The real question is: If the physical destruction of the original person is delayed until after the copy is made, would the original person, knowing that the copy is alive and well at the other end, say that he (his consciousness) will survive his physical destruction? If the answer is "yes", that could only be true if two separate bodies temporarily shared a single consciousness. If the answer is "no", then that answer should apply regardless of the timing.
No, you're making the same mistake as everyone else, including the guy interviewing the philosopher. There is no continuing self under materialism/physicalism! See my blog post: ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2017/06/do-we-die-when-we-teleport.html
Forget looking for the technology to breakdown/rebuild a duplicate "you". If you're patient, the universe will do all the work for you. If the universe has conspired to create you by organizing your atoms into their present configuration at least once in the last 13.7 billion years, based on the fact there are only a limited number of ways those atoms can be arranged, it only stands to reason that in the vastness of time the universe will dust those blueprints off time and time again and create an infinite number of exact copies of you down to the last atom. I don't have to remember yesterday to enjoy life today.
I think it likely our consciousness is indeed a "pattern in information space", but while we don't know in what physical substrate that pattern is encoded and (if it's encoded at some far lower scale than just say neurons) the details of the physics at that scale, then it's not really possible to say whether its duplication is possible nor what the impact of such duplication might be in regards to concepts like the 'self'. For instance, if consciousness is encoded at the quantum scale then perhaps what needs to be encoded includes states that can't be subject to cloning. Or if consciousness is encoded at the non-spatiotemporal 'scale' (which for me is intuitively very plausible) then perhaps information at that non-spatiotemporal level on which unique spatiotemporal notions like 'position' emerge, are not encoded when the duplication process takes place here at our spatiotemporal scale. Or even more speculatively, perhaps the counterfactual states of the conscious system that are non-spatiotemporally present are needed, but again are not accessible to encode in a duplication initiated here. But hey, it's fun to speculate! Interesting discussions :)
infovoy ..... Nice 👌 The more I contemplate such things the more I lean towards the notion that the “Meat Self” isn’t the point of origin with regards to my consciousness. SO, if the subjective body is merely a temporary carrier of consciousness for the purpose of ‘experience’ the next question is whether or not an Active / Co Experiencing remnant remains at the source??? Thus, aren’t we already a copy/ duplicate of the Original Self having an Existential Experience in a Simulation of sorts ??? 🤷🏼♀️🤣🤙 Mix in a little Many- worlds Quantum theory & the very premise being discussed in the above vid is already happening.... tsk tsk - it’s funny to think about such things
@@modemarose4497 The way I think of it, if physics has the spatiotemporal emerging from the nonspatiotemporal, like say a table emerges from the pattern of fields/particles at a lower scale, then the spatiotemporal brain *just is* the nonspatiotemporal pattern at the higher emergent spatiotempotral scale, the way the the pattern of particles/fields that comprise the chair *just are* the chair. So for me if the brain no longer exists in a funtional state, its nonspatiotemporal pattern is no longer the kind of pattern that as well as giving rise to the emergent spatiotemporal brain, also enables consciousness at the nonspatiotemporal level. In other words I don't think my idea implies disembodied consciosuness is possible. At a stretch the most I'd say is that if the nonspatiotemporal patterns that aren't brains and the like were fully panexperiential, rather than proto-panexperiential, then that might imply some kind of universal consciousness. But what such a thing would be like (experientially) I haven''t really conscisdered much... unlike being an individual consciousness tied to a brain I'd suppose!
Replication is *metaphysically* possible even if physically impossible. That's the only thing that's important. It's a thought experiment that tells you there can be no self, no "you". It's an illusion (under materialism/physicalism).
I don't see virtual immortality coming in our timeline but I do see the technology to preserve life so we can maybe make it to the time where virtual immortality becomes a thing
At some point a technologically advanced civilization has a choice to go post biological… The benefits outweigh the dangers… Immortality...incredible knowledge and capabilities technological feats unimaginable previously...and whole new forms of existence...
It was around 1950 in the hills of West Virginia when neighboring kid, a buddy of mine, told me about a radio where you could see who was talking on it... I'd never heard of such a thing, and my reply was, "it's impossible and pure nonsense".... I'm giving about the same response to this video. Of course, I got it wrong back in 1950.... and may be wrong again, but I doubt it.... Seeing is believing.
