/sci/ - Science & Math

Gradual transfer or destructive scan under anesthesia

Define "Singularity"

I've seen this term used to describe several different things.
And don't say "Just look at comic" because that doesn't describe enough.

>>15952680
>if i kill my consciousness gradually i might finally score with a virtual ai waifu gf
lmao this meme

every instant, your old self is replaced by a new self. This destruction is no less absolute for the fact that it is not externally and macroscopically visible. Either consciousness does not persist at all, or consciousness is resilient across different physical states. Either way, brain-upload-and-die is no worse than everyday existence.

>>15952791
It's outsourcing. No thanks. Imagine your brain on outsourcing. Lol.

>>15952794
outsourcing is only bad because only rich people get to do it.

leaving aside the issue of simulating a human brain, your brain is constantly performing gene therapy on itself, so you'd need to capture the structure between cells as well as the individual DNA of each cell
I think it's gonna destroy your brain in the best-case scenario

>>15952795
Rich people do it to save money. Not as a luxury good.

>>15952803
Outsourcing is bad because it is a way that rich people can save money that poor people don't have access to

>>15952811
Poor people don't have access to Walmart? Excessive outsourcing is bad because it arbitrages geography (a functional union of people) against international corporate profits (a dysfunctional union of people).

>>15952824
they don't have access to its coffers, no. The fact that outsourcing drives prices down in the outsourcing country only helps the poor of that country if the reduction in the price of goods offsets the reduction of the price of local labor. The arbitrage only works because geography is a barrier that requires significant power (read: money) to transfer labor across. I guess that's equivalent to it being a "functional union of people," since it's a union that exists by necessity until some force fractures it. Decreasing the barriers to outsourcing (economic, political, and cultural) would be equivalent to expanding the union and reducing the potential for arbitrage.

>>15952669
Redundant argument since its impossible. Unlike artificial computing devices where the functionality is abstracted from the underlying atomic structure, that is not the case for the brain, the information and functionality of the brain depends on its exact atomic configuration.

>>15952841
Walmart doesn't make money if it doesn't give poor people access to "its coffers" as you've defined it (outsourced pricing). A functional union has a function. Geography does. Ethnicity does. Family does. Working together does. Banking at Citibank doesn't. Shopping at Amazon doesn't. Race doesn't.

I will upload over a million of copies of me in the Matrix and conspire against the virtual world

a copy is a copy m you cannot scan your brain, your mind, into a machine. even if it's a perfect copy, even if it acts exactly like you, it's still not youю

>>15952669
>he still believes in Closed Individualism

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

>>15952951
>the information and functionality of the brain depends on its exact atomic configuration
No evidence of processing below the threshold of neurons at all. Penrose was just trying to stage a late life comeback with this tomfoolery.

>>15953179
I saw that shirtless guy posted here a lot but I never looked into him
Sad to find out he offed himself in lake Michigan

>>15953307
So apparently all the chemical reactions happening inside them have nothing to do with their behavior?

>words words words
midwits cant meme

>>15952669
Idk why exactly the guy is holding a knife there, but if it's a similar to the idea of the teleport thought experiment where the teleporter "malfunctions" and leaves the body at the start location intact, and the argument that the original body occupier should be ok with being killed (though why exactly they would kill you? to uhhhh... "fix the mistake"?) if the teleported you is "you" because that would mean you'd still be alive in that body - that would be analogous to a situation where your life got accidentally artificially extended, then being told you should be OK being killed because you were not "supposed" to live those years. In the cloning case the extended years are just lived simultaneously with a copy rather than after your "natural" lifespan.

>>15954248
nah bro, you just don't assemble from scan and re-scan then make sure to destroy 3D instance. if you don't you'll fork from scan time which is your fault.
anywho, maybe you believe Max Tegmark on this?
https://youtu.be/XEUiqpYSe_I?t=3658

>>15952680
>delete hub node while transferring mind
>network collapses

>>15954254
I don't see how anything he said contradicts with what I said. To be clear, I don't think there's an absolute answer in general to what makes "you" you, personal identity is ultimately blurry and to an extend a matter of personal choice/interpretation. For example I don't particularly identify with the 2 year old me because I don't really even remember being that guy.

>>15953307
>below the threshold
see 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135703 for why you are a retard
anyway, the brain as an "information processor" is already a fundamentally flawed perspective
neuroscience really does filter everyone

>>15954298
"malfunctioning" means either captures your data either it doesn't. no real need to start assembly before extraction is finished. the thought experiment is designed for confusion trying to make a primitive point, it's designed to scare and specifically misrepresent what you actually are. in this sense the argument is flawed if you will. it's not honest

>>15952669
There is no such thing as "teleporter" either.

>>15954357
I think that's a function not an object

>>15954361
What was "The Fly" about then?

>>15954379
huh?

>>15954386
It's an old movie. How bout Barclays transporter phobia on ST:TNG.

>>15954390
bro speak normally, I don't understand your point

>>15952811
do you know you're a crab in a bucket?

>>15953307
Tegmark and Hawing are having none of it

>>15954395
These are easily findable references to explorations on the subject. You ported teleportation to a object that does the teleporting. True enough, currently a teleporting machine doesn't exist, but the argument is that it never can. The principle breaks the human idea of the self. And in absolute terms, the principle is bullshit. Copying something to the atom, then annihilating the original isn't "teleporting".

Dr. Strange or Thanos stepping through holes from one place to another is teleporting. X-Men Nightcrawler goes into another dimension I think, to test to another part of ours. Same thing as the Event Horizon ship in that movie. Didn't you see Christopher Nolans "The Prestige"?

>>15954627
>The principle breaks the human idea of the self. And in absolute terms, the principle is bullshit. Copying something to the atom, then annihilating the original isn't "teleporting".
you seem to be very much brainwashed by the movies you saw. reality does not give a fuck about your expectations of it. couldn't care less.
if it works, whatever you tell yourself is just bedtime stories. what really matters, in this universe, is what ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS, not your silly ideas about what you think should be. that's all there is to it.

>>15954447
>muh too warm wet and noisy
Justin Riddle has some counterarguments to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8

>To summarize them briefly, (1) People always identify as their latest technology and so most people believe that they are a digital computer. Time to update those models of self, because.... (2) Quantum computers are here. We wouldn't want the brick of metal in our pocket to have greater computational power than our brain. (3) People say the brain is too warm, wet, and noisy for quantum effects; yet, evidence keeps emerging for quantum effects in biology (such as photosynthesis). Where do we draw the line? (4) Evolution might be selecting for quantum systems that can maintain quantum coherence. (5) The debate around the role of quantum mechanics in consciousness has been raging for 100 years. Many key historical figures like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, von Neumann entertained the idea that quantum mechanics might relate to our mind. (6) Physical theories that are purely deterministic have failed to account for key aspects of subjective experience. There may be novel answers from a perspective that incorporate new physics.

