Memory is not who you are... debunking Transhumanism

reply to post by Maslo

If you want to call an uploaded mind not human, feel free to do so (altrough stop claiming that it somehow invalidates transhumanism, since transhumanists explicitly acknowledge it in the word itself). If you want to call it not sentient or not a person, thats where I concur.

Correction: If you want to call it not sentient or not a person, thats where I disagree.

I ESLed all over that sentence.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

What is truth? I guess we have to ask how do you interpret what the word "truth" means. In a way I like to use truth in using science to understand reality. Hopefully this is a good answer.

Reality is truth. But do you need someone to spin a story about it?
Science takes reality apart to see how it works. Take a car apart and see if it works - nothing works when it has been taken apart.

No, I don't someone to spin a story about it; I don't know what that means and I agree reality is truth.

Also if you're a redneck you use the spare parts for other things. Haha.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Because to me science is the best tool in life to understand everything. Like humanity, space, etc.

Until you know what you are you will not know what anything is.
First you must find out what you are and then you will know what everything else is.

Originally posted by Phoenix267

No, I don't someone to spin a story about it; I don't know what that means and I agree reality is truth.

What is real? What can you 100% for sure say is real?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Well, I guess I'll start my journey in finding who I am. To be honest I don't much about this because I'm not very philosophical or spiritual person. I'm one of those people who just wants to survive in life compared to finding a purpose in life.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Reality is 100% true and to me that is the stone cold truth.

What about you? Just curious.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Well, I guess I'll start my journey in finding who I am. To be honest I don't much about this because I'm not very philosophical or spiritual person. I'm one of those people who just wants to survive in life compared to finding a purpose in life.

You don't have to survive because you are life itself.
The belief is that you will cease to be but being is all there is.
There is no purpose to life - it just is.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Reality is 100% true and to me that is the stone cold truth.

What about you? Just curious.

You say that reality is 100% true but what does 'reality' actually mean?
Right now is real - would you say that is true?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


To be honest I'm very confused by your replies. I just don't think the same way as you do and I also have never been asked these questions before in my life. There is a lot I need to look up, write down, edit, and then share to express my beliefs. Anyway hopefully we're not derailing the thread. We're talking about is related, but I'm confused. Itisnowagain I'm tired and before bed I'll message you to continue this conversation. I don't want to derail the thread and we can go over anything our hearts desire. You're a fun person to talk to.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

To be honest I'm very confused by your replies. I just don't think the same way as you do and I also have never been asked these questions before in my life. There is a lot I need to look up, write down, edit, and then share to express my beliefs. Anyway hopefully we're not derailing the thread. We're talking about is related, but I'm confused. Itisnowagain I'm tired and before bed I'll message you to continue this conversation. I don't want to derail the thread and we can go over anything our hearts desire. You're a fun person to talk to.

This discussion is not derailing the thread. The thread is entitled "Memory is not who you are".
'This experience' is what you are - this experience that is happening presently, always presently, is all you are. This experience can happen as a thought about another time (memory) but that thought happens in what you are.

reply to post by Maslo

I equate personhood with mentality, or sentience.

Call it what you will, you are still trying to denigrate the body's essential humanity – or rather, to steal it away and award it to a computer programme.

If you want to call an uploaded mind not human, feel free to do so (altrough stop claiming that it somehow invalidates transhumanism, since transhumanists explicitly acknowledge it in the word itself).

If a mind – something we cannot even define properly, let alone quantify – can be made to manifest itself inside a machine, it will certainly not be a human mind any longer.

I'll tell you what invalidates transhumanism. The project is not science. It is religion. Transferring a human mind out of a human body and into something else – anything else – is not even a remote possibility at the present time – we wouldn't know where to begin – neither could it be thought in any way desirable or necessary. So all this is just an avowal of faith.

Transhumanists believe that if you could reduce the active contents of a human brain to a set of data and programme a suitably manufactured computer with it, you'd end up with a human mind inside a computer. It is nothing like as simple as that because, as I have been explaining, human beings are a lot more than their minds, their sentience, whatever you want to call it. There is an entire evolutionary heritage we carry with us, which is an intimate part of what we are, and which cannot be divorced from what we are without making us inhuman. Making us, in fact, machines.

To be in love, to make love, to bear and raise a child: these, too, are critical aspects – some would say the very essence – of humanity. I think this is the part the Geeks miss when they preach their transhumanist Rapture.

*

reply to post by Wertdagf

Claiming someone isn't human because they are missing a few limbs or organs is ridiculous.

