replicating consciousness

[qazplm]

No, I don't believe in life after death, yes I realize that there are questions most folks would answer never, no way, not a chance, but please allow me to ask anyways.

1. Assuming (as I do) consciousness is totally tied to the physical brain (either directly or arising as an emergent property) is it physically possible to move it, i.e. either by replacing neurons with artificial neurons, or "uploading" or duplication or some other means.

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then is that you? Or is it a copy? If a copy, is it sentient?

I tend to lean towards answering the first question as probably not in any truly 100 percent accurate way, which means the answer to 2 would then be no, it isn't you, although it could end up being sentient.

Put another way, if our consciousness, if "us" is simply a pattern of electrical signals in our brains, then it should replicable, given the appropriate level of technology, yes?

[zazen]

1. consciousness is property of matter/brain limits rather than creates it

At least that's the perspective of physicists like U Manchester's David Darling, and a whole bunch of non-dualists.

So, can frenetic conceptualizing in the service of perceiving patterns through limited senses so as to enable the brain-owner to predate, reproduce, and not get eaten (aka the brain, the human self-preservation tool) be replicated technologically? Don't know about that.

[damntexdem]

2. Interesting speculation, often addressed in science fiction.

The can-it-be-done is a real scientific question. The would-it-be-a-new-conscious-agent or the same agent is more interesting philosophically, and more interesting in a science fiction novel. I recommend Peter F. Hamilton's novels, both the Void novels and the Dawn of Night novels. I also recommend David Brin's 'The Kiln People.'

[qazplm]

6. I think

it's a combination of philosophy and science to ask would replication/uploading/what have you be the same or a new consciousness.

Just like consciousness itself is a mixture of real science and philosophy. Does it require "continuous operation" (one could argue no since we lose it every night only to regain it again the next morning, although I doubt we truly ever lose it completely, it merely goes idle)

If I replicate my mind or upload or otherwise duplicate it, will I be aware of both versions if they exist simultaneously? (I would guess no). If I stop one, as I create a new one, is the new one a new entity or me still?

Is it the matter itself that's me, or is it the pattern that's me?
Philosophical yes, but also amenable to scientific discovery/questioning.

[bananas]

7. There was a science fiction show on tv

Friendly aliens landed and gave us all this great technology.
They also had teleportation machines - you step in one machine, and step out another.
But there was a secret.
Turned out, they weren't really teleportation machines.
The machine you entered would scan you and basically send a fax, enough information to create a duplicate of you, in the other machine.
Once it verified that a good copy had been made, it would destroy the original.
The new copy wouldn't know that the original had been killed, it thought it was the original.

[qazplm]

8. didnt see it but read the short story

it was likely based on, good read. So there's the rub. If "we" are the actual matter/brain then that wasn't "you" that got replicated, but a copy.

But if we are the pattern, and the pattern was replicated, then you are the copy.

I just find it fascinating to consider, even though obviously the odds of reaching that technology in the next million years are pretty remote.

[Swede]

9. Rogue Moon by Algis Budrys was the first time I'd encountered this theme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Moon

[qazplm]

10. i wish i could remember the name

of the short story i read with this theme.

[sofa king]

30. Maybe Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson?

They put out two novels (Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star) that, in addition to nifty gimmicks like a Dyson sphere and hive intelligence, also uses the fax-replication theory (with the information being transmitted by tachyon, so that the speed of light is evaded), but in that case the original copy also survives.

That leads to interesting conundrums such as one where the protagonists, doomed to die in an inescapable situation, hurriedly rush into the fax-booth to fire off copies of themselves, hoping that "they" will be the ones to emerge as copies somewhere else, while the original copy certainly won't survive. At other times, two copies of the same person run into one another, find that they are now very different due to subsequent experiences, and don't like each other at all.

Then the hive mind decides it is time to take over and begins flying its swarm of bee-like sub-entities into and out of a series of replicators until its swarm and its collective intelligence dwarfs everything else.

I think one of the novels was serialized or excerpted in a science fiction magazine of the 1970s. Unfortunately, it seems as if the series was dropped mid-stream and never completed. I thought they were fun reads.

