/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5923297
Far too optimistic.

But then again, I'm just a fat neckbeard, so what the fuck do I know.

>>5923297
Those are the world leading experts in related technologies, AI, Nanotech, Neuroscience, so I guess they would have an idea of what they are talking about.

Could you have believed 20 years ago you'd have smartphones by now and ubiquitous internet access? The thing is, there are breakthroughs being made constantly, and they will only increase in the future.

Also, these claims are not unreasonable. Look at Atlas and Asimo, at the human brain project. Do you really believe artificial humans are that far off?

>>5923335
>Could you have believed 20 years ago you'd have smartphones by now and ubiquitous internet access?

If someone told me, yes.
That is actually not that hard to imagine

>>5923339
>Today's Internet was not so hard to imagine.

top lel

Also, I might add, that the estimate in OP pic are rather conservative, Ray Kurzweil's predictions are even more radical.

>>5923297
>Ray Kurzweil's
Ray is a kook.

What's the point of C and D? Those are just taking human life out of the equation.

You can transfer a "personality", but you cannot transfer consciousness. You're saving the information the being has, not the being themselves.

>>5923416

That's the point of the whole project...transfer the being itself. Differently, immortality would not be reached, this would be only a massive clonation.

The day Ray dies, I'm going to call in sick at work and post on /sci/ continually:

KURZY-RAY IS DEAD TODAY!

He'll die just like everybody else. Unsingularitied.

bumping.

>>5923701
>transfer the being itself
You can't do that with C or D

>>5923924
Souls are positively charged, therefore we can prevent it from escaping by giving the computer a strong negative charge. Basic physics.

>>5923416
Pattern theory of identity.

Basically, your personality + memories + thoughts IS your consciousness.

>>5923416
I would use a combination of A and B until my unreversable death. Shortly before it I would still upload myself.

I think a lot of this will be possible but I have one object

Part isn't actually transferring their consciousness. It's just making a copy.

You won't live on forever, a copy of you will.

I guess its better than nothing but still

>>5923335
>The thing is, there are breakthroughs being made constantly, and they will only increase in the future.
>Also, these claims are not unreasonable. Look at Atlas and Asimo, at the human brain project. Do you really believe artificial humans are that far off?

But tech doesn't advance randomly,
and we have strong ideas about the directions it cam move in near-term development.

NOTHING suggests we are near a tech that reads, interprets, or stores accurate thoughts.
We do not know how to read, view, or transfer memories.
We do not know anything about where consciousness resides, or how to control it.
We certainly do not have any hint that we could do all of those things, ever, let alone within a few years.


The 'avatar project' image is the fantasy of a hopeful idiot, and it should be ignored, never posted again.

>>5924009

But that's also a basic deal killer.

If people are looking for their own life to be extended, creating a copy isn't even close.
It's the subjective experience people want to extend, not just being told that they have been copied.
There are a few maniacs who might like the idea, but this isn't even remotely acceptable for large-scale application.

You have to literally have your consciousness moved into the alternate structure, and we can barely even observe patterns in brain output, let alone brain content.

>>5924009
>>5924147

http://everything2.com/title/Pattern+Identity+Theory

I don't like the idea. It makes me uneasy. I'm just afraid that technology is going to go too far. What if these holograms can be controlled by a government agency? Then, we think we're listening to our elders, when we're really listening to the government's propaganda.

It sounds easily manipulated.

>>5924162
What if /sci/ is actually government propaganda, and you only THINK you're talking to other people like yourself?

>>5924156
Not science because not falsifiable.

>>5924156
>http://everything2.com/title/Pattern+Identity+Theory

Definitely an author who hasn't got a handle on it.
That is nothing but an explanation of two aspects of the problem.

It does nothing to resolve any problems; it's essentially merely identifying a couple of issues. It's an explanation of terms.
He also misses some crucial points.

For instance, a transporter doesn't 'fail to destroy the original' -- a transporter device moves the original. The other thing is a duplicator which destroys the original.
That's a critical issue if you cannot identify and verify where the original consciousness is.

The legal issue of 'murder' isn't easily dismissed.
The external perception of others isn't relevant.
The measurable confirmation of identity is critical to even developing any tech, and we can't even discuss that!

>>5924162

>>5924174
>What if /sci/ is actually government propaganda, and you only THINK you're talking to other people like yourself?

