First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Digital immortality revisited
8094 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/2/16
We are our bodies.
Our consciousness is a result of our bodies processes.
We may be able to replicate our neurons in another body or even a computer but our actual consciousness is anchored to our original flesh, bones and neurons. Your replicant might as well be another person.

Best to learn how to appreciate every moment we have.
17290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16
What about digital backup? At night we download the previous day incase we die the following day. A new body is created and downloaded with the backup. The psychological side of the equation would be interesting. Would the latest 'you' be scarred by the knowledge you had died and been remade?
27901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 8/3/16 , edited 8/3/16

Ranwolf wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


dragonlord1234 wrote:

ya it would be hard to make a true AI wit the ability to make decsions on thier own and really i personally think shouldn't in the first place too many ethical problems and such related to it


AI with no bona fide consciousness. .


Mate of all the legitimate concerns with artificial life ya go with the joke one. Most human beings don't have an actual consciousness, and if they do they sure do a damn fine job of not using it.

I mean does the race that came up with this have an actual brain?



Consciousness and intelligence are wholly separate things. AI could be intelligent without being conscious, and people- as you know, can be conscious without exhibiting much intelligence.


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?


Read my previous reply carefully. The point is not whether a simulation is possible (of course it is), but whether a simulation means anything at all. Is a simulation of an airplane an actual flying airplane?

You simulate signs of consciousness, but you don't have anything that's conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious machine. I had given my proof right here on this forum. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible


Based on the Chinese room experiment, the infants would be incapable of learning anything. How do you think infants learn?



Infants also deal with semantics in terms of language comprehension. Machines still don't- they only appear to, in the process of symbolic manipulation.
3355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/16

nanikore2 wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


dragonlord1234 wrote:

ya it would be hard to make a true AI wit the ability to make decsions on thier own and really i personally think shouldn't in the first place too many ethical problems and such related to it


AI with no bona fide consciousness. .


Mate of all the legitimate concerns with artificial life ya go with the joke one. Most human beings don't have an actual consciousness, and if they do they sure do a damn fine job of not using it.

I mean does the race that came up with this have an actual brain?



Consciousness and intelligence are wholly separate things. AI could be intelligent without being conscious, and people- as you know, can be conscious without exhibiting much intelligence.


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?


Read my previous reply carefully. The point is not whether a simulation is possible (of course it is), but whether a simulation means anything at all. Is a simulation of an airplane an actual flying airplane?

You simulate signs of consciousness, but you don't have anything that's conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious machine. I had given my proof right here on this forum. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible


Based on the Chinese room experiment, the infants would be incapable of learning anything. How do you think infants learn?



Infants also deal with semantics in terms of language comprehension. Machines still don't- they only appear to, in the process of symbolic manipulation.


Well to answer your question we really have to understand what consciousness is. Then we will discuss whether it is possible to simulate consciousness or not

27901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 8/3/16 , edited 8/3/16

fredreload wrote:

Well to answer your question we really have to understand what consciousness is. Then we will discuss whether it is possible to simulate consciousness or not



...I don't really have a question regarding this. Perhaps you meant how to challenge my thesis.

As stated on the proof (linked here again for convenience in case of requotes http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible ):


A conscious entity, i.e. a mind, must possess

1. Intentionality http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
"Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs" Note that this is not mere symbolic representation and conversion, as already shown by the Chinese Room argument.

2. Qualia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
"Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia."


Of course, merely simulating consciousness in no way creates a conscious entity. The concept here is that external appearances or anything that could be accessed from the outside world doesn't tell you much of anything.

The Chinese Room "simulates" a Chinese speaker. You can simulate all you want without getting the actual thing. I've gone over this earlier.
21983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/3/16

dragonlord1234 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


Then you live until one day the technology advanced so you can build your own flesh and blood in the real world again. What do you guys think?



It's a bad piece of science fiction. I've explained why.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-946493/how-do-you-feel-about-transhumanism#53540935

I've also stated near the end of that trainwreck of a thread why the "moving" of consciousness is impossible, due to what "moving" of anything entails.



Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


i agree that this is idea is very unlikely that i could ever work. plus as ive stated in the other thread talking about immortality. immortality is a impossible dream and a curse no matter what form it takes


" immortality is a impossible dream and a curse no matter what form it takes"

To early to say impossible.

Curse? highly subjective
21983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/3/16
Until we know more about consciousness other then the fact that it's a feature of the brain i doubt the possibility of this can be gauged accurately.

27901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 8/3/16
We know enough about consciousness through real world examples like aphantasia to make conclusions, because they confirm earlier philosophical thought experiments.

The proof is already there.
6701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 8/3/16

fredreload wrote:
Well you build the fusion reactor, it runs for like 100 years generating free power without breaking down or replacing the parts. The price of the energy would be quite low and fossil fuel is running out :D


You still need to provide the fuel, probably hydrogen. While not difficult to obtain (water electrolysis), storing it would be problematic. Also, it costs energy to generate the hydrogen. And show me a machine that can run for 100 years without a single breakdown.

