Is this really you? Once you uploaded your brain and stuff, are you still the same person?

> Is this really you? Once you uploaded your brain and stuff, are you still the same person?

How would you reply Sup Forums?

Nah m8, I'm a fuckin' computer, yo mom be dead.

"I dont know."

yes?

So you think consciousness is the only thing required for survival?

This is the classic post-humanism conundrum, the big problem is how to define an actual essence of a person.
To the casual observer it would be impossible to distinguish between a soulless copy and the real thing if there's no means to quantify a soul.
Furthermore, the very question may be moot, did you know that every individual cell of a human being has died and is replaced by the end of every seven years?
"You" (and presumably your soul) is an effect of a biological system playing out it's functions.
But your "you" and your soul is obviously more than flowing blood and meat, or for that matter the brief electrical surges jumping between brain neurons.
So how can any animal body harbor a soul with any more effect than a computer? If it can't then there's no point of copying a soulless thing's functions with the goal of maintaining an individuality because that individuality is just an illusion, but if there is a soul then there can be no copy with an original's individuality because the distinct singular individualism (or "soul") is the object of attempted preservation and making a copy does nothing to preserve the original.
So the answer is "No."

Are you still you when you go through a teleporter?

dunno, last i checked, teleporters dont exist.

*Technically* they actually do.


Quantum mechanics and basic string theory is fun. The principle of teleportation as a realizable practical science would involve the manipulation of space itself, that means that teleported you would be as much you as ten minutes-ago you is you. Let's not go into that any further.
The teleporters on StarTrek? Not so much. It's kinda fucked up.

"I don't fuckin' know kid. You the same person you were yesterday?"

The real question is, is it the same consciousness?

neither does uploading your brain, I fail to see the relevance of existing to this conversation.

this point of view sits well with my cynical predispositions.

Finn didn't know his mother in her original body anyway so what's the point in wondering?

"might as well be"

Yes because a real teleporter would deform spacetime to create a bubble that moves many times faster than light creating the illusion of instant travel. The "teleporters" in Star Trek are just matter relocators.

Ugh, this is just what I would expect to be posted in this world...

Probably the same way she did.

The brain is chemistry. The brain is ever changing. Is your mind a function of the same part of the brain as it was yesterday? Moods change, so do personalities? Opinions change, so do outlooks and paths of life? Is the you that got out of bed on Wednesday the you that went to bed on Tuesday? Ever make a spelling error, but was sure that was the way that word was to be spelled? All you know is that you are you, and no way to check that you have all the memories today that you had yesterday. You think, therefore you are. Though you have no way to know that you're really you.

I read somewhere that the bacteria in your gut that help you digest certain foods actually have a huge influence on your taste preferences. Like, if a certain bacteria is cultured in your body, you start to prefer fatty foods rather than vegetables or fruits. But their influence goes beyond this. There are people who have overdosed on antibiotics who then develop severe mental disorders as the bacteria in their guts get fucked up.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, even if you did have a way to upload your brain into a computer, and even if there was a certain, metaphysical "you" that could be preserved by the process...

How much of "you" even is your brain? Because if this is true, then it's not 100%. It might not even be 75%. How much of you is in your spine? In your stomach? In your eyes? How much of you is in your fingers, in your muscle memory? If you just have the brain, do you still keep all those things? How do you even upload a spine?

It's an interesting conundrum.

Computer program Minn does not accurately reflect what she would physically looked like in the present day, right?

How old was Finn when she decided to upload herself to the computer?

overcome by simulating the entire body, including it's microbiomes. we are talking about a fictitious duplication process here. we have a little latitude.

Well it is a subject of philosophy. You can probably look it up on SEP or something.

yes

But can you optimize that process? That seems horribly inefficient. That would require you to simulate the entire body on a molecular if not atomic level.

What size is your HDD right now? What HDD were you using 10, 20 years ago? What processor? RAM? If you can write it down, you can check it off.

who cares about efficiency? we are talking about duplicating EVERTHING that makes you you. It's inherently inefficient.

This makes sense and I've been thinking about this very thing a few days ago due to reasons.
I think the only way around this in a hypothetical "you can turn your brain into a computer" scenario would be to have the transition be gradual by slowly integrating the cybernetical parts with the biological ones until it is safe to detach the latter completely. As long as the original human doesn't die from it and the hypothetical computer technology is as good or even better than the human brain, the resulting AI should still be the subject with their counsciousness intact.

>So the answer is "No."
I beg to differ.

Because I consider that what constitute an individual is its information and its way of thinking.

