[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 327x400, 45841a5cce95.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4267778 No.4267778 [Reply] [Original]

So, from a transhumanist standpoint, how far away are we from building prosthetic bodies and doing brain transplants?

>> No.4267798

light-years

>> No.4267795

About 80 or 90 years.

>> No.4267802

My god, I love that publication.

On topic though, I think we'll still quite a good ways off from both prosthetic bodies / brain transplants. I think we're still waiting on the next break through in technology which will hopefully solve the heating problems which are manifesting themselves in our progression towards smaller and smaller devices.

I wouldn't put the deadline at 2100 though, but perhaps 2150 or 2200 before there are but a few totally prosthetic people, although perhaps without uploaded brains.

The problem, which I'm sure you're aware of, since you're posting with that image, is that we don't exactly know where in the brain consciousness lies. I've been studying philosophy of the mind lately, and while we know somehow what buttons to press to invoke responses in the brain, and can see these responses, we can't see a thought per se.

If I told you to picture a yellow bird, you could do so, and we would see most of the resultant activity in the brain, but where does your image of the yellow bird actually exist?


I think that until we can solve the mind-body problem the furthest we'll progress in terms of transhumanism is the attainment of prosthetic bodies, although our brains will most likely still have to be biological.

>> No.4267825

>>prosthetic bodies

We could build the body now. The reason we don't is that no one has made an AI capable of piloting a body, and so there would be no way to use it.

>>brain transplants

We could probably do it now. The problem is keeping the brain alive, figuring out how to do it in a compact package, and figuring out how to connect neurons to computers.

My estimate? 50 years at maximum to develop the technology, and 100 years at maximum to implement it.

>> No.4267838

>>4267825
May I ask how you arrived at those figures?

>> No.4267837

IMHO making a new body and transplanting your brain into it isn't the best approach to transhumanism. It's _very_ complicated. There are millions of individual nerves going in and out of the brain that would have to be connected, although maybe only the motor nerves would suffice. Why bother though, when you can improve the body you have with less trouble?

>> No.4267844

>>4267802

>The problem, which I'm sure you're aware of, since you're posting with that image, is that we don't exactly know where in the brain consciousness lies. I've been studying philosophy of the mind lately, and while we know somehow what buttons to press to invoke responses in the brain, and can see these responses, we can't see a thought per se.

If I told you to picture a yellow bird, you could do so, and we would see most of the resultant activity in the brain, but where does your image of the yellow bird actually exist?

Mu.

>> No.4267860

>>4267837
I add to my post here: brain transplants would be cool nevertheless. Good thing you're interested in this stuff, it's gonna pay off.

>> No.4267864

there's a lot we don't understand about the brain, but one thing that keeps surprising researchers is how easily it adapts to utilize technology. It could very well be that our brains are "plug-in-play". The hurdle is that the nature of such experiments to test the theory are expensive and dangerous.

>> No.4267882

bump for interest.

>> No.4267894

>>4267838

Brain transplants began with the transplants of monkey heads, which happened in the middle 20th century. Fundamentally, the only thing keeping the head transplants from being successful was/is our inability to repair extreme nerve damage. Rejection wouldn't be a problem if you only transplanted the brain, thus meaning that DNI (And thus controlling a robot body directly), oxygen and nutrient supply, and the inability to repair spinal injuries (Which we're working on right now with stem cells) are the only things in our stopping us.

I figure that airplanes are a good example of an extreme feat of engineering. From the Wright brothers to commercial super-sonic air travel was 66 years (1903-1969).

I think that we can go from transplanting paraplegic monkey heads to full brain transplants in the same time as the above aviation example. It puts into perspective just how much can change in a mere half a century.

>> No.4267927

>>4267894
do you think we could ever completely "upload" the brain from its biological standard into a mechanical system?

>> No.4268039

>>4267927

Hypothetically, yes. It's compatible with both the concept of the soul, and Functionalism.

However the actual practice will probably prove to be more elusive. While it would appear that nerve signals can be translated to digital information and back, but we still don't know if consciousness can exist in the digital medium.

Of course even if current computer materials and design don't allow consciousness, future computers may offer it.

I reserve my judgment until it actually happens. I think the best, least dangerous way to test it would be to connect your hypothetical artificial brain to your biological brain and then temporarily shut off your oxygen supply. The only problem with that is that you might induce brain damage, even if you only did it for mere seconds.