[qazplm]

32. no that's not it although

very similar. This one was about a transportation system where folks were sent from one place to another, the original destroyed and the copy becoming the original, but then one guy decides to avoid being destroyed somehow and then hijinks ensue.

[bananas]

34. Wikepedia has a list of teleportation in fiction

maybe you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fiction_containing_teleportation

[bighughdiehl]

13. Well....(spoilers for a more recent movie follow)

Isn't that what happened with the transporters on Star Trek? BTW, an old episode of ST:TNG
ran on syfy a few days ago exploring this stuff. It was the one where they discover a an
extra Commander Riker stuck down on a planet. Also, there was the movie The Prestige a few
years ago. Hugh Jackman's character kept killing originals of himself after being copied
over and over. Plausible?

[qazplm]

15. well transporters are a good example of this

Clearly in ST, consciousness was not about the brain, it was about the pattern. The person is completely dematerialized, and then rematerialized, but no one thinks it's a new person everytime, but then you are right, you had the episode where Riker gets copied, and the copy stays on the planet while he bounces back to the ship, and thus a new entity was created and diverged from the original.

I am beginning to think it really is about the pattern as much as the matter/brain itself but it's not something I think anyone is going to answer anytime soon.

[Occulus]

11. Answers, in order

1) No. Consciousness, even in humans, has a definite starting point. Exactly where the beginning of human consciousness begins during an individual's life is a debatable question.

2) No. For you, the one being copied, your stream of consciousness will (ideally) continue uninterrupted. Your copy would have identical memories up to the moment of being fully copied, at which point new experiences, hostory, and memory begins (see the Doctor Who episodes "The Rebel Flesh" and "The Almost People" for a very recent examination of the idea).

3) The pattern, if you will, is you until it is copied, at which point it becomes an individual unto itself. Again, it still has the same memories up to the moment of being copied; thereafter, its unique memories are its own and just as valid as yours.

At least, that's how I imagine it would work, given that memory is story biochemically, but is also dynamically recorded.

[Peace Patriot]

3. What a very interesting and provocative question!

"Assuming (as I do) consciousness is totally tied to the physical brain (either directly or arising as an emergent property)..."

I am reminded of the difficulty of predicting the weather, which led to the "Chaos Theory." To duplicate human consciousness--or, rather, specifically ONE human consciousness, one person's personality--I think there is more to the problem than just replicating neurons. There are two components of "personality" that we hardly understand at all: memory and social interaction. And memory isn't just "remembering" incidents and people. It is a VERY complex function of the brain that starts as soon as the brain is formed in the womb and maybe before, and involves EVERYTHING that that person has ever perceived through the senses or THOUGHT (combinations of thoughts, reason, creative imaginings, was told, teachings, dreaming and its collaborative functions with the waking mind, experimental activities as a child and as an adult, various sorting systems and sensory triggering systems for various memories, etc., etc., etc.). What you have to replicate is one of the MOST COMPLEX and POORLY UNDERSTOOD systems in the Universe.

And secondly, I think human brains are connected to other human brains in ways that we have virtually no understanding of. A person does not develop in isolation, first of all. A person develops by means of a VERY COMPLEX interaction with others. So I don't think we can view or replicate a human personality IN ISOLATION--or, if we ever get to the point of being able to replicate neurons and some brain systems, what will be produced is an odd, out of whack entity, maybe even tending to the psycopathic and sociopathic, i.e., an UN-integrated individual. This is hard to discuss because it is based mostly on my own intuition--although it is very clear that human beings in isolation do not function well, and babies and children suffer grave damage from, and even perish from, isolation (from lack of human interaction). Human interaction is an ESSENTIAL part of the functioning of our brains; and it cannot occur without having OTHER brains around that are able to, and agree to, interact. There are further consequences of this--such as human cooperation for survival and for happiness.

To replicate human personalities--that is, to reproduce the "same person"--will require identifying, understanding and replicating these two extremely complex functions of the brain--memory and social interaction, and, as for the latter, it may be quite impossible, or impossible in today's scientific terms. Psychic phenomena will have to be understood first. Are psychic phenomena a function of an individual brain OR a group of brains? When I think of my sister and a minute later she calls me, what is going on? When tribal women synchronize their menstrual cycles, what is going on? When new ideas are born simultaneously in different parts of the world, in quite different circumstances, what is going on? These are just a few examples of phenomena that we have been taught to ignore, dismiss, laugh off, ridicule--phenomena of collective consciousness that may point to a system of communication, brain to brain, that lay outside the parameters of current science. (Could have to do with our misperception of time or space--we perceive on a gross physical level, but we are made up of particles that don't operate according to our perceptions of time and space. Just a stab at a guess.)

