Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Any reason other than carbon chauvinism that you ask? It's changing the hard wiring of the brain' date=' as permanent as anything in the jellyware can be. Is there any non-magical reason that a silicon neuron is different than a carbon one that processes stimulus in an identical way?[/quote']

Is there no difference? As I understand it our self and personality is partially based on the aging process. The death and rebirth of neurons and the death (and possible rebirth) of brain cells define us, as well as the knowledge we have or the arme we have.

 

Our brain, our body is ever changing (afaik the cells making up our body complety die of and are replaced by new ones in the time of 7 years; with possible exception of the brain). It could actually be that this death and rebirth is needed to stay human...

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Is there no difference? As I understand it our self and personality is partially based on the aging process. The death and rebirth of neurons and the death (and possible rebirth) of brain cells define us, as well as the knowledge we have or the arme we have.

 

Our brain, our body is ever changing (afaik the cells making up our body complety die of and are replaced by new ones in the time of 7 years; with possible exception of the brain). It could actually be that this death and rebirth is needed to stay human...

Could be. Or could be that we are entirely the software, and any compatible hardware, carbon or silicon, is all we need to run the program.

 

Or could be that "self" is an illusion.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Until then, we'll stick with what we can prove.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

[Manic Typist]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

 

Or could be that "self" is an illusion.

 

Which is the root of all suffering, if I remember my Buddhism class correctly.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Which is the root of all suffering' date=' [b']if[/b] I remember my Buddhism class correctly.

That is one interpretation. I prefer the one that the root cause of suffering is inappropriate attachment to the world as we desire it to be rather than as it is. Thus, we grow old, get sick and die. As long as we wish that didn't happen we suffer. When we accept the inevitability, we no longer suffer. Greatly simplified.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Thus' date=' we grow old, get sick and die. As long as we wish that didn't happen we suffer. When we accept the inevitability, we no longer suffer. [/quote']

 

Ironically, that fear of aging, decease and death is the driver behind nearly all research into cybernetics and bioengineering, and the last two pages are about a method to gain a measure of immortality through becoming software.

 

Getting back to the topic, the question of whether humans are software or hardware. As it happens, a computer scientist will tell you there is actually not much of a differance between the two. Software is an illusion invented to save programmers work. However, because software is an illusion in any case, one can use it to emulate perfectly any hardware less powerful than the one you are running it on. Meaning a human brain can be emulated on a sufficiently powerful computer; running a program identical to the brain it was copied from.

 

The disagreement, as far as I can see it, is on whether this computer brain IS the person it was copied from. To me the answer is simple: At the moment of transfer the two "selves" are identical. A second later they're not. This is why I'd only accept a "transfer" knowing the biological me would die (or lose his mind) shortly afterwards, or as a backup.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The disagreement' date=' as far as I can see it, is on whether this computer brain IS the person it was copied from. To me the answer is simple: [i']At the moment of transfer the two "selves" are identical. A second later they're not.[/i] This is why I'd only accept a "transfer" knowing the biological me would die (or lose his mind) shortly afterwards, or as a backup.

And I see your point.

 

Think fast: You can have ONE superpower, what do you want?

 

Any time I do answer that without thinking, my answer is "duplication." If non-destructive uploading were possible, I would do it. Even though from the point of view of the carbon-based me we could not recombine. (I am assuming the silicon-based me would be able to integrate subsequent updates.) Maybe if there was a second me active in cyberspace, I could get things done.

 

So while I do see you point, and respect your choice, it is not the choice I would make.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Dorothy called. She said to meet the Tin Man and the Lion outside the Emerald City.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Dorothy called. She said to meet the Tin Man and the Lion outside the Emerald City.

 

Now, that's not very constructive.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Now' date=' that's not very constructive.[/quote']

Neither was what I was responding to.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Actually, that cartoon has spurred quite a bit of debate about what "self" is since it's release...and for something so relatively simple.

 

By the way, was that comment directed towards the cartoon, it's creator, or me? I couldn't quite tell.

 

Ironically' date=' that fear of aging, decease and death is the driver behind nearly all research into cybernetics and bioengineering, and the last two pages are about a method to gain a measure of immortality through becoming software.[/quote']

 

Or even just "mundane" measures to stay healthier and extend the lifespan, yeah. I have a feeling biological immortality will arrive long after cybernetic/electronic immortality has.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Think fast: You can have ONE superpower' date=' what do you want?[/quote']

 

Immortality was the first thing that came to mind (before all the stories that explain why that particular power sucks sink in). I just dislike death.

