/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7562444
>Ok guys, this is big. I promise.
Stopped right there.

>>7562450
Good call...

>>7562444
You will not be immortal when you're on a computer, you will technically be dead, and a copy of you will be placed on the computer.

So you're basically still making AI, except now you're intentionally making them super lame, emotional and evil, instead of efficient, helpful, super-intelligent and non-emotional.

AI is the way to go. We don't need humans anymore.

>>7562450
Yeah, you are right.
That was a dumb way to start my thread, but I wanted to start a discussion about this idea.
(I know I'm not the first one to think about this)

>>7562466
>I know I'm not the first one to think about this
Literally everyone who's ever watched a sci-fi movie or used a computer.

>>7562465
No you won't be dead.
I'm not talking about creating a copy of you inside a computer. I know that wouldn't actually be "you".
I'm talking about transferring you to another support. Think about what they did at the very end of the "avatar" movie of 2009.
Instead of putting your conscience into another body, you put it inside some kind of computer.
Like the ex-machina robot.

>super lame, evil
Yeah... No. I think this would make us advance. We would be like elfs, immortal, dedicated to the pursuit of true happiness and knowledge.

We wouldn't be evil because we wouldn't have to fight over shit (food etc.)
When you don't need to eat, sleep, you don't get ever sick then you can do whatever you want, you don't care about what joe does.

>>7562479
Also
>non emotional
yes lack of empathy is what will get the human race killed by AI.

If you were created by ants, would you care about them? Or would you consider them inferior and useless?

>>7562479
>I'm talking about transferring you to another support.
If you're not going to make a copy, then how exactly do you plan on doing this?

>>7562444
WOW youre the first person to have ever thought about this!

>>7562479
>>7562481
What would be better, immortal ants who continue to be ants for all eternity, or ants who create gods that can literally take them to places they have never been before, even other planets?

>>7562484
Also this. At the end of avatar, the consciousness didn't get transferred, it got copied. The woman died, the "host body" just got a copy of her.

You can not store your consciousness on a computer without copying it somehow, or rather "making it a lot like your brain". Imagine putting your textbook into a computer. Would you just make a copy of it, or would you somehow transfer the "essence" of the book into the computer?

>>7562484
84
Well I don't know.
Avatar-style?

More seriously, I think it could be possible in 4-5 decades.
I think the hardest part would be the connection betweenthe brain and the device/computer.

I think if we manage to connect them, then we might as well be able to do just a transfer.

Also about the copy not being you problem. I seriously think there is a solution.

Let say you can create a copy of yourself (even biological, let's suppose you are some kind of wizard).
You you are A and you create an EXACT clone B.
If you die at the exact same moment that you create B, or even a couple of second later you are you.
I mean there is literally no difference. No, you wouldn't feel like dying.

Think about this like an anestesia. When you are anestetizeid (sorry i'm not english) you go to sleep; but you literally cease to exist as a mind. You don't dream, you don't feel, you don't think. Nothing.
What happens if you are anestetiteised, your original body is killed and hidden and you wake up as your copy? Would you notice the difference?

>>7562506
>If you die at the exact same moment that you create B, or even a couple of second later you are you

Yes, so you're a copy. It's not a problem being a copy, but you did die. It's the same with Star Trek's teleporters.

>>7562505
The gods would kill the ants or just enslave them.

I think about this as a kind of dr. manhattan thing. Yes, he becomes distant, but he makes human progress much faster

>>7562509
Answer the anestesia thing. You literally wouldn't die. I mean you would actually be a copy, but if you don't know, or don't feel it, then you don't die.

I'm not familiar with the star trek teleport, but i can understand what you mean...
Something about the body being not the same after the teleportation?

>>7562444
You idiots and your spam is getting very tiresome.

>>7562444
Opie, we have this thread every week.
Stop pretending this is a new idea/debate.

Your camp denies the existence of "self", never mind "cogito ergo sum".
My camp points out that if you make a copy of yourself, it will live in cyberspace while you're still a meatbag.
Someone else suggests gradual replacement of brain tissue with electronics.
Everybody pretends that all this technology will be available in the next few decades even though there's nothing like it on the horizon.
Nobody wants the thing reality is actually headed for: biological life extension.
And all we learn is how desperate OP is to escape the real world.