The individual human brain is intimately tied to the community in which it has been conceived and into which it is born. If you create an entity--replicate a "person"--without those connective abilities (internally, as to memory) and externally (or brain to brain) as to community, do you not risk creating a monster, or at the least someone who is severely hampered as a human being? Is it POSSIBLE for human beings to replicate the vast complexities that make us who we are? We might well create a vastly complex system--we're certainly doing so with artificial intelligence--but replicating an existing human being is quite another thing. It is very like trying to model the weather: it has "chaotic" components that are NOT replicable--i.e., a butterfly landing on a desert in China "causing" a hurricane in Nicaragua. We can certainly "create" weather. We CANNOT create it to our specifications. It is TOO complex.

We might end up being able to do PARTIAL replications--some of the same memories, some of the same abilities, some of the same physical characteristics--but I think the "whole" will elude us--unless some very new and unusual scientific breakthroughs occur. Can't rule that out, but extrapolating future science from current science, I think we will hit a barrier of complexity that we cannot overcome.

I have certainly thought that what previous generations and religious people call the "soul" is simply a word and concept to express our perception of the impenetrable complexity of a human being. The brain, memory and social interaction create this incredibly complex entity known as a "person" and we balk at thinking that that entity could disappear. It seems more than its parts--and perhaps IS more than its parts. "Soul" has a long, long history as a concept. It is certainly not tied to one religion, to major religions or to any particular philosophy. It is a UNIVERSAl recognition, by human beings, of SOMETHING that we are, that can't--or that we don't want to--perish.

I can't dismiss this as wishful thinking--any more than I can dismiss the concept of "God" or "Gods" because God or Gods cannot be proven to exist. It or they exist as a pervasive longing of the human mind and heart. What does this mean? Possibly it is projection--one of our more mysterious and tricky mental abilities. We, as a species, are trying to BECOME that which we imagine as already existing. And our species certainly displays a nearly unbroken history of the development of more and more god-like powers--and where that learning curve has sometimes been broken, it has always recovered, with current knowledge building upon past knowledge (an interesting parallel to individual human beings and their lifelong learning ability and passing of their learning on to their children). While some gods are representations of chaos or evil, most people reverence some all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, beneficent concept of God, whether as father or mother or both. Are we trying to BECOME all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving and beneficent? Well, that could be essential to our survival--considering the current peril to Planet Earth. (We NEED the wisdom, knowledge and power to save it--or we and all of our brethren in the animal kingdom will perish.) Maybe the word "God" like the word "soul" is expressing something that we COULD be, if we get our act together, so to speak--the beneficent restorer of life systems on this planet and terraformers of other planets--givers of life, rather than warriors, polluters and destroyers.

To get there, though, I do think we have to understand ourselves as a collective entity. There has been quite a lot of learning in our history on this matter as well--the rise of the concept of all human beings as equal, for instance. Some backsliding, but the concept has always recovered and is now universal--at least as a concept, if not a practical reality. The notion of replicated "persons" gives me considerable concern that the choices involved in necessarily imperfect replication of a complex system that is way beyond our complete understanding, will be DIRECTED--by whoever controls the technology--and the result (after a lot of ugly experimentation) will not be beneficial at all. It will be totalitarian and inhuman, and may truncate what would have been our evolution into higher beings. If parts of people can be made to live forever, what parts will be chosen for that extended power, and by whom?

[qazplm]

5. well

i was using neurons as sort of a shorthand. I'm sure it would require more than that, it would require a way of "reading" the brain and figuring out how everything that makes you you is encoded/expressed.

Still, if you could do that, then one would think you could replicate it.

Then again, if you simply replaced little by little the neurons with artificial ones, would the rest of the system go away? (assuming you could theoretically create artificial neurons, which is probably a ways away if even possible). Are our memories encoded in the neurons themselves, or in the interactions between them, or is there something else?