I finally did it.

>>15954658
listen, if it works anything else is irrelevant. even if you CAN prove there is something lost, it's still irrelevant if it doesn't practically matter.
remember, the whole world is in competition. if you hold back because some fantasy ideas...you'll wipe. this will most likely happen even with some loss, if any. offers WAY too much shit

It's going to be so funny when it inevitably turns out that the first generation of brain uploads were faulty, the second gen complains about lack of content, and then around the third or fourth gen it turns out everyone got Chinese Room'd.

>>15954418
Is the implication here that once someone gets rich enough they ascend to heaven and have no problems anymore? I don't have anything against the wealthy, I just think that the problems with concentrating power in the hands of whoever's good at the current capitalism meta outweigh the benefits

>>15952791
>dude, what if like every time we fall asleep we die and then we wake up and we're a totally new person but we don't realize it because we have all the same memories and it's a distinction without a difference but whooooooaaaaaa so deep

>>15954701
>dude, what if like every time we go through a star trek transporter we die and then we wake up and we're a totally new person but we don't realize it because we have all the same memories and it's a distinction without a difference but whooooooaaaaaa so deep

my point is that are conversation like this is less interesting than it seems at first glance

>>15954701
lol the fact that it's a distinction without difference is just the correct answer to the OP's question. too bad it's not deep enough for you.

>>15952791
>Either way, brain-upload-and-die is no worse than everyday existence.
that's not my issue really. I'd mash that button like crazy with no issue or fear of "dying".
what really troubles me is the idea that once scanned the wavefunction for whatever happens next is weird af. its not only your next reassembly, it's all possible reassemblies from that scan, you could "collapse" any of those. or you maybe directly collapse a version which "makes it" at least until the next scan.
on long enough timescales the only you around is the you which always makes it, somehow. and that you, looking back, makes complete sense to how he got there. there's a logical flow to all of its history/memories.

>>15954745
I think the only logically coherent solution for this hypothetical is that instead of "youness" collapsing into a single copy, "youness" persists across all copies. Each copy *is* the pre-scan you as much as all the others are, they just aren't each other. This is what it would look like from the outside (each copy would have the memories and attitudes of pre-scan you), and the only problem with this take is that from the inside, it's unintuitive to imagine a "fork" in yourself. Honestly, though, consciousness is less rigid of an experience than our intuition leads us to believe, and I don't think "I can't imagine experiencing that" is reason to think you can't experience something.

>>15954759
yeah but there's still the unavoidable question, which room are you in when you wake up? because if all are me (which I agree with), then I should know what will happen next, which I don't.
running the experiment that Max Tegmark mentioned in the video, you get unconscious, scanned and a clone is made, you wake up in the hospital room. in which of the two rooms are you?
if you get scanned thinking you can't wait to get home after scanning to play some pc game, whenever you get reassembled from that scan you'll have a pretty bad time, especially if it happens quite some time in the future.

>>15954774 me
>you'll have a pretty bad time,
because that will be you from scan time with no choice whatsoever, you literally jumped at scan time. and there was no choice for you to get back home and play the pc game, you literally couldn't do anything about it to make sure (You) get back home that day.

>>15954774
I think that question is ill-founded. "which room are you in when you wake up" has no single answer because there are multiple "yous" that can wake up in different times and different locations. If you're considering the problem from a pragmatic perspective, asking what the you-before-the-scan should plan for or expect, I don't think the problem is very exotic. We need to take into account unpredictable outcomes in our lives all the time, so we can and do make plans for different outcomes. The only difference here is that the outcomes aren't mutually exclusive, at least for the entire universe. Instead of having to plan for going home OR waking up a clone somewhere, you should plan for going home AND waking up a clone somewhere. Different yous will experience both.

>>15954781 me
there will be some inevitable side-effects, such as considering the still "living" version as a sort of "master timeline" or something, the one which always makes it. any other lines you took in space-time weren't as successful, if you always get rebuilt from latest backup after wiping. all these versions that fail will be on "non-viable" timelines or something. and technically the only thing you'd lose is the time spent experiencing between backup time and wipe time.
now, if we increase the backup times to say 5 minutes, then that's the most you can lose from your overall experience (on long enough timescales).
if you always backup in realtime you can literally continue from right before dying. as far as YOUR state goes, not the world's.
take this to an even higher extreme, where backup is in realtime and restore is also realtime, which is equivalent to some highly advanced robot/synthetic body with synthetic brain and upload/download capabilities, you can literally drop a body and move to another close by one in realtime, supposing these robo-bodies are laying around or in some storage spots. that would make you sort-of an invincible immortal which upon any kind of body destruction event can just instantly jump ship and continue in a nearby body. kinda weird but very much interesting

>>15954632
Thanks for keeping me grounded, person infinitely below me. I was only trying to put it in terms you could understand, limited as you are. I'm the most willful person who has ever lived and incapable of being "brainwashed".

>>15954704
>hasn't seen the other riker episode
Well, you sure took two posts to also say nothing .....

>>15954797
you are highly influenced by concepts you saw in movies. it's completely irrelevant if all the savants on the planet think it won't work, if it does. that is at most some form of evidence. not proof.
you are also a condescending idiot, which seems to most often be the case with people having your ideas.
it works or it doesn't, that's all you need to know.

>>15954798
I've seen that episode I'm just not used to other people having seen it. Even when they do, not drawing the same conclusions I do from it. I don't think the fact that transporters can duplicate people says anything about whether they kill you or not.

>>15954793
>if you always backup in realtime
and the brain naturally does exactly this, constantly updating in realtime. the issue is we cannot save/transfer (out of bio-head) everything right before the brain getting fucked.

>>15954798
Oh great genie Nobody. What is the trick I need to do to do.

>>15952669
pour vous:
Advantageous (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBT0izYi7A

>>15954800
Ha. Citing isn't "influence", dumbass. It's an exploration of mechanics in understandable terms. I know all I need to know, condescending faggot, thanks.

IT DOESNT WORK. Is that simple enough to fit in your empty head?

>>15954803
That is the reality. You can call it "cosmic fairness", or karma or whatever, but there is only a copier and a murder booth. "YOU" aren't going anywhere but oblivion. That's why I'd take a shuttle every time. The point of that ep, was that self is more environment. I don't agree with the premise, but the set up is clear. "Our" Riker hates his "other self" for not turning out the way he did. Same with Picard not fighting the Naussican, as shown by Q.

>>15954810
Stop quoting whole paragraphs for one...

>>15954812
I just saw this too. Was gonna mention. Love indie sci-fi. Keeps them "on the porch" as necessity.

