If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Good: Stephen Hawking claims brain can be copied to computer. Fark: it acts a lot like Windows   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 59
    More: Unlikely, Stephen Hawking, laws of science, human brains, computers, Windows  
•       •       •

1732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:53 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 09:10:05 AM
i1.kym-cdn.com

How could my robot self press the any key if I this happens?
 
2013-10-01 09:11:50 AM
www.wall321.com
/Once I die I will be free from religion and be able to be reborn into my new steel body...
//Godspeed Kago Takeshi
 
2013-10-01 09:17:37 AM
Copying your brain into a computer might be good for other people if they like you, but not for you. You won't go with it.
 
2013-10-01 09:24:37 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

Approves.

/Maybe.
 
2013-10-01 09:27:34 AM

picturescrazy: Copying your brain into a computer might be good for other people if they like you, but not for you. You won't go with it.


That's simply an existential crisis.

If you believe like Hawking does, that the 'Self' is contained within the physical structure of the human brain; If you can model the physical structure of your brain within a computer perfectly (which Hawking admits we cannot right now), your memory, your personality, your 'Self' is preserved.

The original hardware may be gone, but the 'Self' is preserved, it's now just running on emulated hardware.

It gets even weirder if you can split off multiple instances of your 'Self' then re-integrate the experiences of those instances when 'you' are done having 5 adventures at once. Or having sex with yourself if you're feeling narcissistic.
 
2013-10-01 09:29:10 AM

picturescrazy: You won't go with it.


Do people seriously believe you will go with it?  The notion of copying seems to indicate that you won't, but do people really believe they'll do this and open their eyes (or cameras, whatever) one morning and be in a computer?
 
2013-10-01 09:31:06 AM

Wolf892: Sounds like Mr. Hawking is starting to create his own scientific based religion around the afterlife. As he gets older and closer to death that creeping fear of oblivion starts to skew his perception of reality and he will succumb to the same flights of fancy as those who devote themselves to theology.


He's been a bit off the rails for a while.  The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on.  The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.  I feel bad for the guy, he's stuck in that body, and he probably figures that his only worth is being "that braniac guy".  But he's probably run out of ideas and feels compelled to validate his existence, even if it means making shiat up, and lying to himself about the importance of his most recent "theories".
 
2013-10-01 09:33:09 AM

gnosis301: Do people seriously believe you will go with it? The notion of copying seems to indicate that you won't, but do people really believe they'll do this and open their eyes (or cameras, whatever) one morning and be in a computer?


Knowing the raw computing power required to power hardware emulation?  Not in my lifetime unless we have some astounding technological breakthroughs. I have a sneaking suspicion that things like the randomness of the radiation and interaction between particles is key to making us ourselves, and that would be incredibly hard to simulate in a computer.
 
2013-10-01 09:38:49 AM
as long as the computer is running Linux, no problem.  i'd be afraid to be copied to a windows machine.  too many conflicting apps, infections, fragmented files, ads, pop ups, slow downs over time, registration/licensing issues, overcharges, etc, etc.


thankfully, Linux has never done any of this to my PC.  so i would be comfortable with my mind in it too.
 
2013-10-01 09:40:53 AM

Linux_Yes: as long as the computer is running Linux, no problem.  i'd be afraid to be copied to a windows machine.  too many conflicting apps, infections, fragmented files, ads, pop ups, slow downs over time, registration/licensing issues, overcharges, etc, etc.


thankfully, Linux has never done any of this to my PC.  so i would be comfortable with my mind in it too.



oh, and the Linux kernel doen'st give me blue screens of death.   at the worst, i might have to close down and restart a frozen application. but the OS keeps on running.  helpful if you have your mind in ram.
 
2013-10-01 09:43:45 AM

gnosis301: picturescrazy: You won't go with it.

Do people seriously believe you will go with it?  The notion of copying seems to indicate that you won't, but do people really believe they'll do this and open their eyes (or cameras, whatever) one morning and be in a computer?