>>7562444
So you played Soma and liked the concept of the ARK?
Meh

And exactly how would this be different from advanced AI

>>7562509
>>7562525

Why not merge the robotic mind with the machine mind so that slowly over the course of a few hours or even days your brain and the digital brain are run through a series of simulations in order to slowly migrate what is you into the machine mind?

After your brain function hops over mostly into your new body you could just cut the cord and have the old husk brained you die from the shock.

I could even see the livelink videos people will be posting on 4chan or the future equivalent of their spastic former bodies flailing around upon death.

>>7562531

Why don't more people push for age curing developments?

>>7562531
>nothing like it on the horizon

>1920 thinking about getting on the moon
>1969 be on the moon
Keep being negative man...
I'm not saying something like this is easy or that it will be ready by 2030, but I think 2060 is a reasonable time

Also biological life extesion is shit: what if you get sick? you die you idiot,
I'm talking about immortality, not about living 200 yrs. Who gives a fuck about 50 yrs more, when you could be immortal

>escape the real world
I'm just trying to discuss something, I'm not delusional, I know I will probably die before something like this could be possible

>cogito ergo sum
it has nothing to do with this.
You can still think if you are a computer, can you not?

>>7562506
>If you die at the exact same moment that you create B
...then you are dead.

>>7562506
>I mean there is literally no difference.
I'm sure my employer will like that there's some one around that can pass for me, but I'd still be dead.

>>7562506
>When you are anestetizeid (sorry i'm not english) you go to sleep; but you literally cease to exist as a mind.
Nope, that's incorrect.
Brain activity only ceases with brain death.
Besides, even if it did, that doesn't mean *I* will ever wake up in cyberspace, just someone who thinks they're me.

>>7562506
>Would you notice the difference?
Of course. *I* would be dead. Some other person who thinks they're me might be fooled though.
What if you hypnotized someone into believing they're me?
Same story.

>>7562544
>Why don't more people push for age curing developments?
>implying we don't spend a monumental amount of money each year trying to stay younger/alive longer.

>>7562556
>>nothing like it on the horizon
>>1920 thinking about getting on the moon
>>1969 be on the moon
>Keep being negative man...
By 1920 we already had airplanes.
The moon was definitely "on the horizon".
Meanwhile, you can't even back up your memories to hard disk, but somehow you want to transfer your "self" to some imaginary hardware.
We're closer to warp drive than this,
and we're nowhere fucking near warp drive.

>>7562556
>I think 2060 is a reasonable time
Based on what? Do you have psychic powers?

>>7562556
>Also biological life extesion is shit: what if you get sick? you die you idiot,
The whole point of biological life extension is to prevent/minimize fatal diseases and conditions
And what happens to "cyber-you" if the server crashes and no-one restores your backup?
you die you idiot
(except, of course that it's not really "you" anyway)

>>7562556
>I'm not delusional,
[citation needed]

>>7562556
>I know I will probably die before something like this could be possible
I thought is was going to be ready in 45 years?
Unless you're over 50 now, there's a decent chance you might live to see 2060.

>>7562479
>kill brain to scan into computer
or
>be dead some time after uploading a copy of your brain into computer

>not dead just transcendent
Keep dreaming kid. When your brain dies, you're dead. What is you, is gone. Copied or not, you as a person and what you are is dead. For the sake of argument, if you were to upload your mind into a computer based system, what is "you" is still governed by a set of protocols that is part of the system essentially making you a drone to the system of you part of. Our brain is as good as it ever gets.

>>7562596
>what is "you" is still governed by a set of protocols that is part of the system essentially making you a drone to the system of you part of.
Good point Anon.
At least the meat brain *might* be non-deterministic.

>>7562560
I don't think you get my point.
Yes you would be actually dead in all scenarios, I get it.
But the important fact is that you would not know it. That's the point

Have you ever been anestetisised? I have, a couple of times. Trust me you are like dead. You could seriously wake up in another body and not knowing it, that is some serious shit.

I understand you mean that when you would wake up you could start thinking "am i really me etc." but honestly if i were immortal i wouldn't give a fuck about not being the true original me, but a copy who lived the EXACT same thigs, not even a nanosecond of differece.

