Memory is not who you are... debunking Transhumanism

The reference to the AGI Manhattan Project is new to me, but it is not surprising. I know that radical life extension and cognitive augmentation are the overarching goals of the technological establishment. Many films have presented us with these ideas, such as terminator, bladerunner, I-Robot, and more.

Who remembers the Star Trek episode called "Spock Brain" (1967)? Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok in Modern Principles: Economics state that some economists consider "Spock's Brain" to be the worst Star Trek episode, because no single brain could come close to running an economy. Meanwhile in the Star Trek: The Animated Series, Spock encountered Spock 2, the first in a race of gigantic Spock clones who lived on the planet Phylos as prospective Universal peacekeepers. It's no wonder these aliens always choose Spock, he didn't seem to have a soul, he was just a left-brain logic machine.

The so-called "Transhumanist" wants to upload a persons memory to a machine but how do you “transplant” your soul? Sounds like a question ole Dr. McCoy would ask, and the Transhumanists have no answer. They simply pretend that, like Spock, your soul doesn’t exist and therefore need not be considered at all. On the other hand, perhaps a few Transhumanist believe that consciousness is an artifact of the brain itself – a kind of “ghost in the machine,” if you will, that memory somehow gives rise to the self-delusion of awareness.

Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, has been pushing this idea for many years, and just recently he promised that by 2045, humanity would achieve what he calls the “singularity,” where our minds can be uploaded to computers. However, once the technologies are adequately developed, they still don’t provide a way to merge your mind with a machine. All you’ve really done is made a copy of your brain. This copy may, indeed, be able to run on the machine, but it’s nothing more than a simulation of your brain. It is not you. You are more than mere memes or memory.

"What is this thing called memory?"

reply to post by wasaka


I do not understand how this is a debunking of transhumanism.

The video you posted is mystic conjecture which has no real tangible application in the real world which is evident by the fact that we do not live in a utopia. If the nature of God was self evident through contemplation (i.e. meditation) this thread would not even have to exist.

The so-called "Transhumanist" wants to upload a persons memory to a machine but how do you “transplant” your soul?

You can't because to the best of our knowledge such a thing does not exist as traditionally defined. The soul is purely a romanticized expression of our consciousness which is produced by the complex chemical processes which occur in our brains. This is proven science. You can change everything about someone by altering their brain chemistry, a sad man can become happy and an angry man can become calm by the removal of specific part of the brain or the addition of another chemical.

reply to post by wasaka


We know from experimentation what happens to a person when their brain is taken...but what happens when you remove their soul? How does it change the person? What aspects of the personality are dependant on a "soul"? If the replication of someone's mental processes into a machine are perfectly executed and for all intents and purposes it is "their" consciousness, how would you know if their "soul" is missing? If the soul is dictated by the physical body, why can't we affect it by making a change to the body? If a change is made, how is that change different that altering the chemical composition of the brain (i.e. a subsequent change to the consciousness)?

reply to post by wasaka


Nowhere in your post do you produce evidence for a soul.

What you should be saying is that the physical structure of a brain and its consciousness are inseparable. Which doesn't debunk trans humanism... only your ignorant view of it.

I was only minutes ago thinking about this, the idea of uploading our brains to a computer. I was considering the absolute wonder of the soul and transcendental nature of mind. The older I become, the clearer it is to me that our being is boundless, enshrouded by physical and mental matter.
That great thinkers could believe mind and being is something that can be captured as data, is ironic. It demonstrates at once powerful imagination, yet very limited conception of the Reality and our Self.
But such is the case it seems in this phase of human existence. As evolved as our thinking and manipulation of physical matter has become, the common understanding of Being remains shallow.

If the nature of God was self evident through contemplation (i.e. meditation) this thread would not even have to exist.

As one whom has meditated for twenty years, I can attest that the Universal nature indeed becomes more evident to the practitioner. And the evidence is incommunicable to those who have not experienced the same: wisdom is attained only by transcendence of the mind.
So again, it is ironic. One who is positive that science and the brain are the end of knowledge, will never begin to understand the deepest implications of our being. In fact, as if in self defense, the brain will assert itself in the idea that only it can understand. So anything beyond the grasp of you brain becomes imaginings. or the brain tries to squeeze th mysteries of life into the confines of a biological process.

If you had bothered learning how to truly meditate (ie. contemplate) your post would not even have to exist.

so... where have you debunked transhumanism?