It doesn't matter what book it's printed on, it still remain the same story.

If the memory and way of thinking are preserved then it's the same individual, up until the point there is a divergence of experience, then from that point on, it start being two distinct individuals. But up until this point of divergence, both have legitimate claim to their past self.

Yes.

Well yes that is why you should not copy or upload your mind if given the chance. If nano tech exists then you should undergo a long procedure of nanomachines replacing your braincells one by one as to not to delete or overplay your you. Theseus ship style

>If nano tech exists then you should undergo a long procedure of nanomachines replacing your braincells one by one as to not to delete or overplay your you. Theseus ship style
That would basically come down to the same. Only with more step. It's as simple as this: if the information is preserved, it's still the same you.

This guy gets it

>up until the point there is a divergence of experience, then from that point on, it start being two distinct individuals
Well, than the answer is exactly "no", don't you think? At least, depending on which is the question you're asking.
They may be two copies of the same person, but if the original dies, she's dead. The computer is Finn's mother just as much as the real Finn's mother, but she is not keeping alive the consciousness of the original one, which was the point of the question.
So basically, the original and the computer are interchangeable in the eyes of the outside, but not for the subject itself. This makes uploading your brain a good way to give the rest of the world a way to communicate with you, but not a good way to defeat death. In the first perspective, the answer is "Yes", in the latter, it's "No".

The perfect copy is not you. It needs to be a longer process

>They may be two copies of the same person, but if the original dies, she's dead.
Disagree. The part of their life after the duplication is dead. But up until the point of duplication, it' still exist with the other one.

If we can duplicate someone, then a destruction of body only lead to a partial loss.
>but she is not keeping alive the consciousness of the original one,
The consciousness of the original one IS kept alive, actually, as, up until her death all of the data was preserved.

If the computer kept recording her thought up until the cerebral death of her brain with zero loss, then there is zero divergence.

Zero divergence means there is no death.

>So basically, the original and the computer are interchangeable in the eyes of the outside,
From the subject itself to, at least on the condition that her body kept receiving feedback from what her computer self was experiencing, meaning she experienced zero divergence as she transitioned to computer.

If all of the information is preserved, then it's her.

>but not a good way to defeat death.
It is. The destruction of the hardware doesn't mean the destruction of the software.

The siege of self-perception and subjectivity doesn't lie within the framework, but within the information, that contain itself the sense of self.

It's a solid yes.

Yes it is. A perfect copy both have legitimate claim to being your past you up until the point of duplication.

If your grandpa gave you an Iphone onhis deathbed and later I am giving you an Iphone of the same type,apps,everything it would not be the Iphone that your Grandpa gave you

There is no way to make a complete copy of a person. To do so you would need to include the process of being copied and the process of copying the copying process, and the processes of copying the copy of the copying process and the ...

...a set of all sets cannot contain itself.

Yes, it wouldn't. Because it would have a different memory content.

But if I erase the memory of the seocnd phone and copy the content of grandpa's phone on the new one. All the memorabla and apps grandpa had are persevered. the content is the same.

It only need to include the experience of being copied.

Fuck, You simply need to establish feedback from the copy to the copied, as each body keep experiencing each other experience up until one of the body cease to be.

Which is most likely what Finn's mom did as she was connected up until her death.

>. To do so you would need to include the process of being copied and the process of copying the copying process
Your mistake is to think that those two aren't redundant.

Or that the process of being copied isn't defacto included in doing the copy.

Hm, I simply have a different view on this.

The bacteria control you because your stomach literally has a second more primitive nervous system in it so the gut bacteria are like neurons in this ancient nervous system. This nervous system is the same as the ones in simple animals like sea cucumbers meaning there are no thoughts or feelings just random chemical messages. Since this nervous system is the original it can influence your vertebrate central nervous system thats why eating shit can screw with your mood and why bacterial chemical signals can alter your personality.

>No way
Just make a computer simulation of all their neural interactions and voila you have literally copied a person.

>I'll always remember you, Finn.
>MEMORY DELETED

"DOES NOT COMPUTE. PROCESSING RESPONSE."
>Garbled dial-up sounds
"Yeah, definitely."

Yes, now fuck off so I can go back to my virtual degenerate world to satisfy my fetishes of the day.

Yes, because "me" is defined by my way of thinking and my memories. That's all to it.

that's been my plan since I was like 12(my adolescence was filled with existential nightmares that plagued me near constantly)

Yea and the way the mind converts that during the dream cycle some say we die each night we sleep. Best not to think about it too much.