>>15954816
Thank you.

Yes everyone, that is how this Nobody NPC genie works. You ask it any questions and it cryptically responds with answers it knows.


Awhhh

>>15954816
>IT DOESNT WORK. Is that simple enough to fit in your empty head?
that's not for you to decide kek. nobody is making you do it anyway faggot. you'll just be a grumpy old fuck yelling about stolen souls or retarded shit like that. then you will most likely die of old age. yeah, you won at life for sure.

>>15954816
>That is the reality. You can call it "cosmic fairness", or karma or whatever, but there is only a copier and a murder booth. "YOU" aren't going anywhere but oblivion. That's why I'd take a shuttle every time. The point of that ep, was that self is more environment. I don't agree with the premise, but the set up is clear. "Our" Riker hates his "other self" for not turning out the way he did. Same with Picard not fighting the Naussican, as shown by Q.
if you run this game you'll wipe so fucking fast it's not even funny. if fucking Somalia (somehow) gets to make and use this tech, and only Somalia, it will mog the rest of the planet in tens of years. it's not even a fair fight for fucks sake.
god damn it you are so utterly retarded. I so fucking hope all of the idiots having your ideas are going to NEVER use that fucking tech holy shit it's unreal how much I'm hoping for it. that'll work out peach for the rest of us

I hate you delusional schizophrenic nameniggers more than you would ever believe

>>15954816
>Love indie sci-fi. Keeps them "on the porch" as necessity
never thought of it like that. the amount of care that went into the transference scene, i guess, might be a function of budget constraints.

>>15954658
Not sure how just asserting something is quantum explains consciousness when we don't even have even the closest idea how to explain conscious experience whatsoever.

>>15954869
My crackpot theory is that we don't want to understand consciousness. Or maybe, "understanding" consciousness is impossible. Quantum mechanics is pretty hard to understand, some would argue impossible, so it's a nice little hole to shove consciousness into.

>>15954820
So I will stay me....sounds perfect.

>>15954832
Maybe. If I had a flash cloner, I could fix the world too.

>>15954839
Cowards don't count.

>>15954867
Still haven't watched Primer, but the openendedness of "imagination!", is simultaneously as a barrier to make sci-fi, and proportionate wank for the authors flights of fancy. When it's only about how extraordinary circumstance effect human nature, like comics.

>>15954881
>So I will stay me....sounds perfect.
that's primitive. you can't tell your ass from your mouth, but somehow you know you won't be you because there's other idiots like you, and that makes sense to you, enough to BE SURE. holy shit

Why are people so obsessed with merging with machines anyway?
>Far more vulnerable to power surges and electric storms than organic life
>Far more vulnerable to overheating than organic life
>Has no independence unlike organic life

>>15952680
>kill me but in a way so I don't notice
AI is in this world with the /singular purpose of making my biological body immortal,

>>15954930
I think on the contrary, you can design the body to withstand serious human-adverse conditions. increased radioactivity and bad shit like that (even corrosive high pressure environments).
I'd really like to "beam" to Europa (not on Earth) have a snowmobile race, for fun, then "beam" back to Earth.
you can have solar collectors for your energy topups or emergency. just have some part of your body exposed to some light and your "core" will trickle charge in time. remember that our brains use around 20W for everything happening inside them. for some emergency low-power condition you might be able to get away with even less than 1W, enough to send some message or fuck it, yourself fully, and leave that body behind once you collect enough power to fully send all your info

>>15954303
Please tell me more.

>>15954949 me
and the transport system can literally be Starlink + Deep Space Network kek, and other Starlink constellations on other bodies in the solar system.
you'd literally "beam up to the sky", and transport is at lightspeed.

>>15954968 me
and you'd also always send the experience delta. no need to always transfer everything. if you have data repositories on all bodies only the new experiences would "fly" inside the network. which would massively cut on data transfer times.

>>15953179
>video of a shirtless child "debunking" reality
no thanks

>>15954885
Law of scarcity, but no. I'd love endless clones. I'm just never being willfully annihilated to pay for them. You go right ahead.

>>15954930
This is all bullshit.

>>15953307
I agree with you, but uncertainty.....

>>15953316
He had to become one with the lake...

>>15953425
>>15954303
>>15954447
https://youtu.be/N3fA5uzWDU8?si=Ji88rGanhd4mraim

>>15952669
Moravec Transfer

>>15952669
Honestly I’m fine with it just being a copy uploaded to the matrix. That means whatever weird bullshit that could arise from such a scenario will not affect the real me, since I’ll be dead and whatnot

>>15952669
To put my penny here, I believe that only after the complete elimination of what constitutes your brain you can actually reconstruct it and have your "own" conciousness be in that new object as long as it perfectly or incredibly closely resembles your original brain. Brain is nothing but what it constitutes it, and if it would be possible to rebuild it, it would be no diferent and therefore it becomes logical for your conciousness to be there.

>>15955190
>Honestly i'm fime with being killed and my brain data harvested
Nobody thinks like this fed. You will never gaslight people into thinking this is normal

>>15955568
some people do think like this. Hopefully you won't gaslight very many people into thinking the US federal government is willing and able to suppress them perfectly without lifting a finger.

>>15955190
>will not affect the real me
the whole funny bit is that you can't really tell who the real you is. that's the issue many people are failing to understand, and they like just error the fuck out and repeat some shit.
but in practice, just like idiotic audiophiles, you have no clue when it comes down to testing.
>but I'm this me, I know I am me.
mhm

>>15955568
nta but really never use the "teleporter", ever. please. do us a service and convince as many as you can to never ever fucking use it. tell them it steals their souls or some shit. just die of old age, it's fucking based bro

>>15952791
we know almost nothing about how consciousness works

>>15955915
not sure we fully understand superconductivity, fully. we have bcs but that was threatened by lk99. and now there seems to be another "lk99" thing popping up.
even so, MRI machines go brrr

>>15953179
don't torment yourself with this shit.

we've barely scratched the surface of physics, and we'll probably never know what the substrate is made of. we might also never figure out consiousness itself

if it gnaws at you then take up Buddhism, it's one of the only major religions that makes sense within this context

>>15954934
based

>>15953179
No one who says they "believe" something because they linked a video with the word "debunked" need be taken seriously.

>>15954759
yeah but still, seems like scanning yourself adds a serious excuse for you always "collapsing" something that makes sense. as opposed to not getting scanned which doesn't offer much shit past 90 years of age, realistically speaking. not much shit can happen for you to have a continuity, apart from some heaven type thing after death.
if I'd really want to, would I still be able to die? like for real, data wipe and current body death? theoretically seems like it should be easy, but that scan data makes it hard in a sense. way harder than not having been scanned in the first place.
not sure if scanning doesn't get us in a weird immortal scenario where you can't stop it even if you really try to.
I don't have a particular scenario/mechanic in mind, it's just a sort of intuition thing, "seems" very very strange from this point of view. scanning does something weird, quantum mechanically-ish of sorts. seems like there's something there unexplored and fully not really understood.

