Re: Conciousness [OT]
Al,
<snip>
> >
> > Dan, maybe this will be a little more interesting then...?
> >
> > Not more then two weeks ago a friend an i were talking about
> > something kind of similar to this i think. I brought up a
> > question that i think is pretty interesting to think about.
> >
> > Before i ask this question though, i have to bring up a little
> > background info.
> >
> > [1]
> > First, i believe that robots could be invented that act on
> > their own. With enough subroutines and a large data base,
> > the robot could be doing anything including learning.
> > It seems like it's all a matter of programming and proper
> > external sensor design.
> > Now sooner or later that robot is going to come across a mirror,
> > and discover it's own self (if it wasnt already programmed in).
> > It will then make judgements about what it has found out.
> > This doesnt seem that extraordinary to me really.
> > It might start to think about the ramifications
> > of being an individual and at some point stop because it's using
> > too much energy for a problem that has perhaps a too distant
> > event horizon.
> >
> > [2]
> > Second, sooner or later there will probably be enough
> > known about a human brain so that every transfer of energy
> > will be understood within a given brain. Every memory will
> > be able to be captured just like a computer memory only larger.
Ok, and here's another idea based on that: after you have the recorded
data, EDIT IT, so as to remove "will" from it; then put it into a superior
(faster functioning) "computer" & interface it with....yourself (your brain,
directly). Give it cognitive tasks to perform (by thinking) , & it would be
as if you were "super-charged". Unfortunately, that would make you a
slave-holder, I would think, kind of like Jeffrey Dahmer .
> >
> >
> > Now here's the interesting questions...
> >
> > Given that [1] and [2] are completely true and have occurred so
> > that one persons memories etc were copied into a robot with the
> > needed hardware, would that robot suddenly 'know' itself
> > as once being a human and now is a robot?
>
> Probably.
I should probably have said it would think of "itself" as a human being, but
within a new, robotic body. A similar idea would be "the ship that sang",
ie, an individual's body is damaged beyond any possible repair at the time,
but the brain is not damaged, & is placed in a "bottle" which provides
nourishment & waste removal; then the sensory AND motor nerves are
interfaced with, say, an ocean going vessel (or space ship, or space
station, etc); when the "brain in a bottle" opens its eyes, it receive radar
data, and video from within the ship; when it move its legs, the propeller
spins; when s/he moves its arms, maybe an army of waldos (remote
manipulators) fix meals for crew and passengers, etc.
>
> >
> > Even more interesting though...
> >
> >
> > Would that robot really "BE" that same person?
> >
> >
> Absolutely absolutely ABSOLUTELY NO. (I presume you mean something
> like, if
> a "recording" of the person's total neuronal/synaptic network, including
> all
> cellular metobolic functioning were made and copied into a robot brain,
> &
> then the person died, would that person somehow be "in" the robot? No,
> of
> course not; easy to see: what if the person did NOT die? In one corner
> you
> have the living person, in the other you have the robot that is
> cognitively
> "identical", thinking it's that person, but that person is actually over
> in
> the other corner.)
>
> A slightly more difficult question might be:
> remove a persons brain, put it in a robot body; make a copy of the
> brains
> neural network, copy that into a "synthetic" brain, put that into the
> human
> body; where's the real person? I'd say in the robot body, because the
> physical brain is the only actual "container" of any original human
> mind, as
> far as I can see.
>
>
> > Take care for now,
> > Al
> >
> >
> > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
Yeah that's interesting. According to the guy who wrote that original
paper, there are two views on this. One is from the person
looking 'out', and the other from people looking 'in', which he calls
'First person viewpoint' and 'Third person viewpoint'.
I havent gotten to the part where these might be unified in his
theory yet, and im hoping it turns out to be reasonable.
From what i can see so far, it looks as if what he is saying is that
the mind is 'Information' (whereas the brain itself is a physical
thing),
so even though the brain cant be transmitted the mind can not only be
duplicated it can be sent over a transmission medium.
Ok, notice the word DUPLICATED, as in COPY. A COPY of a mind. A copy is a
copy is a copy is a...COPY. A copy, no matter how perfectly identical, is
still a copy, it is NOT the original...so, if a COPY of YOUR brain/mind were
made, and put into an android/robot, and you (the actual original) were told
that either the COPY of you, or YOU were going to be destroyed, and you
could, if you wanted, CHOOSE WHICH, could you honestly say that you would
choose for YOU to be destroyed, thinking that somehow "you" would continue
to live "in" the copy??? I know *I* wouldn't, because it wouldn't be ME
that continued, it would be a *copy* of me that THOUGHT it was me!!!! But
*I* would be dead.
This means the possibility of creating a second 'brain' that has every
possible feature of the target brain will most likely be a reality
sometime in the future. As far as answering which one is the real
person
brings us back to the original question: "Will the second (or third,
etc)
brain (or robot) *BE* the same person?"
With the exception of the soul, i think it would be the same person
because it would have every possibly characteristic as the original,
Personally I'd forget about any mumbo-jumbo imaginary "soul", and just
consider the mind /brain question.
until the moment just 'after' it's being brought to consiousness,
when it would begin to process different external information then
the original, unless of course both parties where kept in a total
sub-reality where all of their external input was carefully controlled
by artificial means. If they were kept in the dream state, they
would even have the same exact dreams.
I disagree. Consider sensory-deprivation tank experiments...with no
external stimuli, "hallucinations" occur; what are they? Essentially, when
no stimuli are present, neurons will SPONTANEOUSLY fire, which means, I
would think, RANDOMLY, which would make the two entities, the real original
& the copy, have different hallucinations in that situation. I would think
the same would apply to dreaming.
(And, I suspect, this spontaneous firing could be the origin of "will",
perhaps, too?)
I guess if they woke up and saw each other somehow, they would begin
to process different information unless they were fooled into thinking
they were looking into a mirror like on so many comedy shows.
Once one of them made a different move, they would each process
different information and possibly realize that although they
have the same memories, same parents, etc, they arent the same
person.
Also, i can see that my assumption that the brain doesnt take advantage
of any sub-atomic activity was a bit of a leap, because from what
i have read so far within the scope of human understanding this isnt
certain yet.
Yes, I've seen somewhere the suggestion that neuronal synapses don't
actually work by a CHEMICAL action of the neurotransmitters, but by QUANTUM
effects of the neurotransmitters on the receptors. Can't begin to
understand that. :)
So then, i wonder if there would be an approximation
that could be used that might be reasonably accurate enough
to conduct experiments with. I guess this question will be answered
in the future at some point.
Take care for now,
Al
Dan Moyer, the original :)
(no, *I'm* the original!)
<no, *I* am!>
[no, you're both wrong, *I'm* the real Dan]
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
