Thread: Digital Immortality

I put this in philosophy since it is based around the difference between subjective and objective perception. Aside from that, it seems more like a simple question than a point of philosophical discussion; I just didn't know exactly which sub-forum it would be most suited for.

_________________________________



Whenever I read about the possibility of copying someone's mind as a digital incarnation, it is hailed as an achievement of immortality, but no one mentions that the person who was copied would still die as they normally would have -- the copy would be the one who was immortal. The advantage is that everyone else will have a replacement for the person once that happens. From the perspective of the person who was copied, nothing is different. Immortality is not achieved for that individual; it is just an illusion of immortality for the observer. So when I read about these possible breakthroughs, how is this relevant to me? I, and every other original biological human, would die just as always. Is it supposed to be extremely satisfying to me that an iteration of my personality will continue to affect the world after I am gone? This element seems to be overlooked to a baffling extent, so I assume there is something about the process that is not being fully explained. Could someone help me out?



EDIT: Decided that "Health & Medicine" might be a better sub-forum for this.

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

From the perspective of the person who was copied, nothing is different. Immortality is not achieved for that individual; it is just an illusion of immortality for the observer. So when I read about these possible breakthroughs, how is this relevant to me? I, and every other original biological human, would die just as always.

These are interesting philosophical questions. I follow Dennett on this one and propose to you the following:

If your consciousness is completely replicated digitally such that there is no difference in its functioning, then there will exist a digital "you" whose existence would seamlessly transfer from biological to digital, and continue to be immortal. You would, therefore, continue to exist, but with the added benefit of no longer facing the prospect of senescence. It isn't just others who would find you immortal, but you yourself who would find it so.


What makes you think the biological 'you' is the 'real' you? As a thought experiment (and I've stolen this from Dennett - see, perhaps The Mind's I, a book co-written with Hofstader, in which he has a couple of essays about this issue), consider that a neuron in your brain can be replaced, in all its functionality, by a transistor (microchip, whatever digital entity of your choice), such that you cannot tell the difference in any way. Now simply consider replacing each one of you neurons, one by one, in such a way. At what point do 'you' cease to exist?

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

These are interesting philosophical questions. I follow Dennett on this one and propose to you the following:

If your consciousness is completely replicated digitally such that there is no difference in its functioning, then there will exist a digital "you" whose existence would seamlessly transfer from biological to digital, and continue to be immortal. You would, therefore, continue to exist, but with the added benefit of no longer facing the prospect of senescence. It isn't just others who would find you immortal, but you yourself who would find it so.


What makes you think the biological 'you' is the 'real' you? As a thought experiment (and I've stolen this from Dennett - see, perhaps The Mind's I, a book co-written with Hofstader, in which he has a couple of essays about this issue), consider that a neuron in your brain can be replaced, in all its functionality, by a transistor (microchip, whatever digital entity of your choice), such that you cannot tell the difference in any way. Now simply consider replacing each one of you neurons, one by one, in such a way. At what point do 'you' cease to exist?

Thanks for the lecture, Professor, but dressing it up in cliched expressions and pretension doesn't make your proposal amount to more than "your spirit lives on in an entity if it is similar enough to the original,".

I'll take from this that there is no aspect of the theory that I am missing, and that people believe there will be some supernatural connection between your digital and biological forms? My goodness. More irritating than the belief itself is that there would be no way to debunk it, even once such technology is invented. The digital copy would feel like it was a transfer since it has all the memories up to the point of the procedure -- it would seem to the digital copy that it had underwent the procedure as a regular human, then had awoken as a digital entity. From the testimonies of those digital copies, people would idiotically conclude that this is a manner of transfer rather than replication. The only people who could testify to the opposite would be the biological originals who experience true death some time later. They'll have a tough time testifying, though, since they will be dead.

That, or you simply made the same mistake everyone else has made in confusing subjective and objective perspective, thinking that if it seems to everyone else that you are immortal, you must be. It is the same issue that is presented in the scenario of a string of clones, one being produced once the previous has died. It isn't that one entity is living forever, it is that an endless sequence of identical entities are being produced. In the case of digital immortality, it that just one identical entity was produced, but the same issue presents itself.