@InfiniteCyclus Yeah, it is really simple. I don't get why they're discussing this so long with their non-arguments. @Radsoc on TH-cam Exactly. If you like to think like that, you die every sec. (or really small period of time -> but obviously not infinitesimal small) and will be born(/copied/transferred/whatever) again in the next sec.. I'm not a philosopher but why is this a problem?
Why is this subject so fascinating? Pretty much the same situation already exists, with 7 billion souls who (specific memories and conditioning aside) share 99.9% the same phenomenology. Prior to age 6 or so I didn't imagine I was special in any way, but something happened around then when I realised I could, if I wanted, privilege a sense of separate existence. I felt very powerful for an instant, because it gave me the power to dissemble and lie, which (it seemed to me) could be used to great advantage. But a moment later I realised the downside - I had in fact trapped myself, because noone had any reason to trust me any more. I was now full of the sense of this power, and if anyone detected it, there would be no way to convince them I could resist the temptation to use it. This sense of being a separate individual is the essence of mendacity, and in a mendacious world, we're fascinated with it.
I wonder if your consciousness could be replicated today and placed in a different body elsewhere then different new experiences and memories would create a very different you elsewhere.
The timelines of the duplicates would immediately start to diverge. They would no longer be 'the same'. The question of who is the original is almost irrelevant. Also, I would still be stuck in the meaty version, since the scope or boundary of 'the self' will include something that cannot be transported / copied. I'll bet there's a math proof of this...
Just to think the teleporter paradox further... supposing the teleporter made errors in the copying process, so each subsequent copy was slightly different from the one before. Would the person that emerged still be the person that went in? If so, what makes them the same - if the ‘pattern’ that was them has changed? If not, are they delusional if they still identify themselves as the person that went into the teleporter? It’s a ‘Ship of Theseus’ type problem. I think they would feel they were the same person, but might be surprised at any changes. Only if their memory was then subsequently erased, they would cease to identify as the original person entering the teleporter. Yet, assuming they remained conscious - erasing their memory AFTER coming out of the teleporter would not necessarily interrupt their flow of consciousness. Hence, I believe we need to distinguish between the self as ‘pattern’, ie. as identity, and self as consciousness ie. as a universal. So, by analogy... electricity can power a torch or a motor or a smartphone - seemingly very different things. The same ‘universal process’ - the flow of elections (analogous with consciousness) manifests differently, depending on the ‘pattern’ it is made to flows through within the device (analogous with the brain). Moreover, each circuit is closed ie. individual, yet each is using fundamentally the same process - they could even be powered by the same battery! In this frame, our unique identity is individual and embodied, but our consciousness is universal ie. every sentient being. Hence Schrödinger could say.... “Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.” -Erwin Schrödinger
As we are ourselves because of specific nature and nurture, an exact copy would stop being us the instant it is created as from then on it would have new experiences that we ourselves can't have and viceversa. So it can never be us but only another version with the same nature but different nurture (from the point of its creation onwards)
Right, but once their are two versions of you, each would think it was the original and the other was the copy. Both versions would have the memories of your childhood etc., so both would think they are you. So perhaps there isn’t one you and one copy. Perhaps there are two alternative yous that have both diverged from the same common source you. They both have an equal claim to be you.
What if in order to have a person with a sense of self it takes the pattern and also the physical substrate to be conscious. I just doubt it can be produced willy nilly in anything like a computer we have now including quantum computers. A lot of these thought experiments fall apart if you inject a little bit of realism lol
@@Robinson8491 Not really, since the movie is pretty upfront about the transporter as soon as it is introduced into the plot, so no real spoiler here (it could be part of a trailer).
We could certainly upload an expert system that reacts like we would, but would that stop us from finding out if there is (or is not) a spiritual world? Nope.