>> No.4268102

also bumping for interest

>> No.4268117

>>4267778
Not long, 20-30 years for full body I guess, a bit longer for brains.

>> No.4268123

>Everyone posting guesses without any scientific basis.
>/sci/

This is tragic.

>> No.4268127

>>4267825
No. No to both of them.
First of all, you didn't understand first question, research PROSTHETIC.
p.s. the answers is we can't.
Second of all, it's not about keeping brain alive, it's all about that we don't know how brain works yet.

>> No.4268132
File: 13 KB, 300x300, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4268132

>>4268123
>hurrr transhumanism
>bawww not enough science

>> No.4268134

http://youtu.be/Aa2JfigaNcs

Don't listen to these naysayers. We are really REALLY close. I'm thinking 10-15 years.

>> No.4268151

>>4267778

The traditional Kurzweil view of transhumanism all depends on the development of strong AI. Essentially it states we will develop strong AI, that will create stronger AI and the Stronger AI will do all the intellectual heavy lifting for us.

If strong AI is impossible (or if an AI is incapable of creating it's successor) the transhumanism will take a much longer time.

If strong AI develops along the kurzweil timeframe it will be around 2045. If people have to do the work ourselves it will be after you are dead.

>> No.4268181

>>4268127

>>First of all, you didn't understand first question, research PROSTHETIC.

I think I understood it perfectly. The OP asked when a robotic body capable of being controlled by a human brain would be possible, and I answered with my opinion.

And the technology strictly for the body is there. DNI control of robot hands has been demonstrated, as has the transition of sensory data. This proves that DNI is possible. The actual construction of the physical body could simply involve replicating the human body muscle for muscle, bone for bone. The result would be a body that perfectly resembled a human, controlled by DNI.

>>Second of all, it's not about keeping brain alive, it's all about that we don't know how brain works yet.

We know how the brain works as far as how it interfaces with the rest of the nervous system. We know that if you connect computers to nerve cells, the two can communicate. Full understanding of the brain is completely unnecessary.

It's an engineering hurtle, yes. But it doesn't require any new technology, just elaboration of technology that already exists.

>> No.4268191

>>4268181

Out put is easy. You just have a sensor that can interpret a nerve.

It's input that is fucking difficult. If you connect a electrode to a nerve the nerve starts to scar and eventually the electrode stops working.

The best possible option at the moment is a genetically engineered virus which makes a nerve light sensitive and a computer controlled light source implanted directly about the nerve.

>> No.4268197

I'm tired of hypothetical shit in transhumanism. How about we talk about what we can do NOW? I'm talking augmented reality in glasses/contacts. Ultra portable brain scanners that when coupled with sophisticated programs can manipulate your entire datasphere. Sure, aging is a main concern in tranhumanism, but it's not something the most of us can do anything about at this point.

>> No.4268218

what i want to know is if you uploaded your consciousness into a computer wouldnt your other consciousness still be in your body? Then there would be too of you and then you would only be experiencing the one in your body and not the one in the computer. Unless it was like a matrix type thing where you need to be plugged into it and only one consciousness existed at one time. I dont know if anyone here gets what i mean by my ramblings.

It wouldn't actually be YOU. I guess thats what i mean, if im misunderstanding something please let me know.

>> No.4268223

>>4268197

You can replace body parts.

You can replace limbs and some senses with mechanical replicas. You can enhance vision through surgery. You can replace simple organs with stem cell printed replacements. You can have body mods.

You can wear a computer and cameras which allow you to lifelog yourself.

To can use the latest knowledge of science to create a personalised diet and exercise program.

You have extreme cosmetic options available, you can change your skin colour, have photo realistic tattoos, cosmetic surgery and coloured lenses. You can change your race if you want to do so, you can even change your gender.

The fact is that modern technology has made lots of options available... but there are only a few areas in which the replacement/changes are BETTER than nature.

Some athletic modifications such as drugs, limb replacements or surgery improve on nature. But the improvement is so small that only high end competitors use them.

>> No.4268230

>>4268218

>It wouldn't actually be YOU. I guess thats what i mean, if im misunderstanding something please let me know.

The simple answer is 'yes the copy would you'.

The more complex answer is that what you describe as your 'conciousness' doesn't really exists. It's a frame of reference you use to describe a complex series of processes. The copy would not be you... but you are not 'YOU' either. The conscious 'you' that exists from moment to moment is a illusion humans have evolved to help us interpret the world.