It certainly would be, if I had done it, but I didn't. To understand what I mean, try and see the loss from the loser's point of view.

You've danced around defining how many organs or pieces a person would need to have removed or replaced before they are no longer human to purposefully protect yourself from criticism.

My dear fellow, this is an irrelevance. If you remove a sufficient number of pieces, the person would cease to be human, because they would be dead.

Obviously we have exited rational discussion into fringe science and you have no intention of doing anything else but being obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse. You're being rather conventional.

But! However!

Let's assume that somehow some future generation manages to 'upload' its 'personalities'. The Rapture comes to pass.

So you'll have all these sentient computers sitting around calling themselves human beings. I suppose robots would be more realistic, since there'd still be physical objects to shove about in this Brave New Geekworld and our new Huploaded Transhumans would still need arms and legs (possibly interchangeable ones with different business ends on them, like a sort of powered version of that favourite geek tool, the Swiss Army Knife.

Meanwhile, the real human race, being mere, frail flesh and blood, eventually goes extinct.

And so a race of robots, without animal fears, desires, needs, affections or resentments, goes on to do... exactly what?

Even curiosity is an animal instinct.

reply to post by Astyanax

If a mind – something we cannot even define properly, let alone quantify – can be made to manifest itself inside a machine, it will certainly not be a human mind any longer.

What do you mean by human mind in this context? If you mean "a mind that is like ours", then there is no reason to believe it would not, since the source of the uploaded data came from an actual human mind's computational substrate (the brain's neural network). The same program wont suddenly give very different answers just because its run by a different processor.

I'll tell you what invalidates transhumanism. The project is not science. It is religion. Transferring a human mind out of a human body and into something else – anything else – is not even a remote possibility at the present time – we wouldn't know where to begin – neither could it be thought in any way desirable or necessary. So all this is just an avowal of faith.

I dont think anyone disputes that its not currently possible (and serious advocates admit it wont be for a long time), but thats not what would make something a religion. By the same logic, thinking that would eventually be possible to make flying machines in the middle ages would be religion, or believing we will eventually colonize the solar system is a religion. Present practical impossibility does not a religion make. Perhaps believing in physically impossible things would make one, but thats not a case of transhumanism, since there is no physical law that it violates.

The opinion that its not desirable or necessary is a subjective value statement, not objective truth and many disagree.

It is nothing like as simple as that because, as I have been explaining, human beings are a lot more than their minds, their sentience, whatever you want to call it. There is an entire evolutionary heritage we carry with us, which is an intimate part of what we are, and which cannot be divorced from what we are without making us inhuman. Making us, in fact, machines.

You are again being very obtuse. What is this humanness, this lot more you speak about? And why do you assume it cannot be digitalised? Everything in this universe is computable, at least in principle. Its pretty arrogant to assume there is something only biological computers can do and transistor-based computers wont be able to do.

If I did not know you are a materialist, I would be convinced you are talking about some immaterial soul by now.

To be in love, to make love, to bear and raise a child: these, too, are critical aspects – some would say the very essence – of humanity.

Love is an emotion, emotions are generated by the brain neural network (mainly the Limbic system), they would be present even in transhumans. As for the rest, you just insulted all infertile people as inhuman.

And so a race of robots, without animal fears, desires, needs, affections or resentments, goes on to do... exactly what?

Even curiosity is an animal instinct.

Emotions are part of the mind. Why do you assume mind uploads would suddenly not have emotions? It does not follow.

As for what they would do? I dont know exactly, but with immortality and substrate independence, light speed ceases to be a practical barrier, so perhaps exploring the universe. There is a very good sci-fi novel Ive read recently that was set in a transhumanist future 20 000 years from now, called Schild's Ladder. Lack of curiosity is perhaps the last thing you could accuce the protagonists of.

reply to post by Maslo

Love is an emotion, emotions are generated by the brain neural network (mainly the Limbic system), they would be present even in transhumans.

What purpose would they serve there?

Why do you assume mind uploads would suddenly not have emotions?

Rational ones?

Are you really, really still not getting it? Come on. It can't be that hard for you. After all, you're human too. It isn't that transhumans wouldn't have emotions. It is that the point of having them would be lost – there would be no utility in them. So the whole thing is just a con, a fake. What would be the point of them? Simply to maintain the semblance of humanity? That's absurd.

reply to post by Astyanax


We are getting into the "meaning of life" territory, which is heavily subjective and philosophical. What do you mean by point? What is the point of emotions today? To compel us to have sex (or other things) so we continue with biological evolution? Thats how they evolved, but thats not necessarily why they have value for us now. Its a normative evolutionary ethics approach, and I disagree with it - the notion that we (should) value things solely based on their evolutionary advantage (or why evolution "values" them). Why should I base my values on evolution after all?