6:09 - "presupposition that I've got that we are patterns in information space". This is not new and is essentially a Gibsonian stance which he has always had ever since I met him around 1985...that a proper understanding of information and perception-action or interaction is the key. But a pattern in "info space" just is the same as "consciousness". He is saying consciousness is a pattern in "information space". But little work is done on revealing the structure of information space...but JJ Gibson and Gibsonians do that. Even Gibsonians don't resolve the issue of C very well. One needs to look to mythology such as Gaia as a conscious system - the whole Earth and Galaxy as a living, conscious information system...with humans as just one component experiencing one part of this whole "space" - then intentionality can begin to be understood. Panpsychism (C is everywhere) is becoming increasingly accepted now in academic philosophy. www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(99)01361-3
You would have to be able to "identify" the self, or consciousness, you would need to say "this is the persons consciousness" and then be able to "hold it" and then transport it or move it and then have a way to interface it with "some" non-biological substrate so it can again interact............ sounds a LONG way off to me, if at all possible, a copy and paste would not be maintaining the "self"
We are living beings, even if they could mimic our cognitive processes in a computer (which is a stretch in itself) it would not have the same experience of a living human body, so it would not be you but some sort of computer facsimile of you. However, if we could produce an exact copy of your entire body complete with every memory, then yes that would be your ego persona. The question they are dancing around here is, what are you? Let's look at what we seem to know; we are literally all localized manifestations of the entire universe. We did not just pop into existence from nothing (although that does seem to be the case for the universe), but everything that you are, every thought, feeling, decision, is the result of cause and effect that can be traced back to the very moment of creation. We are literally what the entire universe is doing at the place we would call here and now. So the truth is you are the universe pretending to be a single individual, it feels like you are your body, somehow separate from everything around you, but that is clearly an illusion. So we might some day figure out how to make particular egos persist far longer than we do today, the question is will we want to do it? Death and rebirth the thrill of discovery, these are the things that make life interesting, persisting on and on would be like watching an endless movie, it would get extremely boring. Death and rebirth, forgetting and remembering, fear of the unknown, that is what makes life exciting. People think they want this because they think that when they die, they stop existing and will cease to have experiences, that is obviously false. Yes the illusion of ego will cease, but that is not the real you. Also if you believe the universe is infinite (it is IMO) or the many worlds theory which is also plausible IMO, your pattern is repeating infinitely throughout space and time. You would experience your individual ego endlessly but also in every conceivable scenario, only each one seems to be separate individual existences, but they are all you.
It depends on whether consciousness is produced by the brain. If that is indeed the case then there is no *you*. The self is an illusion. Hence you are your copy. I explain this in a blog post: ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2017/06/do-we-die-when-we-teleport.html
This is complete science fiction. We don’t even know what consciousness is. We can barely describe it in logical terms other than “first person awareness” and now in a few decades we will be able to explain it in material terms and have the ability to upload it onto a computer? Give me a breeeeeak.
Neva happen unless some all powerful AI can figure it out. They know now the gray material that supports neurons is not just there for support but it too communicates.
You duplicate yourself perfectly through technology - one of you gets a million dollars and the other is tortured miserably for 1,000 years. Suddenly you are not both one pattern in information space but merely 2 highly similar copies. I find this to be a very simple concept
These guys do not understand what consciousness is and they won't until they begin hearing the voice of the consciousness that commanded us into existence.
The never claimed the opposite. Instead they talk about it, exchange ideas and work on proofs and theories. This is the metrology that brought us here thus far, including your ability to watch a video on a highly sophisticated piece of technology. That's what us humans do.
I suffer from Autism and if I were to speak in this manner with my psychiatrist, I would most likely be sectioned under the mental health act.
LOL ........
The real question is: If the physical destruction of the original person is delayed until after the copy is made, would the original person, knowing that the copy is alive and well at the other end, say that he (his consciousness) will survive his physical destruction? If the answer is "yes", that could only be true if two separate bodies temporarily shared a single consciousness. If the answer is "no", then that answer should apply regardless of the timing.
No, you're making the same mistake as everyone else, including the guy interviewing the philosopher.
There is no continuing self under materialism/physicalism! See my blog post:
ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2017/06/do-we-die-when-we-teleport.html
Forget looking for the technology to breakdown/rebuild a duplicate "you". If you're patient, the universe will do all the work for you. If the universe has conspired to create you by organizing your atoms into their present configuration at least once in the last 13.7 billion years, based on the fact there are only a limited number of ways those atoms can be arranged, it only stands to reason that in the vastness of time the universe will dust those blueprints off time and time again and create an infinite number of exact copies of you down to the last atom.