I agree that's a pretty naive expectation, the "instantaneous copy" idea.  But what if it's a gradual process?  Say, over 5-10 years, attach more and more digital parts to your brain, and let yourself migrate cognitive functions there.  Maybe start with an auditory (or visual) cortex, attaching machine ears (or eyes) to it.  You age, technology improves, before long you'll be preferring the man-made inputs.  Next, add improved cerebellum for body control.  Add a cerebral/memory cortex, and use it more and more as it can handle the job better than the one you grew up with.  Hundreds of days thinking and nights dreaming later, all your treasured memories are copied over.  At this point there'll be more "you" in the digital parts, and you may decide you won't miss the residual grey matter when it gives out.
 
rpm
2013-10-01 09:46:22 AM
I think he needs to leave the biology to the biologists.

Can we get a human (or higher) level intelligence in a computer? Probably
Will we be able to copy a particular human to a computer? Oh hell no. The complexity and accuracy needed is ridiculous. Remember the article a while ago on the complexity of "beaming" someone? It's not much less complexity than that.
 
2013-10-01 09:48:00 AM
From TFA:

"There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers."

2.bp.blogspot.com


"SHUT OFF YOUR WHORE VOCAL SYNTHESIZER, HAWKING!"
 
2013-10-01 09:53:38 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on. The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.


I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word universe means.
 
2013-10-01 10:11:23 AM

fluffy2097: picturescrazy: Copying your brain into a computer might be good for other people if they like you, but not for you. You won't go with it.

That's simply an existential crisis.

If you believe like Hawking does, that the 'Self' is contained within the physical structure of the human brain; If you can model the physical structure of your brain within a computer perfectly (which Hawking admits we cannot right now), your memory, your personality, your 'Self' is preserved.

The original hardware may be gone, but the 'Self' is preserved, it's now just running on emulated hardware.

It gets even weirder if you can split off multiple instances of your 'Self' then re-integrate the experiences of those instances when 'you' are done having 5 adventures at once. Or having sex with yourself if you're feeling narcissistic.



upload.wikimedia.org

Likes where you are going with that...
 
2013-10-01 10:14:38 AM
I do not think it will be possible to simulate the underlying structures that give rise to a human-like mind on computers as we currently know them. This is not to say that machines that can simulate human minds will never be built: only that if they are, these "brain-machines" will not work like computers as we currently know them.
 
2013-10-01 10:17:28 AM

rpm: Will we be able to copy a particular human to a computer? Oh hell no. The complexity and accuracy needed is ridiculous. Remember the article a while ago on the complexity of "beaming" someone? It's not much less complexity than that.


You're assuming that every synapse, every ion, every quantum state in the brain is critical to "selfhood". That's a bit like saying it's impossible to back up a hard drive because there isn't enough memory capacity in existence to model the quantum state of every electron on a platter.

We don't yet know what level of fidelity you need to "copy" a working brain. It may be that we're a long way from building the necessary capacity; nobody knows yet. But even if quantum-consciousness woo turns out to have a basis in reality, it's clear that you don't need all a brain's quantum states to represent its mind. Or, if you do, we have to accept that we're being extinguished and recreated every picosecond (because quantum states are getting changed all the time). In that case, why not choose to be recreated in something more durable and maintainable?
 
2013-10-01 10:22:38 AM

Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on. The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word universe means.


Physicist does U-turn on his theory of the parallel universe - and loses his bet in the process

Use google before you make stupid posts.
 
2013-10-01 10:27:33 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on. The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word universe means.

Physicist does U-turn on his theory of the parallel universe - and loses his bet in the process

Use google before you make stupid posts.


This is a 9 year old article about Hawking radiation. What in the hell does that have to do with you not understanding what the word universe means?
 
2013-10-01 10:29:27 AM

Wolf892: Sounds like Mr. Hawking is starting to create his own scientific based religion around the afterlife. As he gets older and closer to death that creeping fear of oblivion starts to skew his perception of reality and he will succumb to the same flights of fancy as those who devote themselves to theology.