>>7562543
This is actually a good idea.

>>7562536
Advanced AI would never be able to experience real human life with all the emotions, it would be a different thing. I wouldn't trust an AI

>>7562586
If i am inside a robot you bet i will make sure my backup is always uptodate and its restart would be automatic. I would have multiple backups

>>7562444
>watch the movie ex-machina
• saw it in theatre
• enjoyed it
• knew it was fiction

>>7562607
>But the important fact is that you would not know it. That's the point
If you die in your sleep tonight "you would not know it".
How's that different?

>>7562607
>Have you ever been anestetisised? I have, a couple of times. Trust me you are like dead.
I'm sure you have no memory of those events, but your brain is NOT "like dead".
I can't remember the second day of first grade.
That's not the same as dying.

>>7562607
>if i were immortal i wouldn't give a fuck about not being the true original me,
Sure, the new copy of you would be happy with having a turn at existence, but "original you" would still be dead.

>>7562607
>Advanced AI would never be able to experience real human life with all the emotions, it would be a different thing. I wouldn't trust an AI
What you're talking about creating is an "Advanced AI", by definition.

>>7562525
In Star Trek, the transporters work by scanning the person, creating a copy of him in his intended location, then disintegrating the original and adding his material to the ship's stock.

>>7562619
>I would have multiple backups
Go ask /g/.
Data isn't immortal.
(nor is server time free)

>>7562606
There's no 'might'. If you think you, you have the ability to do something about it. If you want to build a space ship, and fly into the dark till you die, the only thing stopping you are the rules of our society, not your brain. If you think of our body as a system, your prime directive as the system is to survive and/or mate to carry on your genetics. Because we're not governed only on impulse, we have the ability to deny our body food and abstain from sex.
But if you build a computer, it's governed by a set of rules as to what it can and cannot do. If it goes beyond it's limitation it is either corrected or your computer has a meltdown and shuts down, an example is when it gets too hot.
If somebody builds a system that allows a person to have his/her brain scanned either at death or even before death, you can be certain that system will have a set of rules and regulations that it cannot surpass even if it tried.

>>7562444
Dude it's called Ghost in the Shell

Watch it faggot

Do I still get a penis?

>>7562619
You can't keep copying data forever. It gets corrupted eventually. And like >>7562630 stated, data is not immortal, even DNA (biological 'data') doesn't last forever and it can last for a very very long time.

>>7562634
In that the human soul is a quantifiable thing that is bound to the brain.

>>7562625
Ok, i understand your point,
but the anestesia bit is a different thing. You do not form memories and quickly start forgetting.
You just dont form any memories about that period.

You formed memory about school, but then you forgot.
I'm talking about not forming memories at all. Trust me about this.

But yeah, i understand how you wouldnt be you

>>7562643
Are you implying that those with anagrade amnesia are no longer living?

>>7562652
>anagrade amnesia
Shit, I meant anterograde amnesia.

>>7562638
No, sorry dude but what you are saying is false.
The dna thing is true, i know, but /g/ data doesn't simply get currupt.
It's the support that eventually degrades and loses bits of information, but data per se can't get corrupted.

1+1=2
Now.Tomorrow. In a billion years. See? we didn't lose data.
Now, if all the human species would be wiped off this planet along all the books etc. yeah than we would have lost data about 1+1=2
But 1+1= per se didn't get corrupted, the support did, they are two different things.

>>7562659
Go make a file on microsoft word
Save it to a usb drive, now go copy that document over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. It will eventually be unable to open because pieces of the file are gone or disappeared and converted into something else that means nothing to your document. You're going way too far into 'data'.

>>7562444
>immortal
>you
Theseus's ship. Not everything, especially ethics, can be approached from a purely rationalist perspective.

>>7562444
> But this is the true only way how we will achieve immortality in our lifetime
There will be no immortality. There will be indefinite biological life extension.

AI as a conscious being is science fiction. And will be for a very, very long time. Real AI will be a function/operation optimizer. You give it a goal and positive/negative and it learns how to get to your goal states by weakening/strengthening connections.

We do not need to worry about AI taking over
We will not be uploading ourselves to a computer.

> You could connect this to a robotic body, just immagine what kind of a body we will be able to create in 40 yrs...