I think one can be born, and live far away from everyone and still be a human being so I do not believe we are "tied" to a community in any literal sense.
I think we are very complex, but not chaotic. People can be very predictable.

[dimbear]

4. Before you upload, take care there are no

insects in the chamber with you, especially flies.

[Terry in Austin]

12. Seat of consciousness

Fascinating to speculate about where the "me in here" sensation would occur -- probably in both places, but then which is the actual "me"?

Consider the person who has had split-brain surgery: the left hemisphere, the one controlling speech (and the right hand) would readily claim it was "me" speaking and expressing wishes; however, there's apparently another "me" in the right hemisphere that can express its own wishes -- even contrary ones -- through actions of the left hand.

Who is it that's "in there" then?

[qazplm]

16. well I'd guess the "you"

is the executive function that ties all of the mini-yous together.

[Nihil]

17. Both

i.e., the actual "me" is true for both places as both are identically "you"
right up to the point where the copies start to make different decisions.

In the case of the split-brain person, the two hemispheres have differing
perceptions (=inputs) and different controls (=outputs) so are a slightly
different case from the "duplicated person" situation.

> Who is it that's "in there" then?

In the split-brain case, you are dealing with two halves of a person inside
one physical body (well, two "more than half" bits really as some functions
operate across the pair whilst only some are missing from one "half").
The "duplicated person" case has two fully-functional people who share a
lot of common attributes (memory, physiology, character preferences) ...
like identical twins except at a much higher degree. Each is "me" as each
is a complete individual.

[LongTomH]

18. "I know who I am; but, who are all you zombies?"

The title and end sentence of one of Robert A. Heinlein's short stories; one of the weirdest time-travel paradox stories in the literature.

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking thread. I'm reminded of the time I argued with a guy at a futurist conference about why I wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of uploading my brain into a computer matrix. I used basically the argument as Terry in Austin. The usual uploading model involves uploading memories - data - from a human brain into a computer, destroying the original brain in the process; essentially killing the 'uploadee.' I said I could easily conceive of a process which wasn't destructive, which would result in an original and a cybernetic copy. So which one is me? "I know who I am; but, who are all you zombies?"

From that thought experiment, I inferred that basically, uploading was a form of suicide. Maybe someone, some entity that thinks he's me, wakes up in a computer; but, the 'real me' dies. The lights go out here, whether the go on somewhere else or not.

The person I was arguing with (you could label him both a 'singulatarian' and an 'immortalist') simply stated: "Both copies are you!" and "A difference which makes no difference is not a difference!" Nice bit of logic, especially the latter statement; but, from an experiential standpoint, uploading sounds like dying.

Also, there's the very real issue that a computer is NOT a human brain, even if you're using a purely materialistic, reductionist model of consciousness, and I'm not satisfied with purely materialistic, reductionist models. I tend to agree with Peace Patriot, both about the fact that we don't exist in isolation and about the existence of a soul (psyche, spirit, whatever).

[Odin2005]

22. A way around that problem would be via a gradual "cyborgization" of the brain.

That is, convert your brain into AI one neuron at a time over the period of a few years. you will act no different when the process if finished. Then when your physical body dies your now electronic brain can just be hooked up to an artificial body.

[qazplm]

26. Ive thought about that

but we don't even know if it's solely the neurons that make up the brain/mind. There are other parts too, but I get your point, whatever is in there, replace it bit by bit with artificial stuff.

But then I'm still wondering why that's fundamentally any different then simply replicating that artificial pattern all at once.

[Pharaoh]

14. Consciousness is seperate from the body

It animates it. Without consciousness the body is just a lump of meat.

I know it's a stretch for most but. The body is a projection of consciousness, consciousness is not a projection of the body.

In fact matter and the entire physical Universe is a projection of consciousness, as Quantum Physics is showing us, it is all energy, and it is self aware. It's all God.

Just my humble opinion.

[sofa king]

19. I see a problem with the Turing Test.

Poorly paraphrased, Alan Turing proposed a simple test that would have made Sextus Empiricus happy: if a human converses with a computer and cannot reliably tell if it is a human or a computer, then to the human, the machine is intelligent.

