So, she put her brain, her personality, her memories into a

Venture Bros answered this years ago, technically speaking all your cells are constantly dying and reforming so you're a completely different person within like a year or something.

Wouldn't this be a Ship of Theseus question?

>>89776962
It's all a matter of continuity, anon. The second you break the continuity, the original person is lost and you've created a double. As long as you gradually replace the organic with the inorganic, you can probably survive it.

>>89776962
Brain cells don't die off anywhere near as quickly as blood, bone, or skin cells.

>>89776813
It's a perfect copy of her. The original version died not seeing her son again, but for all intents and purposes this is still her.

>>89776962
Except neural, the basis of your humanity.
We cut of your hand we can slap on a robot one.

Problem here is, if we perfectly replaced all the nuerons in your head- are you still you?

File: 2939254-trailer_soma_story_20150918.jpg (80KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x720px

Not to be a /v/fag, but this question is literally the reason SOMA exists.

Basically, it depends on your personal viewpoint, but the game shows that a copied consciousness is nearly the same as the original.

>>89776813
>is it still her?

Yes, but only because there's no such thing as permanency in terms of people.
The concept understood as "you" is based on a generalization of a person in a relatively small time frame and that's where it basically begins and ends.

See: >>89776962 anon for the physical side of it, but basically: every 5 years your body may as well have been destroyed as nothing of you 5 years prior still physically exists.

Mentally speaking though, what makes you, 'you', ceases to exist constantly.
Your current personality, is, afterall, just a combination of various traits and memories that have managed to persist since the inception of your first personal thoughts.

"You" as you've known yourself has stopped existing numerous times over the course of your life: Your 5 year old self is dead, your 12 year old self is dead, your 16 year old self is dead, all having been consumed or forgotten by the conscious that proceeds them.

>>89776813
No, only the original is the original.

The computer is an imitation at best and machines are never people.

File: ykk_10_alpha.jpg (77KB, 761x1282px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 761x1282px

It depends on how you see it, I think.

If it sounds like a person, acts like a person, feels like a person and looks like a person, aren't they? Some may think machines or AI can't replicate feelings like those from the brain but when you think about it, a bunch of circuits and numbers aren't really that different from neurons and chemicals.

>>89777076
You're completely wrong though. Brain cells are supposed to last for a lifetime. Ones that you had as a child are still up there in your head.

Different cells have different lifespans. You do not completely replace "yourself" every few years. Your 12 year old had the same mind your 5 year old self did, you've merely trained it to make neurons fire in more efficient patterns that help you recognize the world. Neither of them "died," they replaced their old meatsuits that their minds pilot. The body is not a ship of Theseus constant replacement of old parts, because the brain changes very little as you grow.

To answer OP's question, it depends on how Minerva did it. If the neurons firing were transferred 1:1 into data, from the exact moment she entered the device, you could say that it is "her." There was no interruption of consciousness, one moment she's got fleshy bits and the next she's only got bits and bytes. If the data copy wasn't an exact match, but something that retains all her memories, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc. down to the very last detail, then you could call her computer self a "clone," or an alternate self. She's more Finn's mom than Farmworld Minerva would be Finn's mom, but she'd not be "the same" as she was before. She'd also be closer to the original than Fern is to Finn, but still "her own" person.

You could think of it this way:

If computer Minerva could exist alongside flesh Minerva, then she would technically be another person. If not, she's the same lady.

She also put her altruism and helping nature into her son, along with Martin's recklessness and sense of adventure.

>>89777366
>Brain cells are supposed to last for a lifetime. Ones that you had as a child are still up there in your head.

I didn't actually know this. I was so sure I was right I actually looked it up to double check and unfortunately you're correct.

That's extremely disappointing and personally kind of scary since I had always thought brain cells died and regrew just like all your other cells and the information and memories they held would effectively make a "baton pass" to the newly grown brain cells like in a relay race.

That's very discomforting to hear.

>>89777528
Why is it scary?

>>89776813
I'll say yeah. She didn't put a copy of herself into a computer but her herself into the computer.

It is her. Now where's the porn of her?

>>89777547
not the other anon but eventually, the longer you live the less of what makes you you exists. even if your body manages to live forever you can't stop from not being you eventually becoming an unthinking husk.

>>89777628
Welp, we're all going to die regardless, so we may as well get used to the idea that we aren't going to exist forever.

I don't know for sure, but I feel like it's me. I hope that's enough

File: 1459289475698.gif (598KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 320x240px

>>89776813
Helping Finn get off the island seemed like the most motherly thing she could do. Does it matter if its still her? No. Does it matter that she still has a very personal connection to Finn and that she still very much loves him? Yes.

