www.tor.com/2010/08/05/divided-by-infinity/

>he doesn't look forward to death
>the end of anxiety
>the end of worries
>don't need to go to some gay afterlife where you would probably get bored and have to hang out with your lame relatives and ex-wives

>>11356200
ok schizo

>>11358874
>How is that process different from your natural metabolism replacing every atom in your body in a 10 year period?
I hate you retards making the right answer to this topic look bad with your every atom replaced in 10 years bullshit. Brain cells don't do that. With a very small number of exceptions when brain cells die nothing replaces them. What you have with brain cells is almost entirely what you get for life more or less. The concept of identity is still a spook but please stop shooting yourself in the foot with this ignorant urban legend.

>>11360492
Yeah the braincells don't die and get replaced, but the atoms that make them up do. The carbon and hidrogen and other elements in a given braincell doesn't stay there forever, they gets switched out, that applies to the whole body. You don't need new cells for a replacement of atoms and molecules.

>>11352045
That uploading a scan of your brain doesn't transfer your consciousness to the machine, it just duplicates it, leaving two copies, an electronic one and a biological one that instantly begin to diverge into two different personalities.

>>11354182
seething lmao

>>11354392
nah

>>11360492
replaced in 10 years stay mad

>>11351296
Clearly there is only "you"

Everyone is you, every thing is you. Buddhists were right

>>11358992
So what happens when you die of old age? they cure aging before it happens?

>>11351205
But what if you're aware that the copy will only be a copy yet still wish to be copied since you want some version of you to persist after your death?

Like what if I would like to have a continued presence in the lives of my descendants beyond my natural lifespan? My copy could interact with my family for generations to come.

>>11351296
Objectively it is
Subjectively it isn't
Your (as in the original you) pov doesn't shift when the copy is created but from the pov of the copy it is you and from the perspective of anyone interacting with the copy it would be indistinguishable.

>>11361443
You were wrong. Deal with it you low IQ faggoty shitposter.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(05)00408-3
>The average age of cells in the gray matter (cells that make up neurons and other brain matter) of the cerebellum was almost as old as the individual, implying they form when a person is around two years old and remain with them throughout that person’s life.
"But it would just be a copy!" tards are wrong because continuity of identity is a spook to begin with, not because of your stupid urban myth about every cell in the body getting replaced in 10 years.

The universe is local. Non local theories of QM are cope for Bohmian mechanic retards and other coping shit for brains retards.
The local nature of physics implies that the transfer of information in the form of replacing atoms, electrons, and other fundamental particles can only happen LOCALLY, there can never be transfer of information non-locally. This is why you feel the continuity of consciousness - it IS fundamentally, physically, continuous and local as is all QM and physics.
This also means that mind uploading is not possible. Imagine this thought experiment: There is a machine that can scan your body and immediately reconstruct an EXACT copy of you, down to the arrangement of the atoms and everything, several hundred feet away at the other side of the lab. Your body will not deconstruct during this process, there would simply be an exact copy created at the other side of the lab.
IF this were to happen, YOU WOULD NOT EXPERIENCE SENSATIONS FROM BOTH BODIES, BECAUSE REALITY IS LOCAL. It does NOT MATTER that the pattern of information and atomic structure is EXACTLY the same between you and the clone, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOCAL. PATTERN OF INFORMATION AND ATOMIC/FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES DO. NOT. MATTER. IN TERMS OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE.
This is why "Mind uploading" can not work. It is predicated on non-local transfer of information which does not exist. If you were to "upload your mind" into a computer, from your perspective it would be no different than being shot in the head - you die and whatever happens after death, happens (most likely nothing, you go into the void). Then a pattern that is with your memories and such will continue on in the digitilized environment, and from everyone elses perspective it would seem as though you were the same, however your conscious experience of continuity would end in the exact same way that it would if you were shot in the head.

>>11362313
>YOU WOULD NOT EXPERIENCE SENSATIONS FROM BOTH BODIES, BECAUSE REALITY IS LOCAL
"You" at T never experience sensations T-1 "you" has. There is no continuity of identity substance teleporting from body-moment to body-moment. There is only similarity in content of memory and nearness in space and time which gets wrapped together as the useful fiction of "identity." There isn't normally a case where two similar bodies are around at the same point in time so it confuses your intuition about what should or shouldn't happen and you wrongly believe one instance is less authentic than the other because neither is telepathic when that was never a feature of non-copied reality to begin with.

>>11362329
Given your argument, there is no difference between you and the clone as they have the same pattern of information in their arrangement of particles.
If there is no relation of sensation between you and the clone, there is no relation of sensation between you and the digital copy - neither are local transfers are information. From your perspective, it would be the same as getting shot in the head.

>>11354392
No

https://qualiacomputing.com/2019/12/27/one-for-all-and-all-for-one/

>My view?
>My ethical sympathies lie with open individualism; but as it stands, I don’t see how a monopsychist theory of identity can be true. Open or closed individualism might (tenuously) be defensible if we were electrons (cf. One-electron universe – Wikipedia). However, sentient beings are qualitatively and numerically different. For example, the half-life of a typical protein in the brain is an estimated 12–14 days. Identity over time is a genetically adaptive fiction for the fleetingly unified subjects of experience generated by the CNS of animals evolved under pressure of natural selection (cf. Was Parfit correct we’re not the same person that we were when we were born?). Even memory is a mode of present experience. Both open and closed individualism are false.

>>11362290
seething lol

>>11362352
There is the same difference between the source material mental activity at T-1 and the digital mental activity created at T as there is between that source material at T-1 and T-2, or between it and T-3, etc. In all cases they aren't transferring any special magic shared identity module between each other. It's only similarity in space and time and memory content that makes any talk of "identity" happen to begin with. "You" and other "you" wouldn't share experience any more than "you" and "you" 5 seconds earlier do (there are similar memories, not a teleporting identity that could ever be had or lost to begin with).

>>11362443
So are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>11362313
Imagine stating exactly what the comic does except in a extremely long winded way. And also ignoring the entire 130 replies before many of which say the same thing and many of which refute it.

Here, I fixed it

>>11353047
getting there
https://www.janelia.org/project-team/flyem/hemibrain