 

Any time I do answer that without thinking' date=' my answer is "duplication." If non-destructive uploading were possible, I would do it. Even though from the point of view of the carbon-based me we could not recombine. (I am assuming the silicon-based me would be able to integrate subsequent updates.) Maybe if there was a second me active in cyberspace, I could get things done.[/quote']

 

I like the idea of multiple me's working together in cyberspace, given the option of recombining afterwards. It’s permanently creating a “me” that renders my current being obsolete that scares me, especially as I tend to get on my nerves enough when there’s only one of me. I’d probably do it anyway, if non-destructive uploading was the first option that became available (and the doctors responsible have moral scruples about killing “me” before I wake up). Any shot at immortality will do.

 

So while I do see you point' date=' and respect your choice, it is not the choice I would make.[/quote']

I too see your point, and will have to consider me view point further (for example, if non-destructive uploading was possible, why not create an active digital copy now, and update him with my memories again later, and possibly even when I die, thus getting the best of both worlds?).

 

Congratulations. You may be the first person to change my mind through the internet.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

By the way' date=' was that comment directed towards the cartoon, it's creator, or me? I couldn't quite tell.[/quote']

It was pointing out that it was a straw man argument. At the suggestion of the "friendly competition," the duplicated scientist should have pointed out that as perfect duplicates any contest between them was going to be decided by chance factors such as who got to go first, not who came out of which box. Everything from that point proceeded from the premise that it was a bizarro machine making imperfect copies, which means everything before about it making perfect copies is a lie.

 

What you seem unwilling or unable to accept is that a couple of billion people believe, rightly or wrongly, that we've already done this experiment. When it can be done under more controlled conditions, I'm sure there will be no shortage of volunteers. Actually doing the experiment and collecting the data will tell us far more than any amount of speculation.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Ironically' date=' that fear of aging, decease and death is the driver behind nearly all research into cybernetics and bioengineering, and the last two pages are about a method to gain a measure of immortality through becoming software.[/quote']

Death is inevitable. Premature death is not.

 

Congratulations. You may be the first person to change my mind through the internet.

We discuss to learn and grow.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Everything from that point proceeded from the premise that it was a bizarro machine making imperfect copies' date=' which means everything before about it making perfect copies is a lie.[/quote']

 

Interesting angle. I didn't see anything that suggested "imperfect copies", be it physiological, psychological, or even spiritual. The issue stemmed from a lack 0f knowledge that was quickly made apparent.

 

When it can be done under more controlled conditions' date=' I'm sure there will be no shortage of volunteers/[/quote']

 

I am sure there will be volunteers, but I can only hope all will be properly educated on just what happens.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Death is inevitable. Premature death is not.

Premature asumes a definition of "right" time to die. How is this point determined or what causes of death are "premature"?

 

For example:

Being run over by a car?

Contracting a deadly disease?

Contracting a draining, but not imminently deadly disease or longer periods of Stress? (negatively affects the lives span)

Age-based organ failure?

 

I think your sentence is completely meaningless. Everyone who want's imortality asumes his (possible) death to be "premature". Even if that Premature is "any time before the end of the universe" (and sometimes even after that could be considered premature).

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

And a warrior might find their "right" time of death to be in battle, rather than old age.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Premature asumes a definition of "right" time to die.

Not at all. Premature assumes an ability to delay the inevitable, or perhaps an opportunity not taken. Carelessly dying in an accident is premature. Dying of a disease because you did not seek treatment is premature. Not dealing with the stress can cause premature death. Not getting support for failing organs can cause premature death. As long as technology advances, one generation's inevitable is the next generation's premature.

[Markdoc]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That would be a copy. "You" would essentially cease to exist' date=' though another version would be born.[/quote']

 

Shrug. Your brain's cells have alreadyturned over multiple times: as have pretty much every cell in your body. Even your bones and teeth have been rebuilt many, many times. If "it must be the same meat to be the same person" is your definition, then you - and everyone above the age of a a few months - by definition already *is* a copy.

 

I'm honestly not seeing why storing your memories as electronic/biochemical reactions on frequently (and imperfectly renewed) cells is different from storing them as electronic/chemical reactions on silicon.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Shrug. Your brain's cells have alreadyturned over multiple times: as have pretty much every cell in your body. Even your bones and teeth have been rebuilt many' date=' many times. [b'] If "it must be the same meat to be the same person" is your definition, then you - and everyone above the age of a a few months - by definition already *is* a copy[/b].

 

I'm honestly not seeing why storing your memories as electronic/biochemical reactions on frequently (and imperfectly renewed) cells is different from storing them as electronic/chemical reactions on silicon.

