What's the current state of mind uploading research? Which

>>7674952
It's almost entirely science fiction at this point, but who knows about down the road.

An individual's neuronal network must first be mapped, and then some rigid way of detecting neuron firing must be accomplished. Once this happens, neuron activity can be represented in binary (fired vs. unfired) or more plausibly but more difficultly, hexadecimal, where several states of the neuron are mapped at once (chemical transmittance, electrical transmittance, etc). Then of course, there'd be the issue of having to excite the sample brain to experience every memory in its data set so that it could be represented in a computer, and even then unconscious or subconscious processes would still be almost impossible to map reliably.

>>7674952
It won't happen for a very long time.

The ability to map is irrelevant. You need to understand the functionality of the system as a whole, down to intracellular mechanics, and be able to simulate physics with reasonable accuracy. It's not feasible.

It'll also be a clone, or an identical child. Not you.

>>7674952
Please man grow up ;)... It will not be possible.
It's more likely we will extinct within capitalism influence than we'll ever get mind uploading.

>>7675004
>Not you.

What is "you"? If it's physically equivalent, it's "you", since "you" is physical.

>>7675029
-It's not physically equivalent. At best it's an approximation built on generalizations to make it runnable at a reasonable speed even on hypothetical specialized hardware
-"You" is the thing experiencing from your perspective. It appears to be linked to a given machine, and as long as that machine is structurally intact, it remains in some form. Create a copy of yourself, it's a new you, and it goes on to change independently and experience in its own way. It isn't you, it's a derivative of an original.
(Anticipatory)
-Ship of Theseus is not a paradox. The sensory data you've received, and your memories, are what give it persistent identity. Otherwise it's just a constant gradient of change.

>>7675034
If there are two of "you", then these "you"s are separate. If there's only one, then it isn't.

If you're completely evaporated and reconstructed, physically identically, you will become the "you" you were right before evaporation (assuming we're restoring you to that state before the evaporation).

>>7675041
I'd imagine if you killed the original, whatever "consciousness" is, it wouldn't merge in with the derivative. It'd be a separate frame of experience.

As for the evaporation deal. I don't know. I think it comes from how poorly we understand time, and why any particle system can change at all. If consciousness transcends the material, and the body as a general state is a proxy, how would you test that.

Many tiny is granular, and every tick "you" both begin and end. It's just a flipbook with the illusion of any continuity in your sense of self experience.

It could be a standalone self doesn't exist at all. It's created elsewhere, and part of something else.

Everyone has their own idea, but it can't be known if you're right. It doesn't seem to matter the exact parts you're made of, as long as the general macro structures remain the same. Two ideas then come to mind:
-Consciousness is stored in, or dependent on, time.
-Scale is an illusion. As things subdivide smaller and smaller, all we're actually seeing is the same thing from a different perspective. Micro would loop back into macro, all along we were just viewing ourselves with a certain resolution.

I haven't the slightest. The older I've got, the less attached I feel. It's as though I'm just going through the motions. I'll die. the universe will collapse and loop back on itself. I'll live again. Etc. Though in truth, I don't really believe life meaningfully exists. We just have a very narrow faculty and self fixated faculty for thought and perception.

>>7674952
Mind uploading will literally never happen, due to the way your personality is stored in the physical arrangement of the neurons in your brain, not some electrical pattern inside them.

Mind imitation on the other hand will happen in the next 20-50 years, where a strong AI uses your emails, text chats, phone calls, and other conversations that you've had, as training material.

>>7675060
>it's be a separate frame of experience

Look at it this way:
Evaporating person X at a time t1 and then recreating them as they were at t1 at a time t2 is equivalent to that person traveling in time.

Traveling in time doesn't somehow destroy consciousness now, does it? That is, there's no reason for quantum teleportation to "destroy" consciousness. Consciousness isn't immaterial. It's based on physical matter.

>>7675080
>It's based on physical matter.
Which is vague, and I covered why.

>>7674952
If ya'll ain't autistic, the most plausible is big brother tracking you from day one. A record of all your choices and experiences would be utilized to build a virtual model of you. If that model can predict with a high degree of precision the decisions you make, then it could be considered your clone.