Whole Brain Emulation technology (or "mind uploading", as it's sometimes called in science fiction) is progressing faster than expected. Here is the roadmap to emulating a human brain, published almost 20 years ago. We've now successfully "uploaded" a fruitfly, a major step along the path to humans.https://sapience.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/06/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf
>whole brain emulation>emulationSo you die and they emulate an artificial imitation of "your" "brain"Got it.
>>108341307The brain is destructively scanned and turned into a connectivity matrix with the same input-output behavior. Whether you regard this matrix as "you" or not is a philosophical matter, and not a very interesting one.
>>108341334finally we can "upload" a wagie into his eternal cage to flip burgers forever <3
>>108341334You die in the process. End of story. It is not you, even if the result is indistinguishable from your original self to the outsiders. You, are dead.
>>108341307>he is a dirty physicalist that thinks consciousness resides in the brainget off my fucking board you pleb
>>108341334>Whether you regard this matrix as "you" or not is a philosophical matter, and not a very interesting one.you die when they scan you. why do you care whether they keep a simulated copy of you around? none of the things it experiences will feed back into your perception of the world
>>108341644so what happens if they simulate you in 50 instances at once, while you're still alive? do you suddenly experience the world from 50 perspectives at once?
the fly thing is a meme
>>108341667That is just a misinterpretation of what I said, and I would say childishly purposeful one at that just for satirical effect. Consciousness is not bound to matter, it exists outside the perspective of the ego. It is a field our minds are capable of tapping into, but we all share that field. The great quantum physicists talked about idealism and their questioning of reality itself, even Carl Jung had great intuition about it when he coined the famous "collective unconscious" term that veered off in its own term. "I think therefore I am" but without the "I" driving it. Subjectivity can't be scientifically determined. And I know, you will now try to argue some fMRI scans or whatnot, but a neuron lighting up isn't the same as sensation of smell or subjectivity of coffee, that is just correlation and not true cause and effect. I suggest you look into this topic some more.
>>108341354they'll have a wagie brain connected to a robot to flip burgers and then at the end of his shift reset his brain back to the initial state so he can flip burgers again thinking he just started his shift.this is some futuristic dystopian horror shit.
>>108341710Then why come if i shoot you in brain you stop thinking???
>>108341644Wherever consciousness resides you can rest assured it does not magically transfer to some artificial copy of some physical matter.
>>108341212anon, that wasn't a faithful simulation of the fly, they run a static "save" of the brain, ie no learning, no chemical complexity etc.i'd not be surprised if even the fucking fruit fly becomes unstable after a little while.anyway, this algo wouldn't scale to humans even if you had the compute, we are nowhere close.
>>108341623We can do it ship of theseus style for the squemish
>>108341672Explain.
>>108341307>>108341623i'm not a physicalist but if you assume physicalism a copy is you, it doesn't matter.i'm gonna assume physicalism for the sake of the argument.the "muh copy" is the most midwit argument there is, even if a perfect copy was somehow not still you (assuming physicalism).there are other ways to do mind upload, ie replacing parts of your brain one by one over a period of time by simulated ones, be it nanites that replace individual neurons progressively or whole parts.in such case the transition would be gradual so even your retarded "muh stream of consciousness" wouldn't matter.anyway, i think it can't be done not because "muh copy" but because silicon is fundamentaly unable to simulate the brain.>>108341667again assuming physicalism.if they are identical and i/o is identical, there would only be one subjective experience but you'd be all of them.>>108341774also a physicalist assumption.
Just going to leave this right here....https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pZerSnxv6FPqvgoYu/book-review-age-of-em
So if I scan my brain, and I'm still alive, and the scanned niggers becomes active, how is there a dispute who's real and who isn't?I'm literally real, while the scanned nigger lives in mac mini. I call that a checkmate.
>>108341212Emulating a human brain is computationally impractical. Also, creating a simulation that behaves vaguely like a fly is very different from accurately simulating that specific fly. This whole "first step towards mind uploading", is like saying building a mound of mud is the first step towards building a mile tall sky scraper.
>>108342443>creating a simulation that behaves vaguely like a fly is very different from accurately simulating that specific fly.91% of the output behavior is the same.
>>108342260Being made of biomolecules makes you no more or less real than being made of silicon.
>>108341710>Consciousness is not bound to matter, it exists outside the perspective of the ego. It is a field our minds are capable of tapping into, but we all share that fieldand what makes you think this? you're literally just making shit up, you are not giving anybody else any reason to believe anything you're saying>subjectivity can't be scientifically determinedthis much is true, qualia are completely unfalsifiable and thus are impossible to discuss or reason about empirically. which makes it all the more stupid of you to try to speak with any authority on the subject
>>108341212I doubt scientists will ever be allowed to slice up a living human brain and scan it into a computer, but it would be an experiment with powerful implications in many fields of science and philosophy.It would prove or disprove my pet theory: Human brains are "antennas", not "computers".
>>108344457>I doubt scientists will ever be allowed to slice up a living human brain and scan it into a computer, but it would be an experiment with powerful implications in many fields of science and philosophy.They will most likely start with brains in cryostasis.
>>108344457>I doubt scientists will ever be allowed to slice up a living human brain and scan it into a computerwhy not?maybe eventually it could pose privacy issues if we get to the point where we could record and recover memories, but i think we're a long way off something like thatspeaking of, can you imagine the implications of being able to extract memory from a living person?
>>108341212I feel like the emulation part is something that can be achieved eventually. With good enough understanding of the biology / chemistry / physics of the brain it will eventually be possible to write a computer program to emulate it, and if we assume that hardware performance will continue to improve then it will eventually be possible to run the simulation in real time.The big question is how you non-destructively and ideally non-invasively "read" the mind off somebody's brain. Even if you were to accept that it's going to be a one-time destructive process, something that gets done after natural death perhaps, a human brain is so much larger and more complex than a fruit fly's that using the same process is likely to pose extreme challenges.
>>108341623SOMA my beloved
>>108341334The real me exists in the floating point errors and catastrophic cancellations.
>>108341354Yes, and the great thing is you can make millions of copies. So it only needs to be created once. >>108341714Oh time reset is just the start. Imagine if flipping burgers was as enjoyable as sex. Every ten flips you get the best orgasm ever. With no biomess ofc.And you never get tired, bc you don't need sleep.Why would you need to reset time when you never want to stop?