>>15955568
Well how bout at the end of natural life?

>>15955975 me
can any of you brainiacs think about this? how would you even get on a timeline in which you decide to "really" kill yourself? how would that work?
say you do decide to kill yourself in like 100 years in the future. that's it, you had enough of this shit. what do? well...first thing would be to delete your data. say you do that. then you're the only instance left so you shoot yourself or something. that's a "non-viable" timeline for you, which wouldn't collapse in the first place from your latest scan. theoretically the scan is what guarantees you collapse a timeline in which you don't wipe (eventually).
I mean I understand that it seems like it should be easy for you to wipe, but is tho? For some weird reason I'm thinking about the bomb experiment being somehow related to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhIf3Q_m0FQ
but I'm going on intuition here I'm not sure what I'm talking about. something is up with scanning, like for real, and I think we should explore the madness.

>>15956222
why would I think about prospective issues based on makebelieve shit, it's all just a convoluted stack of assumptions. touch base with reality

>>15956231
humans are going head first into it bro, full force all gas no fucking breakes. if there's anything weird in there, it might pay off understanding it more, might avoid weird shit.
the mechanism seems to literally bruteforce a path for you at a personal level at a fantastic powerlevel, literally able to reconfigure everything, breaks all dependencies in a weird way. whatever the fuck is needed to make sense. not sure you can stop that rollercoaster once inside and might get weird as fuck

the whole joke is that scanning might already be possible or like really very few years away. and I think I heard about it in some youtube video or smth that in ~2030 the best supercomputer would be theoretically able to fully simulate a human brain, as far as number of shits happening all at once in the brain.
so like that's in 6 years or something. and at a personal level what starts the whole ride is getting scanned. we're kinda "in those times"

>>15956222
You don't need quantum mechanics to make suicide "impossible." Hell, you don't even need nondeterminism. By the anthropic principle, you'll never find yourself dead, which means that you'll never find yourself having succeeded at killing yourself.

>>15954721
>the fact that it is unfalsifiable makes it deep
Fuck off.

>>15956301
It won't happen even in 100 years. We are so far away from it it's unreal.

>>15956478
The anthropic principle does not imply this. Even the way the reddit bugmen use the 'anthropic principle' doesn't imply this.

The contingent statement
>I currently have observation or knowledge that "I exist"
is not entailed by the necessarily true statement
>You cannot or would not observe or know that you do not exist

>>15956521
Thank you editor

>You don't need quantum mechanics to make suicide "impossible." Hell, you don't even need nondeterminism. By the anthropic principle, you'll never observe yourself dead or know that you are dead, which means that you'll never observe yourself succeeding or know you have succeeded at killing yourself.

>>15952669
ship of Theseus your brain, first by mutation, then by swaping shit out if need be

>Max Tegmark now believes that from their own point of view, the person in the thought experiment should not expect immortality. Since they die in some worlds, they afterwards exist in much fewer worlds than they had before. People are less likely to find themselves in a world where their own existence is less likely. Therefore, it is only a possibility, not a certainty, that the person who does the experiment then goes on to feel like they survived.[3] This same problem, of not existing as much afterwards, was pointed out by Lev Vaidman in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[4]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
I'm trying to find some paper or book in which Max discusses the clone experiment. Anyone knows anything?

OK singularity-sisters, I've got it.
You need a ridiculously complicated piece of equipment that interfaces with the brain at some level and begins swapping out individual neurons, then entire regions of the brain, one by one, bit by bit. Theseus' Ship that shit.
1% virtualization..
2% virtualization..
Etc
At first only the neuron responsible for the memory of your first sexual encounter is taken over by the computer, but eventually, seamlessly, the entire network of your consciousness is virtual.

Yes this requires impossible scifi machinery, so does the root scenario.

oh shit I just realized that Tegmark came up with quantum immortality lmao. I'm a fucking brainlet. that's why the teleporting shit inevitably leads to some quantum immortality conclusions, because of the observer cloning bit

>>15955921
What does that have to do with consciousness? But we do understand bcs superconductivity, and experts probably understand a lot about high-T superconductors. LK99 was a meme. Nu-LK99 I don't know but I tend to assume everything is a meme.

>>15956900
>But we do understand bcs superconductivity,
does it allow for RTSC?
>What does that have to do with consciousness?
we don't need to understand it to replicate it

>>15956909
For telling you this, I want a slice of the pie. 'no I've dibbed it, you didn't know until now' - if emotionally this is true by the end of this statement. It's mine. I will steal it all. That is unless you give me a fair slice of this upcoming pie. As well as the science game in this simulationnnnn which I won. Are many other games. The hardest.

>The pyramid game concerning wealth of everyone with pyramids or the financial game

The cutest. The cultural game. Many more.

I want a billion pyramid and you will all chip in otherwise I'll steal all of it and you will be fine because emotionally I own this stuff.

PIE NOW I WAS KIND

>>15956909
That depends on the RTSC, but probably not, or at least BCS would not be a complete theory (it's not a complete theory of high-T superconductors afaik).
>we don't need to understand it to replicate it
Yeah, but superconductivity is a physical phenomenon which can be observed and verified. Consciousness may or may not be a physical phenomenon, and there is currently no way to observe or verify any consciousness but your own. So replicating consciousness is not the same as replicating superconductivity, because you have no idea if it even worked.

>>15956488
is there anything that makes you think scanning is 100 years away? I'm curious

>>15956930
>Yeah, but superconductivity is a physical phenomenon which can be observed and verified. Consciousness may or may not be a physical phenomenon, and there is currently no way to observe or verify any consciousness but your own. So replicating consciousness is not the same as replicating superconductivity, because you have no idea if it even worked.
true we don't know, but I think it is. you could theoretically scan and simulate anyone, and see how what you simulate behaves. if it's acting just like person you scanned, having a meltdown that he wants out or something, you kinda have to suppose it's the same thing.
one other more of a though experiment is having atomic scanning/3D printing tech. you just scan and copy without understanding what the structure you are copying does, as long as you do a perfect job at it you don't need to understand what you are scanning, as in how it works, as long as you replicate it perfectly. think of any other car off the production line. as long as everything is assembled correctly you don't have to know what anything really does, just make sure it's in that particular configuration and it will work.

>>15956920
>pie
I have no pie bro.