Also, fossil fuels are stupidly abundant. The US department of energy estimates the known US coal reserves will last at least another 250 years. Combined with improved extraction techniques such as fracking the amount of recoverable oil has grown in the past few years as well.

But yes, I agree there are advantages in pursuing clean energy sources but they will not be free as you suggest and in fact could be quite expensive. I mean look at solar power. The fuel is technically free but it remains a very cost inefficient energy source due to the high price of equipment.
3355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/16 , edited 8/3/16

Ravenstein wrote:


fredreload wrote:
Well you build the fusion reactor, it runs for like 100 years generating free power without breaking down or replacing the parts. The price of the energy would be quite low and fossil fuel is running out :D


You still need to provide the fuel, probably hydrogen. While not difficult to obtain (water electrolysis), storing it would be problematic. Also, it costs energy to generate the hydrogen. And show me a machine that can run for 100 years without a single breakdown.

Also, fossil fuels are stupidly abundant. The US department of energy estimates the known US coal reserves will last at least another 250 years. Combined with improved extraction techniques such as fracking the amount of recoverable oil has grown in the past few years as well.

But yes, I agree there are advantages in pursuing clean energy sources but they will not be free as you suggest and in fact could be quite expensive. I mean look at solar power. The fuel is technically free but it remains a very cost inefficient energy source due to the high price of equipment.


Solar energy is not anywhere near what fusion reactor can produce. The output energy would be far greater than the input. Sun is the biggest fusion reactor and we are getting sunlight for free. What you should be comparing fusion reactor to is a nuclear reactor, except cleaner. I agree it probably won't be free at first, though I wish it will be after a while. Well, I dunno why you are so against fusion reactor. I believe it will be cost efficient, although yes I haven't done enough research on it to show you my point so =/, we'll have to wait and see
3355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well to answer your question we really have to understand what consciousness is. Then we will discuss whether it is possible to simulate consciousness or not



...I don't really have a question regarding this. Perhaps you meant how to challenge my thesis.

As stated on the proof (linked here again for convenience in case of requotes http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible ):


A conscious entity, i.e. a mind, must possess

1. Intentionality http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
"Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs" Note that this is not mere symbolic representation and conversion, as already shown by the Chinese Room argument.

2. Qualia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
"Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia."


Of course, merely simulating consciousness in no way creates a conscious entity. The concept here is that external appearances or anything that could be accessed from the outside world doesn't tell you much of anything.

The Chinese Room "simulates" a Chinese speaker. You can simulate all you want without getting the actual thing. I've gone over this earlier.


Well, how about exaggerate on your idea of what understanding means? An infant starts out at a blank state, how is it possible for the infant to learn any languages or anything?
27901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 8/4/16

fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well to answer your question we really have to understand what consciousness is. Then we will discuss whether it is possible to simulate consciousness or not



...I don't really have a question regarding this. Perhaps you meant how to challenge my thesis.

As stated on the proof (linked here again for convenience in case of requotes http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible ):


A conscious entity, i.e. a mind, must possess

1. Intentionality http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
"Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs" Note that this is not mere symbolic representation and conversion, as already shown by the Chinese Room argument.

2. Qualia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
"Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia."


Of course, merely simulating consciousness in no way creates a conscious entity. The concept here is that external appearances or anything that could be accessed from the outside world doesn't tell you much of anything.

The Chinese Room "simulates" a Chinese speaker. You can simulate all you want without getting the actual thing. I've gone over this earlier.


Well, how about exaggerate on your idea of what understanding means? An infant starts out at a blank state, how is it possible for the infant to learn any languages or anything?


They do it out of innate ability.

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/speech-and-language
3355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well to answer your question we really have to understand what consciousness is. Then we will discuss whether it is possible to simulate consciousness or not



...I don't really have a question regarding this. Perhaps you meant how to challenge my thesis.

As stated on the proof (linked here again for convenience in case of requotes http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible ):


A conscious entity, i.e. a mind, must possess

1. Intentionality http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
"Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs" Note that this is not mere symbolic representation and conversion, as already shown by the Chinese Room argument.

2. Qualia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
"Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia."


Of course, merely simulating consciousness in no way creates a conscious entity. The concept here is that external appearances or anything that could be accessed from the outside world doesn't tell you much of anything.

The Chinese Room "simulates" a Chinese speaker. You can simulate all you want without getting the actual thing. I've gone over this earlier.


Well, how about exaggerate on your idea of what understanding means? An infant starts out at a blank state, how is it possible for the infant to learn any languages or anything?


They do it out of innate ability.

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/speech-and-language


Well you see, life arise out of nothing. And if you do simulate an environment in the computer, everything at its exact scale, let that program runs for a hundred years, life could still happen
9082 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
AKR
Offline
Posted 8/4/16 , edited 8/4/16
How about we wait some hundreds of years before we debate this?

And how can we be sure its the same person inside the computer?
If you had super powers, and made an exact copy of a person standing next to you, would they share the consciousness? I dont think so.

It would be the same person but also kind of not the same.
31214 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Ajures
Offline
Posted 8/4/16
Who's to say we're not in some type of badly made video game? Life is for anime and games
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.