>>89777547
>Why is it scary?

Originally I had an almost "Gilligans island" theory on brain trauma:

If you got hit on the head with a coconut or suffered some sort of minor head trauma you'd be fine on the basis that your cells were constantly regrowing anyway, so unless a giant chunk was taken away your cells could piece together anything given enough time and the need.
I just thought old people slowed down because like all cells their brain cells could/can only multiple so many times before they've run out of copies and so they couldn't.. "cloud compute" anymore sort to speak.

But if there's limited cells that means there's limited space- Which makes sense when you think about it because old people probably take so long to do anything because they probably have 80 years of shit to sift through before they do anything.

>>89777686
>Does it matter if its still her? No.
yes it does reee fuck everyone who thinks otherwise

>>89777528
>>89777698
It's why you have diseases like Alzheimer's, anon. The brain atrophies and starts losing neurons. You remember the first time Marceline called the Ice King "Simon"? Imagine that, but every day he clearly remembers just a little less. And "Simon" never truly comes back.

Yeah she put her life essence in the machine. Like juiced her up and cartoon magics herself into the computer

>>89776813

> Is it still her

Stop asking this question...

...

> Is the copy a perfect duplicate of the original

Yes: It is her, as of the moment the copy was made...
No: It isn't her...

> Is the copy stored on identical hardware to the original, or if not, does this new hardware effect how the copy's mind develops?

Yes & n/a: There will be no inherent mental differentiation between the original and the copy
No & Yes: There will be an inherent difference in how the copy's mind develops compared to the original.
No & No: (See [Yes & n/a])

> Does the copy have access to a physical form, and is it identical to the original's physical form in all regards?

Yes: This factor will not cause differentiation between the original and copy...
No: This factor will cause differentiation between the original and copy...

> Will the copy's experiences be exactly identical to the original's going forward?

> Yes: Assuming they are the exactly the same in all other regards, the copy and the original will be exact the same person...
> No: Over time the disparate circumstances the copy and original experience will shape them into entirely different people...

Where is her body? Did the uploading destroy her original form? These are important questions.

>>89776962
well no because
*brings mic closer*
every 10 years your cells in your body actually completely change
i was reading this article about how DMT can actually advance this process into only taking 6 years because your pineal gland- jaimie could you get the that article up?
yeah but its because your pineal glands can actually make your cells rejuvenate faster...
here we go
*looks over at screen*
look at that ...
yeah that chimp must he what? 400 pounds? jesus those things will tear you to shreds

>>89776813
Adventure Time has been over this type of stuff before. They have affirmed it is still her.

>>89777006
but what makes you "you" is the current between the cells.
if you were to take that current and move it to another location it would still be you.

File: ff.jpg (47KB, 700x565px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x565px

Compare the main one on the screen to the Minervabots. She's clearly a digital person. She has emotions, makes mistakes, and doubts her own existence. That's consciousness, and if her consciousness includes Minerva's memories and personality then she's Minerva

Your neurons themselves don't regrow but those cells are still maintained at the molecular level and that involves some renewal of material.

>>89776962
Some have even speculate that it happens a bit every time you sleep with the only thing keeping you being you is your memories.

>>89777042
That said copy just "wakes" at the time of transferring.

>>89778081
She more or less got "juiced" of her essence as she was uploaded going by the method shown.

I wonder if they could clone her a body and she could visit at least copy into one bot.

>>89778954
worse, its fairly straightforward to prove your memories aren't actually reliable records and are just mental reconstructions of what you think happened.

>>89776813
Didn't Finn ask her this in the show and she basically said that she wasn't sure but she feels like she's the same person.

Personally I don't think it's much of an issue. Considering she was about to die anyway, I don't think she had any qualms about, if her digital self is still going to have her conciousness.

>>89777528
>>89777366
It's not correct anymore I think, brain cells reform after all in some capacity.

>>89777042
I played this too. It was really fun, and had quiet an enjoyable story.

>>89778495
That isn't true, memory has a physical basis, the electrical current is just a signal for the neuron.
All eukaryote cells can generate an electrical current, neurons are not special in that regard, they're also not the only cells that communicate through electrical currents.
Not only that, most neurons don't even communicate through electrical current, they communicate through chemical mediators like acetyl-choline, dopamine, etc.
The current isn't "you", "you" are the contents of neurons and the the way the neurons are connected with each other in neural pathways.

>>89776813
It's impossible to answer this question until we know for a fact whether or not souls exist. If they do, then the soul is what makes you "you". If her memories transferred, but her soul moved on when her body died, then the AI isn't her. It's just a copy of her.