>>15956942
>you kinda have to suppose it's the same thing
You don't, but it would be interesting. However what would such a simulation require? Not just simulation of the mind, but the whole environment. Something like that is immensely far beyond existing technology. To exactly reproduce behavior you would need to simulate everything down to the quantum states of the atoms, and further, to exact precision. In fact, copying all of that might be impossible because of the no cloning theorem.
Your other suggestion could be possible in principle (not in reality any time soon) if only a "coarse" copy is needed i.e. atoms in the right places with similar electric fields etc. However if consciousness requires entangled quantum states (it may or may not), they could be impossible to copy without destroying them (no cloning again)

>>15956961
>To exactly reproduce behavior you would need to simulate everything down to the quantum states of the atoms, and further, to exact precision. In fact, copying all of that might be impossible because of the no cloning theorem.
you're making a guess here, that counsciousness requires something more than the clues we start getting from all the AI work. good general info videos on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBVR68z-fg
you suppose the needed resolution is way higher than it actually is. you'd clearly have some loss if you don't go atomic or under, but it's mostly likely noise past the resolution at which you'd capture everything related to THAT particular consciousness. you need some evidence that consciousness is somehow tied in microtubules or stuff of that nature. in the sense that it's particularly tied to such phenomena.
also in practice it has to matter, ultimately. that's the final boss.

>>15956961
also for some reason people tend to freely suppose an identical human without consciousness is possible, for some weird and strange and completely unexplainable reason.
imagine if you will two atomically identical cars, and one for some fucking reason completely doesn't work. doesn't start up, lights don't work, but is atomically identical to the other that does work.
I think it's a given that if we always atomically arrange something it will always and always have the same function. this is valid for cars and humans, and if you state otherwise you need some proof for that.

imagine somehow proving mathematically that once scanned you fuck off in your own adventure/timeline that's different from this one, and that after scan we can just delete the data. lmao

>This was my first paper arguing for quantum parallel universes. The part that has attracted the most interest is the quantum suicide experiment I mention at the end. I remember feeling pretty flabbergasted when I came up with this idea. Most interesting ideas are had by many people independently, and other people have independently come up with similar experiments.
https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/quantum.html#immortality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032.pdf

>>15956990
This is assuming that consciousness represents a physical element of reality. We don't actually know that.

>>15956961
Consciousness is not a behavioral pattern. Consciousness is an experiential pattern which defines the ability to subjectively observe behavioral patterns. You can't categorize and draw meaningful conclusions about consciousness because all terminology that exists to define phenomena exist in regard to how it affects or interacts with consciousness.

A useful comparison would be a communication with a computer. If we imagine that the way in which a computer interacts with other computers is its "experience". A computer can understand its internal state because it knows what it returns based on a given query. A computer can also understand incoming phenomena based on what kinds of processes it executes. A computer can classify certain kinds of requests based on how they interact with its experiential centers.

However, you cannot represent the concept of an interface based on known internal state and perceived external state. You cannot use State to describe, e.g., how a SQL query works, because it describes how external phenomena influence internal phenomena, not those phenomena.

Similarly, consciousness is one of several interfaces between the phenomena of the self and the phenomena of the external, used to convert sensory information into meaningful internal data, and to communicate and interact with the external environment. Unfortunately, this means we can't actually understand how other people experience consciousness, if they do, and what the components of that consciousness even are. For example, what if memory actually has nothing to do with consciousness? What if consciousness includes other processes unrelated to continuity of experience? We can describe seeing an object, but only in terms that relate to seeing.

Tl;dr, trying to understand consciousness is a pointless exercise. We literally do not have the tools to do it.

>>15954949
congrats, now you are vulnerable to cosmic ray bit shift

>>15952748
>Add synthetic neurone in parallel to real neurone, accepting inputs but not providing outputs
>Synch up function perfectly
>Remove original neurone outputs, replace with synthetic neurone
>Remove inputs and remove neurone
>Repeat ad absurdum
There are people who survive massive brain damage, and there are countless people whom undergo brain surgery while awake. I suppose ask any of them about their stream of consciousness. Consciousness as an emergent property shouldn't have a continuity of existence, yet it does in our minds, even bridging the gaps of sleep and such

>>15957269
>tfw jesus beams me cool ideas with cosmic rays

>>15957243
>This is assuming that consciousness represents a physical element of reality. We don't actually know that.
we don't know that it doesn't. all else considered we kinda have to suppose it is until proof for it being different.
>Unfortunately, this means we can't actually understand how other people experience consciousness,
hence why you can't make the distinction between me and a simulated me. if you can't tell bio me has consciousness how could you tell simulated me has it or not? you can't, you just suppose virtual me also does, just like you do with bio me. especially if "everything seems to be there" as far as interactions go.

>>15952669
>>15952680

>>15954285
The brain is a decentralized network without a hub node
Idiot

>>15952669
The problem is we have no way of testing whether or not anything, even other people, truly experience things the way we do. You might believe qualia (or consciousness even) is fake like some people, but are you willing to bet everything on that philosophy? Imagine if we replaced everybody with virtual copies, but it turns out they're essentially super advanced chatbots that don't actually experience anything. It would be a dead world, but one that's interesting to aliens I guess. This can happen regardless of what you think about philosophical zombies, because artificial "consciousness" could also just appear convincing enough to us while being incomplete. I don't trust humanity to get it completely right, whatever gets made is going to be flawed like everything else we create.

>>15952669
Already solved. Read Old Man's War
Connect brain and virtual mind so they share one consciousness then kill the body

>>15954818
>two-boxing reprobates
>already post singularity
fucking lmao

>>15952669
Tutorial: How develop the tecnology to upload minds.

1. Remove the brain from the body.

2. slice the brain into multiple sections.

3. A machine with a microscope will scan your entire brain all your neurons and connections and store in a gigantic database.

4. A computer will be rebuild your brain virtually generating a "neural network like algorithm" with all weights and connections.

5. Bravo! You are virtual being, now you can do your Theseus Ships paradox thinking in the virtual world.

>>15958292
yeah but that's expensive as fuck, energetically. makes more sense to run efficiently on compatible hardware. but that will be a pain to figure out. what should be doable is turn off networks which are of no use anymore, like breathing and a bunch of other shit. or maybe simulate lungs as well but that's kinda retarded.

>>15958292
>He doesn't know you can't read the weights off a dead brain
>He doesn't know you can't read the weights off a living neuron either
Lol. lmfao, perhaps.

>>15952669
this >>15952680 but engineer an immortal biological body that replaces brain cells as when old ones wear out

>>15957289
or this. synthetic neurone dosnt even need to be some metal thing, could just be a genetically engineered, far more robust biological cell

>>15958455
I'd make something way more robust if you have the luxury of choosing power source/type. you can do away with all the functions supporting the staying alive part.

