/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3577108]

What if every time you go to sleep the conciousness you relate with, the definable 'you' dissapears. What if everytime you wake up a new conciousness is created as your brain wakes up, which has access to all your memories, so every morning the new conciousness thinks it has always existed since your birth. What if when you go to sleep tonight, in every way you possibly could, you die. And in the morning the new conciousness will live it's 1 day lifespan none the wiser. this is wracking my brain

[Anonymous No.3577119]

this is why you sleep over things

[Anonymous No.3577123]

>>3577108
No anony, your consciousness is not like your gmail account.

[Anonymous No.3577133]

What about when people stay awake for like a week, why doesn't their consciousness die?

[cy No.3577132]

Just because you go unconscious doesn't mean that electrochemical meat computer of yours has stopped, too.

[Anonymous No.3577136]

>>3577123
how do you know? the supernatural status we give our conciousness is exactly that, GIVEN by us, it doesn't mean it is anything more than a process of the body, repeated daily

[Anonymous No.3577141]

so then what happens to that consciousness when you die?

[Anonymous No.3577142]

what if the moon was made of cheese

[Anonymous No.3577146]

>>3577136
Because I care to know. Just because you like to wake up every morning and check your email, it doesn't make consciousness that way.

>pretty little snowflake thinks the rest of the world is pretty little snowflake.

[Anonymous No.3577152]

>>3577142
but it is. thats what my mommy said

[Anonymous No.3577162]

I thought about this. But why does sleep need to be a prerequisite? You could be "dieing" every single nanosecond. You could be "dieing" with every new synapse.

[Anonymous No.3577171]

>>3577142
>>3577146
insulting me doesn't validate your point at all, nor does your lack of citation. I don't know about everyone else here but i'm not taking the undeniable word of an anonymous poster who could easily be a 12 year old. This is just a thought experiment try to keep up, or disprove this hypothesis with a citation

[Anonymous No.3577172]

Will it help you if I say that the personality you will get tomorrow will most likely not think about this?

[Anonymous No.3577173]

It's more like an operating system.

I don't know about you guys, but more often than not I think continue the task/thought that went on before I fell asleep immediately after awakening.

[Anonymous No.3577182]

I don't think there is any real continuity of consciousness. Just this delicious illusion of continuity, so good that it's worth living for it. There is no reason to assume the you from now is the same "you" in 5 minutes. The difference may be even more striking when you consider whole years.

Just relax and take it easy!

I also shouldn't be mentioning that MWI is most probably true and that you're splitting constantly (like very plank time). There are immense number of "copies" of you that also think they're conscious and they're unique and experience continuous time (seamlessly). Also large groups of copies experience the same things and if you are to think about individual experience, you may find many splits and even some mergers (like a braid). Such is the sea of observer moments.

[Anonymous No.3577185]

>>3577162
not observibly though, what we define as 'us' exists in a four dimensional world, we define ourselves through time. But at night we are unconcious, there is no reason to beleive a new conciousness isn't created every morning. Not that it is in any way inferior or less real, just that perhaps we only TRULY live for one day

[Anonymous No.3577196]

>>3577182
this is exactly the answer i was looking for, thank you. I suppose it is just an illusion, not that that in any way devalues life, it's just interesting to think about

[Anonymous No.3577202]

>>3577185
You are defined by your brain. You are not defined by your phenomenal experience. I kind of like this explanation, although somewhat simplistic (read toward the end):
www.brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philosophy.pdf

[Anonymous No.3577203]

>>3577123

what's with this "anony" business? I've seen two threads with you using this word and it seems to serve no purpose but to give everything you say a condescending, trollish edge too it.

[Anonymous No.3577220]

>>3577108

look into the Buddhist idea of anatta, or no-self.

it's essentially the idea that there is no definable concept of 'you.' anything you can point to as being an essential part of 'you' is something temporary and transitory that didn't exist at some point in your own lifetime. Things that define 'you' didn't define 'you' when you were 10 and probably won't define 'you' when you are 40. 'You' don't exist.

[Anonymous No.3577235]

>>3577203
Oh Anonym, I apologize. Perhaps if you goto bed now, you'll wake up and refreshed and not be so bitter.

I apologize, Anonym.

[Anonymous No.3577240]

>wtfamireading.jpg

[Anonymous No.3577252]

>>3577235
wow you are that pathetic that you need to condescend anonymous posters on a japanese imageboard to feel superior? is your self confidence that low?