You are more than your memory... just as you are more than flesh and bones.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by wasaka

 

The soul is purely a romanticized expression of our consciousness which is produced by the complex chemical processes which occur in our brains. This is proven science. You can change everything about someone by altering their brain chemistry, a sad man can become happy and an angry man can become calm by the removal of specific part of the brain or the addition of another chemical.

This means you have to believe free will is an illusion and that if you copy the brain and paste it somewhere else, then somehow magically that other thing becomes “you.” But this makes no sense. There is no mechanism for the transfer of the focal point of consciousness. If you copy and paste your brain (i.e. “upload” your brain) to another machine (i.e., another body), your human body is still alive and breathing, then you haven’t “uploaded” your consciousness anywhere. You have only made a complex facsimile of your neurology.

Is the "soul" purely a romanticized expression of our consciousness? Perhaps. However this does not change the fact that we human beings do have consciousness and that experience is more than mere memes or memory. You are quite correct to say that romantic ideas are not science, however many things that claim to be "proven science" are merely romantic ideas themselves based on limited and incomplete information and therefore subject to change. Science can tell us how a thing works, but it can't tell us why.

For the sake of argument, let just say that you did upload your mind and in the process effectively cloned your "soul" (for lack of a better word), but that new being would not be you. That artificial being might have person-hood, but that person would not be you. Even if they shared your views and opinion at the time of the transfer, that new being would soon begin to learn and acquire knowledge, based on that new information this "person" would become divergent from you, formulating new ideas and new opinions. You're "clone" would be more like a child and you their parent. Two very different people, perhaps sharing many experiences but holding very different views. In short, they would have a "soul" of their own, much like the character named Mr Data on Star Trek.

As to whether or not this uploaded memory is a "soul" I can not say, but one thing is for certain, that memory stops being your "soul" the moment it is uploaded.

reply to post by wasaka

This means you have to believe free will is an illusion and that if you copy the brain and paste it somewhere else, then somehow magically that other thing becomes “you.” But this makes no sense. There is no mechanism for the transfer of the focal point of consciousness. If you copy and paste your brain (i.e. “upload” your brain) to another machine (i.e., another body), your human body is still alive and breathing, then you haven’t “uploaded” your consciousness anywhere. You have only made a complex facsimile of your neurology.

You seem to promote, without providing any rationality for it, that the soul is consciousness. Seems like a new "soul of the gaps" argument.

There is a man named Sam Harris who has done many lectures on this exact topic and has come to the conclusion that freewill is an illusion. Please when you have some time view his talk on the illusion of freewill.

reply to post by ecapsretuo

And the evidence is incommunicable to those who have not experienced the same: wisdom is attained only by transcendence of the mind.

I'm sorry but you are just saying nearly the exact same thing an Islamic fundamentalist says just packaged differently. But your standard of evidence is exactly the same, it is based on faith.

One who is positive that science and the brain are the end of knowledge, will never begin to understand the deepest implications of our being.

Well the day you can prove that something exists without the scientific method your arguments may have merit.

reply to post by wasaka

This means you have to believe free will is an illusion and that if you copy the brain and paste it somewhere else, then somehow magically that other thing becomes “you.”

Well arguments could be made against free will but I will admit that their is no solution (at present) to hard solipsism.

That being said I do not believe that "if you copy the brain and paste it somewhere else, then somehow magically that other thing becomes “you.". I do not believe this because to the best of my knowledge such a feat is impossible.

For the sake of argument, let just say that you did upload your mind and in the process effectively cloned your "soul" (for lack of a better word),

Okay I like these games,

that new being would not be you.

Says who? You? What your postulating is a intriguing philosophical question no doubt, but until we have the ability to achieve such a feat it is pointless one to ask.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
so... where have you debunked transhumanism?

If you believe your person-hood to be mere memory, I call that bunk.

The term debunk originated in a 1923 novel Bunk, by American novelist William Woodward (1874–1950), who used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things." The term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity; it is also used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent. In this case, we are discussing bunk that is both scientific, political, and religious in nature. And therefore it goes without saying that one man's bunk is another man's bliss.

de-bunk (Verb)
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".

Based on the definition above, there are two ways to debunk an idea. 1) to make use of rhetorical, logical or pathetic arguments, and 2) to simply ridicule the idea by using mockery and derision. So, technology speaking if I were to simply gibe and jeer the idea transhumanism, that in itself is a form of debunking.

