Consciousness transfer.

[Jack427]

Let's say someone had their consciousness transferred to a computer program independent of their body. Their body was now just a bunch of fat, muscle, skin, and organs.

Would their consciousness in the program or virtual reality still be them? Or would it be an exact copy? Would their soul be gone, having left the physical world? Or would it be your consciousness inside the program?

If you were to be "deleted" would your soul leave this world, if it was still even here? Or what if the device you were in lost power?

Forgive me if this question has been asked before. I am looking to see what others here think regarding this subject.

 

[xisnotx]

I'm of the opinion that your consciousness can't be deleted..only copied. If a computer were to have my exact same consciousness then I'd still have my own..but I'd recognize the computers consciousness as the same as mine. In the same way that, theoretically at least, I can recognize peoples consciousness as more or less like mine already..
However, the question, I think, is impossible to answer without a definition of consciousnes, so it all just becomes speculation until that gap is bridged, imo.

 

[Qlip]

Consciousness is a very special thing, but I don't think it's special enough to assume that it isn't a consequence of physical rules in the material universe. If you could duplicate the shape of somebodies mind, then you'd have two minds and two 'souls'.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I don't know...

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I've wondered this to. I've come to the conclusion that it probably would simply mean that you'd understand each other, but the consciousness would immediately change because you'll then be exposed to different environmental stimuli.

 

[011235813]

I think it would still be "your" consciousness, but it would be irrevocably changed given the different environmental stimuli it was now subject to. I'm not sure what the extent of those changes would be.

I've sometimes wished that I was my consciousness and my body was either non-existence or completely irrelevant but I probably wouldn't be me if that was the case.

 

[GatoLoco]

Sounds like someone has seen Ghost in the Shell. And if not, you might want to as it's a Japanese fictional storyline on the topic of transfer of consciousness to synthetics, as well as synthetic developing consciousness, etc. etc.

I personally believe what we consider consciousness is the unique combination of chemicals that formulate the chemistry of our mind and perceptions, and thus singularly bind them to a singularity in time-space.

What is the concept of a second? Or a minute? How long is a second? Why is a second not much longer or much shorter? What if someone had a brain that took "samples" of perception 1000x more often than ours? It could theoretically exist for 1000 years inside (from our standpoint) one of our seconds, could it not? When you sleep, 8 hours transfer in a flash of instant darkness... same with anesthetic for surgery.

Our human minds/collective consciousness is simply synchronized and fixed to this: a perception that is linear and fixed to one point in space-time (which is the very nature of consciousness, IMO) as well as a hard-coded traversal along that line. If you could duplicate precisely the same mind/chemical/nature, you would still not have consciousness as it's already bound to it's place in that time-space line collective.

Everything we see and experience around us is infinite, when you think about it. Time must be infinite- you could keep going back in time forever, or you could keep going forward in time forever. Space, it seems from recent discovery, is also infinite- you could keep traveling in the same direction forever. Given both of these and how we exist in this time-ticking fashion with a precise consciousness of passing measurements, a logical conclusion would be this limitation is fake, and we're "bound" into a singularity amidst everything else that is infinite.

 

[redacted]

Let's say someone had their consciousness transferred to a computer program independent of their body. Their body was now just a bunch of fat, muscle, skin, and organs.

Would their consciousness in the program or virtual reality still be them? Or would it be an exact copy? Would their soul be gone, having left the physical world? Or would it be your consciousness inside the program?

If you were to be "deleted" would your soul leave this world, if it was still even here? Or what if the device you were in lost power?

Forgive me if this question has been asked before. I am looking to see what others here think regarding this subject.

It's a pretty interesting question. The same idea as transporters in Star Trek.

My take -- The computer-program version of you would experience no loss of continuousness in consciousness. The organic (still computer-program, I guess) version would also experience continuous consciousness. "Soul" is just a term we use to describe a specific kind of input/output relation, so I guess both would have souls.

I reject the idea that a soul is causally involved in the physical universe.

Another way to look at it is that your consciousness is always being deleted and re-created every moment. We have no problem thinking of ourselves as the same person that we were in the previous moment, so imagining that the recreation aspect happens on a functionally equivalent computer instead of the same biological unit shouldn't change the way we think about it.

 

[Jack427]

Sounds like someone has seen Ghost in the Shell. And if not, you might want to as it's a Japanese fictional storyline on the topic of transfer of consciousness to synthetics, as well as synthetic developing consciousness, etc. etc.

I personally believe what we consider consciousness is the unique combination of chemicals that formulate the chemistry of our mind and perceptions, and thus singularly bind them to a singularity in time-space.

What is the concept of a second? Or a minute? How long is a second? Why is a second not much longer or much shorter? What if someone had a brain that took "samples" of perception 1000x more often than ours? It could theoretically exist for 1000 years inside (from our standpoint) one of our seconds, could it not? When you sleep, 8 hours transfer in a flash of instant darkness... same with anesthetic for surgery.