[Anonymous No.3577262]

>>3577202
i'm reading through this by the way if you are still monitering this thread, very interesting so far and exactly the kind of thinking i was looking for, glad to know i'm not the first to think of this

[Anonymous No.3577283]

Sleep is just a change in consciousness that involves inhibited memory and momentary sensory deprivation before dreams and in between dreams.

[Anonymous No.3577281]

>>3577252
Oh anon, I feel your pain. I too once cared what my interprutations of the world around me suggested about the world around me.

But soon I learned a deeper secret. One that I must share with you anon.

The truth, anon, is simple:

>You are filling in half the meaning of everything you feel, and measure and witness. Yes anon, you are filling in voids and gaps. You, with your indelible imagination, are completing the loops.

>Yes anon, you are the chosen one. The one for whom the message is clear. It is you anon, you alone I speak to. Do you hear me anon? Do you understand anon?

>I am speaking to you anon, to you and you alone. You are special anon, I care for you anon. I don't want anything to hurt you anon.

>Anon. I love you and I love how you manipulate you.

[Anonymous No.3577287]

>anony
LOL xD new meme everyone girugmesh mudkipz yall niggas

[Anonymous No.3577292]

>>3577281
a guy fawkes mask image post? more condescending neckbeard dribblings? grow up jesus christ

[Anattafag No.3577303]

>>3577185

but you do 'die' from moment to moment. when you are eating, eating defines you. even if your mind is elsewhere, your mind and senses revolve around your meal. the meal is as much part of you at that moment as anything else. when you shit, you are defined by shitting. when you fuck, you are defined by fucking.

unless you want to point to some kind of "purer," more "essential" self. but if that's what you're going for, then what would you point to? if our day-to-day transitory experiences do not define us, then why should our broader transitory experiences define us?

this thread has got me thinking, perhaps this is why we need to sleep/rest in the first place. we spend so much time engaged with things that grab our attention and, at least for a short period of time, define us and change who we are. Perhaps we need to sleep in order to disengage from the world as a way of rebooting our consciousnesses. Perhaps this is why sleep feels restful.

on a broader stroke too, perhaps that is why we find drugs, intoxicants and even stories to be so engaging. they allow us to latch onto something outside of the reality directly around us, giving us a chance to rest a part of our brains.

[Anonymous No.3577309]

>>3577202
A good read. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.3577319]

>>3577303
>>3577303
very forward thinking, honestly i was expecting to be linked to here and there and be pounced upon by endless trolls, it's good to know there are posters here open to ambiguous thinking, even if this kind of thinking is below them or seems 'obvious'. That is a ncie way of thinking about it, i suppose i ,quite hypocritically, also placed a higher meaning to conciousness, you're right. For the record i'm not depressed or trying to find a way to devalue life, it just fascinates me

[Anonymous No.3577321]

>>3577292
Oh anony, I love when you writhe in anger about inconsequential memes. I love how you hold onto the false hope that the meaning can be found in my message.

I love how you mercilessly destroy my every message, twisting and turning it in a desire, nay, a dream, to turn the tables as you feel they have been turned on you.

>Rage

[Anonymous No.3577324]

>>3577281

you kind of come off like a flowery ponce, anon

you're alright, though

[Anonymous No.3577326]

Here's a great short story that deals with a lot of the implications of successful mind uploading. You won't have time to read all of it ITT though, but make sure you do if mind uploading is interesting to you.

http://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/

[Anonymous No.3577351]

>>3577319

I think you should look into existentialism and/or Buddhism, anon. I think you'd get a kick out of it.

Personally I'd recommend Basic Teachings of the Buddha, by Glenn Wallis. I'm certain there are plenty of other places you could get this information, that book just treated me particularly well.

[Anonymous No.3577365]

>>3577326
my only problem with mind uploading is that you wouldn't be alive, at least not as we know it. Sure you could have access to your memories, but how could hardware be able to make new connections between the artificial neurones? how could you make new memories? wouldn't you simply have mechanical altzheimers? Also if we had that technology i'm not sure our future fellows would resccucitate those from the past and add to a no doubt still prevalent (especially considering these huge advances in medicine) population problem, they are much more likely to create new conciousnesses and minds, not bring back old ones

[Anonymous No.3577375]

>>3577321
Before you get to ahead of yourself you aren't irritating me at all, or inducing 'rage' as you seem to think. And i'm not trying to deduce a message from your posts, i just feel a little sorry for someone willing to put in this much time for seemingly no purpose, i wonder if this is the high point of your die, in which case i'm sorry

[Anonymous No.3577381]

>>3577365
If your pattern is represented in software, it's just about changing some data. If it's in hardware directly, and not just RUNNING on hardware, then yes, that hardware must be mutable.