Then I am educating the government, which is much better.

A prime example of eastern myopia.

>>5924187
So if you create a perfect copy, because it's not falsifiable that the copy is the original (They are alike in every way) the scientific conclusion is they are both originals, because there is no difference in expectations between experimenting the copy and original.

>>5924187
But that guy wasn't 'executing science' -- he was defining a couple terms and naming issues in them.

Their topic is a scientific one, so it is part of science. It is just not an experiment.

>>5924186
Even for the transporter it's arguable. It also clones a person and kills the original.

>An answer from instinct would seem to say "yes"
Obvious weakness of the argumentation

>>5924162
>get a load of this luddite.

you can't shun new technologies just because they have the potential to be abused.

Why would you want anything beyond B, and why would you wait for death?

>>5924196
lel no. The original is the one that is not a robot. In the case of a biological copy, radiocarbon dating will levy any ambiguity.

What is not falsifiable is the transfer of "consciousness" or "individuality".

>>5924198
Neither should use the word "theory" then. And, no, it's not part of science, it's part of philosophy.

>>5923416
>you cannot transfer consciousness.
You do realize you're implying a unique soul, right?

>>5924232
What if the copy has the same concentration of C-14 and C-12 as the original, making radiocarbon dating impossible because they're both the same "age".

What I wonder is this, even if they can place your mind into a robot brain, who's to say that copy of your mind is actually you and not just some storage device with everything that made you you. We can't really be sure until they can go from human to robot and back to human.

>>5924232

>And, no, it's not part of science, it's part of philosophy

Indeed. You need higher-order logic for such things.

>>5923981
But is it just something living off in the exact way that I would have while in reality I am dead, or am I the little girl?

If consciousness cannot be measured, it flat out does not exist.

If it can be measured, it can be manipulated.

>>5924252
Particles don't have memories, they are entirely defined by the present, their direction, momentum and physical structure, etc.

The whole world could be 3 minutes old, etc. etc.

The point is an exact copy of you is you, as much as you are you. Millions of neurons change every time you blink, which is a greater change than brain uploading would have.

>>5924239
There will still be traces of cell mutations and general senescence. Otherwise the copy is pointless.
That being said, it doesn't change the fact that no scientific experiment will prove or disprove the validity of the so-called "pattern identity theory"

>>5924266
*There will still be traces of cell mutations and general senescence in the original body and not its copy. Otherwise the copy is pointless.

>>5924266
That's not the point, the "pattern identity theory" is the default. All it does is say two completely identical things are the same, while any contradiction says "No, they are ineffably different". Thus, any assertion which states "Your clone is somehow ineffably different from you" has the burden of proof.

This is pretty much what comes to mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCise1WX1YM

>>5924252
Both. Which isn't unusual; if you choose to study science the future you which goes to study economics becomes dead. The only weird thing is that you can be duplicated through technology; there can be a you who is a fat neckbeard AND a you who is a little girl at the same time. The death of the alternative has been made optional, and thus weighs on your mind much stronger than for choices.

>>5924260
Watch this
>>5924274
I am me and were the original me to exist alongside this copy that is "just as much me as I am" then it's really not the same at all.
This new me may have my old memories but I don't have its new ones.

>>5924274
What was wrong with the scientist teleporting himself was what I kept asking during that cartoon.

Nobody seemed to have a problem with it other than that one woman, least of all the scientist.

>>5924279
Of course, as the two "yous" experience different things, they diverge, and gradually become distinct individuals.

At the point of copying though, they are the same.

>>5924274
For ten minutes, you could just meditate until you experience something paranormal.

>>5924280
Teleporting is fine but the problem is the original you died to first time you got in. After that you're a copy of a copy. Yes, you have all the same atom combinations and memories of your old self. But the true original of you is long gone.

>>5924288
All of this assumes there is an ineffable difference between "you" and "An exact copy of you" which is impossible to prove even theoretically, but still somehow exists. Just because I use different words for "you" and "copy" doesn't mean both quotations don't refer to the same referent.

Face it, you believe in the existence of a unique soul in which consciousness resides, it's the only way your line of reasoning is coherent.

>>5924300
Not necessarily a soul but a human consciousness. An experience. Copying that experience onto something else just makes it a copy, you haven't moved your consciousness over which would be the only real form of immorality that this project seems to aim for.
If they can't put my mind (not a copy of it) into some other object then it's no better than a video recording with AI.