Perhaps my "debunking" doesn't change your opinion on the subject, but debunking something does require I do so. It only requires that I present an argument, not that it be particularly persuasive or effective. In other words, to debunk something can simply mean poking fun at it. Personally, I would rather use logical arguments than resort to mockery.

I have debunked, and I am in the process of debunking, the fundamental idea behind Transhumanism. Namely this false idea that A) your memory is sum total of who you are, B) your person-hood can be reduced to a long string of ones and zeros. C) while your memory may be reduced to a string of code and uploaded to a computer, the result would not transfer the essential essence of who you are in this process.

reply to post by wasaka


Here's something which might be of interest:

On Having a Mind, Having a Body, and Being a Person -

The Talk

What precisely is a person? And how is the person related to the mind and body? Eminent Oxford philosopher Peter Hacker pieces together the jigsaw puzzle that is the human being.

Peter Hacker

Dr Peter hacker is an Emeritus research fellow at St John’s College, Oxford University. He is one of the UK’s most distinguished scholars of Wittgenstein and is also known for his conceptual critique of cognitive neuroscience.

It may be a little way in but he does touch upon this very topic.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by wasaka

 

For the sake of argument, let just say that you did upload your mind and in the process effectively cloned your "soul" (for lack of a better word),

Okay I like these games,

that new being would not be you.

Says who? You? What your postulating is a intriguing philosophical question no doubt, but until we have the ability to achieve such a feat it is pointless one to ask.

It is pointless to ask questions? Is that what you are saying?

I repeat: "Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, has been pushing this idea for many years, and just recently he promised that by 2045, humanity would achieve what he calls the 'singularity,' where our minds can be uploaded to computers."

Rather than wait 30 years to ask if this a good idea, I think it behooves us to raise them now.

In philosophy, "essence" is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity (...) what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity (...) has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity.

"Essence," in metaphysics, is often synonymous with the soul, and some existentialists argue that individuals gain their souls and spirits after they exist, that they develop their souls and spirits during their lifetimes.

en.wikipedia.org...

If this Mind-Print technology become a reality, and it is possible to upload a person entire memory, why do we suppose this will include their essence? In other words, to transfer one's memory to a computer only makes this cloned entity an "accidental" facsimile of your true essence, and it does not change your own identity. Whether or not you are creating a new identity (based on the cloning of your memory) remains to be seen.

The concept of essence originates with Aristotle, who used the expression "the what it was to be" (to ti ên einai) or sometimes the shorter phrase "the what it is" (to ti esti) for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for his Latin translators that they coined the word essentia (English "essence") to represent the whole expression.

Existential Question of the Soul

Existentialism was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human beings "existence precedes essence." In as much as "essence" is a cornerstone of all metaphysical philosophy and of Rationalism, Sartre's statement was a repudiation of the philosophical system that had come before him. Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward. So then, if you upload the "actuality" of a person, what you get is their essence at that moment in time (and subject to change). The new essence that would quickly loses its humanity, and come an entity alien to our reality.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by JAK
reply to post by wasaka

 

Here's something which might be of interest:

On Having a Mind, Having a Body, and Being a Person -

This Mind-Print technology does have religious implications.

Rather than talk about the Christian idea of the "soul" I would point this discussion back to accent spiritual traditions like we find in Kemit and India.

In Hinduism there is this idea of Dharma which gives integrity to an entity and holds the core quality and identity (essence), form and function of that entity. Dharma is also defined as righteousness and duty. To do one's dharma is to be righteous, to do one's dharma is to do one's duty (express one's essence). In this ancient spiritual tradition it was understood that with any individual personality, a distinction ought to be made between one's Swadharma (essence) and Swabhava (mental habits and conditionings of ego personality).

This is a important distinction to make when think about the Mind-Print Beings of the future.

According to Hindu teachings, Svabhava is the nature of a person, which is a result of his or her samskaras (impressions created in the mind due to one's interaction with the external world). If a human mind is uploaded and being hosted in the Cloud (without a body), how might this effect the nature of that cloned personhood?

While in the body, these samskaras create habits and mental models and those become our nature. While there is another kind of svabhava that is a pure internal quality (like memory in a computer) we are phyical beings and therefore one ought to be aware of their samskaras and take control over them.