As for the hypothetical that you provided, it is an entirely different scenario. That is gradual physical metamorphosis on a microscopic level, and I don't have the knowledge of neuroscience to answer it -- my guess is that it would be a slow and imperceptible death, the end of which would occur once the last neuron was replaced. It would be imperceptible because your brain would be supplemented and the damage obscured by the technological replacements, but once that last neuron is extracted, I would imagine an abrupt end to perception. The similarity to digital immortality would lie in the fact that your image would live on in the eyes of those close to you, but image is not identity, and your consciousness does not transfer to something simply because it is similar to the original.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

If your consciousness is completely replicated digitally such that there is no difference in its functioning, then there will exist a digital "you" whose existence would seamlessly transfer from biological to digital, and continue to be immortal. You would, therefore, continue to exist, but with the added benefit of no longer facing the prospect of senescence. It isn't just others who would find you immortal, but you yourself who would find it so.

What makes you think the biological 'you' is the 'real' you? As a thought experiment (and I've stolen this from Dennett - see, perhaps The Mind's I, a book co-written with Hofstader, in which he has a couple of essays about this issue), consider that a neuron in your brain can be replaced, in all its functionality, by a transistor (microchip, whatever digital entity of your choice), such that you cannot tell the difference in any way. Now simply consider replacing each one of you neurons, one by one, in such a way. At what point do 'you' cease to exist?

So try a different thought experiment: identical twins, identical down to the last neuron, are subjected to identical life experiences (this is a thought experiment so the fact that this is impossible doesn't discount it). Is your twin you? No, of course not. How is this different in principle from your scenarios?

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

These are interesting philosophical questions. I follow Dennett on this one and propose to you the following:

If your consciousness is completely replicated digitally such that there is no difference in its functioning, then there will exist a digital "you" whose existence would seamlessly transfer from biological to digital, and continue to be immortal. You would, therefore, continue to exist, but with the added benefit of no longer facing the prospect of senescence. It isn't just others who would find you immortal, but you yourself who would find it so.


What makes you think the biological 'you' is the 'real' you? As a thought experiment (and I've stolen this from Dennett - see, perhaps The Mind's I, a book co-written with Hofstader, in which he has a couple of essays about this issue), consider that a neuron in your brain can be replaced, in all its functionality, by a transistor (microchip, whatever digital entity of your choice), such that you cannot tell the difference in any way. Now simply consider replacing each one of you neurons, one by one, in such a way. At what point do 'you' cease to exist?

Thanks for the lecture, Professor, but dressing it up in cliched expressions and pretension doesn't make your proposal amount to more than "your spirit lives on in an entity if it is similar enough to the original," which is completely fucking stupid.

I'll take from this that there is no aspect of the theory that I am missing, and that people believe there will be some supernatural connection between your digital and biological forms? My goodness, that is dumb. More irritating than the belief itself is that there would be no way to debunk it, even once such technology is invented. The digital copy would feel like it was a transfer since it has all the memories up to the point of the procedure -- it would seem to the digital copy that it had underwent the procedure as a regular human, then had awoken as a digital entity. From the testimonies of those digital copies, people would idiotically conclude that this is a manner of transfer rather than replication. The only people who could testify to the opposite would be the biological originals who experience true death some time later. They'll have a tough time testifying, though, since they will be dead.

That, or you simply made the same mistake everyone else has made in confusing subjective and objective perspective, thinking that if it seems to everyone else that you are immortal, you must be. It is the same issue that is presented in the scenario of a string of clones, one being produced once the previous has died. It isn't that one entity is living forever, it is that an endless sequence of identical entities are being produced. In the case of digital immortality, it that just one identical entity was produced, but the same issue presents itself.

As for the hypothetical that you provided, it is an entirely different scenario. That is gradual physical metamorphosis on a microscopic level, and I don't have the knowledge of neuroscience to answer it -- my guess is that it would be a slow and imperceptible death, the end of which would occur once the last neuron was replaced. It would be imperceptible because your brain would be supplemented and the damage obscured by the technological replacements, but once that last neuron is extracted, I would imagine an abrupt end to perception. The similarity to digital immortality would lie in the fact that your image would live on in the eyes of those close to you, but image is not identity, and your consciousness does not transfer to something simply because it is similar to the original.