Our human minds/collective consciousness is simply synchronized and fixed to this: a perception that is linear and fixed to one point in space-time (which is the very nature of consciousness, IMO) as well as a hard-coded traversal along that line. If you could duplicate precisely the same mind/chemical/nature, you would still not have consciousness as it's already bound to it's place in that time-space line collective.

Everything we see and experience around us is infinite, when you think about it. Time must be infinite- you could keep going back in time forever, or you could keep going forward in time forever. Space, it seems from recent discovery, is also infinite- you could keep traveling in the same direction forever. Given both of these and how we exist in this time-ticking fashion with a precise consciousness of passing measurements, a logical conclusion would be this limitation is fake, and we're "bound" into a singularity amidst everything else that is infinite.

I have not seen that show often. I just thought it was some more stupid Japanese robot bullcrap. XD

Actually, space is not infinite. If space was infinite then there would be an infinite number of stars. Our entire sky would be bright 24/7.Same thing applies to the universe being here forever. Some say the universe is expanding, others say it seems that way because our galaxy is moving.

Interesting ideas. I never considered that consciousness could not be duplicated.

[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION]- I have wondered the same regarding the transporters and the stargate. I think the soul is tethered to our bodies, when our bodies die the soul is then free.

I have also considered that our consciousness is deleted and recreated every moment.

 

[GatoLoco]

Actually, space is not infinite. If space was infinite then there would be an infinite number of stars. Our entire sky would be bright 24/7.Same thing applies to the universe being here forever. Some say the universe is expanding, others say it seems that way because our galaxy is moving.

Recent cosmology discoveries suggest the universe is expanding and is also infinite.

Larence Krauss did a fascinating & humorous lecture on all of this, as well as how the universe had to come from 'nothing' (lol).. on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Jack427]

Recent cosmology discoveries suggest the universe is expanding and is also infinite.

Larence Krauss did a fascinating & humorous lecture on all of this, as well as how the universe had to come from 'nothing' (lol).. on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

How can that which is already infinite expand?

But no, you are ignoring enormous evidence to the contrary. Many leading astronomers say the universe is not infinite. I already gave an argument showing it isn't infinite. Show me these "discoveries".

 

[GatoLoco]

Show me these "discoveries".

The theory is described in the video I linked, as it's a theory based on an observation, based on an observation, etc. etc. It's a growing popular theory, but obviously we're learning more every day. The fact that we now believe neutrinos to travel faster than light, as well as figure the majority of mass of the universe is not found in normal matter... all makes things a little shakey.

Edit- sorry, did not mean to imply "expanding" from the "getting larger" sense, I mean traveling outwards (as we already know from Big Bang theory) outwards in all directions. The video also explains an interesting theory of astronomers hypothetically millions of years in the future would no longer see other galaxies (as they'd accelerate past visible spectrum shift) and make completely wrong observations on the universe.

 

[Jack427]

The theory is described in the video I linked, as it's a theory based on an observation, based on an observation, etc. etc. It's a growing popular theory, but obviously we're learning more every day. The fact that we now believe neutrinos to travel faster than light, as well as figure the majority of mass of the universe is not found in normal matter... all makes things a little shakey.

Edit- sorry, did not mean to imply "expanding" from the "getting larger" sense, I mean traveling outwards (as we already know from Big Bang theory) outwards in all directions. The video also explains an interesting theory of astronomers hypothetically millions of years in the future would no longer see other galaxies (as they'd accelerate past visible spectrum shift) and make completely wrong observations on the universe.

Scientists are saying that neutrinos do not go faster than light, that the results were not accurate. So no, we do not believe they travel faster than light.

That video is from 2009, it will be 2012 in a month. We have learned much more since then.

 

[redacted]

I have not seen that show often. I just thought it was some more stupid Japanese robot bullcrap. XD

Actually, space is not infinite. If space was infinite then there would be an infinite number of stars. Our entire sky would be bright 24/7.Same thing applies to the universe being here forever. Some say the universe is expanding, others say it seems that way because our galaxy is moving.

Why would infinite space imply infinite matter? Matter+energy is a constant, so it seems finite. But if you were to travel in one direction infinitely, it's not like you'd hit a wall. (The only problem is the universe is expanding faster than light can travel so we'll never know.)

[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION]- I have wondered the same regarding the transporters and the stargate. I think the soul is tethered to our bodies, when our bodies die the soul is then free.

What do you mean by "the soul is then free"? I just think the word soul only has descriptive value when one is referring to a specific kind of input/output relation (what we call consciousness). When consciousness goes away (when our bodies die), the "soul" associated with it isn't describing anything anymore -- it stops existing.

So yeah... I don't think the soul is tethered to anything -- that would imply a causal relationship with physical reality. It's just a way of describing a physical phenomenon.

 

[Jack427]

Why would infinite space imply infinite matter? Matter+energy is a constant, so it seems finite. But if you were to travel in one direction infinitely, it's not like you'd hit a wall. (The only problem is the universe is expanding faster than light can travel so we'll never know.)