But computers are not like that. Running programs changes states all the time.

[Anonymous No.3577389]

>>3577375
Before you get to ahead of yourself you aren't irritating me at all, or inducing 'rage' as you seem to think. And i'm not trying to deduce a message from your posts, i just feel a little sorry for someone willing to put in this much time for seemingly no purpose, i wonder if this is the high point of your die, in which case i'm sorry

[Anonymous No.3577396]

>>3577365
You really should read
>>3577202

Your current conception of what "self" means is common, even instinctive, but it is arbitrary, and quite likely an illusion.

Your consciousness is neither unique nor continuous in time.

[Anonymous No.3577401]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Cultural_differences

In his book Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams observed:

I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn't weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. "So it isn't the original building?" I had asked my Japanese guide.
"But yes, of course it is," he insisted, rather surprised at my question.
"But it's burnt down?"
"Yes."
"Twice."
"Many times."
"And rebuilt."
"Of course. It is an important and historic building."
"With completely new materials."
"But of course. It was burnt down."
"So how can it be the same building?"
"It is always the same building."
I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.
—Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See, p. 149

[Anonymous No.3577405]

>>3577389
>Before you get to ahead of yourself you aren't irritating me at all, or inducing 'rage' as you seem to think. And i'm not trying to deduce a message from your posts, i just feel a little sorry for someone willing to put in this much time for seemingly no purpose, i wonder if this is the high point of your die, in which case i'm sorry

Before you get to ahead of yourself you aren't irritating me at all, or inducing 'rage' as you seem to think. And i'm not trying to deduce a message from your posts, i just feel a little sorry for someone willing to put in this much time for seemingly no purpose, i wonder if this is the high point of your die, in which case I am winning

[Anonymous No.3577407]

What if you're full of shit?

[Anonymous No.3577412]

It really is deceptive to think of "conciousness" a singular thing. It's an ongoing process with no persisting essence, rather than a single light illuminating the world.

[Anonymous No.3577416]

>>3577412

sound, meet fury

[Anonymous No.3577414]

>>3577326
At one point in time I came to a conclusion regarding some changes in consciousness that would happen for mind uploads. The conclusion is rather terrifying, similar to one which realizes how cruel the evolutionary process is, only this applies very much to yourself, the upload (whenever). The conclusion was reached after long deductive chains with a bit of induction (not too far from what most computationalists assume(computationalists assume that you will be conscious when uploaded, and I am one who also holds this hypothesis)). The sad part is that I realized that I would rather have substrate independence, even with this hidden cost, and that I don't think I will tell anyone about the terrifying notion I discovered(I think some people thought the thought before, but I've never seen it voiced anywhere) as it might scare off some people working on substrate independence, and I do not wish to stunt any progress in the field. I suppose that makes my choice immoral (realizing a danger exists, but accepting subjecting oneself to it as the benefit is greater, and at the same time not wanting to inform others of it as it will reduce the chance of myself benefiting from the work in that domain).

[Anonymous No.3577415]

>>3577396
no i was simply saying in the case of mind uploading that perhaps your POVself as described in the .pds couldn't communicate with your MEMself, although as
>>3577381 correctly suggested i don't have enough knowledge in the matter to make a valid opinion

[Anonymous No.3577422]

>>3577416

Sup bro, keep chilly free willy.

[Anonymous No.3577438]

>>3577414
Stop talking about how scary your ideas are and share them. I want to hear them.

[Anonymous No.3577447]

>post on /sci/
>say what if what iff?!
>provide no evidence
>they see me trolling

[Anonymous No.3577456]

>>3577401

How dare you post reasonable and nuanced insights here!

[Anonymous No.3577454]

>>3577414
noone in this thread works in the field, you might as well reveal your information, if only to sate my sudden and fleeting need for knowledge in this topic. Tommorow i won't care, or will perhaps try not to car,e but it does fascinate me and any new or 'hidden' information would be much appreciated

[Anonymous No.3577457]

>>3577447
>needs evidence for a thought experiment
go to bed kid

[Anonymous No.3577465]

>>3577401
i suppose that perfectly describes what i'm thinking. This all arose by the way (if anyone is interested) in someone bringing up the old 'would you teleport if you could' puzzle, where we try and work out whether if you were teleported (deconstructed and reconstructed elsewhere) would it be you on the other end? I guess as Douglas quite softly put it, it doesn't matter. Or at least it could only matter after you had done it, at which point ofcause it definately wouldn't matter

[Anonymous No.3577475]

>>3577438
The idea applies to any upload, even the most ideal kind of upload that describes one's brain perfectly.