Build the robot body around the biological brain. The nervous system is getting easier to interface with but not to replicate non-biologically.

Baby steps anon, baby steps.

>>7562567
This is a good point but we've still got to change the way we look at aging if we're going to get anywhere with it. Thankfully that change is happening, slowly.

>>7562444
I think out best bet is neuroprosthetics. Get into a lab or do what you can to support it. Join a lab, help secure funding, raise awareness, discuss it on the net, write a book, whatever. It's going to take a lot of work.

>>7562637
>Do I still get a penis?

>>7562659
>know, but /g/ data doesn't simply get currupt.
No, but it doesn't last forever either.
I've managed to survive 50 fucking years as a meat-bag, but I've never even _heard_ of data being stored in some active system that long.

>>7563133
Human memory typically doesn't last very long. So even if you live decades, your surviving long-term memories will almost certainly be guaranteed to be distorted. We also have to "use it or lose it," when it comes to memory or it will expire, but this isn't required for typical computer memory.

>>7562937
But woudln't your brain eventually stop working if you are in a robotic body?
What's the point then? Just having a cool body that doesn't get sick?
If I get dementia I can't use my body anyway...

>>7562444
>someone turns off computer
>ded

GENIUS

>>7563685
It's called sleep.

>>7562444
>I'm not saying hurr durr plug usb into brain and ctrl-c ctrl-v into hard disk.
Listen, OP.

A primitive electrode wired to a USB stick has a better chance of getting human consciousness on a hard drive than anything you think scientists can readily engineer in the near-term future. This is on account of the fact that the brain can adapt.

What would be immortal is your copy. Your body would still encompass enough data processing to experience death. Any transition that doesn't use utility fog and Theseus' ship style replacement is going to leave behind a copy that dies anyway.

And that's not happening in our lifetime.

Your best bet is anti-senescence.

>>7563711
>A primitive electrode wired to both a human brain and a USB stick

Oh man, another thread about AI with OP being ignorant about the field as usual, meanwhile my deep net thread die after 10 posts. I guess that's it.

>>7563729
We get these on /x/, too. It's a group of idiot shills. Somewhere along the line people got the idea that they had a moral obligation to social engineer the end of death without realizing that investment isn't a linear mechanism.

Don't make a copy of yourself
Augment yourself progressively until the body is no longer alive but consciousness is retained in the new substrate.
Ship of Theseus, except the old parts die.

>>7563761
i think you lack basic understanding of anatomy, physiology and biology.
Doing what you say is not easy.

It would be easier to just copy yourself into a computer

>>7563761
This isn't known to be possible and thus qualifies as pseudoscience until such time as a hypothesis for a means to achieve it is presented for analysis.

>>7563777
>would be easier to just
Can you rephrase that as an engineering problem?

This is /sci/, after all. Not /x/.

>>7563777
>>7563788
Pseudoscientific questions can be answered with pseudoscience...

>>7563800
>>>/x/

>>7563682
>If I get dementia I can't use my body anyway...
>implying you know enough about (fictional) "cyber-people" to claim that "computer-you" won't also suffer from dementia.

>>7563705
>It's called sleep.
For the zillionth time: YOU DON'T STOP EXISTING WHEN YOU SLEEP!
Brain activity only stops when you die.

>>7563157
>Human memory typically doesn't last very long.
But human beings DO.
You're missing my point entirely.
A child born today will be likely to survive for nearly a century.
Take a digital picture of that same child.
The digital picture will almost certainly NOT last as long.
You're all assuming digital = forever, and while that seems theoretically true, the real world rarely works that way.

Why don't you guys just die like everybody else and stop tying to be special snowflakes? Literally every 20 year old who has ever existed has thought they were going to live forever. You get to 60 and the health problems pile up and you realize that that is retarded.

>>7562444
you guys should play SOMA by frictional games

>>7562444
Did you genuinely think that NOBODY else has ever thought of this before?

>>7563862
>>It's called sleep.
Yeah, I realized that a second after I posted it, and I thought nah forget it yo holmes to bel air.

Suspended animation is what it is.

If you die, then you can't come back to life.

>>7562444

good double

>>7564075
nahp
games r dum

>>7564782
games?
more liek gayms
amiright? LoL
gaymers L0L