>>89776813
It still feels like her.
I hope that's enough

File: p-mc-brain1.jpg (47KB, 420x340px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 420x340px

>>89776962
>>89776997
>>89778495
>>89778050

Alright you know it alls then figure this. Say we were technologically advanced enough to remove a specific section of a persons brain and replace it with a functionally identical electronic replacement. Before the replacement is installed all the information from the biological part removed is added in so after the operation the person would not suffer any sort of mental side effects like memory or skill loss. Now say we do this to one person for each section of their brain once every year until they have a completely electronic brain.

a. would they be the same person after each operation?

b. would they be the same person after the whole series of operations?

c. would they be the same person if you removed their electronic brain and uploaded them to the matrix?

File: hqdefault.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>89780443
One more thing.
The electrical current produced by neurons means absolutely nothing, it's just a mediator, even if you were able to transfer that current in a computer, it wouldn't do shit because there's no difference between it and the current that accompanies lightning.
And then there's the physical aspect of transferring memory. In the end it won't be you. It can't emulate the way your brain was wired, can it? How can you convert organic into 01 and make it so it's still the same memory, did it take into account the neuron pathway? The branches of that pathway? And even if you somehow do this, you're now inside something so alien to your old memories and how you were wired, you'd probably go insane trying to understand what's going on.

>>89780580
>functionally identical
Since we're discussing high fantasy here apparently, what you're describing sounds like d&d mindflayers.
What you'll end up with is a parasite that has its hosts memories, and the host's brain will be somewhere rotting in a medical disposal bin.

I think it's pretty silly to reject something when it can replace the original in every single conceivable way apart from your mental block telling you constantly it's not the [REAL] one.
I think we can take away from another moment within the same cartoon: https://youtu.be/1tO0QV6VYu4?t=37s
Original or copy, both of them are very real. And when there's no real difference between them, what IS the difference?
Nobody can be expected to be comfortable with the notion of PEOPLE being copied because that's something that will only be confronted many many many years from now.
I think the point of contention shouldn't be whether a copy is acceptable or not, it should be is a copy acceptable when the original still exists?

>>89776813
No just a really good copy.

>>89776813
That's the core questions of transhumanism.
When do you stop being a human, and is that even important?
If you can live without most of your body, given enough technology, what about the brain?
And where does an implant become a replacement for the brain?
This is an ongoing discussion humanity will face in reality, this century or the next.
Also, what rights does your digital self have? What about copies?
Would you go mad with no body?
How do you perceive the world with no body?
And we can't even all agree on which magical man in the sky is or is not there.

>>89776962
yeah but thats a slow and gradula process
it isnt the same to replace a couple cells every day than to replace every single one in a second
if you have an old car and you are constantly having to replace parts of it and after a couple years everything has been replaced its the same car. If you buy a new car its a new car
this isnt a matter of how much is still there but how we assign identity

Close enough to not matter to anyone still alive

>>89776813
actually portal of all series makes a good case for this

how much of you its your cognition alone? hell throw in memory aswell why not?
there is a lot affecting the brain such as hormones or impulses, your fucking anus has a direct line to it and there is a type of fungus that forms there and is able to send the signal for you to consume more sugar wich is brain control

we assign our complete personalities to the brain when part of it resides in our assholes, what about sexuality? doesnt your dick control your impulses too?

>>89778954
Which deteriorate as time goes on. Two people who experienced the same event will give wildly different accountings of it 50 years later, if they remember it at all.

Memory is a lie and consciousness is an illusion.

>>89776997
You break the continuity constantly, you sleep every fucking day. You can argue that's a natural process, but you get put down for surgery too, and that's even more of a hardcore than sleep.

No, what matters, is that there's only one active version of the person at any given time, and that the current active version is based off of the previous active version. So instead of replacing things gradually, go into a deep sleep and wake up as a robot. Or do it instantaneously like they do it on Adventure Time

>>89781177
what kind of ghetto ass biology class did you take

>>89778908
She's Minerva to everyone except Minerva. The question is if that original person died the day she uploaded herself, and simply created a doppleganger that was identical to herself, or if her sense of self smoothly shifted to a digital vessel. Is consciousness even a thing that exists in a continuity like that, or is it something destroyed and rebuilt new every time we fall asleep? Could it "die" independently of the memories it possesses? Is it a soul, or just an easily dismissed byproduct of a complex neurological system

>>89776997
I like William Gibson's way of looking at it. It might think it's you and act like you but the you you is dead. The new you is you 2.

>>89777008
It certainly thinks it is, but how would it know?