I don't have to remember yesterday to enjoy life today.
I think it likely our consciousness is indeed a "pattern in information space", but while we don't know in what physical substrate that pattern is encoded and (if it's encoded at some far lower scale than just say neurons) the details of the physics at that scale, then it's not really possible to say whether its duplication is possible nor what the impact of such duplication might be in regards to concepts like the 'self'.
For instance, if consciousness is encoded at the quantum scale then perhaps what needs to be encoded includes states that can't be subject to cloning.
Or if consciousness is encoded at the non-spatiotemporal 'scale' (which for me is intuitively very plausible) then perhaps information at that non-spatiotemporal level on which unique spatiotemporal notions like 'position' emerge, are not encoded when the duplication process takes place here at our spatiotemporal scale.
Or even more speculatively, perhaps the counterfactual states of the conscious system that are non-spatiotemporally present are needed, but again are not accessible to encode in a duplication initiated here.
But hey, it's fun to speculate! Interesting discussions :)
infovoy ..... Nice 👌
The more I contemplate such things the more I lean towards the notion that the “Meat Self” isn’t the point of origin with regards to my consciousness. SO, if the subjective body is merely a temporary carrier of consciousness for the purpose of ‘experience’ the next question is whether or not an Active / Co Experiencing remnant remains at the source???
Thus, aren’t we already a copy/ duplicate of the Original Self having an Existential Experience in a Simulation of sorts ??? 🤷🏼♀️🤣🤙 Mix in a little Many- worlds Quantum theory & the very premise being discussed in the above vid is already happening....
tsk tsk - it’s funny to think about such things
@@modemarose4497 The way I think of it, if physics has the spatiotemporal emerging from the nonspatiotemporal, like say a table emerges from the pattern of fields/particles at a lower scale, then the spatiotemporal brain *just is* the nonspatiotemporal pattern at the higher emergent spatiotempotral scale, the way the the pattern of particles/fields that comprise the chair *just are* the chair.
So for me if the brain no longer exists in a funtional state, its nonspatiotemporal pattern is no longer the kind of pattern that as well as giving rise to the emergent spatiotemporal brain, also enables consciousness at the nonspatiotemporal level.
In other words I don't think my idea implies disembodied consciosuness is possible. At a stretch the most I'd say is that if the nonspatiotemporal patterns that aren't brains and the like were fully panexperiential, rather than proto-panexperiential, then that might imply some kind of universal consciousness. But what such a thing would be like (experientially) I haven''t really conscisdered much... unlike being an individual consciousness tied to a brain I'd suppose!
Replication is *metaphysically* possible even if physically impossible. That's the only thing that's important. It's a thought experiment that tells you there can be no self, no "you". It's an illusion (under materialism/physicalism).
I don't see virtual immortality coming in our timeline but I do see the technology to preserve life so we can maybe make it to the time where virtual immortality becomes a thing
At some point a technologically advanced civilization has a choice to go post biological… The benefits outweigh the dangers… Immortality...incredible knowledge and capabilities technological feats unimaginable previously...and whole new forms of existence...
It was around 1950 in the hills of West Virginia when neighboring kid, a buddy of mine, told me about a radio where you could see who was talking on it... I'd never heard of such a thing, and my reply was, "it's impossible and pure nonsense".... I'm giving about the same response to this video. Of course, I got it wrong back in 1950.... and may be wrong again, but I doubt it.... Seeing is believing.
Only copy no transfer..
But the copies once activated would feel like having been transferred.
But you're dead.
I agree, but what if you make the transfer distances infinitesimal? Wouldn't it be equivalent to us moving through time?
@InfiniteCyclus Yeah, it is really simple. I don't get why they're discussing this so long with their non-arguments.
@Radsoc on TH-cam Exactly. If you like to think like that, you die every sec. (or really small period of time -> but obviously not infinitesimal small) and will be born(/copied/transferred/whatever) again in the next sec.. I'm not a philosopher but why is this a problem?
I can't wait to see kurzweils smug face just into shock when he realizes he uploaded himself into some infinite hell itself
I love this channel, it gives me a headache!