 

cheers, Mark

 

The main issue is continuity of consciousness.

 

Despite that which you say being technically true, it doesn't matter to a great many people due to continuity of consciousness. Also, the "copy while still alive" wrinkle tends to further complicate matters.

 

Oh, and also consider this: how would others in one's family feel if those which replaced their loved one was an actual clone? Some might embrace them with open arms, but others would never get around the feeling that who they're seeing is "lesser".

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Interesting angle. I didn't see anything that suggested "imperfect copies"' date=' be it physiological, psychological, or even spiritual. [/quote']

You have the duplicated scientists, one of which came out of Box A, and the other of which came out of Box B.

 

We do not know which is A and which is B.

 

They sat down for a game of chess. One had the white pieces, the other black. For purposes of identification and not expressing a preference for which is A or which is B, let's call them w and b. B may or may not be b.

 

I believe the duplicate with the white pieces won. Let's say w won the game, and b lost.

 

Around 7:40, the smug narrator says "I quickly pointed out that it was more likely that the winning scientist was the original, and could defeat a mere copy." With an extremely condescending tone on the word "mere." What does "mere" mean in this context if it does not mean imperfect? b quickly embraces the idea, calling w "smart guy," implying that he is the inferior copy. w protests, claiming b threw the game, therefor b had knowledge that w did not or figured it out before w did, proving b was smarter and w the inferior copy.

 

So both b and w are claiming to be imperfect duplicates, whereas the unduplicated scientist claimed the machine made perfect copies. Was he lying then or are they lying now?

 

Seriously, you didn't see that?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Ahhh, yeah. The narrator/character most probably meant to insinuate that, but I didn't take that from the cartoon as a whole.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Oh' date=' and also consider this: how would others in one's family feel if those which replaced their loved one was an actual clone? Some might embrace them with open arms, but others would never get around the feeling that who they're seeing is "lesser".[/quote']

Just like some people can't accept a family member after a personality change due to brain damage. Or if they become disfigured by accident or disease. Or if they come out Gay, change religions, or marry outside their ethnic group.

 

That all becomes a case of mind over matter.

 

 

"Those who mind, don't matter. Those who matter, don't mind."

 

[Markdoc]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The main issue is continuity of consciousness.

 

Despite that which you say being technically true, it doesn't matter to a great many people due to continuity of consciousness. Also, the "copy while still alive" issue tends to further complicate matters.

 

People who are anesthetized lose continuity of consciousness. Yet we do not regard that as death - I've been anesthetized, and both I and society as large regard me as the same person, before and after. The same is true for millions of people. Arguably we lose continuity of consciousness when asleep, and everyone does that. A person who was anesthetized and woke to find their brain had been replaced by silicon would doubtless have the same reaction: that they were the same person - as long as their memory was intact. I think what you really mean is "continuity of memory" ... and if we postulate that cybernetic brains are possible, then continuity of memory would also be possible.

 

So that issue turns out to be a non-issue, unless, as noted there's something special about a meat brain ... in which case you are saying that continuity of consciousness or continuity of memory aren't important, and that it's the meat that counts.*

 

The issue of duplicates is an interesting one, but it's legal rather than philosophical. Two identical copies of the same person would be (absent drastic alterations in the current law and in our current understanding) two individuals. Two identical individuals, yes, but still two individuals. Each would meet the current guidelines for humane treatment, legal standing as a person etc. Currently, monozygotic twins, when born, are clones. Yet legally and philosophically we regard them as individuals. Siamese twins are born sharing the same body (and occasionally the same brain tissue) but they also are regarded as seperate persons. The origin of the person doesn't change that. None of those real life cases challenges our current legal or philosophical status quo.

 

In a case where a person was cloned off another, then you could still identify an original and a copy, but so what? That doesn't make the copy - in our current understanding - any less sentient, any less of a person, etc. Once that copy is made, they will immediately start to diverge and be two different - but still very closely related - persons.

 

The interesting questions are legal. If you make a copy, who gets your stuff? Should there be new laws, so that you can't make a copy without a legal requirement to provide for them? Can we - should we - legally redefine personhood, so that a copy actually isn't a person? I doubt that would fly, but it's a possibility.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

*There are precedents for this: a brain-dead human is no longer legally a person, but many friends and family continue to regard them as the same person. A person who suffers traumatic brain injury may have neither continuity of consciousness or continuity of memory, and they may even have greatly altered personality, but legally and socially, they are considered the "same person". The truth is, there is no current clear definition of what constitutes a person or "the same person".