5AF Philosophy Thread

[Kraftster]

The topic of downloading the human brain to a computer came up at lunch again today. It really bothers me how incompatible any sort or continuous identity seems to be with my physicalist view of the world.

Assuming any notion of identity must be a physical thing, it seems that we cannot have a continuous identity. I guess you could refer to your singular identity as the collection over time of all of your particular brain states, but that doesn't seem to be really what we want. If there's no continuous sense of identity, then it seems like the computer download is viable as a means of prolonging your existence. That doesn't feel right, though. It feels like it would be a copy or separate iteration. But, a physicalist approach seems to compel that identity is nothing more than a a current iteration of a past thing that is not the same as that past thing.

It feels like if I want to rescue some sort of continuous identity, I have to allow for something nonphysical, which is the very thing that I am not willing to do when considering an issue like free will.

This all actually causes me quite a bit of angst.

[shmenguin]

I think Krafster still wants his head frozen when he dies, in case anyone was wondering.

[Freddy Rumsen]

#eatatArbys

[shmenguin]

The topic of downloading the human brain to a computer came up at lunch again today. It really bothers me how incompatible any sort or continuous identity seems to be with my physicalist view of the world.

Assuming any notion of identity must be a physical thing, it seems that we cannot have a continuous identity. I guess you could refer to your singular identity as the collection over time of all of your particular brain states, but that doesn't seem to be really what we want. If there's no continuous sense of identity, then it seems like the computer download is viable as a means of prolonging your existence. That doesn't feel right, though. It feels like it would be a copy or separate iteration. But, a physicalist approach seems to compel that identity is nothing more than a a current iteration of a past thing that is not the same as that past thing.

It feels like if I want to rescue some sort of continuous identity, I have to allow for something nonphysical, which is the very thing that I am not willing to do when considering an issue like free will.

This all actually causes me quite a bit of angst.

Do you think your identity is any more than external stimuli+internal chemistry? If that's the case, you simply can't extend yourself beyond your physical expiration date, right? If you're "downloaded" into a machine, you lose both ingredients of Kraftster stew. All you have is a great documentary of your past life.

[Kraftster]

The topic of downloading the human brain to a computer came up at lunch again today. It really bothers me how incompatible any sort or continuous identity seems to be with my physicalist view of the world.

Assuming any notion of identity must be a physical thing, it seems that we cannot have a continuous identity. I guess you could refer to your singular identity as the collection over time of all of your particular brain states, but that doesn't seem to be really what we want. If there's no continuous sense of identity, then it seems like the computer download is viable as a means of prolonging your existence. That doesn't feel right, though. It feels like it would be a copy or separate iteration. But, a physicalist approach seems to compel that identity is nothing more than a a current iteration of a past thing that is not the same as that past thing.

It feels like if I want to rescue some sort of continuous identity, I have to allow for something nonphysical, which is the very thing that I am not willing to do when considering an issue like free will.

This all actually causes me quite a bit of angst.

Do you think your identity is any more than external stimuli+internal chemistry?

I'm inclined to think no. I don't really think there's non-physical "stuff" so that doesn't really leave room for anything other than external stimuli+internal chemistry.

If that's the case, you simply can't extend yourself beyond your physical expiration date, right? If you're "downloaded" into a machine, you lose both ingredients of Kraftster stew. All you have is a great documentary of your past life.

I think the whole download your brain idea assumes that you could download the contents of "your" brain and put it in another brain--whether organic/synthetic/machine--where you would just sort of pick right up where you left off at the time of the download.

So, I guess the question is whether "internal chemistry" that plays a part in identity has anything to do with chemistry from anywhere other than your brain. I'm not really settled on what I think on that. For example, I don't think you lose any part of your conscious identity if you lose a leg. But at the same time, could my brain conceive of something like nervousness in the same way without having a gut which feels nervousness?

[shmenguin]

identity persists in that scenario. How the rest of your body feels is a fluid thing. It already changes constantly. Just because this would be more drastic doesn't make it a different phenomenon.

[Kraftster]

If identity persists into the new medium, wouldn't the original you and the new you necessarily have equal claims to being you? That gives me some trouble. It's very counterintuitive to me that when I say, "I want to live forever," the "I"/identity of the new thing would provide me with that opportunity (or at least for continued existence).

[shmenguin]

The vessel has no identity. It's meat.

[Kraftster]

Accepting that the replacement vessel could replicate whatever contribution the original vessel makes to the identity "working," I can agree with that.

But, it is hard for me to conceive of an identity that is non-distinct. If multiple copies of you in different vessels have equal claim to being "you," then I think identity must not have a property of distinctness. Though, I guess it could just be Kraftster 1 vs. Kraftster 2 vs. Kraftster 3--all the same but each having their own sense of self.

So, I guess what it comes down to is: If Kraftster 2 outlives Kraftster 1, does the "I" that I associate with me, Kraftster 1, persist? Do "I" feel like I continue on thanks to Kraftster 2. It seems to me like probably not. And if that's the case, mind uploading is not really a life-extension option. If anything, it would be to provide something to others. For example, it could provide your loved ones with another you.

[shmenguin]

I think it all depends on he continuity of the consciousness. i don't know how that would work here.

[Kraftster]

Relatedly, my daughter has been dealing with vivid nightmares recently. In trying to discuss them with her, she has started to refer to her brain as "he." "I don't want to go to bed because my brain is getting ready to play tricks on me again. He is going to make me see bugs in my bed."

That got me thinking about whether "I" feel distinct from my brain in the way that my daughter does right now as she is developing. That got me to ask myself where "I" feel like I reside. Nondescript within my body somewhere? In my head? In my chest? Somewhere else inside me? Outside my body somewhere? Just outside my body? Just outside my head?