It seems from this that I misunderstood your initial post, as you appear to have concerns about spirit. These issues I do not address as I have never had a coherent description given to me of what spirit, or soul, might mean.

I responded purely from the point of view of modern analytical philosophy. That response stands.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

It seems from this that I misunderstood your initial post, as you appear to have concerns about spirit. These issues I do not address as I have never had a coherent description given to me of what spirit, or soul, might mean.

I responded purely from the point of view of modern analytical philosophy. That response stands.

You've just got no idea what is going on, do you?

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

It seems from this that I misunderstood your initial post, as you appear to have concerns about spirit. These issues I do not address as I have never had a coherent description given to me of what spirit, or soul, might mean.

I responded purely from the point of view of modern analytical philosophy. That response stands.

You've just got no idea what is going on, do you?

I responded in good faith. Now, however (as one of the moderators here), I have to point out that you are violating forum guidelines. Continue and I will delete your post(s). Persist and I will request you be banned.

Discuss this matter, if you will, because it is an interesting topic. Make it personal and the consequences will be as outlined above. We allow leeway on this particular sub-forum, but there are limits.

Please try for a substantive response: I, and perhaps others, would be more than happy to engage in the discussion.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

I responded in good faith. Now, however (as one of the moderators here), I have to point out that you are violating forum guidelines. Continue and I will delete your post(s). Persist and I will request you be banned.

Discuss this matter, if you will, because it is an interesting topic. Make it personal and the consequences will be as outlined above. We allow leeway on this particular sub-forum, but there are limits.

Please try for a substantive response: I, and perhaps others, would be more than happy to engage in the discussion.

I bet you let this type of behavior slide all the time when it is directed at anyone else.



Addition:

What are you objecting to, anyway? You said you had been confused, and I agreed with you. And as far as substantive responses go, my second post was a whopper.

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

I bet you let this type of behavior slide all the time when it is directed at anyone else.



Addition:

What are you objecting to, anyway? You said you had been confused, and I agreed with you. And as far as substantive responses go, my second post was a whopper.

I was addressing your third post. No more warnings. I will simply edit/delete any more such posts.

There are sub-forums in which you can discuss forum moderation. You can also pm me if you have concerns.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

If your consciousness is completely replicated digitally such that there is no difference in its functioning, then there will exist a digital "you" whose existence would seamlessly transfer from biological to digital, and continue to be immortal. You would, therefore, continue to exist.

I agree with what you say in this post.

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

It seems from this that I misunderstood your initial post, as you appear to have concerns about spirit. These issues I do not address as I have never had a coherent description given to me of what spirit, or soul, might mean.

I responded purely from the point of view of modern analytical philosophy. That response stands.

You've just got no idea what is going on, do you?

I suspect he has a much clearer idea than you!

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

I responded in good faith. Now, however (as one of the moderators here), I have to point out that you are violating forum guidelines. Continue and I will delete your post(s). Persist and I will request you be banned.

Discuss this matter, if you will, because it is an interesting topic. Make it personal and the consequences will be as outlined above. We allow leeway on this particular sub-forum, but there are limits.

Please try for a substantive response: I, and perhaps others, would be more than happy to engage in the discussion.

I bet you let this type of behavior slide all the time when it is directed at anyone else.

Addition:

What are you objecting to, anyway? You said you had been confused, and I agreed with you. And as far as substantive responses go, my second post was a whopper.

Michigan it is you who appears to be missing the point of what was said. Nobody mentioned a spirit or supernatural explanation for anything. Your attitude towards other posters is well out of order and pretty disappointing considering you raised a very interesting post.

The argument here boils down to continuation of consciousness. It is virtually identical to the cloning thought experiment or the teleportation thought experiment (where the original specimen destroyed and an identical copy synthesized somewhere else). Everything said so far is textbook philosophy, apart from the aggressive alpha male rubbish from Michigan.

