Artificial Intelligence and Life Beyond Death

[theprestige]

Because I'm unsure of my answer. I really have no clue, I'm just guessing.

It would seem ludicrous that a pen and a paper and some calculations could be self aware. However that's where the logic leads, I think.

I may have it wrong, I was canvassing opinion.

Assuming (as we have) that consciousness is a procedurally-generated series of states, then yes, any procedure that generates the states will produce consciousness.

A pen-and-paper consciousness (I prefer xkcd's aforementioned Bunch of Rocks) would experience consciousness on a timescale of eons, compared to our sub-second thought processes. Which would be almost entirely incomprehensible and inscrutable to us. Whole human civilizations would rise and fall while the Bunch of Rocks was still forming its first proto-opinions of the phenomenon.

Probably BoR scientists would argue about the way stuff at the unimaginably tiny humano-quantum level of reality appears both entirely chaotic and random, but also weirdly deterministic, but all happening so fast and so small that there's no possible way for BoR consciousnesses to ever perceive it physically, nor ever make sense of it theoretically.

BoR scientists would probably also wonder if there were even smaller building blocks of reality than the infinitesimal gremlins that get in their heads and disrupt their thoughts.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the paper scenario overlooks an important aspect here: while the material brain cells make conscious "self" possible those cells themselves are not conscious or the self. The base components must be arranged in a certain way and subjected to particular conditions for an awareness to exist, and that awareness is more than just the heap of physical components themselves.

For the book to be a conscious self aware being it would have to be a reader of the book, not the book itself.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You been reading my website again, mate?

I proposed a scheme back in the late '90s that your DNA would be preserved, along with a download of your brain (when that technology exists) which are then sent to deep space.

I still see no reason why the technology would be impossible, and I'm not even sure you need to download the brain. If determinism works - which I think it does - the exact same DNA would produce the same consciousness.

The difficulty is mitochondrial DNA.

I don't want my DNA, I want something much better!

 

[theprestige]

I think the paper scenario overlooks an important aspect here: while the material brain cells make conscious "self" possible those cells themselves are not conscious or the self. The base components must be arranged in a certain way and subjected to particular conditions for an awareness to exist, and that awareness is more than just the heap of physical components themselves.

For the book to be a conscious self aware being it would have to be a reader of the book, not the book itself.

That's just a feedback loop in the state's evolution.

 

[Myriad]

Is what you want to preserve your memories, or your self-awareness?

If it's your memories, then write some essays, or an autobiography.

If it's your self-awareness, no worries! Without your specific memories, your self-awareness is the same process as anyone and everyone else's self-awareness. "You" are already running across an installed base of an entire species, if not an entire planetary ecosystem.

 

[Thor 2]

Should we perfect such technology it will force a pretty big debate.

A few simple examples:

I make a copy of my own brain, but do not die. Now there are two versions of me. Who legally owns my stuff? Can copy-me empty my bank accounts to pay for his power needs?

I own a nice house, die and upload myself. Do I still own the house? If so, I could keep it without ever selling it on, quickly blocking the housing market.

In such a situation the dead would quickly outnumber the living, but even though a computer costs less resources to run than a human, they still cost money. Meaning I'll have to do some job to keep on living. So rather than looking forward to retirement I will have to do some job for the rest of eternity. Or should the burden be put upon the non-uploaded humans?
If uploaded humans get voting rights, they will *very* quickly assume control of all democratic governments due to their sheer numbers and enact laws to their own benefit etc.

In theory we could work such details out in advance, but given human nature my guess is we will implement such technology the moment it is discovered and deal with all the problems retroactively.

We are on the same page here. I have thought of this also and think the "I Am" in the original body would need to be extinguished simultaneously with the creation of the self identifying person in the new location.

Eternity is a long time. A few billion years until the universe expires may be enough.

 

[Robin]

Would you really choose a systems admin for your God

 

[Thor 2]

You really can't give it up, can you?! For some atheists, the only point of being one seems akin to Trump's need to claim again and again that he's a 'very stable genius.'

..........

Demonstrating you lack of humour again I see - how sad. And you manage to bring Trump onto the table as well - extraordinary.

 

[theprestige]

Would you really choose a systems admin for your God

Sysadmin here. You don't get to choose. We are chosen to be your God by an even higher power.

 

[EHocking]

Or you could get really unlucky and come back as https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/stormy-daniels-trump-penis-mushroom-kimmel-732426/

. I don't mind if it looks like a mushroom, just so long as I can still tie it into a pretzel shape.

 

[Thor 2]

With powerful enough computers it should be possible. But will the 'sense of "I Am"' be enough? The human mind needs a lot more than just self-awareness to function properly. Most of our brain activity is subconscious, and is shaped by nerve inputs, hormones etc. Could a disembodied conscious mind exist by itself? Perhaps not - or at least not without immediately going insane.