Why is this subject so fascinating? Pretty much the same situation already exists, with 7 billion souls who (specific memories and conditioning aside) share 99.9% the same phenomenology. Prior to age 6 or so I didn't imagine I was special in any way, but something happened around then when I realised I could, if I wanted, privilege a sense of separate existence. I felt very powerful for an instant, because it gave me the power to dissemble and lie, which (it seemed to me) could be used to great advantage. But a moment later I realised the downside - I had in fact trapped myself, because noone had any reason to trust me any more. I was now full of the sense of this power, and if anyone detected it, there would be no way to convince them I could resist the temptation to use it. This sense of being a separate individual is the essence of mendacity, and in a mendacious world, we're fascinated with it.
Interesting. Well said.
I wonder if your consciousness could be replicated today and placed in a different body elsewhere then different new experiences and memories would create a very different you elsewhere.
The dismissal nature of "meaty things" is an interesting short cut.
The timelines of the duplicates would immediately start to diverge. They would no longer be 'the same'. The question of who is the original is almost irrelevant. Also, I would still be stuck in the meaty version, since the scope or boundary of 'the self' will include something that cannot be transported / copied. I'll bet there's a math proof of this...
Just to think the teleporter paradox further... supposing the teleporter made errors in the copying process, so each subsequent copy was slightly different from the one before. Would the person that emerged still be the person that went in? If so, what makes them the same - if the ‘pattern’ that was them has changed? If not, are they delusional if they still identify themselves as the person that went into the teleporter? It’s a ‘Ship of Theseus’ type problem.
I think they would feel they were the same person, but might be surprised at any changes. Only if their memory was then subsequently erased, they would cease to identify as the original person entering the teleporter. Yet, assuming they remained conscious - erasing their memory AFTER coming out of the teleporter would not necessarily interrupt their flow of consciousness.
Hence, I believe we need to distinguish between the self as ‘pattern’, ie. as identity, and self as consciousness ie. as a universal. So, by analogy... electricity can power a torch or a motor or a smartphone - seemingly very different things. The same ‘universal process’ - the flow of elections (analogous with consciousness) manifests differently, depending on the ‘pattern’ it is made to flows through within the device (analogous with the brain). Moreover, each circuit is closed ie. individual, yet each is using fundamentally the same process - they could even be powered by the same battery! In this frame, our unique identity is individual and embodied, but our consciousness is universal ie. every sentient being. Hence Schrödinger could say....
“Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.”
-Erwin Schrödinger
Anybody know where Dennett wrote this death or transport thought experiment?
As we are ourselves because of specific nature and nurture, an exact copy would stop being us the instant it is created as from then on it would have new experiences that we ourselves can't have and viceversa. So it can never be us but only another version with the same nature but different nurture (from the point of its creation onwards)
Right, but once their are two versions of you, each would think it was the original and the other was the copy. Both versions would have the memories of your childhood etc., so both would think they are you. So perhaps there isn’t one you and one copy. Perhaps there are two alternative yous that have both diverged from the same common source you. They both have an equal claim to be you.
Type II learning involves suffering. Does code suffer when we edit it? Does it die and become reborn?
What if in order to have a person with a sense of self it takes the pattern and also the physical substrate to be conscious. I just doubt it can be produced willy nilly in anything like a computer we have now including quantum computers. A lot of these thought experiments fall apart if you inject a little bit of realism lol
By the way, the movie The Prestige is very related to this topic (don't want to spoil too much).
You just did :P
@@Robinson8491 Not really, since the movie is pretty upfront about the transporter as soon as it is introduced into the plot, so no real spoiler here (it could be part of a trailer).
We could certainly upload an expert system that reacts like we would, but would that stop us from finding out if there is (or is not) a spiritual world? Nope.
We are all copies made from information: DNA. We are all the same person "I", and this is what it looks like....
I had to read this 3x to realize how profound and perfectly stated.
