Ok, he's obviously very intelligent and he seems to be a very interesting guy but he seems to miss one very important thing. I've been thinking about it for several years and I considered it obvious but after talking to Andrea some time ago and then listening to O'Brien I realized that even very smart people don't seem to get it. In the interview, he was talking about head transplants, meaning transplanting head to a healthier body so people can live longer. This is a fascinating idea and it surprised me when he said it could happen as soon as in 15 years, which is pretty cool. In relation to that, he also mentioned the option of transferring human mind to a computer. I have the feeling that this is much harder than the transplant and I don't think this will happen anytime soon for several reasons that are not important for this article. In contrast, he viewed it as something that will happen soon.
This is just a background information. The important thing is what he said about the idea of transferring the brain/mind into a computer. He said something like: "I'm up for it, if it allows me to live longer."
Now. Do you think there's something wrong with that statement? Honestly, please tell me what you think right now. Is there anything wrong with it? If yes, what?
(EDIT: I listened to the podcast again and apparently he said it in regards to the head transplant which changes the whole point of the article but nevermind. The point remains, other people would say the same. Only difference is that now I can't make fun of a person with IQ 197).
(EDIT: I listened to the podcast again and apparently he said it in regards to the head transplant which changes the whole point of the article but nevermind. The point remains, other people would say the same. Only difference is that now I can't make fun of a person with IQ 197).
For me, the statement just can't be right for one simple reason: he won't survive!
Ignoring the fact that his body dies and assuming that the transfer of the mind into a computer is absolutely flawless, I still can't see how can he survive. Yes, his mind will be there. Yes, other people might not see the difference. And yes, he will be exactly the same minus the body. He will feel exactly the same as before, conscious, intelligent and all that. But! It just won't be him.
Do you see why? For me, it seems obvious but I know it took more time than I thought to explain it to Andrea. And unsuccessfully. We understand each other, I think, but we disagree.
If you don't, let's imagine that he won't die after the transfer, which was never stated but is implied. Let's say his mind is copied into a computer but his physical body including the brain will stay intact. How can you explain that? Suddenly there are two exactly the same minds, one in a computer and one in the physical body. What/who is the real Walter O'Brien? The one in the physical body, right? But who or what is the computerized version? At this point, I hope it's clear that there is something amiss.
The same idea can be explained when thinking of creating copies of people. If I create an exact copy of myself at this point, it won't be me. If I die, no one might realize it's someone else, if the copying was really perfect. Not even my copy could realize it's only a copy and not the original me, but there is a difference. I will die. My personality might survive, but I, as a person, will be dead.
I asked several of my friends about this topic and one of them explained it very clearly:
"I see it this way: when you create a copy, the copy has new consciousness (whatever consciousness is), it's a different entity that can think. In the beginning, it's exactly the same as me but later on with experience it changes. This means that from the view of other people I would survive, but my real consciousness would die. From the world's view, I would be alive but my actual consciousness would be dead."
Another friend said simply: "When I die I won't be able to experience the feelings of the clone."
I asked several of my friends about this topic and one of them explained it very clearly:
"I see it this way: when you create a copy, the copy has new consciousness (whatever consciousness is), it's a different entity that can think. In the beginning, it's exactly the same as me but later on with experience it changes. This means that from the view of other people I would survive, but my real consciousness would die. From the world's view, I would be alive but my actual consciousness would be dead."
Another friend said simply: "When I die I won't be able to experience the feelings of the clone."
I really hope it makes sense at this point. I hope you can see why I would be always worried when teleporting, creating copies or transferring myself. I have no issues with a head transplant. That actually sounds great because I will survive and live longer, but saying that "I" will live longer when my mind is computerized seems like nonsense.
What is interesting though is that this idea seems to be very hard for some people to understand. It seems that they have no issues with transferring their minds and they don't realize that their real self would actually be gone.
For most people this should seem like an insane thing. If you've understood what I said you probably have troubles understanding people who don't seem to mind dying. And this is where it gets interesting.
I can understand why would some people claim there's no difference between my consciousness (or my self) and the consciousness of the clone. I know a bit about neuroscience, and science in general, to know that we are just mechanical inventions. From that view, it is obvious that it actually makes no difference. The atoms will be exact copies, how could anything change? Andrea asked her supervisor, and he replied he wouldn't mind if he died but an exact copy of him would survive. He thinks it wouldn't make any difference. It suggests that people in neuroscience (and possibly other science fields) see our brains as purely mechanical.
The reason why they think this is because they accept that our self is an illusion. I suggest doing some research about this topic but the idea is fairly simple. The autonomous individual you call "I", the person that has free will, the ability to decide and the person who experiences everything that happens to "you" is simply an illusion. Now this doesn't mean you don't exist, illusion means you're adding something more to what is already there. This doesn't mean there is no free will. The "I" is just a label of the brain.
It is hard to explain this whole idea, and I might do an article about it in the future but for now, I just suggest reading about it.
Moving on. Interestingly enough, I've also experienced ego death (not thanks to LSD surprisingly), which is a full realization of the self-illusion, so I can understand people who would say there's no self to die, nor to live, and it wouldn't make any difference with the copying.
