69 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

Thanks Seeker. It must be the new pills I am taking. That is two compliments on my  way with words, in one day.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 04 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved.

Demonstrated? So you can link me to the experiment?

Edit: Anyway I said localized, which science has shown.
Discussions are difficult when you insist on changing what I say.

Edited by Rlyeh, 05 December 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[SavageDragon]

Mr Walker, on 04 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on  having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the  actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Taking for granted that science demonstrated consciousness can be replied and transferred (I'd like to read a link too), I still have to understand why we should be able to continue living the experience and be aware of it similarly or parallelal to now.

The more I read it like you are putting it, the more it just looks like simple, cold informations stored in a memory. Not the "true" yourself.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Demonstrated? So you can link me to the experiment?

Edit: Anyway I said localized, which science has shown.
Discussions are difficult when you insist on changing what I say.

Then you need to be clear in what you say and mean.

My/human consciousness is not localised if it can be; reproduced, dupicated, stored and transferred.

It is not localised when it can be transmitted to another personn  or many persons like a radio broadcast, so they can hear my thoughts.

It is not localised when it can be used to operate any form of machinery from close range, like a wheelchair or bionic arm,  or very long (eg interplanetary) distance.

It is now several years since i saw documentaries on these advances in science They were made in britain europe and america and looked at work done by darpa, scandinavian companies, and others on human consciousness.  they were shown on the australian broadcasting channel in australia and were mentioned in posts on UM at the time.

One of the leading scientists concluded by saying that his chldren would never need to die because their consciousness would be transferable and virtually immortal. Another was quite afraid that the artificial intelligences aasociated with this work would turn on humans and create a scenario like that in terminator; but these  scientists, working around the world, all agreed that the time frame for this was less than two decades.

[Mr Walker]

SavageDragon, on 05 December 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Taking for granted that science demonstrated consciousness can be replied and transferred (I'd like to read a link too), I still have to understand why we should be able to continue living the experience and be aware of it similarly or parallelal to now.

The more I read it like you are putting it, the more it just looks like simple, cold informations stored in a memory. Not the "true" yourself.

I hit the like button instead of the quote but it is a good question so that is OK

There are two ways of doing this. Transfering your consciousness to an AI or to another, perhaps cloned, human being. In both cases the host entity acts like we do. it collects data which goes to the brain and continues the experience of the mind.  Our mind IS just a storage and retrieval system combined with a neural processing unit, and our self aware consciousness is nothing more than an evolved property of that mind.

So an AI can have a soul, a consciousness and a personality, just like a human. For more information  you can check out neuroinformatics or simply google "transferring human consciousness"

However it is harder to find articles on transferring consciousness form one human to another. That is because while this process is technically easier, it faces a lot more ethical and moral questions. At the moment the belief is that human consciousness may be transfered to a self aware AI in about 10 years, given the progress in computing capacity


In 2004, Henry Markram, lead researcher of the "Blue Brain Project", has stated that "it is not [their] goal to build an intelligent neural network", based solely on the computational demands such a project would have.^[16]

It will be very difficult because, in the brain, every molecule is a powerful computer and we would need to simulate the structure and function of trillions upon trillions of molecules as well as all the rules that govern how they interact. You would literally need computers that are trillions of times bigger and faster than anything existing today.^[17]

Five years later, after successful simulation of part of a rat brain, the same scientist was much more bold and optimistic. In 2009, when he was director of the Blue Brain Project, he claimed that

A detailed, functional artificial human brain can be built within the next 10 years ^[18]

Required computational capacity strongly depend on the chosen level of simulation model scale^[1]:

http://en.wikipedia..../Mind_uploading
Quantum computers, which are getting closer every day, will give the computing capacity required, and a lot to spare.

Edited by Mr Walker, 05 December 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 05 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Then you need to be clear in what you say and mean.

The meaning was quite clear, you're just reverting back to your old tactics of changing meanings.