>> No.4268228

I remember reading an article a year or so back about how some scientist said he would, by 2020-2030, be able to connect nerve endings to prosthetic limbs. As in, if you get a prosthetic arm, leg, or whatever -- you can still have full nerve function within them.

>> No.4268237

>>4268228
thats happening now, but it is still in the early stages.

>> No.4268244

I'm a huge fan of Ghost in the Shell but I find this highly unlikely, almost impossible. Even if it is possible, it will probably take a lot more time than most science fiction films predict.

>> No.4268252

>>4268244

Well the whole point of most transhumanism is that we are entering a period of exponential growth. If that's correct then it will be possible in the timescales people are talking about.

>> No.4268253

>>4268244
I think I disagree with that. I believe one of the only reasons we feel it might be a long way away is because it has to do with literally implanting tech into our bodies or removing parts of our bodies altogether. That "unnatural" boundary is a HUGE mental leap for us to make. We can envision it, but we can't really place ourselves in the shoes of an augmented person like we could place ourselves in the shoes of say, someone using the technology of flying through the air in a plane per se.

...kinda got lost in what I was trying to say, but I don't believe it's as far off as we might be first inclined to think.

>> No.4268254

Here's a fantastic question:

Do you think, by 2100, we will be able to have technology Deus Ex-esque style? For those unfamiliar, think of it like this. Easily replaceable limbs and organs alike. Eyes replaced with brain enhancements, so you could, say, take a literal picture with your eyes and then upload it to the internet with shit in your brain. I realize how fucking far stretched that is, but nano-chips and the internet as a whole was something of "fantasy" back in the days as well. With our massive injection of technological advancement, do you think shit like that could be possible by that time?

Another, semi-related question. Do you think we will have mechanical, or otherwise enhanced organs and body parts in the next couple decades in ways that significantly expands the human lifespan?

>> No.4268259

>>4268252
That's more a part of the singularity, actually. A lot of transhumanists, myself included, do not exactly buy into the idea of exponential growth. Greatly increased growth, very possibly, but exponential is something entirely different.

>> No.4268269

>>4268254
In short, yes. Likely things that we can barely imagine right now.

>> No.4268287

>>4268269

That would be so fucking legit. Just finding a way in like 30 years to make people live for an extra 100.

>> No.4268300

>>4268287
Agreed. But it will be expensive as all hell. It's not going to be "Well here's a perfectly functioning liver, enjoy!". It's going to be more like "Give us thousands and thousands of dollars for a passable liver that requires maintenance, and come back in 5 years to get the newer model or else you might die."

>> No.4268303

Moral question for you, /sci/:

SHOULD we advance these technologies. At what point do we stop? Although it's a >video game, the Deus Ex games do go into a very legitimate point about these enhancements that could potentially be coming in the next 30-50 years. Are we ready, as a society, for this? Think about it, the average lifespan could, in first world countries, jump from 75-80 to 190-200 in less than 10 years of technological development, perhaps even more than that.

Furthermore, at what point do we stop being human? When we start replacing all of our body parts for robotic parts -- which WILL be better than ours (Computer Scientists estimate that our computers will have more processing power than our brains by 2020, for instance) -- when do we cross the line from human, into something else? Should we even cross that line? What about the people who refuse to get this shit, because there WILL be? Will those who "advance" be discriminated, or those who don't?

The economic implications are also staggering. It would be very easy for a monopoly to form around this. Luckily Anti-Trust Acts prevent most monopolization in the States, but that's really not so effective in the long run and with the influence business' are gaining these days. Should we progress into these technologies, despite the economic and sociological risks?

These are all things we need to consider. Sure, it may be possible to do this shit -- in fact we most likely will in the next 100 years -- but SHOULD we?

>> No.4268322

>>4268303
I would argue that yes we should. Often the most beneficial technologies we humans come up with are also the most risky. Nuclear power comes to mind. Just because the consequences might end up bad does not mean we should stifle progress. High risk high reward.

Your second question begs more questions. Such as should we really care if we cease to be human? Is being human really the best of all possible options for us?

The economic and sociological implications of these kinds of technologies are the most fascinating to be, but I can't even begin to speculate what might actually happen. Maybe we're seeing the start of it in the western world with the decline of the middle class? Maybe caste systems will be implented, who knows? We do live in an exciting time, though.