>>15958292
>replace one neuron with a silicon neuron
>you survive
>replace 10 billion neurons one at a time
>you survive because something something ship of theseus
>replace one neuron with a lego brick
>you survive
>replace 10 billion neurons one at a time
>you survive because... fuck

I actually do think you could create a suitable artificial substrate for a mind/"soul" to supervene on but making it one piece at a time doesn't totally evade the difficulty of actually assembling one.

>>15958306
see >>15958452, all thats really needed is a way to send a stem cell off to replace a dead brain cell. dont even need to clue up the new brain cell on what the old one exactly did, the new guy will learn on the job by the inputs of the surrounding cells

>sit down at mind transfer place
>look at the server, server looks at you with webcam
>your mind is linked to the server
>now you're seeing double, being both in your body and the server
>link is cut and your physical body becomes braindead
>go on living in the machine

>>15952669
continuity of consciousness is a red herring if you bother to think about it for 2 seconds
all that matters is continuity of memories and thinking structures itself which you can get perfectly fine with mind upload. Just kill the original while unconcsious.

>>15958580
yeah people literally have no fucking clue what they are, because of the obvious limitations. it's both incredibly strange once you realize it, and also kinda amazing because of the you know...the implications

>>15958580
If there is no continuity of consciousness (or consciousness at all) there's no point in uploading anyway.

There's also no point in killing the original (as we go over EVERY SINGLE STAR TREK THREAD) if you're simply duplicating ::???::

>>15958601
how tf do you suppose you "move" out of the original if you don't destroy the 3D arrangement? you've watched too much sci-fi. you are enabled by your material arrangement. if you want to be teleported you need to be disabled in this place and enabled at the destination. this is quite so fucking simple yet you have all sorts of weird and strange ideas that are clearly chimp intuition combined with religion and philosophy.
but eventually you are a weak bitch, on your deathbed you'll take the leap with no issues.

>>15958601
I'm not saying there is no continuity of consciousness, somehow conceived, just that what people commonly think of as "continuity of consciousness" is simply a result of memories and the unchanging structure of the brain and so it can also be provided by brain uploading. What's a red herring is treating consciousness as a magical soul that will flit out of your body and can't be put back in, or something. That's the kind of implicit assumption (even if not phrased that way) that underlies all these retarded continuity considerations and that's what I'm calling a red herring.

even if it works I'm not sure I'd do it. already kinda tired of this shit. working for nothing so some psycho can snort even more cocaine

>>15958669 (me)
even if the next thing after I die is some far future shit (somehow being reassembled at the end of times) at last I skip all the current bullshit.

>>15957878
Ah, I just realized I misclicked. We don't seem to disagree because I meant to respond to the anon who originally brought up simulation.

>>15952669
No, there aren't two of him: There is him, with his mind, and there is a computer program that is running a software simulation of his brain processes, which doesn't output, or manifest, a "mind" in the same way his brain does.
Even if the software produces an immaterial "mind" on and immaterial plane, somehow, "somewhere", it would not be the same as a human mind, as manifested by, or through, the human brain.

>>15952669
I have told you once, you are gods. You are all
sons and daughters of the most High.
But you shall die as men.

>>15952748
>kill my consciousness gradually
By this logic your consciousness dies every time you fall asleep.

>>15959476
not true, on a spiritual level we're made of fried potato, you'll see my wisdom on the other side

https://www.brainpreservation.org/content-2/killed-bad-philosophy/

>>15959783
>2010
I think this might be "Olson, 1988" that he's referencing
>
From the narrow perspective of our everyday lives, a day 100 centuries hence may seem remote to the point of absurdity. Yet our present day will eventually take its permanent place in the ancient history of humankind. That distant future day will come. And it could be the first day of the rest of your life.
https://accelerating.org/articles/apossiblecurefordeath.html

>>15954701
not just every time you sleep, but literally every infinitesimal unit of time you die and are reborn

ok, say it works. what happens next? how do we integrate it? what exactly happens, do we still pump kids, do we still have privacy, how do we organize ourselves. how does that future look? realistically speaking. ideas?

>>15955915
We're ghosts piloting bipedal bio-mechs.

>>15960445
whoever wrote that is pretty much retarded with a wrong idea of how things work, in reality. it's cringe af

>>15960454
I'm gonna be honest, I never read the whole thing myself because it's intentionally obtuse and tldr.

>>15960469
lost me on part two

>>15960471
part one actually

>maybe if I kill myself really fast I won't actually die
>maybe if I kill myself really gradually I won't actually die

>>15960478
define kill sweaty

>if I create a simulacrum of myself and then kill myself I will somehow experience continuity of existence

>>15960485
literally 50% chance

>>15960487
There's a 50% chance it will rain tomorrow because it will either rain or not rain.

>>15960485
>step 1: make simulacrum

>>15960491
you can make it 100% if you don't fucking keep one of you active after scan. simple as

>>15959953
>what if, like, past me isn't me and future me isn't me either
WHOOOOOOA DUDE THAT'S SO DEEP XD

>>15960485
that "simulacrum of yourself" remembers being you and he's not wrong

>>15960524
A clone thinks it's you and it is wrong.

>>15960526
what the fuck does that even mean lmao

>>15960526
so you wouldn't know if you were you or a clone of you, is that right anon? right this moment, if you were a clone of yourself, you wouldn't be able to tell, is that right? and you'd also be wrong at the same time

>>15960528
>>15960530
It would mean the clone is running around thinking it is you, while NOT being you.

>>15960548
you think that makes perfect sense but it makes none whatsoever

>>15960548
explain exactly what is being lost. try and be concrete.

>>15960556
It makes perfect sense.

>>15960558
If you and the clone existed simultaneously, would you experience everything the clone experiences? No. Therefore, the clone is NOT YOU. You ceasing to exist does NOT change that.

>>15960560
>If you and the clone existed simultaneously, would you experience everything the clone experiences? No. Therefore, the clone is NOT YOU. You ceasing to exist does NOT change that.
how would you experience another POV? when did that ever happen to you?
you cannot lose something without being aware of it anon. you can't even say what it is. in a double blind experiment you don't know if you are you or the clone. not only are you unable to tell you are you, nobody is, and no kind of tech would ever be able to do it (considering perfect copy/replication).
you can't state one of the two you is real and and the other isn't, because both versions of you would say the very same thing, they are the real one and the other is fake. and the scientists wouldn't be able to tell who's who. if that happens anon, what did you actually lose if either of you can't tell shit for shit.
see, in this sense you are pretty primitive, because your logic/intuition results in nonsense but you somehow insist it makes sense. one of you or the scientists should be able to tell which one is you, but they can't, and neither can either of you. why anon?

>>15960569
They would have a video recording of me going to the cloning clinic and and sitting in Pod A, and the clone emerging from Pod B.