I think for me it is somewhere just outside of me near my head but not really in my brain necessarily.

What about you guys and gals?

[robbiestoupe]

Relatedly, my daughter has been dealing with vivid nightmares recently. In trying to discuss them with her, she has started to refer to her brain as "he." "I don't want to go to bed because my brain is getting ready to play tricks on me again. He is going to make me see bugs in my bed."

That got me thinking about whether "I" feel distinct from my brain in the way that my daughter does right now as she is developing. That got me to ask myself where "I" feel like I reside. Nondescript within my body somewhere? In my head? In my chest? Somewhere else inside me? Outside my body somewhere? Just outside my body? Just outside my head?

I think for me it is somewhere just outside of me near my head but not really in my brain necessarily.

What about you guys and gals?

I was actually thinking about this the other day since I have a 2 year old and he's been experiencing nightmares lately. I do remember being younger and wondering if I was really me, if you know what I mean. I would wonder if I was just watching a movie about myself, or that everything around me was just a setup and I was the butt of a very elaborate joke. Or perhaps living a dream where in another consciousness I was actually unconscious for whatever reason.

At 39, I don't have those thoughts anymore, and I relate it to a sense of self-worth. You become pretty confident in who you are later in life (hopefully), but at a younger age you are just becoming self-aware, which can be a scary thing to encounter.

[shmenguin]

i've never thought about where the physical "me" resides. i assumed it would be my head, but if i think about it, it feels more like my chest/heart

[eddy]

"I always wanted to be a milk shake."
-Lincoln Hawk

[Kraftster]

sonder

n. the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.

I didn't know sonder was a thing. It's presented a little obnoxiously, but I like it.

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

Never heard of the term sonder but it is a cool concept.

Kenny the kangaroo enjoys two kinds of background noise when sleeping: trains and interstate traffic. Late at night, in bed, this gentleman loves to hear a train horn, wondering where it is going, what the conductor is up to, whos crap is sitting in the train cars. And as far as interstates go, that has more to do with vacations/roap trips/etc. When you stay at a hotel close to an interstate, it is hard not to hear all the truck/car traffic go by. That is another case where this gentleman is wondering about all those people, where they are going, and how are they feeling

[shmenguin]

I've flirted with the idea that I'm the only person who actually exists. Sonder shmonder.

[redwill]

As a take-off from a post in the politics thread, I'm wondering what people think it is to be human.

By that I mean "human" as opposed to "animal." Obviously, as humans we are animals. But what, if anything, makes us different?

Soul? <cue James Brown>

Intelligence? Self-awareness? Consciousness, whatever that is? (BTW, what is "consciousness"?)

Is it a difference in degree or a difference in kind? When you look at your pet, do you think you are a different thing entirely, or just a more developed, intelligent ... I dunno ... a more fortunate thing ... But the same thing nonetheless? Or are you different from your dog, your cat, your turtle, your fish, your parrot, your hamster, etc?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Man was created in the image of God.

Seriously though, that is the main thing that separates man and animal.

[redwill]

With all due respect, I refuse to believe that humans have such a pathetic origin.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Ok

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

As a take-off from a post in the politics thread, I'm wondering what people think it is to be human.

By that I mean "human" as opposed to "animal." Obviously, as humans we are animals. But what, if anything, makes us different?

Soul? <cue James Brown>

Intelligence? Self-awareness? Consciousness, whatever that is? (BTW, what is "consciousness"?)

Is it a difference in degree or a difference in kind? When you look at your pet, do you think you are a different thing entirely, or just a more developed, intelligent ... I dunno ... a more fortunate thing ... But the same thing nonetheless? Or are you different from your dog, your cat, your turtle, your fish, your parrot, your hamster, etc?

I would say intelligence, and consciousness and self awareness are born out of that


I don't think being human is a special gift or anything. We're just smart in the same way that whales are big or birds are fast


Despite being infinitely smarter, a human would get their **** kicked in by a lot of animals in unarmed combat

[redwill]

I would say intelligence, and consciousness and self awareness are born out of that


I don't think being human is a special gift or anything. We're just smart in the same way that whales are big or birds are fast


Despite being infinitely smarter, a human would get their **** kicked in by a lot of animals in unarmed combat

So is being "human" just being smart, or does it go beyond that?

Like, for example, "civilization," whatever that is.

In other words, are we less "human" if we're not part of a developed society?

I'm not really leading anywhere with this, just exploring this concept of some homo sapiens sapiens being termed "humans" and some biologically-identical homo sapiens sapiens being termed "animals."

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I would say intelligence, and consciousness and self awareness are born out of that


I don't think being human is a special gift or anything. We're just smart in the same way that whales are big or birds are fast


Despite being infinitely smarter, a human would get their **** kicked in by a lot of animals in unarmed combat

So is being "human" just being smart, or does it go beyond that?

Like, for example, "civilization," whatever that is.

In other words, are we less "human" if we're not part of a developed society?

I'm not really leading anywhere with this, just exploring this concept of some homo sapiens sapiens being termed "humans" and some biologically-identical homo sapiens sapiens being termed "animals."

to me it's just being smart, but I'm an atheist at heart. I don't think humans were placed on earth "in God's image", as if we have a responsibility to act a certain way.

human's have animalistic desires. We want to ****, a lot. We are protective of our families. We all prioritize self-preservation. etc

the concept of a civilization is in my mind just an agreement to kind of mute our natural desires, but this is like getting angry at a dog because the dog would rather chase a squirrel or hump someone's leg than listen to orders. it's a dog, it can't control itself all the time, much like humans

[shmenguin]

the superficialities...no fur, walking on 2 legs, use of language...that's the difference between us and dogs. The difference between us and dog sh*t isn't significantly greater.

Our consciousness tricks us into thinking we are special. But we are merely sentient meat.