There would the the same purpose as today - that is, there is no (objective) purpose to life or existence. It just is. The purpose is subjective, and everyone must come up with their own.

You are right that some people might perhaps decide to cut out some things from their minds (altrough remember that actual modification requires deep understanding of the emergence of mind, not just having the structure with no detailed understanding how it works, so that might be quite a bit harder than simple mind upload). But I doubt many would decide to cut out all emotions including positive emotions, altrough more could decide to block or at least limit negative ones.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Show me a computer that literally builds parts in response to external enforcers.

Neurons never stay the same, they are constantly morphing - axons and dendrites form new branches, either establishing or losing synapses with other neurons. The basic idea is: you either lose it or lose it.

The computer analogy is just that: a metaphor.

Decapitated worms can regenerate their brains, and the memories stored inside

So? Over the ages, they have argued over where memories are stored. They thought the heart and some others thought it was stored in the liver. Now, we say they are stored in the brain; but, are they? The article isn't a proven fact yet - but - a first step towards the proof of "cell memory".

So a whole body upload eh?

reply to post by Maslo

What is the point of emotions today?

What would be the point of life without them?

To compel us to have sex (or other things) so we continue with biological evolution? Thats how they evolved, but thats not necessarily why they have value for us now.

Well then, why do they have value for us now?

I disagree with... the notion that we (should) value things solely based on their evolutionary advantage (or why evolution "values" them). Why should I base my values on evolution after all?

I never suggested that you should. You just aren't seeing my point.

Let me try one last – and I do mean last – time:

1. We are not disembodied souls. We are physical beings.
   
   
2. Ultimately, the things that give meaning, value and savour to life are not mental events but physical ones.
   
   
3. If you could abstract a human consciousness and transplant it into a machine, its physical reality would change, and the aforementioned physical events would lose their relevance.
   
   
4. You could simulate the events, and maybe also the relevance, but that would be futile and ultimately rather pathetic, because it would all be a big lie.
   
   
5. Yet without such simulation the uploaded 'transhuman' entity would have no motive or incentive to do anything at all – even to continue to exist.
   
   
6. Lacking such human motives and incentives, it would have no semblance of humanity whatsoever. And pretty soon it won't even have an existence.

I hope that makes things clear. I really don't know how I can make them any clearer. The things I'm talking about are obvious to most grown-ups; it seems strange to have to explain them to someone so evidently intelligent.

reply to post by wasaka


why do souls have to be "unique" to our bodies and us individually? why do we assume that any alteration of a soul by us, if such a thing is possible, that the end result would be inferior or unnatural compared to an unaltered soul?

are we not here to grow as mortal men no matter your spiritual views? it is a process of changing your soul is it not? a dark soul is filled with light and balance and a "good" soul is darkened and made unbalanced no?

how would transferring a consciousness into another shell alter the soul? why would you assume that the new shell /consciousness combo would be any less of a complete person?

I am sure you remember the TNG episode of star trek where data's. body was taken over by a scientist who had worked with doctor suun developing data....but was facing a terminal disease which would end his years of breakthroughs and discoveries for starfleet and mankind. the only issue was that data was already a sentient being and so it would be a violation to take his body away.

would people against trans-humanism argue against artificial intelligence having its equal rights if ever developed? what would be the difference between biological circuitry and artificial circuitry housing an intelligence?

is the shell so important to the soul that we can't improve one without damaging the other? I thinl not.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Worms aren't human beings.

Though I do generally agree that there is a deep connection between the body and the brain that perhaps goes deeper than what contemporary neuroscience is willing to acknowledge, the brain is still the central processor. Everything that goes on in our body and mind is sourced in the brain.

"Phantom limb" syndrome happens to people who lose one of their limbs. What are they feeling? Why do they report pain in a hand that has been removed if the hand and it's nerves are no longer present? Answer: the brain. The sensory motor cortex topographically represents the fingers and hand side by side with other body regions. The lower face area is mapped in the brain right beside the hand; following amputation, the lower face area "maps" over the no longer used hand area. Somehow the pain associated with the amputation is retained and incorporated by the lower face area. V.S Ramachandran showed that the phantom pain or tingle in the amputated hand can be provoked by touching the lower face area, thus proving that one brain area dealing with sensation in the lower face had mapped over and integrated sensation from the amputated hand.