Quote

My/human consciousness is not localised if it can be; reproduced, dupicated, stored and transferred.

It is not localised when it can be transmitted to another personn  or many persons like a radio broadcast, so they can hear my thoughts.

And after all that your consciousness is still confined to your body/brain. Making a copy doesn't refute this.

Quote

It is not localised when it can be used to operate any form of machinery from close range, like a wheelchair or bionic arm,  or very long (eg interplanetary) distance.

I find it odd an english teacher (isn't that what you claim to be?), does not know the meaning of localized.
Remote controlling machinery in fact shows the consciousness is localized, it would defeat the purpose if consciousness weren't.

Quote

One of the leading scientists concluded by saying that his chldren would never need to die because their consciousness would be transferable and virtually immortal. Another was quite afraid that the artificial intelligences aasociated with this work would turn on humans and create a scenario like that in terminator; but these  scientists, working around the world, all agreed that the time frame for this was less than two decades.

Opinions aren't experiments.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 05 December 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

The meaning was quite clear, you're just reverting back to your old tactics of changing meanings.

And after all that your consciousness is still confined to your body/brain. Making a copy doesn't refute this.

I find it odd an english teacher (isn't that what you claim to be?), does not know the meaning of localized.
Remote controlling machinery in fact shows the consciousness is localized, it would defeat the purpose if consciousness weren't.

Opinions aren't experiments.

As an english teacher I do not consider a  radio/tv broadcast to be localised, even if the source of it is localised. It can be heard/seen by people over the whole earth and into space. There is no practical reason your brain cannot do the same. If another person can read your mind directly from a distance, then your CONSCIOUSNESS is not localised, only your brain.

The scientists' opinions came from scientists working on the physical  machinery and artificial intelligences which are currently being made to store human intelligence and to create an AI capable of replicating and exceeding human mental capacity. They know what they are talking about. Of course whether they are telling the truth is a different matter. They were reputable scientists interviewed by a reputable documentary organisation.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 06 December 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

As an english teacher I do not consider a  radio/tv broadcast to be localised, even if the source of it is localised. It can be heard/seen by people over the whole earth and into space. There is no practical reason your brain cannot do the same. If another person can read your mind directly from a distance, then your CONSCIOUSNESS is not localised, only your brain.

If someone copies my brain, then that isn't localised either. See what happens when people abuse meanings?

Quote

The scientists' opinions came from scientists working on the physical  machinery and artificial intelligences which are currently being made to store human intelligence and to create an AI capable of replicating and exceeding human mental capacity. They know what they are talking about. Of course whether they are telling the truth is a different matter. They were reputable scientists interviewed by a reputable documentary organisation.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. Science is knowledge collected via the scientific method, opinions even from scientists are not scientific experiments.

[braveone2u]

Hilander, on 03 December 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

The brain does not survive death only the spirit does.  The brain will decay with the rest of the body.  The spirit must retain knowledge though or how would it know who to contact after death.

I have seen a ghost so I know something survives death.

Hi Hilander,

"The brain does not survive death only the spirit does.  The brain will decay with the rest of the body." That, I cannot say yes or no to, but all I know is that I came back from the dead with my "awareness" intact. I remembered everything. Yes, the brain will decay, but it can also rejuvinate itself... I was dead for at least 6 hours. I saw my body rejuvinating itself right before my very eyes; however, the process was not a pleasant one -- I survived, nevertheless.

I, too, have experienced ghosts. Did I see them, or did they invade my consciousness? I think it was the latter because our servant did not see them when she rescued me from drowning. This happened when I was 8 years old. My last afterlife experience happened in 2000, but it was a profound one in many ways.

Peace.

Edited by braveone2u, 07 December 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[braveone2u]

I must add this, however. When my dearest friend died in my arms, he came back to his body 21 minutes later after being pumped up with some kind of machine. It was a brutal site to watch. Nevertheless, his heart started pumping. His brain was damaged... He died 6 days later.