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 60
    More: Unlikely, Stephen Hawking, laws of science, human brains, computers, Windows  
•       •       •

1732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:53 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
2013-10-02 12:24:49 PM

Ed Grubermann: Sorry, Stephen, you're still dead. All you've done is make a copy of yourself.


If the copy is indistinguishable does it matter?
 
2013-10-02 01:01:02 PM

Fail in Human Form: Ed Grubermann: Sorry, Stephen, you're still dead. All you've done is make a copy of yourself.

If the copy is indistinguishable does it matter?


Dude, read the farking thread.  It matters because it does nothing for the original.  And how about if someone were to torture and kill everyone you know right before your eyes, and after they're all dead with body parts strewn around you, someone marches in a replacement copy for everyone you knew, and goes TADA!  Would you really handle it just like someone who was on a practical joke show who just had their car demolished and replaced with an exact replica?
 
2013-10-02 01:09:10 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dude, read the farking thread. It matters because it does nothing for the original. And how about if someone were to torture and kill everyone you know right before your eyes, and after they're all dead with body parts strewn around you, someone marches in a replacement copy for everyone you knew, and goes TADA! Would you really handle it just like someone who was on a practical joke show who just had their car demolished and replaced with an exact replica?


Again. This is a problem with your own philosophy of what constitutes 'self'

It is not a technical problem in any way shape or form, and your stream of consciousness would continue on uninterrupted on the new hardware.

If George Washington's Axe had it's head replaced twice, and it's shaft replaced 5 times, is it still George Washington's Axe?  Yes.
 
2013-10-02 01:12:03 PM

blue_2501: 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?


No, because I don't think that way.

I would exist in parallel with myself  regularly synchronizing my experiences and memories with the computer me.

When my meat wears out, I'm sure computer me will cry digitized tears at the burial, but I will be happy that I was able to transcend my meat.
 
2013-10-02 01:28:41 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fail in Human Form: Ed Grubermann: Sorry, Stephen, you're still dead. All you've done is make a copy of yourself.

If the copy is indistinguishable does it matter?

Dude, read the farking thread.  It matters because it does nothing for the original.  And how about if someone were to torture and kill everyone you know right before your eyes, and after they're all dead with body parts strewn around you, someone marches in a replacement copy for everyone you knew, and goes TADA!  Would you really handle it just like someone who was on a practical joke show who just had their car demolished and replaced with an exact replica?


Let's take out the memory of others part for the sake of keeping it simple (that leads to a different discussion).  Let's say I made a copy of me that is indistinguishable from me.  If it somehow has my memories and is activated after I die what's the difference between that in immortality in any practical sense?  Sure "I" experience death but "I" will live on for my family and friends as an indistinguishable copy.  That's a hell of a lot better deal than what currently happens.
 
2013-10-02 01:47:00 PM

fluffy2097: blue_2501: 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?

No, because I don't think that way.

I would exist in parallel with myself  regularly synchronizing my experiences and memories with the computer me.

When my meat wears out, I'm sure computer me will cry digitized tears at the burial, but I will be happy that I was able to transcend my meat.


So, your computer self will beat your meat?
 
2013-10-02 03:34:50 PM

Primitive Screwhead: So, your computer self will beat your meat?


Nah, He'll inject data into an unprotected port.

/giggabytey
 
2013-10-02 05:55:13 PM

Beowoolfie: 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.


Now listen, listen... here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you, is your sensory data, and this sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulates your computing centre.

/or "brain" if, indeed, you are still meat
 
2013-10-02 06:01:01 PM

fluffy2097: If George Washington's Axe had it's head replaced twice, and it's shaft replaced 5 times, is it still George Washington's Axe?  Yes.


Depends on when those pieces were replaced. If they were replaced after they'd left GW's possession (say, damaged in a museum several times and pieces replaced to "fix" it) then no, it isn't; there isn't a single part of that object that was owned, used, or handled by GW, so it cannot in any way be considered "George Washington's axe". It is a replica of his axe. The fact that the handle was his when the head was replaced (years after his death, just to put the time constraint on it) doesn't imbue the head with some mystical "his-ness" that can then be transferred to a new handle.
 
Displayed 10 of 60 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