I love season 8. Finally they get it on with the human parts. This episode especially and finding out what Finn's real parents. Does Minnerva even truly know what happened to Martin? I assumed she thought he booked it and left her which would make me real sad as shit. I hope they reunite or something, whatever 5 dimension life Martin's living. I hated him at first but now also love his asshole personality. Finn most likely inherited Minnerva's Morality and Martin's quick wits.

>>89776997
>>89781270
But it's worse than that actually. What I described is just avoiding divergence, having two "split" versions of yourself that existed at one point. But in real life, that happens all the time, you wake up and do things in the night and forget them, waking up the next day with no memories of it, a version of you existed and was completely destroyed every time. Hell even dreams create a new version of your psyche that will subsequently be destroyed, which you won't be based on

>>89777015
It's even more complicated than that, your memories and mannerisms are stored as a series of patterned impulses between neurons. These patterns are triggered by stimuli. So not only is it a hardware problem, it's also about software.

>>89781177
I think this post makes a good point. The entirety of "you" isn't just your personality/memories. Like you wouldn't even be able to feel anxiety if it weren't for the body's physiological responses like butterflies in your stomach.

Sense of self is entirely subjective, like sometimes I feel like I'm looking at a completely different person when I just get my hair cut. The only objective measure for measuring how much of 'you' a copy is, is literally how much of it is actually made up of you.

If Minerva is just a computer program then no, it's not her and she's dead. But I don't think that necessarily invalidates her existence and her interactions with the other characters. Now if the original were still alive then they would obviously not be equivalent, since from the moment the copy exists independently it is building its own unique experiences and thoughts that make it distinct from the original.

>>89781293
It thinks, therefore it is

>>89777076
If you were to have a stroke this would be true. Your brain would have to reroute a bunch of functions through other sections of the brain. You may recover but you'll be physically and no doubt mentally different.

>>89781315
The point here is no, that's not true, the computer is simulating all those things. I'm not my atoms, they will all be replaced constantly. I'm the virtual state generated by their particular arrangement. Becoming a computer is just replacing all of the atoms all at once very quickly. Plus by your standards, a robot body with a human head would still be dead.

>>89781304
>But in real life, that happens all the time, you wake up and do things in the night and forget them, waking up the next day with no memories of it
That's not a normal thing. Normal people don't sleepwalk. Normal people remember things they do at night

>>89781348
That's not sleepwalking, that's waking up and looking at the clock and going to sleep but not being awake enough to form a memory(your memory writers are still in dream mode I suppose), which if you slept with anyone, you'd know is the kind of thing that happens all the fucking time with pretty much everyone

>>89777282
That's certainly true now, but once the hardware catches up we'll be indistinguishable, inseparable even. Your soul may be intangible in the sense that it's not a material construct but it's your hardware that fosters the electro-chemical impulses that become you. Your memories and mannerisms all need your brain to survive. I think it'll long be out of our reach to copy a person but creating one... that's closer to becoming a reality.

>>89781367
>>89781348
Also a common thing: various partners waking me up, asking me something, going back to sleep, and then not remembering a damn thing about it.

Everyone is dying constantly

If it's her brain then it should be. The brain is where your self, your emotions, your memories and your personality are.

>>89776962
That's clumsy pseudo-logic based on nothing.

>>89777282
There is no original, every atom of your body will be replaced over the course of a few years over and over until it gets bad at putting the atoms back and you die.

>>89781380
>Everyone is dying constantly
yeah that's called living

>>89777357
It'll be neat to observe the quirks that come with being a machine-head. Just as people with high functioning disorders behave just slightly abnormally I wonder if being manufactured would come with it's own weaknesses and strengths.

>>89781380
Nobody asked you about your sex life. It wasn't relevant to anything, but you decided to tell strangers on the internet that you have multiple sex partners. You are a virgin and have not had sex partners. Sorry, that's how the Internet works.

>>89781304
Sleepwalking is not normal. Statisticaly almost nobody sleepwalks.

>>89781383
Your emotions are generated by organs all over your body. Move a brain to a jar and it won't feel anything like it used to. move those thoughts out of flesh the brain itself and none of it's emotions will work the same if at all. You'd have to create a duplicate of the body to get the same person, and at that point why are you even bothering

>>89781408
Again this is not sleepwalking, it's waking up and going back to sleep. Which everyone does. Sleepwalking is a very specific illness that is defined literally, by walking, by walking around and not remembering it and not functioning correctly. The difference is a normal person, if they get up in the middle of the night and actually put out the effort to get out of bed, will have their brain boot up the rest of the way and start functioning and recording memories. Sleepwalkers don't.