What do you mean by "the soul is then free"? I just think the word soul only has descriptive value when one is referring to a specific kind of input/output relation (what we call consciousness). When consciousness goes away (when our bodies die), the "soul" associated with it isn't describing anything anymore -- it stops existing.

So yeah... I don't think the soul is tethered to anything -- that would imply a causal relationship with physical reality. It's just a way of describing a physical phenomenon.

He said Universe. Universe means what we can observe and detect in the cosmos. And alot of philosophers and scientists are saying if the universe was infinite, there would be infinite stars.

I think the soul is an actual entity. It is tethered and connected to our body. Our body is just a vessel. Like a pot of water, when the pot shatters the water escapes.

 

[redacted]

He said Universe. Universe means what we can observe and detect in the cosmos. And alot of philosophers and scientists are saying if the universe was infinite, there would be infinite stars.

Ah, I guess the universe has a finite amount of space, then, assuming a finite amount of matter/energy.

I think the soul is an actual entity. It is tethered and connected to our body. Our body is just a vessel. Like a pot of water, when the pot shatters the water escapes.

Why? How would it be causally related to physical reality?

I personally think the physical is all that exists. If you think non-physical things are part of reality, you face the problem of explaining how non-physical entities affect physical entities, which just seems too hard.

 

[Jack427]

Ah, I guess the universe has a finite amount of space, then, assuming a finite amount of matter/energy.



Why? How would it be causally related to physical reality?

I personally think the physical is all that exists. If you think non-physical things are part of reality, you face the problem of explaining how non-physical entities affect physical entities, which just seems too hard.

I think there are plenty of things and places beyond the physical realm. Some of the places are beyond human understanding. I have some theories on how they interact and such.

 

[GatoLoco]

Scientists are saying that neutrinos do not go faster than light, that the results were not accurate. So no, we do not believe they travel faster than light.

You say things with such conviction when they are still unknown or the community is split. It would be disingenuous to discount one side without recognition of the other. While we've had multiple tests and analysis of results that suggest faster-than-light neutrinos, there are more tests scheduled to help solidify this or disprove this from the 'accuracy' nay-sayers.

It's not been ruled out albeit there will always be dissent in the scientific community (as there should be) until there is further peer review.

I personally believe it's all tied to our consciousness. The concept of linear progression of time seems to be, as you put it, due to our consciousness bound to this vessel. While there is nothing special about that vessel, it locks us onto that path which even complete duplication will not replicate as it's a singular instantiation along that line. The interesting thing to ponder is what is beyond the start and end points of that focus...

 

[Jack427]

You say things with such conviction when they are still unknown or the community is split. It would be disingenuous to discount one side without recognition of the other. While we've had multiple tests and analysis of results that suggest faster-than-light neutrinos, there are more tests scheduled to help solidify this or disprove this from the 'accuracy' nay-sayers.

It's not been ruled out albeit there will always be dissent in the scientific community (as there should be) until there is further peer review.

I personally believe it's all tied to our consciousness. The concept of linear progression of time seems to be, as you put it, due to our consciousness bound to this vessel. While there is nothing special about that vessel, it locks us onto that path which even complete duplication will not replicate as it's a singular instantiation along that line. The interesting thing to ponder is what is beyond the start and end points of that focus...

I am not the only one saying things with such conviction.

 

[entropie]

I cant answer the op's question as well, but I like to set some basics straight:

- first of all, we are all energy already; so saying that a human conciencse cant exist in form of energy would be factually be wrong.

- Second, computers have data storage systems like FAT, NTFS. So when you would transfer a human conciencse into binary or quantumnary the question would be how the data would be allocated and interconnected. Scientists say the human brain has a storage capacity of about 1 TB that doesnt sound like much. but the question is which data system is it ? if you'ld transfer it 1o1 to a FAT system, the storage needed could be much more. And then the interconnection between the nodes in the brain isnt saved yet. As it seems the brain doesnt work like a computer which has a cpu and a storage system, it seems to work like the interconnection of many small units, which could be all small computers.

- Third: people separate technical and biological too strongly, I think this is a flaw of our limited understanding of the world yet. Factually technical and biological are the same cause the molecules of a computer are the same like the molecules of a person, just in a different allocation.

- And finally: I dont think a person or a soul augumented or transferred onto a computer would be the same. The sole fact of augumentation that comes with this transfer would change the person. And even if you'ld make a 1on1 copy with no augumentation, the sole fact of eternal life or "not growing older" would change the person. And even if you would make the person age, the sole fact of no illnesses no more would change the soul. And if you'ld account for everything you can possibly think of and make a biologically functioning one on one copy of said person, the fact that this person would think of itself as a clone would change the person. The factor of human nature needs to play the integral part in the equation

In that light my answer would be, against all odds: No, a 1on1 copy onto a harddrive of a soul will never be possible.