The same could be said about his views of humanity's glorious sprawl into the universe. Oh wait, that's based on sound science and technology and is not religious-based at all.
 
2013-10-01 10:45:06 AM
ftfa: "adding that "the conventional afterlife is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark."

Hmm, I didn't realize Mr. Hawking had died and come back to tell us for certain that there is no afterlife.

Smart guy, but that's a jackass thing to say.
 
2013-10-01 10:47:19 AM
I can totally see making a copy of myself into hardware. That doesn't mean that it is me, in there. The "me" I am so attached to is firmly embedded to the meat it lives in and will rot along with the rest of you.

I am eager to be proven wrong. Please hurry.
 
2013-10-01 10:49:27 AM

Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on. The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word universe means.

Physicist does U-turn on his theory of the parallel universe - and loses his bet in the process

Use google before you make stupid posts.

This is a 9 year old article about Hawking radiation. What in the hell does that have to do with you not understanding what the word universe means?


Now that that's settled.  Why do you think I don't know what the word universe means, pumpkin?  Be specific.
 
2013-10-01 10:50:41 AM

sure haven't: ftfa: "adding that "the conventional afterlife is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark."

Hmm, I didn't realize Mr. Hawking had died and come back to tell us for certain that there is no afterlife.

Smart guy, but that's a jackass thing to say.


An old lady dies and goes to heaven. Upon arriving at the pearly gates, she hears a mechanical whining, and then a horrific scream of agony.

"St. Peter!" The old lady cries, "What in heavens name is that noise!?"

St. Peter replies. "Those are new angels, getting big holes drilled in their back for their wings, and little holes in their head for their halos."

The old lady says "I think I'd rather go to hell then go through that!"

St. Peter asks the old lady "are you sure? You'll constantly be raped and sodomized by demons for all of eternity."

The old lady says "Fine with me! I've already got holes for that!"


/Teaching a kid that there is a magical land above the clouds where all of your dead relatives exist as ghosts, watching down upon you at all times... that's a pretty jackass thing to do.
 
2013-10-01 11:05:26 AM
I think with my dick.
 
2013-10-01 11:07:23 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Egoy3k: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The last "revelation" he came up with had to do with alternate universes being the answer to the problem he was working on. The audience of course was underwhelmed because there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word universe means.

Physicist does U-turn on his theory of the parallel universe - and loses his bet in the process

Use google before you make stupid posts.

This is a 9 year old article about Hawking radiation. What in the hell does that have to do with you not understanding what the word universe means?

Now that that's settled.  Why do you think I don't know what the word universe means, pumpkin?  Be specific.


Firstly the 'alternate universe' bet was made over 30 years ago, the article you linked was basically a resolution of that bet (Hawking lost) that was discovered by Hawking and is sort of a big deal, in fact it's a huge deal.  So without even getting into the whole alternate universe part of your comment you have shown a complete lack of reading comprehension.

Secondly your post used the words, "there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one" which is what illustrates your ignorance as to what the word universe actually means.  If we can observe something then it is part of our universe, there can be and will never be 'proof' of another universe and nobody ever in the entire history of physics has ever believed that there would be.  It's flat out impossible.  The lack of proof of alternate universes has never deterred scientists from theorizing about them because there will never be proof.

In short if any physicist was discouraged by the lack of proof of alternate universes they wouldn't be much of a physicist because they would lack a very basic understanding about their field of study.
 
2013-10-01 11:24:02 AM

fluffy2097: /Teaching a kid that there is a magical land above the clouds where all of your dead relatives exist as ghosts, watching down upon you at all times... that's a pretty jackass thing to do.

 
rpm
2013-10-01 11:28:23 AM

jfarkinB: You're assuming that every synapse, every ion, every quantum state in the brain is critical to "selfhood". That's a bit like saying it's impossible to back up a hard drive because there isn't enough memory capacity in existence to model the quantum state of every electron on a platter.


Given that the brain is a chaotic system, how long would it remain "you:?
 
2013-10-01 11:53:44 AM

rpm: Given that the brain is a chaotic system, how long would it remain "you:?