>>15960574
in a double blind they wouldn't, that's the point of the double blind experiment.

>>15960574
And then when the scientist knifes me in the back, From an atheistic perspective, I cease to experience consciousness, unless you are an atheist who believes in reincarnation, which would be sensible, because given enough time and entropy, the conditions that gave rise to your consciousness would occur again. From a religious perspective, any number of things could happen to your consciousness, but one thing is for sure in either case: You wouldn't begin experiencing life as the clone emerging from Pod B.

>>15960576
See, now you're adding complications and moving goalposts and whatever other buzzword I can think of that weren't there in the first place.

>>15960574
for a "someone" to get lost it implies a new "someone" instead, and that new "someone" should have a sense of being "new".
else you cannot explain the fucking loss. you cannot have loss without it being something you can point out.
you can't accuse your friend of stealing the money from the counter if all the money are still there dude. I mean that's the equivalent weirdness that results from your logic.

>>15960585
Somebody help me out with this guy; he's throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks and trying to dazzle the senses to daze and confuse. I'm a slow wit but I'm not wrong.

>>15960584
>buzzword
oh god

>>15960589
That was a self-deprecating joke if you didn't catch it.

>>15960587
>but I'm not wrong.
yes you are.

>>15960590
you might be smarter than me be you are not smarter than Tegmark >>15954254

>>15960591
>You're wrong because I say you're wrong
Look:
>You go in Pod A as Person A
>[cloning process initiated]
>At the end of the cloning process you get a captive bolt pistol to the noggin and flushed down a chute to be made into Onions Green
>Person B emerges from Pod B
You do not, in this case, begin experiencing life as Person B. You are Person A. Person B thinks he is Person A but he is not.

I might delude myself into thinking I'm Alexander the Great reincarnated, but that doesn't make it true.

>>15960599
>Onions Green
Heh. Forgot about that filter.

>>15960599
notice how you avoid explaining what exactly gets lost. you sort of think you know, but you can't quite put your finger on it. it's like it's imaginary and doesn't really exist.

I said it up here: >>15960449
Your ghost ceases to experience life as Person A. That does not imply it BEGINS to experience life as Person B.

>>15960606
>ghost
what the actual fuck and the absolute state of things

>>15960611
The amalgamation of your conscious self.

>>15960604
NTA but person A’s mind obviously. This whole discussion is silly because “You” is a hard thing to define in this case

>>15959783
>I hope you agree with me that it would be particularly pathetic for a son to realize that his father died because of his misplaced faith in “bad philosophy”. In retrospect i.e. now that we know that people do survive the PHCA procedure, we can see how foolish it would be for the man in the story above to simply assume that stopping brain activity would result in his irreversible death. If the man had consulted a neuroscientist the sarcastic response obtained might have been “Exactly which passage in your [philosophical] bible makes this connection between an immaterial soul and patterned neural firing in the brain?”
>I am belaboring this point because I am virtually certain that our grandchildren will be saying the same thing about us. They will say that we died not because of heart disease, cancer, or stroke, but instead that we died pathetically out of ignorance and superstition. They will say we were killed by our “bad philosophy”.

>>15960445
>hurr durr you are all zombies
When you have to bully people into accepting your argument you might not have much of an argument at all
I read some of the stuff about computers and meteors (I randomly pick a few paragraphs whenever it is posted) and there's just too many unwarranted leaps (e.g. from "computer executing a program" to "an unexecuted ""program"" simply existing abstractly") to have any faith that he has an argument that can be followed from start to finish.
I can't even figure out what his thesis is desu

if you'd only have these two choices, which form would you choose: Hawking in wheelchair or literally picrel with a synthetic brain core and simple experience, audio/video and some tactile feedback, but immortal and can possibly improve hardware later on?

AI robot cannot steal your job if you become the AI robot

>>15952669
Yeah so what?
Why should the fact that it's not magically transferring my consciousness but rather duplicating it bother me?
I know I want to live as a computer simulation, and the copy has my mind/memories and personality so I can assume it will also want to be a simulation.
I am basically gifting my copy a second chance at life and seeing as how I'm already on the verge of death at least this way one of us will be happy.
God speed copy me!
Fuck some virtual puss for both of us!

>>15952736
Nobody who uses the term singularity knows what it means beyond "something something, transhumanism, future, AI?"
The original meaning was a hypothetical point in history where technology development is so rapid that it becomes impossible to even speculate what comes next with the comparison being that it;s as impossible as seeing past a black hole's event horizon.

Colloquially it's just used as shorthand for a point where AGI exists or when human cybernetics/ Brain computer interfaces are common.

>>15952669
Imagine if this technology existed and a new industry for assassins springs up hired by their marks to kill them without them ever seeing it coming so they can be uploaded without having to grapple with the issue of ego death, or even killing/uploading them in a way where they're not even sure if they have been uploaded or not.

>>15952951
>the information and functionality of the brain depends on its exact atomic configuration.
And what are you basing that on?

>>15954930
>Has no independence unlike organic life
You live in a society of billions of other humans, You eat other organisms to survive
You would struggle to survive outside of the planet you evolved on.
Machines already operate further out into space than any organism has ever been.

>>15962684
depending on hardware and abilities we might get new perspectives and dynamics which may make that scenario seem silly and primitive or something. just a random speculation.

>>15962666
This. Will I be jelly the copy of me is immortal? A little but it also IS me. It's be a better descendant than even a child that won't completely share my views and thoughts

>this whole thread of soitits seething
looks like you hit the wall with your science becaus of SOUL, something religionfags discovered thousand years ago

>>15960478
You are already killing yourself gradually
Stop it

even if we become immortal with help of advanced tech, in some synthetic form, we can still use human form as root experience. we can have children, classical way, raise them with certain core values and experiences, then when the time comes they moved to more resilient hardware and get to fuck off in the universe to colonize it. having had a core human experience. thus even if our form is too weak to colonize the universe, what we are as essence can, this way.
there's plenty ways primitive fears can sort themselves out. we get to also keep and use human form as needed, still get to have and raise children.

>>15958475
That's "all" that's really needed? Do you know how hard that is? How far beyond current technology?

>>15960485
>/sci/fags will writhe and seethe at the words you just said, and you should know this by now.
They are like children dreaming of a sci-fi world that will never exist. Ever. MAYBE the rich upload themselves to be preserved when they die incase their children try to ruin their empire or sell their estate.
Plebs like us will never ever EVER see anything like this, it will be shut down “for ethical reasons”

>>15956857
>Be me
>About to upload myself to the servers
>Starts process
>Immediately bugs
>My first sexual encounter neuron was uploaded but not the rest
>Mfw when I'm a virgin incel again

>>15967133
>it will be shut down
yes the rich and powerful people basically ruling earth are going to kill themselves and shut it down because "sounds le weird bro"
lmao even

>>15967133
>that will never exist. Ever.
>MAYBE the rich upload themselves to be preserved when they die
You're saying it might exist in some form. That's not the same as "never ever".