>>5924300
Devil's advocate here, "original you" can be used to refer to a specific continuous bunch of atoms with limits exactly conforming to your opponent's intuitions, which is probably coherent for any human who is currently alive, and necessarily definable in all conceivable cases as long as you take the axiom of choice.

Lets look at the definition of consciousness
Noun
1. The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2. The awareness or perception of something by a person.
Synonyms
awareness - sense - mind - knowledge - conscience

In order to be aware of something, you must be able to understand it on some level, and in order to understand something, you must be able to replicate it.

So consciousness arises from the universe duplicating information.

>>5924273
>All it does is say two completely identical things are the same
If it were true it wouldn't be a theory either. No more than "water is water" is.
But it's not true, let me quote other things that this article says:
>self-awareness and self-identity would be continuous
That's religion without saying it is
>there would be nothing wrong with eliminating one of the copies, since they aren't killing you
That's ethics

>>5924321
Can you please explicitly tell us what that means in terms of scientifically observable effects?

>>5924309
Your mind arises from your brain, thus a complete copy of your brain will by necessity contain your mind.

The concept of "Copy =/= Original" is only valid when the copy somehow DIFFERS from the original, which in practice it always does with modern or historical methods. However, a PERFECT COPY would be the original, entirely and completely.

>>5924312
Could you rephrase this, I don't understand what is being said.

>>5924318
Those are conclusions which could be based on the principle of "Pattern identity". Theory is being used in a non-scientific sense, meaning here "Explanation" or "Interpretation".

>>5924009

there is a way around this

use nanobots to replace an organic brain piece by piece

at no point will there be a copy, only a transition

>>5924339
Will they harden in response to physical trauma?

>>5924339
Ship of Theseus.

What's the difference between replacing something piece by piece and all at once?

Answer is likely going to be "continuity" so I'll address that here.

You lose continuity of consciousness from a concussion, coma or general anesthesia. Did you die whenever you experience these things?

>>5924331
No. Copy is copy. We have the world copy because that's what it is. Even if you manage to copy something down to the very atom, it is still just a copy of the original, not the original. The original is the only original, as the world would imply.

>>5924348
>"Words are inherently meaningful, anything I can put in a sentance must have some meaning."

What?

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

A perfect copy IS the original, and nothing you can do or experiment can prove it is not. The words "Perfect copy" and "Original" sure do have different letters huh? Too bad they have the same referent.

>>5924329
An exact copy of a person will be connected to that person as long as its mental state remains the same.

>>5924368

It doesn't matter. The original, YOU, will no longer exist.

>>5924331
>Those are conclusions which could be based on the principle of "Pattern identity". Theory is being used in a non-scientific sense, meaning here "Explanation" or "Interpretation".
You have to admit the author tries to sound scientific although it's, as you have finally admitted, not science. It really is philosophy, and in this context scientific logic doesn't apply. You don't make it moral to "eliminate a body" in a dozen of lines and a comparison to Star Trek.

>>5924375
What, did you reply to the wrong post?

>>5924376
To be frank, I just wanted to link an article briefly explaining the concept, I forgot /sci/ likes to dissect things so much, I probably should have typed it out in my own words.

I used to think A was possible but now I'm not so sure. Even adding 5 or 10 years may not be enough.

>>5924339
This.

>>5924354
You've got a rock. Let's call it rock A. Rock A is covered in dents and moss from years of wear.
You place Rock A in Box 1.
You then Copy Rock A into Box 2.

The original is in box 1, the copy is in box 2. If you can't follow then you're as dense as the rock.

>>5924402
You haven't established the rock was dense. Some rocks like pumice can be less dense than water.

Seriously though, are you even listening to me, my point is "Copy" and "Original" are both words which refer to the same thing, they are synonyms. Your entire argument is based on the unfounded assumption that because "Original" and "Copy" have different letters and different pronunciations, they must refer to different concepts.

Case and point, you've got a rock and a stone.
You place the rock in box 1.
You place the Stone in box 2.

What is in box one is obviously a rock, not a stone, and in box 2 there is a stone, not a rock. If you don't believe me then you're more dense than the rock but less dense than the stone.

(That was all based on the assumption that "Rock" and "Stone" are synonyms. If there is a difference in meaning, please disregard it, and I was not aware of it when I wrote that example.)