So with a replication experiment, a friend could be asked to evaluate a program that was made from someone he knows well, and if the friend comes back and says, "that's the guy," then externally, the program may be perceived as a reasonable facsimile of a person.

But to the program, it almost certainly wouldn't replicate the unusual experience of actually being human, the thoughts, sensations, emotions, the annoyance of being incorrect all the time and so on that we never can fully share with anyone else.

It almost certainly wouldn't because it would be so much easier to program in a simple line of code that says, "when asked if you feel any different, you must say NO." That one line, and a few thousand more like it, would save millions of hours of research and effort, but the program would in fact be a hollow pod-person designed to deceive the perceptions of those around it.

If there's money to be made, that's how it's gonna wind up, least effort to profit being a rule of its own. So the replicated dead will serve as comfort to the living, and will certainly try their best to emulate their former lives. The program may even be able to perceive its own emptyness and try to work around it, the better to deceive those around it. But inside, where humans really exist, they'll be as hollow as a cave, and if it's done right, it won't be permitted to tell.

Come to think of it, I think I already work with a couple of people like that.

[hunter]

20. To replicate a person in a convincing way...

... you would certainly have to emulate "the unusual experience of actually being human, the thoughts, sensations, emotions, the annoyance of being incorrect all the time and so on that we never can fully share with anyone else."

In that case the emulated consciousness would be as real as any human; it would be a human consciousness.

Personally, I don't believe there is any continuity in human consciousness. By the end of the day our minds are shredded and shattered. When we sleep internal processes reassemble the bits and pieces into some reasonable facsimile of the person we were the previous day. It is also possible for these reassembly processes to fail; maybe the damage done is too great for the normal reassembly processes to deal with, as in post traumatic stress disorders, or maybe the reassembly processes are damaged or faulty.

Stay awake, don't sleep, and this reassembly process doesn't occur and you go crazy. You start to hallucinate. You can't focus.

I'd like to experience the continuity of consciousness other people seem to enjoy. Without meds my moods and perceptions are very shifty things. I take meds to achieve some measure of stability. Perhaps these meds correct or cover up a flaw in my mind's chemistry. Maybe that's why I've never felt my consciousness as anything separate from my physical self.

[Odin2005]

21. I agree. the "continuity" of consciousness is an illusion.

Oddly enough, the only non-autistics that seem to realize that are Buddhist meditation masters.

[qazplm]

27. well sure none of us have direct continuity

or should I say, direct and full continuity.

I do think however that our consciousness never fully shuts off. I know the testing done seems to indicate that there is little to no brain activity in the areas we associate with consciousness when we sleep, but I think there is still some connection that keeps the you that wakes up fundamentally the same as the you that goes to sleep, even if that you has minute changes that magnify over time (or significant changes thanks to extreme short-term events).

[sofa king]

23. That brings up another thought...

Which is that if a computer can emulate such things well enough to dupe the sub-program itself and those observing it, then how does one know we aren't already sub-programs within a much larger simulation, and does it even matter to us? I know, it's a very Matrix-y fad to bring that up these days.

But going back to my original point, I don't think one has to introduce all the complexity we think surrounds us to produce an externally reliable facsimile.

Think about trying to simulate Sarah Palin, her deep narcissism and histrionic personality disorder, and how easy it would be to skip decades of warped personality development and tragic experience and go straight to a desired result:

* Countdown timer is 240 seconds, +/- 10-40 random seconds.
* When in a group of people, reset countdown timer at onset.
* Event 0001 conditions met if at least one person in group stares at my chest.
* If countdown timer reaches 0, then randomly select from one of 256 statements which demand attention from others.
* No need to check for relevance or coherence of statement.
* After statement is issued, reset countdown timer to 240.

That might well get a "yeah, that's Sarah" reaction from even her closest associates. But notice that within my poorly-written commands, there is no motivation, no implicit need being satisfied, no nothing. Just a routine with conditions that are either met or not met, which in turn produces a reaction. Even Sarah Palin is more complex than that, at least one would hope.

[hunter]

24. How do you know your own perception of "consciousness" isn't just a programmed shortcut?

A sense of individuality and self consciousness is an excellent survival mechanism.

Otherwise, say you see a tiger stalking you, but you are not alarmed or threatened because there is no "you" inside your head. Oh well, no big deal, it's simply your last day as a human and your first day as tiger food.