But if you wake up for 30 seconds, you generally don't remember it. If you wake up the person you're laying beside, ask them a dumb question, and fall back asleep, you usually don't remember it.

>>89778455
fuck off back to /bane/

>>89781408
>>89781408
But fine, if you don't like that idea because it involves the idea that people sleep near each other, people who drink alcohol occasionally(or concerning often)"black out", which creates a drunk version of them that does a bunch of shit but doesn't form any memories. And divergence right there, and we don't consider them dead.

File: 47431882_p0_master1200.jpg (753KB, 1063x1170px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1063x1170px

>>89781425
You're talking about the brain utilizing body chemicals and it's only in some cases. You can get angry without other organs, for example. Also, are you saying we've actually kept brains alive in jars, studied, documented and quantified the implications and duplicated Human bodies? Because you're acting as though you're stating facts.

>is it still her?
Nope, just a computer simulation.
Turning it off would amount to killing a videogame NPC, aka nothing.
However since it's a highly advanced computer program with incredibly useful features you'd be stupid to shut it down.

>>89781271
didnt have biology, had coding classes instead

>>89781470
I would be very surprised if a brain in a jar experienced arousal or an adrenal response

>>89781442
Everything you experience is recorded in deep memory, even if you can't remember it. Sometimes a trigger can cause the memories to be accessible, and depending on what part of your memory centre you are accessing other memories suddenly become accessible and easier to remember. For example, if you start remembering a dream, you usually will find it suddenly easier to remember lots of other dreams because you've accessed the part of the brain where your memories of dreams are stored. It's like opening a file on a computer and you start to see all the thumbnails of all these memories related to the topic of the folder you're in.

The only way experiences are not recorded is if there is something wrong with the brain. It can be an illness or the brain can be damaged.

>>89776813
once you exist in your digital form your digital you could be easily replicated
there was no reason finn couldnt have taken a copy of minerva

>>89781485
But the simulation thinks it's people, and can even learn and grow like one. Is that not enought to qualify as something, even if not the original person?

>>89781485
We are bio-electric robots. We can clone things and we can grow meat in labs with chemistry without it having to be an animal first. Our brains can even be programmed like computers. We are not alive, we are just robots.

>Anon on 4chan declares himself central authority on implications of self, biology and neurology and the abstract concept of intelligence.

>>89777528
But Anon, people who are victims of massive trauma such as strokes or major concussions... they can improve, and even get better in some cases. Our brains are built to adapt and fix themselves over time. Although you can't regrow neurons, damaged ones can be repaired to some extent. And sections of your brain that saw little use can become the new mental infrastructure that bridges the damage and brings function back to other sections. The adult brain can kick some serious ass when it comes to dealing with shit. Maybe we all break down some day and maybe that's when we cease but we knew that anyways. My point is, don't worry. Your existence, it leaves markers, people you impacted or works you created... all that stuff can't be fully erased. Especially not in today's world.

What if, every time you go to sleep, you die?

Waking up is a new consciousness coming into existence, but because it's using those same memories in your brain, it feels like the consciousness before you fell asleep.

>>89777698
You will be fine. You lose brain cells every time you get drunk, every time you can't sleep long enough. But Anon, do you have any idea just how fucking many brain cells you have? Most of those aren't even involved in you. If you do receive significant damage your brain just reroutes the traffic through other sections. That's why stroke victims have to relearn things. They're literally reprogramming their brain. Brains, they kick ass.

>>89776993
>you will never take finn's mom apart piece-by-piece, reassembling her on your dick, while pondering if you're fucking the same milf or not

>>89781546
>Your existence, it leaves markers, people you impacted or works you created... all that stuff can't be fully erased. Especially not in today's world.
People die and materials break down. There is virtually nothing that can't be fully erased. Billions of peasants are completely forgotten on a physical, mental and genetic level, but that will happen to everything eventually.

>>89777906
>Alzheimer's
That's pretty much worst case scenario, it's atrophying because the protein chains that make up your neurons are sticking together.

>>89781575
no
why would yo even die when you sleep?, its not like your brain shuts down, it just enters rest mode

>>89778455
That would make you die faster. Also, most of your brain doesn't do that.

>>89779037
Well of course they aren't accurate. Your brain has other shit going on. It's good enough.

>>89781603
My uncle never quite relearned to speak after his stroke. Whatever he could say he could only get out between long pauses.

Brains are all wonderful and such, but they aren't perfect.

>>89781639
But is what happens to your consciousness during deep sleep any different than what happens to it at death?