As an upload, you're increasing your the randomness of your possible futures immensely. MWI splitting leads to rather simple classical futures for most biologicals. If you want to understand what possible futures will exist for those who have attained substrate independence, I suggest you read "Permutation City", and consider it within the framework of any wider multiverse theory (Universal Dovetailer or Tegmark's Level 4 Multiverse would be a good one), or some observation theory (read "Theory of Nothing").
I could elaborate, but I think you will come to the conclusion yourself after reading those. For example, you could easily end up in an isolated "hell" and go mad. Still, In my selfish opinion, the benefits and possibilities that come from it seem to be worth paying the price of those terrible observer moments' existence. This type of selfishness reminds me of those which avoid thinking of their MWI splits as themselves, only this is much worse as I realize what I might be exposing myself to when I say yes to the "mind upload" doctor.

[Anonymous No.3577478]

>>3577465
That's generally my take on it too. I take what I think is a fairly pragmatic and functionalist approach to identity. If mind uploading works, I'm willing to completely give up the idea of a unique and continuous self, and instead value the improvement and well-being of "my" pattern and other patterns like it.

But if mind uploading DOESN'T work for some reason, even with full simulations of a physical brain, then something is missing and dualists might be on to something. Hopefully we'll find out this century.

[Anonymous No.3577496]

>>3577465
The main thing that gets people hung up is...if you can do that then you can also use the same process to make copies, and this violates all of our intuitions about the nature of self/identity. But my opinion is that that is mostly due to the fact that the "single instance" self we have is the only way it ever has been. If we lived in a society where copying/diverging/merging was commonplace, we would be used to the idea and not think of it as dying.

[Anonymous No.3577498]

>>3577475
In those scenarios, I think the very idea of "self" is being outrageously strained to the point of meaninglessness. Besides, if you really embrace MWI, don't you just want to maximize the statistical (ensemble) well-being of future selves? You can't prevent all bad scenarios, but you can maximize the probability (prevalence) of good outcomes.

Also, try this out. It might negate your issues, if you buy this interpretation. I don't really find this area meaningful, personally.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1zt/the_map_that_is_the_territory/

[Anonymous No.3577501]

>>3577496
Yeah, I think society would adapt fairly quickly, though the turmoil might get nasty.

[Anonymous No.3577502]

>>3577475
excuse my forwardness but do elaborate if you could, through which though process have you come to the conclusion that you could end up in an isolated 'hell'?

[Anonymous No.3577503]

>>3577108
What if unicorns fly out your ass all the time, but you never notice and nobody ever tells you?

[Anonymous No.3577514]

Sleep? No.
Teleporter? Maybe.

[Anonymous No.3577515]

>>3577503
I would start a glue factory.

[Anonymous No.3577524]

>>3577515
To melt the unicorns you don't know about?
Better get started, bro. You already don't know about them.

[Anonymous No.3577529]

>>3577524
I would only do so upon becoming reasonably certain of the actual truth of what you have posed as a hypothetical condition.

[Anonymous No.3577535]

>>3577498
I've read that article before.
Maybe not "self", but while I may have many "happy" futures starting from the initial upload, there would also be universes where there are trapped copies with futures that would make them go insane (imagine you're in a VR world, the world interacts with people on Earth, at least from their perspective, now imagine your perspective; if the abstraction of the the VR world exists as a separate universe in the Universal Dovetailer, you could end up in an isolated future where you're basically helpless). In Permutation City, Egan sidesteps this issue by saying that the VR worlds would be too complex to be self-contained, and he is probably right, but what if a self-contained one could exist(if so, it 'does' exist, according to UD/Ultimate Ensemble)?
Either way, I think that what we stand to gain might be worth this cost, especially if the VRs are built with enough safe-suicide methods (not just simple garbage collection, but selective erase of the mind, which would eventually leave 'nothing') which could help those stuck in such scenarios. Note that I think that when Durham first commited suicide (in PC), he merely ended up in a future where suicide wasn't an option.

[Anonymous No.3577541]

>>3577535
Could you please give a hypothetical example in which a mind becomes "stuck", with no ability to act?

[Anonymous No.3577548]

>>3577541
A atheist vs theist thread comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.3577579]

>>3577502
I think it's obvious that such a future can exist if you accept those multiverse theories. Even moreso than for biologicals. In the case of quantum immortality for humans, your brain would just deteriorate to the point where you would no longer be worth calling conscious (a vegetable), but that option no longer exists for uploads.