Absurd optimism by people who can't come to terms with the fact that biology is sufficiently complicated that effective immortality will likely not be realizable within their lifetimes.

This reeks of bullshit projections made by physicists and computer scientists rather than anything that'd come out of the mouth of a biologist or biochemist.

>Claiming brain transplants will be workable by 2025 when we know so little about biological systems that our drug discovery methodology is still pretty much "make a bunch of shit and see what it does."

Hahahaha. No.

>>5924232
>Neither should use the word "theory" then. And, no, it's not part of science, it's part of philosophy.

Correct; a 'theory' is the pinnacle of a concept, where all things known support it but it is not directly verified

Anything less is a vague concept, and as you say, part of philosophy, not science.
Still useful, still interesting, still part of the process.

And a theory is never, as is so often dumped by some know-nothing troll, "a geuss"

>>5924236
>You do realize you're implying a unique soul, right?

That's not a failure in philosophy until soul is defined.
A unique soul is possible, violates nothing.
(except when someone has already decided other beliefs have to be true)

>>5924232
>What is not falsifiable is the transfer of "consciousness" or "individuality".

YET -- we might learn of some way to observe and verify such things, practically if not scientifically.
We MIGHT learn how to inspect memory externally.
We MIGHT learn how to store memory, transfer ideas, knowledge, feelings --
We might even learn how to do things with the identity and consciousness.

But we are clueless today.

>>5924259
>If consciousness cannot be measured, it flat out does not exist.

That's a reductionist silliness.

Can you accept the idea that we do not know how to measure everything right now?

If you accept we don't know everything (like that thing), then you cannot make statements about the existence of things we have experience of but no measurement.

>>5924260
>Millions of neurons change every time you blink,

no, only a few hundred, I think it is.

>>5924530
Should be most neurons in your occipital cortex no? Seeing as your eyes go from seeing whatever you were looking at to seeing the inside of your eyelids.

Anyway, this is a minor issue, the point was you aren't the same "You" as you were a second ago, we just consider both to be the same because they are very similar, so if we had a very similar copy, that would be "You" too.

>>5924411
>my point is "Copy" and "Original" are both words which refer to the same thing, they are synonyms.

Those two words do NOT refer to the same thing!
They are NOT synonyms!

Wait...for A, how realistic of a robot are we talking here?

>>5924541
>Should be most neurons in your occipital cortex no?

No, a blink is autonomic, and only involves the local neurons and the link to autonomic functions; all long cells and very direct.

We don't attribute the processing of visuals (even with the interruption) as a consequence of the blink, so we don't count image processing.

>>5924546
So you say. You can't clearly explain how they are different though. How can you assert they are different without saying HOW they are different?

>>5924559
What? All I'm saying is that the neurons in your occipital cortex fire differently based on what you're looking at. Therefore, when you're blinking, your view changes, thus the neurons fire differently.

>>5924541
>you aren't the same "You" as you were a second ago,

Well correct, but missing all of the points; a dynamic subject doesn't change any of the discussion. We just know it's dynamic.

Look at it this way: if a car engine is running, we know we can still talk about the car in every practical way. it doesn't matter that parts are moving, we still know they aren't mixing with other cars, they aren't changing function, or make-up. They are just changing as far of their function.

That makes transporting more difficult, but it doesn't mean we don't know what the subject being transported is.
And we do NOT have to admit it is a different car every second, because of tiny internal dynamism.

>>5924570
>So you say. You can't clearly explain how they are different though. How can you assert they are different without saying HOW they are different?

An 'original' is the first of something.
A 'copy' is a duplicate made to resemble the original (as closely as possible).

I don't know why you think there is a useful similarity there; unless you are trying to say this in a specific case, like 'an effective copy is indistinguishable from an original.'

But that doesn't advance any of our discussion, which is about the things we cannot examine, in order to say they are good copies or not.

>>5924570
>What? All I'm saying is that the neurons in your occipital cortex fire differently based on what you're looking at. Therefore, when you're blinking, your view changes, thus the neurons fire differently.

Well, that's correct, but that's not happening BECAUSE OF the blink.
That's happening all the time, anyway. Constantly. A blink is one thing affecting our view, but it is never the only cause of change.