6:09 - "presupposition that I've got that we are patterns in information space". This is not new and is essentially a Gibsonian stance which he has always had ever since I met him around 1985...that a proper understanding of information and perception-action or interaction is the key. But a pattern in "info space" just is the same as "consciousness". He is saying consciousness is a pattern in "information space". But little work is done on revealing the structure of information space...but JJ Gibson and Gibsonians do that. Even Gibsonians don't resolve the issue of C very well. One needs to look to mythology such as Gaia as a conscious system - the whole Earth and Galaxy as a living, conscious information system...with humans as just one component experiencing one part of this whole "space" - then intentionality can begin to be understood. Panpsychism (C is everywhere) is becoming increasingly accepted now in academic philosophy.
www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(99)01361-3
We won't have to decide which copy gets the house or the car...just replicate them!
What if I recreate a person exactly, will their mind appear in my copy?
You would have to be able to "identify" the self, or consciousness, you would need to say "this is the persons consciousness" and then be able to "hold it" and then transport it or move it and then have a way to interface it with "some" non-biological substrate so it can again interact............ sounds a LONG way off to me, if at all possible, a copy and paste would not be maintaining the "self"
We are living beings, even if they could mimic our cognitive processes in a computer (which is a stretch in itself) it would not have the same experience of a living human body, so it would not be you but some sort of computer facsimile of you. However, if we could produce an exact copy of your entire body complete with every memory, then yes that would be your ego persona.
The question they are dancing around here is, what are you? Let's look at what we seem to know; we are literally all localized manifestations of the entire universe. We did not just pop into existence from nothing (although that does seem to be the case for the universe), but everything that you are, every thought, feeling, decision, is the result of cause and effect that can be traced back to the very moment of creation. We are literally what the entire universe is doing at the place we would call here and now. So the truth is you are the universe pretending to be a single individual, it feels like you are your body, somehow separate from everything around you, but that is clearly an illusion.
So we might some day figure out how to make particular egos persist far longer than we do today, the question is will we want to do it? Death and rebirth the thrill of discovery, these are the things that make life interesting, persisting on and on would be like watching an endless movie, it would get extremely boring. Death and rebirth, forgetting and remembering, fear of the unknown, that is what makes life exciting. People think they want this because they think that when they die, they stop existing and will cease to have experiences, that is obviously false. Yes the illusion of ego will cease, but that is not the real you. Also if you believe the universe is infinite (it is IMO) or the many worlds theory which is also plausible IMO, your pattern is repeating infinitely throughout space and time. You would experience your individual ego endlessly but also in every conceivable scenario, only each one seems to be separate individual existences, but they are all you.
Better than David Chalmers' discussion, but maybe the wind and mountainside were a bit distracting for both men to really get into it there
It depends on whether consciousness is produced by the brain. If that is indeed the case then there is no *you*. The self is an illusion. Hence you are your copy. I explain this in a blog post:
ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2017/06/do-we-die-when-we-teleport.html
And, of course, this was what: "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" was about
This is complete science fiction. We don’t even know what consciousness is. We can barely describe it in logical terms other than “first person awareness” and now in a few decades we will be able to explain it in material terms and have the ability to upload it onto a computer? Give me a breeeeeak.
Mess up Kuhn's hair and grow out his mustache....who is he?
I am me. Accept no cheap imitations.
Neva happen unless some all powerful AI can figure it out. They know now the gray material that supports neurons is not just there for support but it too communicates.
How dare you talk about gay Material! Cancel this homophobe!
You duplicate yourself perfectly through technology - one of you gets a million dollars and the other is tortured miserably for 1,000 years. Suddenly you are not both one pattern in information space but merely 2 highly similar copies. I find this to be a very simple concept
Fun to ponder, but not really possible.
The Buddha resolved this a couple years ago kids.
You think this is somehow different from walking across the room?
How?
So what did Buddha have to say about this?
And the locus of consciousness they are talking about?
"Andy Clark - Virtual Immortality" Robert Lawrence Kuhn loves to find and talk "deep ideas" with crackpots.
These guys do not understand what consciousness is and they won't until they begin hearing the voice of the consciousness that commanded us into existence.
@Sara H You are obviously not chosen to believe the knowledge of how we're created.
The never claimed the opposite. Instead they talk about it, exchange ideas and work on proofs and theories. This is the metrology that brought us here thus far, including your ability to watch a video on a highly sophisticated piece of technology. That's what us humans do.
"Andy Clark - Virtual Immortality" Robert Lawrence Kuhn loves to find and talk "deep ideas" with crackpots.