>>3577541
I thought you could imagine if you read the papers/books I mentioned, but here's an exact example.
You are now an upload, you are represented by a very large amount of data, and some algorithm that is capable of interpreting it. Now imagine a world in the Universal Dovetailer which represents the data+algorithm that runs you, but instead of a proper model-of-a-body+VR, you have null data being pumped as inputs to your abstracted biological neural network. Such a world would exist in the UD. This is a similar case to boltzmann brains.
As for why believe in UD (or similar) at all? There is absolutely no reason why the laws of physics are like this or another way, merely that they support us and we exist in systems that support us. A simpler hypothesis is to assume all possible consistent laws of physics exist.

[H+ No.3577625]

No, I track my continuity of conciousness by constantly reflecting on my previous and future perceptions of my conciousness, and I've yet to be in a situation where it could have not been continuous.

Conciousness comes directly as a result of your brain. If your brain isn't damaged, you are still the same person. The trick is going to be changing the substrate while maintaining conciousness, which will basically require a long term, slow and gradual replacement of neurons with artificial replacements, transferring your conciousness to an immortal and upgradable digital substrate.

Plus you'll be able to view and change your base code.

Yay, transhumanism.

It's funny, most people would be terrified to find out they were actually just a simulation in a computer. I'd be delighted, my brain would already exist as readable data, and so as long as I could gain control or get a physical body, I could exist forever with no conciousness continuity issues.

[Anonymous No.3577643]

>>3577625
Transhumanist in thread.

[H+ No.3577686]

Is this guy still here? I still don't get the joke, if it is one.

I don't think he has a compatible sense of humour with the rest of humanity. Usually referential humour is funny because it has at least some relation to the subject matter. I'm not seeing how a line is drawn from "doesn't want to die and believes humanity can be more" to "homosexual, lolz".

[Anonymous No.3577688]

>>3577625
That's a fine view, but I don't see any problems with the simulation.
If you are in a simulation, it just means your universe has digital laws of physics (likely), but you cannot tell it apart from a normal universe which exists independently (platonically, in the UD/Ultimate Ensemble or whatever), at least unless the one doing the simulation decides to interact with your world (in which case, that would be 2 different mathematical objects: one where you exist independently, and one where you exist as a simulation+upper universe). There is even a plus-side to being simulated - you might be able to get the one doing the simulation to lift you to his universe, which may very well be a fine place as the upper-universe-being sure has a lot of computational resources to simulate such a big thing (might even be worth considering he has an universe designed to be good at computation, unlike ours where we have to make considerable effort to build efficient computing devices).

[H+ No.3577714]

Basically. If you're a simulation there is a culture above you able to simulate you, which is likely much better off than you are. The catch is, do they consider the simulated you a concious being or data?

It would be even more ideal if I was a simulation of me which I made later in life to see how I became me. Which is something I could see myself doing if I had the resources.

This would be awesome because I would finish such an experiment by bringing the simula-me into the real world, and so logically the real-me which simula-me is based off of would do the same.

I could work very well with myself.

[Anonymous No.3577718]

I've always kind of wondered this. Not so much with sleep but if you really die ever so often and come back with a new conscience with the same memories. Nothing i've lost sleep over, but smoething interesting to think about.

On the other hand, i'm pretty certain that anything to do with teleporting basically kills you. Not that we are close to that, but if ever you could take teleportation devices from one area to another, i'd pass even if it's the somehow the same exact matter.

[Anonymous No.3577734]

>>3577686
I'm sure eventually you'll get the joke. But I don't want to ruin itt for other people.

[Anonymous No.3577743]

...I think I´m going to enjoy my stay here.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3577747]

>>3577734

I get the images are a set of stills from a show about a couple of gay superheroes. I don't get how it relates to transhumanism.

[Anonymous No.3577752]

>>3577686
autismal as fuckk

[H+ No.3577766]

If by that you mean I'm assuming the joke is more complex than "I dunt like him so I'ma call him gay. That'll learn em. Hurr Durr", then sure.

Of course, I may be just giving him too much credit, you're right. It could be just that stupid.

[Anonymous No.3577770]

>>3577766
>>3577747
You meager men of science. One day, one day.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3577826]

>>3577770

I'm going to guess there's no real reason.

[Anonymous No.3577838]

>>3577826
I see you're searching for explanations in the unknown.

Good luck.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3577847]

>>3577838

Hehe, no. I'll assume it's because me and H+ sometimes look like a gay couple. Or me and Inurdaes.

Revving each other's actuators.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3577852]

>>3577847

[H+ No.3577873]

>>3577847
>>3577852

Under the suit?

Who cares, look at dat ass.