You've just got no idea what is going on, do you?

For someone that thinks "Health and Medicine" is the correct sub-forum for a topic on the continuation of consciousness, I find that pretty funny. Your question is %100 philosophical. You would be at pains to get a neurosurgeon to speculate on philosophy of mind for every new procedure invented.

Now the thought experiment. The thought that the current "you" dies with your biological body is a fallacy, it is caused by supernatural belief more than anything else discussed. All that "You" consist of is the interaction of neurons (or virtual neurons), any belief of anything above or beyond that is irrelevant and a fallacy of thinking that there is a "ghost in the machine". The very same faulty reasoning that makes people think there is such a thing as Qualia of which I am a critic of.

Quote from Marvin Minsky-

"Now, a philosophical dualist might then complain: "You've described how hurting affects your mind — but you still can't express how hurting feels." This, I maintain, is a huge mistake — that attempt to reify 'feeling' as an independent entity, with an essence that's indescribable. As I see it, feelings are not strange alien things. It is precisely those cognitive changes themselves that constitute what 'hurting' is — and this also includes all those clumsy attempts to represent and summarize those changes. The big mistake comes from looking for some single, simple, 'essence' of hurting, rather than recognizing that this is the word we use for complex rearrangement of our disposition of resources"

Michigan Edwards the part where you say:

my guess is that it would be a slow and imperceptible death, the end of which would occur once the last neuron was replaced. It would be imperceptible because your brain would be supplemented and the damage obscured by the technological replacements, but once that last neuron is extracted, I would imagine an abrupt end to perception.

This shows that you are making the same mistake. Consciousness is not some mystical non physical entity. If your neurons were replaced with a virtual or physical replica that operated the exact same, the "you" (that you seem to think is non-physical) will be replicated/simulated in exactly the same way with full continuation of consciousness. Then when referring to biological versus virtual you think "But I will still die though, how am i immortal?" You are referring to a ghost in the machine that does not exist. Same as redness, or blueness or painfulness or youness (a new word for the lexicon).
it is your assertion that if your consciousness dies there is some kind of non-physical non-copyable entity that dies too that requires paranormal involvement not mine, there is no Spirit transfer, because thats all a load of bollocks.

Originally Posted by harvestein

[Now the thought experiment. The thought that the current "you" dies with your biological body is a fallacy, it is caused by supernatural belief more than anything else discussed.

Sorry, but I disagree that it's a fallacy, and I can assure you my disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with any supernatural beliefs, 'cos I've never had any of them, ever...it's unfortunate that the rude Mr. Edwards had to throw that red herring into the thread.

All that "You" consist of is the interaction of neurons (or virtual neurons), any belief of anything above or beyond that is irrelevant and a fallacy of thinking that there is a "ghost in the machine".

Yes of course. But a person that is neurally identical with "you" is still not "you". It is, by definition, another person. What if there were two neurally identical persons co-existing side by side. Are they both "you"? If person A stubs his toe does person B feel pain? No, because they are different people.

Originally Posted by harvestein

For someone that thinks "Health and Medicine" is the correct sub-forum for a topic on the continuation of consciousness, I find that pretty funny. Your question is %100 philosophical. You would be at pains to get a neurosurgeon to speculate on philosophy of mind for every new procedure invented.

I explained right off that I wasn't raising a philosophical issue. I was asking whether there was some aspect of the theory that I was missing -- it was technical question, which people who are educated in that field would know more about. The field being neuroscience, Health and Medicine is the most related sub-forum. I'm not interested in a philosophical discussion about consciousness.

You seem to agree with me on the point of discussion, which is baffling, considering how condescending it all was. How do you manage to condescend to a position of agreement? That's why I suspect you'll say that you don't agree with me; so I will explain how you agree with me at the end of the post, after I've addressed the other responses.

Now I know I said that I would prove that you agreed with me. Having come to that point, I don't feel like it. So I'm ending the post.

Post deleted.

- JX

Originally Posted by Michigan Edwards

I bet you let this type of behavior slide all the time when it is directed at anyone else.

I can assure you, that is not the case.