Let me pose another question: Given that the brain is a chaotic system, how long does it "remain 'you'"?

The answer we all seem to have adopted is "all your natural life". We change, but it's normally a gradual change, and we adapt, often noticing the change only in retrospect.

Even when there's a major and discontinuous change -- due to traumatic brain injury, stroke, drug overdose, religious conversion -- we say "you're still you", even if your personality is completely different, even if your memories are lost. I guess that's mainly because of the body's persistence, and because of legal concepts that are bound to the corpus rather than the personality.

I don't think we know enough about the mind and its implementation to define a mind-based concept of identity. But, given the things we put up with as part of our canonical meat-based implementation, I'm thinking that you already "remain you" in the face of profound, pervasive and continuous change.
 
2013-10-01 12:53:38 PM

fluffy2097: Teaching a kid that there is a magical land above the clouds where all of your dead relatives exist as ghosts, watching down upon you at all times... that's a pretty jackass thing to do.


Nope, not really. Because here in the real world, there can be afterlife concepts that don't match your condescending description.

Now tell me again how you and Hawking know 100% there is no afterlife?
 
2013-10-01 01:09:22 PM
Sorry, Stephen, you're still dead. All you've done is make a copy of yourself.
 
2013-10-01 01:13:30 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Wolf892: Sounds like Mr. Hawking is starting to create his own scientific based religion around the afterlife. As he gets older and closer to death that creeping fear of oblivion starts to skew his perception of reality and he will succumb to the same flights of fancy as those who devote themselves to theology.

The same could be said about his views of humanity's glorious sprawl into the universe. Oh wait, that's based on sound science and technology and is not religious-based at all.


Can we get this asshole banned for threadshiatting?
 
2013-10-01 01:15:25 PM

sure haven't: ftfa: "adding that "the conventional afterlife is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark."

Hmm, I didn't realize Mr. Hawking had died and come back to tell us for certain that there is no afterlife.

Smart guy, but that's a jackass thing to say.


Show us a working mechanism that can keep the mind going after the brain has died and we'll entertain your little fantasy.
 
2013-10-01 01:20:05 PM

DjangoStonereaver: From TFA:

"There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x200]


"SHUT OFF YOUR WHORE VOCAL SYNTHESIZER, HAWKING!"


I cam in just to ask where all the calculators go.
 
2013-10-01 01:25:59 PM

Ed Grubermann: Show us a working mechanism that can keep the mind going after the brain has died and we'll entertain your little fantasy


Just because there's no proof that there is one, doesn't mean that it's proof that there isn't.

If you're going to pull scientific process bullsh*t, at least pull it properly.

"bah, man will never fly in space, show me a working mechanism that could do that"
 
2013-10-01 03:32:34 PM

fluffy2097: picturescrazy: Copying your brain into a computer might be good for other people if they like you, but not for you. You won't go with it.

That's simply an existential crisis.

If you believe like Hawking does, that the 'Self' is contained within the physical structure of the human brain; If you can model the physical structure of your brain within a computer perfectly (which Hawking admits we cannot right now), your memory, your personality, your 'Self' is preserved.

The original hardware may be gone, but the 'Self' is preserved, it's now just running on emulated hardware.

It gets even weirder if you can split off multiple instances of your 'Self' then re-integrate the experiences of those instances when 'you' are done having 5 adventures at once. Or having sex with yourself if you're feeling narcissistic.


There's a reason they call it "copying"; it isn't you. It's a duplicate of you.

It's like the whole Star Trek beaming thing: that isn't Kirk, it's a quantum clone of Kirk. Kirk? They disintegrated him aboard the Enterprise a few moments earlier.

Now, maybe to everyone else the Kirk clone is good enough, but it still isn't Kirk. It might think it's Kirk, but it isn't Kirk. "He's dead, Jim."

/Kirk-clone would still be called "Jim", after all
 
2013-10-01 03:34:13 PM

Ed Grubermann: sure haven't: ftfa: "adding that "the conventional afterlife is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark."