You have the delusion the OP comic doesn't exist yet. It happens every single moment to you. Due to quantum flux: every single moment your brain dies: every single moment it is reborn and the delusion you have it's not new is just the memory it copied from the dead brain.

>>15960632
reason I posted it is because to get a perfect copy it takes that sort of destruction to get each detail.
if you could just copy people in an easier fashion you could probably revive dead, discover past light cones ect.

>>15960587
You're wrong though:
>>15960560
>If you and the clone existed simultaneously, would you experience everything the clone experiences? No. Therefore, the clone is NOT YOU. You ceasing to exist does NOT change that.
You're simply applying a concept of "you" and "not you" to a case where it's not applicable. Our language concerning personal identity was not made to deal with cases of perfect replication of humans. Instead of continuing to act like the language, that was never meant to play this particular language-game, has the final say, you should just accept that this language ("NOT YOU") has no function here. It's simply meaningless here to talk about a single "you" of which only one can exist at a time. That our language fits well with the case where there can be only exactly 1 "you" does not prove that this is always so.

>>15954881
>Still haven't watched Primer
like, im not telling you what to do but, like, im from the future, and, like, watch this film or your mother will die in her sleep..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg7cPjQWjKg

>>15952791
except you can copy and paste it a million times and then edit

>>15956301
i just think the scan would take a really long time. you would have to remember EVERYTHING while being scanned, and even then you wouldn't really know how it all works together, but then again i don't know anything about neuroscience.
if the taste of cola is a string of neuron firings in your brain, and everytime you drink cola that string repeats itself and your brain remembers it better. where is the information that you know what cola tastes like stored?
smart anons please answer

>>15956301
>>15970031
I think it should be possible to scan a full human brain connectome soon, they already did it for a fruit fly so just scale that up. But there's so much going on within a single neuron that it won't really get us there. Connectome seems relatively easy as it's just physical structure, but how you gonna get all the chemical stuff out?

>>15970044
>I think it should be possible to scan a full human brain connectome soon
the fun begins once systemic disassociation results in multiple personality disorders wherein the memories are intact but first person perspective becomes untethered. you'll recall the memory but "off-axis". you'll beg for death. that when search becomes critical again BUT it'll be centralized so, like, who the fuck are you?

>>15967795
P ^ ¬P
>why not both?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK5qxAA60PQ

>>15970073
>if somebody steals a copy of your mind
weird bro, I mean how can people not see this? as in why would you even "run" that copy? just extract information from it. see the neural structure, decode it with AI (which will be able to decode by that point) and that's it. leave the poor sucker alone.
I think people don't realize that some shit they think about makes sense but other shit is seen quite primitive, they make the step with missing info
>I'm gonna get tortured forever because I'm that fucking special for sure

>/sci/
>really just a millionaire's dreams

>>15970265
i think you're missing the larger point that it isnt prohibited by natural law. nature doesnt care if there are N "copies" of you running around so long their atoms dont occupy the same space. its more a legal conundrum. a more relevant question would be to what extent can my body be owned by third-parties while still retaining sovereignty. should that ratio be measured by weight, or a residual from mean genetic distance (the distance at which you lose familial closeness), or a quorum of extant ad-hoc mesh networked devices that contribute to reducing native computation load and hence to my well-being (so all of my appliances and some from my nearest neighbor get some weighted vote).

>>15957243
Reflexivity is inherent to consciousness but incompleteness is a by-product of relativity, i.e. unitary fractal of statistically significant intertwined quasi-causal scale invariant wave functions or whatever label system is relevant to operational culture matrix of interest. Consciousness is fully capable of complete self-understanding but the expression of which is limited by conceptual self-entangled cyclic symbolism ubiquitous to the perspectival divisions of corporeal experiences. Consciousness is a transdimensional infinite regress of tautological paradoxes expending from and to non-linear meta-synchronicity of perfect provisionally structural actuality.

>>15970396
you should own the IP over your neural networks. whatever experiences you had, combined with your DNA (body structure, abilities) is your personal property, you own the experience and whatever came out of it, as far as your physical structure goes (formed networks) and whatever abilities you might derive from such networks.

>>15970406
naturally. that is until adoption of cybernetic devices and networks dilute assumptions of ownership.

>>15970404
>>15957243
hypotheses qualifying a minimally viable consciousness and their attendant mechanical/classical analogies are neither required nor elucidate. your exchange typifies what david krakauer coined M^3 mayhem - conflation of metaphors, mathematics, and mathematical models:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs1ubY8efVY

and it just so happens that his brother john krakauer provided a wonderful talk on this subject as applied to neuroscience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_dxD0R_gRA

and frankly, much of the mystery is a result of stretching von neumann architecture in ignorance of the fourth fundamental circuit element.

>>15970431

>>15970396
>or a quorum of extant ad-hoc mesh networked devices that contribute to reducing native computation load and hence to my well-being

and really this is already reality as it applies to self-driving vehicles and determination of liability. who is liable in the event of an accident? car owner? driver? manufacturer? if revealed in discovery that vehicle location was updated by a private GPS network and not public. did vehicle firmware fail to update due to failure of some proprietary mesh network or as a result of cyber attack. can the hacker be sued for damages?

these are pressing points given that by some estimates some 70% of humans no longer strictly qualify as human.

>>15970496
>you should own the IP over your neural networks
>you didnt build that...

>>15970502
yeah I own the IP hence I can sell my skills this way. I see nothing wrong

how much would you pay for his skills?

>>15970508
let me guess, you're not an academic researcher

>>15970522
top or bottom?

>naturally. that is until adoption of cybernetic devices and networks dilute assumptions of ownership.
>or a quorum of extant ad-hoc mesh networked devices that contribute to reducing native computation load and hence to my well-being

consider for a moment the results of the BOLD experiment which sought to correlate mental exertion with blood flow. david krakauer spoke about this in a talk of his (i can provide a link if interested). contrary to the popular notion that metabolic activity scaled with intensity, researchers found a de minimus deviation from a steady background. thats a measure of "you". sooo, when weighed against say the networked activity of 10^10 nanobots working away inside your body in addition to perhaps the available resources of whatever cloud provider in use, the notion of primality becomes opaque. a situation analogous to the proportion of non-human junk DNA (90%) or the 90% of DNA by weight of the microbiome. what happens when those become networked?

>>15970579
or the 90% of DNA by weight, *BACTERIAL IN ORIGIN, of the microbiome