I think the underlying processes are not so complex as we think. It's the interaction of many simple processes that leads to the complexity.

Mostly I'm drawing from my personal experience of Aspergers, depression, OCD, and a few other things. Off my meds I can't stand to be around people. I become a hermit. I can't stand to let words roam around freely in my head because I'm never sure they are mine. I have terrible, terrible nightmares. My sleep cycle becomes erratic.

Then I take a few meds, simple chemicals, and the worst symptoms go away and I can be a somewhat functional member of society.

It's a real :wtf: eye opening experience.

There's a lot of people in my family tree who before modern meds were never functional social creatures. Some killed themselves, some were hidden away and supported by family. There were a few mad geniuses and a few village idiots. My crazy hoarder grandma, bless her heart, had to be dragged out of her house by the police and paramedics because she was becoming a danger to herself and others. She was kicking and screaming and biting the entire way. Her house was exactly like those you see on the television shows. Amongst all the other mess, for example, she kept burned out light bulbs in the packages they came in.

I'm certain with a big enough Field-programmable gate array (something far beyond our current technology) you could emulate a human consciousness. But if you knew enough to do that, why would you want to? Our minds are a mish-mash of evolutionary biology. Some things are not quite right with us and are detrimental to our overall intelligence and rationality. Nature isn't about optimization, it's about good enough to survive and reproduce.

Somehow all my crazy ancestors managed to survive long enough to reproduce. In biology consciousness, intelligence and rationality are not the goal or the meaning; like any other trait they simply evolved. Our species may be on earth for a very long time because we have this sort of intelligence and rationality, but our stay here may also be shortened drastically if our cleverness leads to the destruction of the environment that supports us.

[qazplm]

28. I think your experience suggests

that it isn't JUST the neurons we'd have to replicate but the hormones and other chemical processes in the brain that make us, us.

In your case, you need chemical assistance to keep those processes on the right track, and so that indicates that part of what makes you you and me me is more than just neurons, it's chemicals and hormones and receptors and well emotions. Things that are much harder to replace with a pattern or an artificial device than say a neuron which I think COULD given sufficient tech be replaced by an artificial device.

[sofa king]

29. I don't know, and likely cannot know.

A more sophisticated subroutine than the one I offered above could even supply motivations after the fact so that when I review the circumstances they appear reasonable and consistent.

If I'm not a terribly rational person, like Sarah Palin, those motivations do not even need to be reasonable or consistent, merely convenient. She, in particular, appears to be satisfied with whatever untruth is most expedient at the time, and does not need her decisions to comport with prior or future actions.

You have an excellent point in that if humans really want to create an artificial intelligence, the last thing they would want to do is emulate the thought processes and experience of an actual human being, because humans are only rarely rational, accurate, or intelligent. On the other hand, if you don't build some sort of code of ethics into the program, the program might quickly decide that about 95% fewer humans on earth would be the best way to preserve its own integrity and growth--yet another science fiction mainstay.

[qazplm]

31. I dont agree

with that last point. Humans are often rational, accurate and intelligent. There are certain blind spots each particular human has that results in a certain range of irrational or inaccurate or even unintelligent behaviors.

However, I think mostly we act rationally, accurately and intelligently in many areas.

[sofa king]

33. Clearly, you don't ride a moped!

If you did, you also would likely find glimpses of those things to be rare, life-saving respites from the daily fight against being run off the road.

[Ready4Change]

25. Yes, Yes, and then what I think would happen.

1. Assuming consciousness is totally tied to the physical brain I think this would be possible.

2. Assuming again, this time that answer 1 is yes, then it would be just as much 'you' as you are.

What happens then, given the above assumptions, is wildly speculative.

I suspect that what makes us what we are, with the assumptions above, would be as much a matter of the timing of signals as which signals are being sent. Self-awareness would be a pattern of frequencies. A song that can hear itself, and play itself to some extent.

So, when 'I' am transferred to an artificial medium, that mediums speed and timing could radically alter what 'I' am. 'I' could cease being sentient at all. 'I' could become insane. 'I' could have radically altered perceptions, and thus develop in radically different directions. If the biological self were left intact, then I and 'I' would diverge from each other very rapidly.