>> No.4268332

>>4268303

>should we do it?

No one is forcing you to. In fact I'd be happier if most of the idiots refused these advances and died of old age.

>at what point do you stop being human?

You'll never stop being human. Even when you are not recognisably human to a person who is alive now. A two year old child is very different from a adult, and a 1000 year old transhuman will be about that different from a 20 year old adult of today.

>> No.4268348

>>4268322

I don't think it's comparable to Nuclear Power, although I do see where you are trying to come from. Nuclear Power is an entirely different story, because it provides ridiculous power (I think the numbers are 50 tons of coal = 1lb of nuclear power?) but also high risk of catastrophic destruction and potentially nuclear weaponry.

HOWEVER

That could be constrained further with technology. Risks go down as technology goes up, that's a simple fact of life. The, I think best word to use, "shellshock" of potentially doubling or tripling the average lifespan could be far too much for our society to handle in such a relatively short time.

I mean think about it for a second. Think about the state of computers 50 years ago, in 1960. Think of them now. It's fucking ridiculous, I know. That's what I think this should be compared to. Hell, the last 20 years alone have been ridiculous exponential growth of computing powers. Imagine that kind of exponential growth applied to our lifespans and human capabilities.

I personally think that we are not ready for that, as a society. It would just open up a whole new can of worms, and only furthers progress to near-immortality -- which I think we should NEVER have. I have seen scientists from multiple documentaries say that this or the next generation could be the last, due to advancements in technology -- and not because of war, but because the near immortality that may be gained in the next 100-200 years from such enhancements.

(cont.)

>> No.4268350

>>4268348

2/2

And I think "human" needs to be properly defined in this case. Our species has always been relatively weak. I mean, we would lose a fistfight with most creatures on earth I think is fair to say. Nonetheless, our wits and our intelligence has always put us ahead of the pack. The ability to reason. I thought I would be able to go somewhere with this, but I'll just leave it in here in hopes of it going into context -- somehow.

Anyways, I think the question that needs to be asked is -- if we cease being human, what are we then? To attempt to expand on my rant in the last paragraph, what made us human was our relatively weak nature. We needed to band together, and THINK. When you think about it, us literally thinking -- just thinking -- got us from the trees to the moon, in essence. I personally believe, if we become too, dare I say, mechanized we would begin to lose that. As much as I would love to be half robot, there's just something about it that seems...weird.

>> No.4268361

>>4268348

>Risks go down as technology goes up, that's a simple fact of life.

Nope. Existential threats actually increase.

>>4268350

>Our species has always been relatively weak. I mean, we would lose a fistfight with most creatures on earth I think is fair to say. Nonetheless, our wits and our intelligence has always put us ahead of the pack. The ability to reason

Nope. Our actual advantage is our ability to run. Human beings can outrun any animal on the planet over long distances. Early human hunters would literally run prey to death.

>> No.4268364

>>4268361

I don't think "ability to run" is the correct phrase. I think wit, agility, and all that is moreso attributed to our survival and goes into far more detail. Anyways, your point only reinforces mine -- that we were never a very powerful species. Although you could say these enhancements would be what we need to finally reach a plateau of power -- but I disagree.

And I would think that as technology and awareness increases, so does risk of accident. Examples being the automobile, airplane, etc.

>> No.4268371

But would it be ethical, from a christian point of view?

jesus-sage

>> No.4268377

>>4268364

Ability to run is actually correct. Humans are long distance runners.

Our bodies are evolved for that. We lack hair on our bodies so we can efficiently cool down while running. Our run is extremely energy efficient, it's more efficient than walking. Humans can run any animal into the ground, and that's how early human packs hunted.

Our intelligence was secondary to our running evolutionary niche.

>> No.4268380

>>4268377

Interesting, I never knew that. Learn something new everyday, I guess. Nonetheless, I still stand firm by my point that I don't think we are ready as a society for such changes in such rapid time. The implications would be too great, in my opinion.

>> No.4268385

>>4267778

not very plausible...most electronics are already outdated a couple months after you buy them

All electronics have some malfunction over a couple of years worth of non 24hr use

So what happens when your robot body needs to be fixed? They going to do another surgery to transplant you into something else.

Probably not going to happen for a VERYYYY long time

>> No.4268383

>>4268380

Well of course we aren't. That's the whole point of the technological singularity.

After the singularity human beings will no longer be the dominant force on this planet. Post humans will.