So we do not attribute all visual processing activity to the blink; we attribute it to the way the eye works.
When we talk about the activity causing a blink, it is only a series of autonomic nerves and a few of the tiniest muscles. (That is, by naming 'blink' activity, you reduced the scope of what you were considering.)


If you want to say our eyes process a lot of information all the time, and that our brain has a corresponding massive amount of constant activity, you are certainly correct.

>>5924571
We don't have to say it's a different car, but why don't we?

What is the similarity between the car a minute ago and the car now which lets us call it the "Same" car?

Simply put, it is because the car has a similar pattern of particles, it looks highly similar and chemically is highly similar.

Thus, the concept of "That car" refers to "Any pattern highly similar to that car", thus allowing it to retain its identity over a period of time.

>>5924577
Suppose I made a car.

Then, on the other side of the world, completely by coincidence, another person made a car indistinguishably similar to mine completely by coincidence, 1 day later.

Is his car a copy, or an original?

It seems like you're stating "The intention of the creator of something is relevant to its identity", but the created thing (In this example a car) has no knowledge of its creator's intention.

>>5924582
Yes, all I was trying to say is that the brain is constantly changing, using a blink as an example of a rapid action which affects the brain.

>>5924588
I like the example for both frequency and autonomic relevance.

>>5924584

It's context.
We are not trying to establish that all cars are distinguishable, nor validate the concept of individuality of an object.
Because in the practical case (applying a transporter device) we would have exactly one car in front of us, exactly one destination -- there is no uncertainty, no reason to go looking at the cars outside to decide if they are philosophically identical or not.

If our transporter operates, the original is gone and (this is from another poster's issue, I think) the original appears at our destination. (That's transporting).

If our transporter is a copy-sender, then our original is duplicated somewhere else, and the original destroyed in place. There is now only a copy, and it may not be functioning (as the energies of thermodynamics of the engine, modeling our mind, consciousness, soul and identity) may not be copyable.

If the dynamics of the engine are copyable and transportable (somehow), then the only question left is verifying (soul/mind/memory), for which my car model doesn't demonstrate much.

Why not replace everything but the brain with artificial organs or body parts?

If nothing happens to the brain theoretically you could become immortal,until something really catastrophic happens to the brain.

Why did this thread derail into dualism bullshit? Why can't you guys keep your "consciousness" nonsense on /x/ and stick to discussing science on /sci/?

>>5924748
Brain cells will gradually die/degenerate/whatever like all organic tissue. Alzheimer and dementia will get you that way.

>>5924613
My point would be that a "copy sender" and a "transporter (original sender)" would be the same thing, assuming that the copy was of sufficiently high fidelity, and that identity and consciousness (aka soul) are determined by patterns, not some unique, ineffable property of your essence or whatever.

>>5924788
Personally it looks like over optimistic bullshit, but I don't know enough about the fields to properly contradict what they're claiming.

>>5924259
The frequencies that produce colors can be measured, but colors cannot. If you disagree with this statement then you probably aren't conscious.

>>5924801
Colors can be manipulated through the use of psychedelics, as can consciousness.

I fail to see the flaw in his statements.

You could possibly measure a persons perception of color through a sufficiently accurate fMRI.

>>5924801
I have seen colors through another person's eyes and they looked the same as to me.

>>5924424

We've transplanted heads before and restored a handful of minor functions, and we've kept brains alive for a time outside of a body. This was done decades ago.

Like wireheading, it's already possible. It's just that people deem it 'unethical' for some reason.

I'm not saying we could do it right this second, but it isn't science fiction or even a stretch of our current knowledge. It's an engineering hurdle, nothing more.

>>5924852
>Transplanted heads

Gonna need a source on this, I'm very curious.

>>5924859

Here's a grisly video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0

And here's a newer video I didn't even know exists, where apparently a person far more qualified then I am says it's possible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/head-transplant-italian-neuroscientist_n_3533391.html

Here's an article detailing the most sophisticated head transplant ever preformed, on a monkey: http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-frankenstein-factor/Content?oid=1473264

And here's an actual paper, describing what is now very primitive technology being used to keep the severed heads of animals alive: http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/69/3/962

>>5924902
Thanks, hope they work on this more. It's the easiest way to save some people who die/are dying without severe damage to the head.