Michigan Edwards, as you can see, I've edited portions of your posts. You are clearly breaching forum guidelines, but more to the point, you're completely hampering an actual discussion. If you only want responses that agree with you or answer your direct question without discussion, I suggest you try Yahoo Answers.


On a side note, I think this would have been a really interesting discussion, and I'm disappointed you chose to get aggressive rather than discuss this out. That is the only reason I edited your posts rather than deleting them altogether - hopefully the discussion on this topic can continue.

If you actually go back and read SunshineWarriors response, you'll see that it was, in fact, a misunderstanding. While you were talking about a 'copy' as in a software copy (such that when your body dies, a computer can pretend to be you on the internet or whatever), SW was referring to the process similar to where your biological brain would be REPLACED, however the means, by hardware / software.

For instance, let's say scientists put you in a coma every night and slowly replace a small part of your brain, piece by small piece, that works exactly the same as the biological bit they've taken out. Eventually, you'd have an all-digital brain that's still in your body (in this thought experiment your body isn't aging). Very much like the way if you have an arm replaced by a mechanical one - it works with your body, your brain doesn't know the difference, so it's still your arm. So this new brain would still be your brain and therefore still you.

This is my understanding of the thread thus far anyway, feel free to disagree with a rational argument, but do not continue insulting other members and their discussion on the topic.

I wasnt trying to condescend anyone Michigan, I obviously took a defensive tone because your such an arse as a person. Perhaps our thoughts on cognition and subjective experience are similar, but that doesn't mean I want to talk to someone who cant engage in a proper discussion about it.
Bye Bye anyway, ill be surprised if you survive your last three posts.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Sorry, but I disagree that it's a fallacy, and I can assure you my disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with any supernatural beliefs

yeah well I know there are plenty of opposing opinions that feel they don't need supernatural belief. I just think that in reality that is what is required if such opinions turned out to be true.

Yes of course. But a person that is neurally identical with "you" is still not "you".

Well I guess this all really depends on what you mean by "You". But I feel it is no different from Qualia, in that it may just be a sense of blueness or redness that isnt actually there. Like you are trying to observe your own cognition, a little man in your head.
If one identical mind is destroyed as its copy is created, I dont see what physically makes them different. yes they are made of different particles and atoms, but I dont see how you can say "this was the old Bunbury and this is the new one", or how either mind perceived any change. Was there a change?
Are you trying to imagine some kind of transfer of something that is more than brain function, so what is this exactly?

In regards to having two simultaneous copies, once created, it is impossible for both copies to have identical experiences. So as soon as the second copy comes into creation and is experiencing different events then they are physically different , are not the same person, can be differentiated and the whole point of the thought experiment breaks down.
EDIT: Ive thought about this a bit more, I guess you could do some kind of Matrix esque set-up where both minds are experiencing the same thing. But I still dont think that each mind's perception contains anything different, they are identical copies, unable to be differentiated by themselves or any observer. So they are the same mind. Trying to imagine being "in" one or the other, or both, is to suffer from the same fallacy that I am arguing against.

I just dont believe that this "You" (which is a different manifestation of Qualia) actually exists, if your brain function continues then it is physically and neurologically identical. That is all that is physical, and that is all that exists. The rest are just constructions, or illusions, or whatever you want to call them.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

you appear to have concerns about spirit. These issues I do not address as I have never had a coherent description given to me of what spirit, or soul, might mean.

Concerns re. equitably embracing terms such as 'spirit' and 'soul' are infinitely more valid than anybody in this extraordinarily dark and ignorant generation seems to recognise.

The genuine insight available through appreciating the core realities of who we are - via such constitutive and pivotal basics, have for much too long been missing to our general apprehension as a result of a tsunami of religious fiction and subterfuge - centuries, and indeed millennia in its destructive inundation - resulting almost exclusively in nothing but skewed conjecture and disinformation, to the point where we all have an idea, yet underpinned by NO IDEA whatsoever, of anything substantive in regards to - from whence such terms and the enlightenment they provide originate, how they shed light upon who we are, or indeed how our conceptions have forever been skewed along the lines of ignorance and fear - therefore causing humanity to embrace religious imposture.