>> No.4268393

>>4268385

>So what happens when your robot body needs to be fixed? They going to do another surgery to transplant you into something else.

That's what happens to people who have implants now.

>> No.4268419

Personally, I think the term "transhuman" is erroneous. It implies that by altering our bodies, we cease to be "human." But "human" is a term of consciousness, not a term of biology. Unless the fundamental way we think about and see the world changes, than we will always be human.
Certainly, if our biology changes to the degree that we no longer have biological parts, we cease to be homo sapien, but humanity is a little harder to shake.

>> No.4268420

well, this is a semi bullshit arguement ill throw out

but 81 percent of heart transplant patients die within 3 years

makes 61% after 6

so on, and so on

brain is a little bit more intricate than heart

Its just not realistic to think a computer chip isn't going to go bad at the wrong time

and that's if you can get a computer that can handle all the information a brain puts out, has no flaws, doesn't need to be fixed more than every 2 years, and takes less than 9 minutes to do the sergery to move one of the most sensitive parts of our body before brain damage sets in

>> No.4268426

>>4268420
well i guess you have to look at why those people needed heart transplants in the first place. Its not too often that only the heart is wrong in a patient that needs the surgery. Its usually a lot of other factors combined with poor life choices that got them to that point.

>> No.4268429
File: 5 KB, 192x262, AAHitcherkersRObot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4268429

I doubt many people would want to live just for knowledge sake. What would life be without sex, touch, taste ect.

Emotion and learning, Do we really want to be the

>> No.4268432

>>4268420
that's kind of why this stuff is "50 years away" rather than feasible with today's technology.

I mean, 50 years ago, some surgeries we consider routine now would have had very high mortality rates.
even root canals had high mortality rates back in the day.

There is certainly no reason to believe that as computer systems continue to develop, means of creating, and sustaining those systems won't as well.
same goes for medical development.

>> No.4268441

>>4268429
people wouldn't have to live without, already we have circuits that can mimic neurons, and allow people with prosthetic limbs to feel.
that should continue to develop, certainly, we will have prosthetic limbs perfectly capable of feeling hot, cold, pressure etc. within the next ten years.

>> No.4268449

it just seems dumb to think about removing any body part for any extended period of time from a human immune system that interacts with all major organs to learn from diseases and infections

Surgically improbable
Technologically improbable
Physically improbable

And then you have to imagine who is going to develop this? Not america, because it's hard enough to try to make stem cell research legal.

>> No.4268453

You don't understand how complex the human body is. We need to either replace it and leave the new project susceptible to environmental impact or make it compatible.

>> No.4268456

>>4268449
stem cell research is contested because christians worry about the "poor innocent aborted embryos"

they don't give a shit about people that are already alive dying or donating organs or anything though.

>> No.4268465

Consciousness is probably not magic. It's probably not "emergent" either, which isn't an explanation anyway. I expect it to simply be a result of our socially optimized brains. We have learned how to model and predict the behaviours of others, and as a side effect we can model ourselves. Consciousness, it seems, is simply our models of ourselves. Therefore, an artificial intelligence with those features, or a brain upload that preserves them, is likely to be possible.

>> No.4268467

I'm saving my money in hopes that within my lifetime I will be able to afford a full-body transplant of myself cloned once my body becomes weak and frail.

>> No.4268469

>>4268465
hmm, i was fascinated by AI for a long time. And for some reason a lot of the time scientists came to the conclusion that real emotion based thought would not be possible using computers. I never could understand the explanation but im going to try and find those articles again.

>> No.4268481

>>4268469
That seems implausible to me, unless they mean that the computing power simply isn't enough. There are no noticeable quantum effects at the level our brains operate at.

>>4268467
If you're interested in this, get a cryonics life insurance policy. It's pretty cheap for a small chance at an extremely long life.

>> No.4268486

when the hell are we going to stop making computers and start growing them instead? Ive heard there has been some progress on biological processors and we alter the dna of certain algae type plants and make them grow in patterns. Since our brains are biological, would it be better for it to interact with other biological based componets we grew or would it do just fine with wires and carbon nano tubes?

I guess just the prospect of growing a computer in a petri dish just seems exciting to me. Minor tweeks in the computer to have upgrades or change it completely would be as simple as making a few changes in the dna.

Then we could have computers that "evolve" and take over humanity.