But even if it could be done, it would still rely on us accepting it.

.........

I am not suggesting this as a desirable prospect, just a possible one - possibly even inevitable.

 

[Robin]

If natural selection can produce conscious machines then I see no reason why humans cannot, in principle, produce machines in which there are conscious minds.

I don't think we are anywhere near that or that it will happen in my lifetime, so it is a little difficult to try and guess if I would want to be part of it.

I guess not, there are new consciousnesses emerging all the time and maybe it is better that they start afresh making new memories.

Of course that is assuming that we are not already in such a simulation

 

[Thor 2]

There's one thought experiment along these lines that I find compelling.

It requires a couple assumptions (but then again, all thoughts along this line do)

The main assumption in this case is that there is some very small unit of your brain that can be replaced with an artificial analog. Call it an artificial neuron.

Imagine that a tiny but of your brain can be replaced with an artificial part. Let's say we replace 1 out of our 100 billion neurons with a tiny nanocomputer. Let's say it's been precisely engineered to interact with it's fellow neurons in a way that's functionally indistinguishable from the original and preserves whatever state of the original is relevant for memories, meaningful levels of info, etc (I know, what a meaningful level of info is would be its own question).

I think few people would say you're no longer 'you' or that you've lost your consciousness or continuous experience after such an operation.

What's the number of neurons we could replace in one go that would preserve the "you"? Just that one out of 100 billion? How about two? Ten? A million or so? Wherever you draw the line, as long as it's not zero, let's say we replace that number and let you heal up.

If you're still 100% you, 100% continuous experience, now with .01% artificial neurons, who's to say we can't have another operation changing out more neurons as soon as you've healed from this one? Forget for the moment practical concerns of healing time or whatever, that's not what this thought experiment is testing. Can we do another .01% Is there some cumulative effect that enough changeovers that individually preserve the self somehow lose it when you've had too many?

Many (most?) of us might say that removing the brain entirely in one go and plopping in an artifical copy made of 100% artifical neurons would be more or less a death. But it's a bit harder to see why that would be so if the replacement were bit by bit and the continuity of our experience were the same as it is around normal surgery anaesthesia or sleep.

I can see you are well on the way to making this a practical reality.

 

[Cavemonster]

I can see you are well on the way to making this a practical reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?

I'm hoping that it was a thoughful point about the subject of this thread and not a clumsy attempt at a personal attack which would be actioned by the mods.

 

[Thor 2]

You been reading my website again, mate?

I proposed a scheme back in the late '90s that your DNA would be preserved, along with a download of your brain (when that technology exists) which are then sent to deep space.

I still see no reason why the technology would be impossible, and I'm not even sure you need to download the brain. If determinism works - which I think it does - the exact same DNA would produce the same consciousness.

The difficulty is mitochondrial DNA.

Well maybe but I think DNA is only part of it. Memory is responsible for a lot I think and perhaps the main component. I think Richard Dawkins wrote that the past existences we were are dead as they are being revised constantly. You are nothing like you were as a child, that child is dead.

 

[Thor 2]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?

I'm hoping that it was a thoughful point about the subject of this thread and not a clumsy attempt at a personal attack which would be actioned by the mods.

Hey steady on!

I was quite impressed by the detail in your post. I am taking a light hearted look at this whole issue, although I can see there may be a possibility and even probability, of developments in the future.

Your post gave detail about a practical approach - well done.

 

[Cavemonster]

Hey steady on!

I was quite impressed by the detail in your post. I am taking a light hearted look at this whole issue, although I can see there may be a possibility and even probability, of developments in the future.

Your post gave detail about a practical approach - well done.

I think you misread the post.

It wasn't a practical guide to acheiving the end of a copy of consiouness. It was a philosophical argument about the idea of preservation of self and continuity of experience.

 

[Thor 2]

If natural selection can produce conscious machines then I see no reason why humans cannot, in principle, produce machines in which there are conscious minds.

I don't think we are anywhere near that or that it will happen in my lifetime, so it is a little difficult to try and guess if I would want to be part of it.

I guess not, there are new consciousnesses emerging all the time and maybe it is better that they start afresh making new memories.

Of course that is assuming that we are not already in such a simulation

Oh I agree, and thinking the concept is somewhat scary also, may not wish to go there. I think there are many who would though, because the thought of dying is scary for many. Perhaps the fear of ceasing to exist is hard wired into our brains, and only the application of hard reason can allay that fear.

 

[Apathia]

Hell, there's a better argument to be made that we aren't even the selves we think we are, than some other thing could claim to be us!

We aren't.

 

[Cheetah]

We aren't???