It would be apparent that the general assessment today; towards the legacy that religion has afforded us, sits somewhere between - at one end, religion itself as the ‘way, truth and life’ of our existence - to, the other extreme; being some benign and gentle, yet misguided residual from antiquity. The reality however, is as far removed from such a narrowly focused continuum as is the east from the west, yet with an honest investigation into these two terms, we begin to open an astounding can of worms in regards; just how insidious and caustic religion has forever been upon our reasoning, as well as the calamitous effects upon us individually, that even today continue unabated.

Clearly, we have not emerged from out of the healthiest, most honest of environments or understandings, yet there is still hope - once (and if) we determine to get real about a few things.

The details about such concepts are thankfully not as cryptic and abstruse as they initially might appear, however we need to prime our eyesight with the genesis of such foundational imperatives - amazingly after 4500 years; still available to us. For these terms assuredly come our way, and into our language and thinking, from the ancient Hebrew manuscripts that were later used as the basis of the document, today called the 'Bible'.

In the process of time and an undeniable general focus upon religion that came about via an ever pervasive fear and confusion, and more particularly; the anxiety regarding concepts (such as fictitious realms of eternal damnation) associated with death; these documents have generically become misplaced as 'religious' - for the express use of religion and religious purposes. The fact that they were NEVER about religion, and much of the contents effectively censure religion for the pervasive confusion of its promotions - seems to be lost on virtually everybody.

Again, by far the most valid avenue to investigate for the principals of discernment, is to consult the original source – that place from whence such details have been generated. In so doing for the term ‘soul’, we will remarkably discover a mountain of tsunami refuse, washed away in a second - and replaced with a fresh and untainted flow of purity, that will find us wondering how we were; for so long lulled into the putrefying sedimentary absurdity of religious myth.

We can indeed locate such constitutive basics, in Genesis 2:7 (KJV): “And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”, and if that is not clear enough, for further edification, we can look to another version of this same text – NASB: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

So, whilst we still need to purify injected religious distortion such as 'LORD' and 'God'; the simple observation remains that ‘soul’ is certainly NOT something we may (or may not) have floating around within our physical presence. For rather, man BECAME - in totality - a soul = our completed entity. We are therefore, whilst remaining a living consolidation – a ‘soul’, yet certainly do not 'have' a soul.

Again, a 'soul' is the manifest amalgam that is; essentially every one of us. thus;
[A.] The physical earth – our flesh and bone, in combination with;
[B.] The (non-physical) spirit/ual – the very source of the life from within our [A.] earth.

So when a person is born, he/she is already a consummate soul, but at the moment of death - ceases to be such.

Which of course brings us to the issue of ‘spirit/ual’ - being another ancient term that has lingered, and now; due to similar destructive religious overtones, can appear too ethereal to embrace in a scientific manner. Yet this particular subject has previously been explored extensively through numerous of this member's posts.

Naturally, if anybody remains unsatisfied with the humble purity above, and would rather continue wading around in a millennia old tsunami grade religious feculence, then the above simplicity will obviously be of no interest whatsoever.

Originally Posted by harvestein

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Sorry, but I disagree that it's a fallacy, and I can assure you my disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with any supernatural beliefs

yeah well I know there are plenty of opposing opinions that feel they don't need supernatural belief. I just think that in reality that is what is required if such opinions turned out to be true.

Really? You die. Your body turns to CO2 and some other chemicals. You are history. What's the supernatural bit?

My problem isnt with the fact that you die. My problem is what you mean by "you". If one of the copies dies as the other is created, I dont see where the difference is. If you say that there is something unique about the copy that has died, would be acknowledging something more than what is physical. So when you say "I still die, so how am i immortal?" what exactly is unique to that particular copy that has perished to make it "you"?

Do you get what I mean? Its hard to get across. But I think i explained better in the second part of my previous post.

Yep, that's clear enough, whether I agree with it or not. I was simply objecting to your apparent conclusion that if one does not agree with that, then one must be a believer in the supernatural; a complete non sequitur. Perhaps I misunderstood you.