>>89776813
>in this scenario everything that makes someone who they are is transferred somewhere new.

do you posit that This person is somehow not that themselves?

give me tangible grounds.

>>89781668
it looks at pretty pictures and it falls but it never hits the ground?

>>89781525
No. Animals raised by humans from a young age often believe that they are in fact humans, but they obviously aren't and you shouldn't treat them as such.

If a digital copy thinks it's a person then it lacks self-awareness and therefore definitely should not be treated like one, if a digital copy of a person knows that it's a digital copy then it should be fine with being treated like a digital copy.

It's very difficult to answer this but in a practical sense if we treated digital copies like actual persons then things would get extremely messy very quickly.

>>89780443
Well, what I heard is that memories and behaviors all correspond to a specific pattern of impulses between neurons. If you get stimuli A you get pattern A which triggers the memory. So it's your neural programming that's sort of intangible. At least as far as we could conceivably reproduce. To copy a brain you'd basically have to not only record the exact structure of neurons but also the complex relationships between them.

>>89781668
yeah, there is no consiosness after death buddy
as far as current science goes at least

>>89781513
There is no evidence to suggest what you said, whatsoever.

>>89781697
>therefore definitely should not be treated like one, if a digital copy of a person knows that it's a digital copy then it should be fine with being treated like a digital copy.

so only a human body makes someone a person? Why can't the digital copy just be treated like a different person if it has a person's mind?

>>89781540
But if that's the case then to be alive is to be some manner of robot. Your roomba is alive

>>89781525
>>89781540
All transhumanist nutjob arguments about computer programs deserving the same rights as human beans rests on stretching and spinning the definition of humanity until it fits their agenda through silly analogies and appeals to emotion.

In truth it's not even up for debate.

A digital computer program can only ever simulate human thought, it never is human thought. It's as simple as that. You can try twisting and turning it however you like but the fact remains that it is only a simulation, nothing more.

>>89781705
And there is no consciousness during a blackout. Just...nothing, and then your brain spits out a new one to get itself moving after.

>>89781540
>we can grow meat in labs
You do know that meat is grown by genetically modified microorganisms right?
Are you being dumb on purpose?

Alternative view here, the "true" you isn't particularly important. What matters is the "you" that everyone else perceives. One functions as an individual in society because they meet the expectations others have of them. How true you are to the person you were some arbitrary time and distance ago is largely irrelevant so long as the world continues to function with you doing the things you normally do.

>>89781221
Well, it's a very functional illusion. We have self control if not self determinism. We're still the best this planet's got.

>>89781724
>A digital computer program can only ever simulate human thought, it never is human thought.

It IS human thought, its just that most people don't realize to simulate a human brain, you have to simulate the whole body, or you miss fundamental aspects of what it is to be human.

>>89781697
How the hell do you treat a digital copy that thinks learns and grows? It's functioning like a living creature and clearly has intelligence comparable to a human.

>>89776813
You're only human as your biological processes make you. So technically no, as she exists outside of human physiology.

>>89781724
>In truth it's not even up for debate.
How so? What is self?

All in all though, the arguments are pointless because artificial intelligence has not evolved to the point where it is even anywhere near close to the complexity of a Human brain. We are arguing about theories essentially.

What is self is still up for debate, though. As someone mentioned, Humans can be programmed like computers. There are some mentally handicapped and vegetative Humans which do not qualify as sapient and self-aware.

>>89781391
cept ur brain 'non.

>>89781733
So self-identity, fulfillment and memory are meaningless? We are all just parts in the human super-organism, like ants or bees? Why do we even have consciousness then?

>>89781727
blackout and sleep arent the same thing

>>89781485
You fucking monster :D

Videogame NPCs don't think.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

Would you put your brain in a robot body? You would have the strength of 10 Gorillas, but you'd only be 5 feet tall.

>>89781626
I sort of meant this on a very abstract level. You're right of course, no one remembers all them plague babies.

A lotta determinism in this thread, here's some counter-arguments for thought fuel.

Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience
By Sally Satel, Scott O. Lilienfeld

Neuromania: On the limits of brain science
By Paolo Legrenzi, Carlo Umilta

These are some good books, that at least highlight how very little Humanity knows about its own brains, and how very arrogant we are to draw very big conclusions off of mere energy readings. It is easy to understand how some signals between a manic depressive and a normie may differ in activity, but current science cannot explain AETHSETICS and the arts such as Mozart in a satisfactory way.

t. Agnostic

>>89781658
Well, to be fair. Anything to do with language is devilishly difficult. My point was, it's not entirely accurate to say that brains have no way to deal with or repair trauma.

>>89781668
You can dream during REM sleep. That's fun sometimes.