>> No.4268491

>>4268181
The brain is not an organ working in a separate way from other organs. This talk about replacing limbs, organs and keeping the brain is unrealistic, imo. Neurotransmitters actually exist in other organs which work with the brain and influence each other dynamically.

And the life quality of those living with prosthetic parts isn't really that great. They have a substitute which rarely is better in itself as a part, but not necessarily better as a whole for the body.

Thirdly, there is a contradiction between living and having indestructible body parts.

>> No.4268496

>>4268420

Well that's true. If you think that technology will never improve and technological development is impossible.

It isn't true if you think that technological limitations can be overcome through research and experimentation.

>> No.4268508

>>4268491
People can survive with amputations, and can survive for short periods of time without certain organs. The behaviour of the brain may be slightly different without interaction with the rest of the body in the same way as we evolved, but the important parts will still be there.

The life quality for people living with prosthetics isn't great, but it's getting better all the time. Especially in areas where the bias in favour of traditional human forms is being eroded, so more effective designs given our technological constraints can be made.

Your final point is silly. What's the contradiction? If my brain's still working, I'm still living from my perspective. What does it matter if I have an artificial heart that won't wear out?

>> No.4268954
File: 134 KB, 413x395, 1326013781788.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4268954

>Slowly replace every neuron with an microprocessor that mimics the action of that particular group of neurons

>gradually replace the brain while patient retains fully cognitive aware

>just exactly where did the person end and machine begin?

>Now have completely mechanical brain that has te same function as the original

>mfw

>> No.4269016
File: 7 KB, 134x161, aria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4269016

>>4268491
>design an artificial brain
>just to make a point, leave out systems that mimic organic chemical receptors
>"LOLOLOL ARTIFICIAL BRAIN CAN'T REPLACE ORGANIC ONE"
But why would you do that unless you wanted to be a douche?

>> No.4269078

Another option is to couple the meat brain directly to a learning computer that eventually takes on all the brain's functions and more. Instead of the classic "copies aren't really me" issue the person undergoing this kind of transformation keeps that sense of consciousness across physical media.

The problem with this is that it doesn't fit well with existing silicon von Neumann style computing as the end result is always "you" embedded in Big Iron at a datacenter. Most likely it would require some kind of qbit processor or other new computing architecture.

>> No.4269353

>>4268508
>The behaviour of the brain may be slightly different without interaction with the rest of the body in the same way as we evolved, but the important parts will still be there.

We know that the body adapts to all sorts of extreme conditions, including amputations and so on. But usually this comes at a cost. For example, transplants come at the cost of medication to suppress immune response. Also i know that there are organs you can live without and other you can't. And also organs which can be replaced with artificial substitutes and some for which there is no present substitute. But again, every such organ substitute/transplant comes at a price, usually life-long drug therapy, some minor impairments and so on.

Who would volunteer for an experiment to have all his/her body organs except the brain gradually replaced by artificial organs? What if we discover that there is a limit to replacing organs with artificial substitutes, beyond which the brain itself stops functioning normally?

What I meant by the last sentence was that in order for you to live and have consciousness you need to have a sensorium of organic matter, of matter which tranform itself and reacts to the environment in order to maintain that consciousness. Silicone circuits and such dont really react to life, so they have no life.

>> No.4269405

>>4269353
>wtfamireading.jpg

>> No.4269410

>>4268954
> Instead, replace each neuron with two such microchips.
> When finished, separate the two brains.
> Who the fuck am I
> Oh shit
> Paradoxes in the entire conception of self
> Somebody fucking help me

>> No.4269423
File: 159 KB, 500x644, 1321145120365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4269423

>>4269353

Neuroscience had yet to find a Minimum Guts Threshold.

>> No.4269424

>>4269410
>Instead, replace each neuron with two such microchips.
>When finished, separate the two brains.
>We are one.
>We are many.
>We are legion.
I'd love to keep company to myself.

>> No.4269432

>>4269424
the real killer is that according to the single-microchip version, it is logically implied that your consciousness will exist in the new microchip brain.

the same logic implies that the same consciousness will exist in both new brains.

so logic implies a contradiction. fuck.

the only answer is to get rid of the idea of consciousness.

which contradicts the most basic tenet of philosophy and knowledge.

fucking hell.

>> No.4269434

>>4269432
I don't see a problem here.
There will be two copies of the consciousness, which will then proceed to develop in their own ways.