Hmm, I didn't realize Mr. Hawking had died and come back to tell us for certain that there is no afterlife.

Smart guy, but that's a jackass thing to say.

Show us a working mechanism that can keep the mind going after the brain has died and we'll entertain your little fantasy.


If you actually go deep with the proverbial rabbit hole of different fringe sciences there are people with quite a bit of anacedotal evidence ( NDEs with verecidal evidence, SDEs, some say accquired savant syndrome, the fact that drugs like shrooms actually slow or shut down somewhat parts of your brain and yet you have hyper vivid experinces, etc etc) that the "mind" doesnt equal the brain. And its usually pretty smart or respected scientists or laymen doing the research.

/and yes, I do not have thousands upon thousands of links on my phone to give a guide post on where to look
 
2013-10-01 04:19:37 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Now, maybe to everyone else the Kirk clone is good enough, but it still isn't Kirk. It might think it's Kirk, but it isn't Kirk. "He's dead, Jim."


That's just a philosophical problem in your head not a technical problem to be overcome.

If it looks like Kirk down to a quantum scale, has the memory of Kirk, acts like Kirk, and thinks it's Kirk, It's Kirk.

/Assuming any of this can be done, and nobody thinks it can be done with current or upcoming technology.
//One you're going to have to seriously consider as we WILL see a neural man/machine interface in our lifetime.
///If you augment your brain with additional processing capacity or external storage, are you still you? What if you put that augmented brain in a non human body? Is it still that person? Why is the meat so important to you?
 
2013-10-01 04:23:02 PM

Egoy3k: Firstly the 'alternate universe' bet was made over 30 years ago, the article you linked was basically a resolution of that bet (Hawking lost) that was discovered by Hawking and is sort of a big deal, in fact it's a huge deal.  So without even getting into the whole alternate universe part of your comment you have shown a complete lack of reading comprehension.


Guess how I know you're not a physicist.  It wasn't "discovered", it was pulled out of his ass and there's nothing to back it up.

Egoy3k: Secondly your post used the words, "there's zero proof of any universe existing aside from this one" which is what illustrates your ignorance as to what the word universe actually means.  If we can observe something then it is part of our universe, there can be and will never be 'proof' of another universe and nobody ever in the entire history of physics has ever believed that there would be.  It's flat out impossible.  The lack of proof of alternate universes has never deterred scientists from theorizing about them because there will never be proof.


That is entirely bullshiat.  Guess how I know you know nothing about M-theory.

Egoy3k: In short if any physicist was discouraged by the lack of proof of alternate universes they wouldn't be much of a physicist because they would lack a very basic understanding about their field of study.


Yeah, that's why nearly every physicist at the announcement was tremendously disappointed.  Because they all know less than you.
 
2013-10-01 05:34:41 PM

fluffy2097: ArcadianRefugee: Now, maybe to everyone else the Kirk clone is good enough, but it still isn't Kirk. It might think it's Kirk, but it isn't Kirk. "He's dead, Jim."

That's just a philosophical problem in your head not a technical problem to be overcome.

If it looks like Kirk down to a quantum scale, has the memory of Kirk, acts like Kirk, and thinks it's Kirk, It's Kirk.


Tell that to Kirk before he gets into the thing.

/always weirded me out that so few people in the ST universe kept referring to it as "beaming your molecules across space and then reassembling them" when it was actually more along the lines of "disintegrate you, reducing every bit of your matter into energy, and then creating a duplicate somewhere else, using whatever energy is available (i.e., not necessarily any that was derived from your disintegration)
//of course, it also made me wonder why they didn't just keep a template on file for emergencies: "Oh! The captain was killed on an away mission. Well, we'll just use the template generated when we beamed him down and create a new Picard. Who wants to fill him in on his death?"

/Assuming any of this can be done, and nobody thinks it can be done with current or upcoming technology.
//One you're going to have to seriously consider as we WILL see a neural man/machine interface in our lifetime.
///If you augment your brain with additional processing capacity or external storage, are you still you? What if you put that augmented brain in a non human body? Is it still that person? Why is the meat so important to you?