Also, I have heard and read a lot about those things, I accept them as true thanks to the ego death (and also because it makes perfect sense when you think about it) but I would never say I'm surviving if my copy lives. I know my self is an illusion, I know that it's not me who decides even though it feels like it. I know that my brain knows about any decision maybe 0.5 seconds before I am consciously aware of it. Yet, knowing this doesn't change the fact that I (whoever/whatever that is) don't want to die. It doesn't make a difference if my copy is created right after I die, it's still a different person. The same person as me but different consciousness. I can't feel what the copy is feeling.
For most people this should seem like an insane thing. If you've understood what I said you probably have troubles understanding people who don't seem to mind dying. And this is where it gets interesting.
I can understand why would some people claim there's no difference between my consciousness (or my self) and the consciousness of the clone. I know a bit about neuroscience, and science in general, to know that we are just mechanical inventions. From that view, it is obvious that it actually makes no difference. The atoms will be exact copies, how could anything change? Andrea asked her supervisor, and he replied he wouldn't mind if he died but an exact copy of him would survive. He thinks it wouldn't make any difference. It suggests that people in neuroscience (and possibly other science fields) see our brains as purely mechanical.
The reason why they think this is because they accept that our self is an illusion. I suggest doing some research about this topic but the idea is fairly simple. The autonomous individual you call "I", the person that has free will, the ability to decide and the person who experiences everything that happens to "you" is simply an illusion. Now this doesn't mean you don't exist, illusion means you're adding something more to what is already there. This doesn't mean there is no free will. The "I" is just a label of the brain.
It is hard to explain this whole idea, and I might do an article about it in the future but for now, I just suggest reading about it.
Moving on. Interestingly enough, I've also experienced ego death (not thanks to LSD surprisingly), which is a full realization of the self-illusion, so I can understand people who would say there's no self to die, nor to live, and it wouldn't make any difference with the copying.
Also, I have heard and read a lot about those things, I accept them as true thanks to the ego death (and also because it makes perfect sense when you think about it) but I would never say I'm surviving if my copy lives. I know my self is an illusion, I know that it's not me who decides even though it feels like it. I know that my brain knows about any decision maybe 0.5 seconds before I am consciously aware of it. Yet, knowing this doesn't change the fact that I (whoever/whatever that is) don't want to die. It doesn't make a difference if my copy is created right after I die, it's still a different person. The same person as me but different consciousness. I can't feel what the copy is feeling.
During my teenage years, I've felt like I'm the only conscious person and everyone else is just created to mindfuck me. Later on, I realized that the whole world is probably not made just to mess with me so I thought that there is a limited amount of people who are conscious (I used the word smart instead at that time though) and the rest is created for them. For unknown reasons that would be clear later.
I still don't think that other people are aware the same as I am, but I am willing to admit they are alive, somewhat aware and somewhat conscious. But this idea just boggles me! If other people are conscious they should have no problems understanding that they will simply be gone when they die. It would make any difference for them if they created an exact copy. They wouldn't survive, their consciousness wouldn't survive. Another human exactly the same would, the same type of consciousness would appear but it wouldn't be them. Even when I admit the self is an illusion, it still feels like dying.
I might understand it if the people were living their lives without the self. You feel and act differently during ego death, but the self eventually returns. If those people lived the same way as they did while "ego dying" then I could understand but they don't. The have their self and they have their ego.
I still don't think that other people are aware the same as I am, but I am willing to admit they are alive, somewhat aware and somewhat conscious. But this idea just boggles me! If other people are conscious they should have no problems understanding that they will simply be gone when they die. It would make any difference for them if they created an exact copy. They wouldn't survive, their consciousness wouldn't survive. Another human exactly the same would, the same type of consciousness would appear but it wouldn't be them. Even when I admit the self is an illusion, it still feels like dying.
I might understand it if the people were living their lives without the self. You feel and act differently during ego death, but the self eventually returns. If those people lived the same way as they did while "ego dying" then I could understand but they don't. The have their self and they have their ego.
Right now I'm discussing it with another friend and he just doesn't get it. How can I see him as human when he can't see it? How can I acknowledge his consciousness when he doesn't understand this?
Well, one obvious solution is to say that he is actually not as aware and conscious as I am or as other people are. That is most likely not the case.
The other obvious solution is that he went beyond his ego, beyond the self-illusion and he realized that in reality it makes no difference who survives because there is no self to preserve. I can understand that but it doesn't seem like this is the case. He wants to preserve himself, he doesn't want to die but he is willing to die in order to have his copy live.
Something doesn't seem to make sense here.
Well, one obvious solution is to say that he is actually not as aware and conscious as I am or as other people are. That is most likely not the case.
The other obvious solution is that he went beyond his ego, beyond the self-illusion and he realized that in reality it makes no difference who survives because there is no self to preserve. I can understand that but it doesn't seem like this is the case. He wants to preserve himself, he doesn't want to die but he is willing to die in order to have his copy live.
Something doesn't seem to make sense here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for any comments :)