All cells in the body die and are reborn at a constant rate so wouldn't that mean the atoms and particles are changing as well? So wouldn't you brain have died and been reborn many times by now. I view consciousness as a very physical byproduct of a very physical brain. I feel when people speak of consciousness they tend to put spirituality into it or make it out as a mystical, for example a soul. We also tend to forget that what we have for a conscious could not be the only form of consciousness available. We are the first known intelligent species. The only reason we think consciousness if so mystical is because it is literally the best thing we know.

Anyway what i'm trying to get at is your consciousness is everything you know and remember and thoes are all by products of particles moving through neurons which are made of atoms. which would make the brain very physical object. so that would make consciousness a very physical thing.

>>5924788
Oh, I didn't know you were still around, denying what almost everybody accepts and agrees with.

It's the anti-dualism numbskull!

The guy who read a chapter in a book once and thought it had to be defended as 'all truth' in /sci/.

What a nitwit you are.

>>5924801

You are trying to make a distinction between the kinds of light and the experience of light;
not only is that not argued, it also means nothing here.

We already understand subjectivity issues -- now, learn to discuss the real world while accepting them.

It's not important that we cannot prove common experience; it is critical that we find some validation that identity is preserved -- otherwise, we can't progress to any such device.

>>5924941
Not him, but most of /sci/ disagree with dualism.

Unless you're saying that he's being stupid and nobody believes in dualism here or something.

>>5924944
The issue is how to define identity. Identity defined by the "Pattern Identity Theory" (Not a scientific theory) would say, "Yes, identity is preserved".

Are there any other Theories (Not the scientific sense) of Identity which can be considered? If so, please state them.

>>5924943
>he's being stupid

he's being stupid.

Rather than simply believe in dualism and argue for it,
he simply denies everything and starts attacking people (sometimes shouting) for everything they say.

I've addressed him before, he never gives any ground of any kind.
And he's using the broadest scope of 'dualism' -- where absolutely everything that isn't concrete and measurable is invalid.

Under his conception, none of you are allowed to believe you have thoughts, ideas, feelings, or concept of time -- there can be no metaphysics, and no ideas like religion or philosophy.
(note: not that those ideas are just wrong -- they cannot even exist as concepts or experiences)

>>5924950
>The issue is how to define identity. Identity defined by the "Pattern Identity Theory" (Not a scientific theory) would say, "Yes, identity is preserved".
Because that theory cannot accept anything more than structural identity.
Since all of us assume there is something more than merely structure (we have thoughts, for instance) that theory is unimportant.

>Are there any other Theories (Not the scientific sense) of Identity which can be considered? If so, please state them.
No, I didn't write I had SOLVED the transporter issues: I wrote that that was the main issue.
We won't accept 'transference' to a new body without confirmations of some kind that we retain memory, identity, consciousness, mind, soul -- whatever we can prove we have, we will want to keep.


(The other architectures of identity (psych), memory (biochemistry & physics), mind (biology & physics) consciousness and soul (philosophy) are handled by their various understandings, which so far do not form a unified or comprehensive explanation of human experiences.)

>>5924959
Disagreed, thoughts are merely the result of structural changes in the brain. Don't be so quick to say what "All of us" assume.

>>5924962
>Disagreed, thoughts are merely the result of structural changes in the brain. Don't be so quick to say what "All of us" assume.

And I say that by minimizing that statement down to such a vague generalization, you are deliberately ignoring many things you hold fundamentally true about you and your own personal experience.

YOU did not experience that sentence as a structural change. (I am sure of that.)
I think you had an impulse to load and read the page, converted it to concepts, compared those with memories, made assumptions about what my approach and attitude and knowledge are (not based on structure!) formulated a response, typed it into the fields... etc.

I am not saying no one thinks it is just brain chemistry -- I'm saying no one experiences it as that -- which should be obvious and no one should disagree.
It's the difference between what we experience and what is really going on that pushes us to investigate and learn what is true -- but good grief, let's not disagree that we experience it that way.

>>5924990
You're saying that we don't intuitively recognize that all our thoughts are structural changes in the brain?

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that they are not. And if our Personality, Identity and thoughts are all inherent in the structure of the brain, then there is no problem with brain uploading.

>>5924999
-Or transporters, or whatever technology is being discussed*

>>5924914
Vids on Youtube about dog head transplants by the ruskies too bro.

>>5923297
>>>/x/

>>5924274

I lol'd. But it's quite interesting, anyway.