Because I am meat. An exact copy of me is still a copy, whether it be in meat form or otherwise.

Where is the line that crosses from me to not-me (in regards to augmentation)? Dunno, but I can say "this here, this one is on that side".
 
2013-10-01 05:48:02 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Because I am meat. An exact copy of me is still a copy, whether it be in meat form or otherwise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Aristotle would disagree with you.
 
2013-10-01 05:59:10 PM

fluffy2097: ArcadianRefugee: Because I am meat. An exact copy of me is still a copy, whether it be in meat form or otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Aristotle would disagree with you.


Having components replaced over time, and having the original scanned and emulated is not the same thing.  If we had a machine that could scan your brain, and when we fed that data into a sophisticated computer that said, yes, the transfer was successful, I am fluffy2097.  Would you be ok with the new fluffy ordering your death, because it didn't want to share its girlfriend and house?
 
2013-10-01 06:19:37 PM

fluffy2097: ArcadianRefugee: Because I am meat. An exact copy of me is still a copy, whether it be in meat form or otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Aristotle would disagree with you.


He might, were he alive. Also, "Grandfather's Hammer" is, as BraveNewCheneyWorld notes, not the same thing as a copy.

(I've already said I do not know how to respond to the "Grandfather's Hammer" problem, so that's moot anyway.)

As far as copies or duplicates go: a copy, clone, or duplicate is, by it's very definition, not the original. As such, a quantum duplicate of me would not be me.
 
2013-10-01 07:01:36 PM

gnosis301: picturescrazy: You won't go with it.

Do people seriously believe you will go with it?  The notion of copying seems to indicate that you won't, but do people really believe they'll do this and open their eyes (or cameras, whatever) one morning and be in a computer?


There's exactly zero evidence in either direction. Personally, I can't see why there would be any difference between waking up with my brain in a computer and waking up after being under surgical anesthesia.

And if the copying was non-destructive, there will probably be two of me. Other than us having to negotiate how to split my Social Security check, so what?
 
2013-10-01 07:27:54 PM

Beowoolfie: Personally, I can't see why there would be any difference between waking up with my brain in a computer and waking up after being under surgical anesthesia.


Fine, think about this then. How do you know you exist?
 
2013-10-01 09:43:03 PM
united-metal.ru
 
2013-10-01 09:49:42 PM
If a brain-mind can be copied onto a computer, the next thing would be to see if you can copy a computer-mind back into a brain. And we all know how that turns out:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-01 11:01:16 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: fluffy2097: ArcadianRefugee: Because I am meat. An exact copy of me is still a copy, whether it be in meat form or otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Aristotle would disagree with you.

Having components replaced over time, and having the original scanned and emulated is not the same thing.  If we had a machine that could scan your brain, and when we fed that data into a sophisticated computer that said, yes, the transfer was successful, I am fluffy2097.  Would you be ok with the new fluffy ordering your death, because it didn't want to share its girlfriend and house?


thesocietyofthespectacle.coms3.amazonaws.com

Some of these subjects have already been explored quite a bit.  Including (to a lesser extent) that one episode of ST:TNG with Lt. Riker.
 
2013-10-01 11:54:20 PM
So people think it's OK to back yourself up in the cloud, as long as you don't expect to recover the filesystem
 
2013-10-02 04:30:31 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Beowoolfie: Personally, I can't see why there would be any difference between waking up with my brain in a computer and waking up after being under surgical anesthesia.

Fine, think about this then. How do you know you exist?


I don't, but it's a convenient assumption that, so far, fits my observations. Reality is simply that which persists even after you stop believing in it.

Assume none of us exist, and the universe is some being's drug-dream: The dream's rules still involve players who act like reality is a dream getting locked away by the other players, and why would I want to spend my remaining imaginary existence in an imaginary cell? It's pretty clear I don't have the ability to wish away the rules or you'd be addressing the Planetary Emperor!
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report