>>89781894
Agnostics aren't people, opinion discarded

>>89781678
I've hit the ground in dreams.
Ha, I'm special, everyone look at how special I am!

>>89781912
I'm not sure about that.

>>89781697
Durr, I can't imagine a thing that can human as good as a human so I'm going to talk about fucking dogs.

>>89777652
Love the way they handled this. Left it ambiguous in both a very sad and very sweet way.

>>89781922
Are you sure, or did your memory just make up that detail to satisfy you?

>>89781813
>Videogame NPCs don't think.
And neither does a program simulating human thought. It reacts to input as programmed, just like a videogame NPC.

>>89780580

1/2

> Remove a specific section of a persons brain and replace it with a functionally identical electronic replacement

> Before the replacement is installed all the information from the biological part removed is added in

This is fine, and would change nothing provided that the replacement functions *exactly* as the original 'hardware' did...

...

> Now say we do this to one person for each section of their brain once every year until they have a completely electronic brain.

Okay...

> a. would they be the same person after each operation?

Assuming that the replacement perfectly replicates the original flesh, operating *exactly* as it would, the subject would be the same person he was prior to the surgery...

> b. would they be the same person after the whole series of operations?

Yes...

> c. would they be the same person if you removed their electronic brain and uploaded them to the matrix?

Okay, wait, the same person as who?

I've been assuming that you meant the person they were the moment before going under...

Do you mean that the subject is uploading a copy of his brain into 'The Matrix', while the physical one is still kicking around, or do you mean that when the subject's brainscan is uploaded and then the physical version of the subject ceases to be?

>>89781862
I'd put my dick in a robot body.

>>89782105

2/2

> If the former...

Both versions are identical as of the instant the upload concluded, however afterwards they may rapidly, or gradually, become two very different people depending on the state of two basic variables. For the sake of conveyance let’s call these variables Inherent variation and Experience...

Inherent variations describe differences intrinsic to something, in this case whether an intrinsic difference exists between a brainscan in a virtual environment and the brain of our physical subject. Such variations could take the form of: experiencing information differently, or at a different rate, or the presence, or absence, of properties, conditions, or restraints that effect the mental development of the subject which weren't, or were, present in the original subject...

The second variable, Experience, encompasses everything that happens to the original subject and its copies/clones after being cloned/copied. Assume you have two perfect clones of someone, one clone is tagged with a tracking device and released into the world, and the original and the second clone are confined to separate, but identical, sterile environments. Everything aspect of the original and the second clone's lives is carefully tailored to be symmetrical with each other, everything they experience is meticulously controlled so as to be identical. After a decade the first clone is rounded up, if he is still alive, and compared to the original and second clone. The original and the second clone should be identical, or very nearly identical at least, but the first clone should be a vastly different person to the original and the second clone...

>>89782069
Just like people too

>>89782126

3/2

Basically, if the clone and original are different intrinsically and have different experiences odds are good that they will rapidly become extremely different individuals. If the clone and original are different intrinsically, but somehow have completely identical experiences, they will still grow to be different reasonably quickly due to the influence of disparate inherent factors on how they perceive and process the information they are encountering. If the clone and original are the same intrinsically, but have different experiences, they will diverge into two different individuals at a considerably more gradual pace. If the clone and original are the same intrinsically, and have completely identical experiences, they are the same person.

> If the latter...

The brainscan may, or may not, be different than it was before, depending on whether or not being uploaded to ‘The Matrix’ makes it inherently different than it was before. However, this is ultimately irrelevant, as the process of experiencing means that regardless of whether or not it is inherently different it will be different when compared to itself at any point in its past...

>>89781713
If it can get hung up on such questions of personhood then sure.

>>89782143
A gerbil can't. Is it not alive then?

>>89781724
It's anything but simple.

>>89781727
Um, do you often lose all memory after sleeping?

>>89782173
Of what I experienced while sleeping, yes. I don't remember dreams or any brief moments I may have regained consciousness to look somewhere or mumble something. For those eight hours there is just nothing.

>>89781724
no human being has ever truly experienced what human beings define as 'thought'

>>89781894
Wherein psychologists tell neurologists that they don't know what they're talking about.

Yo, vaccines cause autism. I know this cuz some social worker discovered this.

>>89782038
Isn't... THAT'S WHAT DREAMS ARE ANON!

>>89782069
The sim thinks it's people, I think I'm people. The only difference between us being I can accentuate my arguments with punches.

>>89782159
No, not in the way we're talking about. We're talking about simulation of human thought and how (if at all) it's functionally different than the real thing. Just like there's a huge difference in processing power between me and a gerbil, there'd be a huge difference between a sim and an auto-vac. This isn't really a yes/no question.