>> No.4269437

>>4269434
which one are YOU? brain A or brain B?

using the original argument, you can prove that you will subjectively experience the lifeline of brain A. you can also prove you will subjectively experience brain B. obviously you can't.

>> No.4269444
File: 50 KB, 311x311, 1326820237487.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4269444

>>4269437

You're speaking as though the 'you' is diverging divorced from the brain.

>confirmed for dualism
>gtfo of /sci/

>> No.4269449

>>4269444
I think his point is quite clear. You is not separable from your embodied self, therefore is not transferable. If you believe otherwise, you must be a dualist.

>> No.4269454

>>4269444
The problem is the exact opposite of dualism you tard.

Typical /sci/fag, cannot bear to admit ignorance so he uses some cliché he doesn't even understand.

>> No.4269456

>>4267778
>H+ magazine
Science fiction authors, second life manbabies and the "futurist expert circle-jerk panel"

>> No.4269461

>>4269456
Do they ever shut the fuck up about Aubrey De Grey? He's like some kind of fucking Jesus to them.

>> No.4269463

h+ maganize is nothing but a blog of incompetents who've been 'transhumanists' for decades and haven't bothered to learn any practical skills besides blogging about the coming Singularity.

h+ should mean 'transhumanism', not 'the blog formerly known as WTA'.

>> No.4269542

>>4269437
Both are equally valid as me.
And since the transference was done by slow upload, there's no discontinuity of consciousness. Both will see themselves as continuation of the consciousness of Me.

There is no paradox. There is no contradiction.
There is only Me. And now in two separate units.

>> No.4269559

>>4269437

Just like someone else said, both of them will be you. The reason you couldn't experience two consciousnesses is because the brain undergoes changes every moment of every day in the form of neuroplasticity according to your environmental experiences.

Think of it this way: say you're planning to go on vacation, but you're having trouble deciding which place to go. Imagine for a moment that reality splits at the moment you make a decision, and one of you goes to place A, while the other goes to place B. They would, in a sense, become different people because they had different experiences and their brain molded accordingly. But would you REALLY be a different person (from your point of view) depending on which course you took? Of course not. You wouldn't say "oh my decision of where to go for vacation killed the self that I was up until that point and birthed a new self" because that would be retarded. This is just people having trouble coming to terms with the fact that their sense of self is essentially illusionary.

>> No.4269602

>>4269437
>which one are YOU? brain A or brain B?
Both, or neither.

Continous conscioussness is an illusion, your consciousness only really exists at this very single slice of time. You're winking in and out of existence depending on the firing of neurons. They of course draw on the structure of the rest of the brain to fill in your past and determine your future course of aciton. If you copied a brain and severed the bridge or gave them each a separate body, then both would be individuals and both would be entirely convinced that they were the same person before.

The same could also be reversed, you could merge multiple people into a single monolithic hivemind where the resulting mind would feel continuity and could not point out any subpart that died more or less than the previous.

>> No.4269610 [DELETED] 

>>4268039
>soul stopped reading there

>> No.4269636

>>4269463

I'm going to have to agree with CCG on this one, H+ Magazine is focused more on a sort of metaethics and fanwank rather than the actual physical advances and solutions that could lead to transhuman technology.

If you want to actually learn about the technology itself, watch TED talks by engineers and biologists, read

http://singularityhub.com/

and check http://www.sciencedaily.com/ for advances in specific fields.

H+ magazine is really just fan-science and existential debate.

>> No.4269655

>>4269559
> Imagine for a moment that reality splits at the moment you make a decision, and one of you goes to place A, while the other goes to place B.

This has absolutely no basis in reality so the analogy is pretty pointless.

>>4269602
> Continous conscioussness is an illusion, your consciousness only really exists at this very single slice of time.

Why is this idea so contrary to experience, and so useless?

Why is continuity the issue; why didn't you just deny the existence of consciousness in the first place, at any moment.

>> No.4269668
File: 49 KB, 1024x356, manly tears beast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4269668

How far are we from being able to program and implant a robot brain into a little meat and metal body that looks like my dead cat that operates as my personal assistant?

>> No.4269671

>>4269655
>Why is continuity the issue
Because i clearly exist at this moment. As for a minute ago, I only have a memory, not the subjective livefeed.

>Why is this idea so contrary to experience
Take your meds.

>and so useless?
Explains away the two-chip substitution problem. Can't say that about your retard mumbo jumbo dualism solution.