How does a Trans-Human-Being (THB) do this if they live without a body? Soon they would become disconnect from their samskaras and and focus only on their essence... and what kind of an essence would that become if the forces of the physical world are removed? In short order, these THB would no longer relate to being human, and all their svabhava (pure internal qualities) would become distorted and divorces from our physical reality. The THB would be alien in every sense of the word, both physically, mentally, and spiritually.

We are accustom to thinking our urges and impulses are what makes some people into monsters, but what kind of monsters might we become if were to live without a body and remove all our "sinful" physical impulses? In such a case, we might lose our humanity completely. If compassion cease to have meaning, become outmoded, a mere discarded memory, the THB could become greater monsters of all. In the end, we have more to fear from Trans-Human-Being than any human being who has ever lived. The psychopaths of the future may be viewed as gods, but they will be ethereal aliens that were created by man and were once human themselves.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by wasaka

 

Nowhere in your post do you produce evidence for a soul.

What you should be saying is that the physical structure of a brain and its consciousness are inseparable. Which doesn't debunk trans humanism... only your ignorant view of it.

"physical structure of a brain and its consciousness are inseparable"
Yes, you said it better than I could. Thank you.

Regarding my ignorance... all debunking is form of ignorance.
At least it would appear that way to the True Believer.

Uploading all your knowledge to a computer won't work. You would have to upload all the genetic knowledge also. Another thing is the complex way that that information is translated by our subconscious. All of these things have constant communication with the microbes that live symbiotically with us also. There is no way that a complete consciousness can be downloaded successfully into a machine at present. Maybe in a thousand years we could, but face it, at the rate we are destroying this planets ability to sustain us, we'll never make it that long.

reply to post by Wertdagf

There is a man named Sam Harris who has done many lectures on this exact topic and has come to the conclusion that freewill is an illusion. Please when you have some time view his talk on the illusion of freewill.

Had to stop half way through... had enough.

Only a person with free will could make such absurd arguments.

89% of the world may be unconscious but that doesn't mean these people
have no free-will and/or are not responsible for their bad behavior or poor
choices in life.... yes, something other people choice effect us, but that does
not mean we have no free-will... it just means we must play cards we've been
dealt. Many unseen forces influence our lives, but that doesn't mean we are
only victims of chance and circumstance. It is not our circumstances that
make us unhappy, it is what we tell ourselves about our circumstances
that makes us unhappy. Yes, we can delude ourselves by believing
things at are not true, this guy's lecture is proof of that. Free will is
real, even if most people fail to fully awaken or live deliberately.
In the same way, faith is real even if the object of faith is not.

We all host memes and are subject to the peer pressure of the
consensus reality, and to some extend we often fail to be fully
aware of the choices we make. However, this is not a reason
to conclude we have no free will. What a bogus argument it is
to say the devil made me do it, and it is no less bogus to say
the same thing using Science as your defense. People live in
fear and they attack others as a result, this what it means to live
a life that is unconscious--but it is not evidence of anything else.

What determines a persons behavior is their beliefs, otherwise
they are mere animals and have no claim on person-hood. If you
want to change your behavior, change your believes. Now this
may be easier said than done, but that does mean it is beyond
the relm of possibility, if it were then I might concede and agree
that indeed there is no freewill. But I know all too well, that the
force of darkness in this world are working hard to effect what
we believe (and don't believe), because that gives them control.

Spiritual attainment requires relinquishment, letting go of our
resentments, dropping false beliefs, and being willing to suffer
so that we can love. This is not an easy path but it goes against
the desire of our ego to cling, to fight, and to resist. Free will is
what makes this world a hell, but it is also what sets us free.

The key is not to deny free will, but to awaken to it. Freedom isn't only
the liberty to do as you please, freedom is also the ability to stop doing
what you don't want to do. If this second form of liberty is unknown to you,
then a diatribe like this may sound very appealing, but I know it is complete
and total rubbish. If you believe in freedom, you will act accordingly. This
is the only proof a person needs in order to know freewill is real.

reply to post by wasaka

I know all too well, that the forces of darkness in this world are working hard to effect what we believe (and don't believe), because that gives them control.

This is the only important thing you said.

Your disagreements with Sam Harris seem more like a childish tantrum fueled by religious delusion.

reply to post by wasaka


For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything you said is true.

If we are not "memory" or "the body" then it does not matter because the "body" is just a machine anyway for the spirit. So, if a spirit can go into this machine called "the body" what is stopping it from moving itself into another machine holding the memories of the body?