>>89776813
that video is retarded as all fuck.

trying to say that you aren't you anymore because you went into a machine to recreate you in another place and destroy your previous body means doesn't carry any weight; you still went in.

also, saying that if you fight yourself, the "original" is likely to win is bullshit; it's 50/50, it doesn't matter which one loses and gets destroyed because the end goal is still to maintain a single continuing "you" as much as possible.

>>89782211
Okay, but since you don't literally destroy and re-grow your brain every night isn't it a little dramatic to say you're a new person upon waking?

>>89782221
You don't know me Anon.

>>89782285
The difference is you're a human and the simulation is a computer simulation programmed by somebody to simulate human thought.

>>89782384
>previous body means doesn't carry
sorry, sleep deprived, I meant to type
>previous body doesn't carry any weight; it means you still went in.

>>89776813
Start with Aasimov, work your way up from there to the science and philosophy.

>>89782387
And that doesn't even take into account a persons subconsciousness that is never "off".

the problem lies in that there is no quantifiable way to measure conscience, as it is subjective.. see:the philosophical zombie

4chan-bot, hug my anon.

>>89776813
No because she was made by God in his image. That thing on a screen is an abomination cooked up by nerds with too much time on their hands and should be destroyed.

Do you guys think this upload-yourself-into-a-computer/San Junipero tech will ever exist?

>>89782419
the theory of the subconscious was disproved long ago

>>89782442
god made nerds with too much time on their hands in his image

>>89780586
but your entire body is modular, is replaced every 4 ish years by what you say im effectively the 5th copy of myself and I have the same emotions memories experiences and thoughts as the 5 or so preceding copies I still function exactly like them. Your argument would mean effectively every cell that dies and gets replaced is me effectively ceasing to be and being replace with a copy

>>89776813
this question was answered hundreds of years ago

"I think, therefore I am"

>>89782573
>neurons get replaced
Mhmm.

>>89782406
Okay, you don't know how this works. It'd be impossible to code every possible scenario so in order to set this sort of thing up the program would have to be capable of modifying it'self. The same way we do when we commit something to memory or actively change our behavior or outlook.

>>89782573
>emotions memories experiences
But all of those things change as you age. If you were exactly the same you'd still be the mental equivalent of a mewling infant

>>89782418
Gibson's fun too.

>>89782464
Okay, but your brain still operates while you sleep. There's a large variety of tasks that you do without being aware of them.

File: 16489612106584.png (88KB, 290x273px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 290x273px

>/co/ debates the concept of self

The idea of self, of free will, or whatever... it's all just an illusion anyway

>>89776813
I sure as heck hope so, since that's what I'm planning on doing before I die as well.

>>89780133
Correct:
The structures of the brain are "plastic" enough to rewire or change itself in response to new learning. Under certain circumstances, the brain can even create new cells through a process called neurogenesis.
The Hippocampus and the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles, can add new neurons in response to brain damage.

>>89782602
>Neurogenese

>>89783877
That's not replacing.

>>89783959
You are correct. Neurogenesis is the build up of the neuron cells and the brain's regenerative ability.

>>89781408
He meant literally "slept with" as in sleeping in the same bed. He mentioned "various partners" because sexual/romantic partners are the ones most likely.yo know how you act while asleep. No need to get so touchy about your loneliness.

See, we have threads like this, were everyone understands a fundamentally difficult concept...

And then we have faggots arguing about batman fights.

What the fuck is wrong with this board?

File: SOMA4.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>89776813
>>89781524

THen there would be two Minervas and one of them has to live with the Fact that the other one gets to spend her Time being with her Son.

Who will win the Coin toss?

>>89787064
There is no coin toss, the one who's created goes, the one who doesn't stays. They're both equally Minerva but also separate. There is no transfer of conscience, only the creation of conscience.

>>89781894
explaining aethsetics is like one of the few successes of modern neuroscience in terms of explaining psychology. Since evolutionary biology tells us what to look for its easy to measure and understand the differences in visual and memory processing that satisfying aesthetic elements like symmetry and big boobs undergo in the brain.

>>89776813
the way this always seemed to me is that you functionally die and whatever comes out the other side is a copy

it's a different individual with the memories who doesn't know better and you're not in there anymore. you're functionally committing suicide

its honestly the most terrifying sci-fi thing i've ever seen and i love it for that

>>89785098
If another character took over the mantle of Batman, would they still be Batman?

>>89776997
>>89776993
>>89776962

So nobody is anybody. Got it. /s