ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence

Reply
Old 14th August 2019, 06:32 PM   #161
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Would you then be okay with replacing your loved ones with exact android duplicates?
Since I would have absolutely no way of knowing that it had happened, of course I would.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 03:36 AM   #162
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,757
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This is a cool video by CGP Grey about how machines are supposed to learn.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:13 PM   #163
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In principle it should be possible, I agree. But I don't see it being done with current computer technology, or even by hypothetical vastly more sophisticated versions of current computer technology.
Yes, well, I didn't say it was possible right now. Just that as long as there is no real argument for why that can't be done even theoretically, well, there also inherently none against computers being able to think.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Would you then be okay with replacing your loved ones with exact android duplicates?
Think positively. If mom needed a power cord, I could just sit out of range to avoid her riding my shiny metal ass

Ok, joke aside, why not? Unless you want to believe in some kind of dualism, where some soul is taking all the decisions, everything you say or do is just a function of the configuration of synapses in your brain. A probabilistic function, but still, a function.

If someone took your brain and put it in another body, it would be you in a new body. If someone made a map of your synapse configuration and copied it exactly to someone else's synapses, it would still be you in a new body. If someone took that synapse configuration and put it into a simulated brain on a super-computer, well, it would be you in a computer.

So let's also think of it from the other side. Would I mind it if mom got a mechanical heart instead of the real one? Nope. Not to mention that I'd assume that if that was needed, it's at the very least better than the alternative. Would I mind it if mom got a robot leg or arm? Nope. What about both? Still nope. And so on. At what point would it become a deal breaker then? Why would a whole robot body be waay over the line?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:23 PM   #164
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ok, joke aside, why not? Unless you want to believe in some kind of dualism, where some soul is taking all the decisions, everything you say or do is just a function of the configuration of synapses in your brain. A probabilistic function, but still, a function.
I disagree. A person is more than a sum of their parts.

Quote:
If someone took your brain and put it in another body, it would be you in a new body.
I agree.

Quote:
If someone made a map of your synapse configuration and copied it exactly to someone else's synapses, it would still be you in a new body.
No, it wouldn't. A copy is not the original.

Quote:
If someone took that synapse configuration and put it into a simulated brain on a super-computer, well, it would be you in a computer.
Nope. Still a copy.

Quote:
So let's also think of it from the other side. Would I mind it if mom got a mechanical heart instead of the real one? Nope. Not to mention that I'd assume that if that was needed, it's at the very least better than the alternative. Would I mind it if mom got a robot leg or arm? Nope. What about both? Still nope. And so on. At what point would it become a deal breaker then? Why would a whole robot body be waay over the line?
The body, fine. The brain, nope. You don't have to believe in a soul to believe a person ceases to be when they lose their brain, or that a copy of a brain is not the same individual as the original.

You're basically arguing that if I had a clever enough Xerox machine you'd be okay with me murdering you, so long as another individual existed afterward who was sufficiently similar to you. The copy wouldn't be you. You'd be a separate person, who is dead.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:29 PM   #165
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,699
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You're basically arguing that if I had a clever enough Xerox machine you'd be okay with me murdering you, so long as another individual existed afterward who was sufficiently similar to you. The copy wouldn't be you. You'd be a separate person, who is dead.
No he's not, he's arguing that his wife wouldn't mind you killing him if a completely undetectable copy of him went home that evening.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:31 PM   #166
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,239
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
No he's not, he's arguing that his wife wouldn't mind you killing him if a completely undetectable copy of him went home that evening.
Undetectable to whom?

I'll concede that a copy with the same memories, and no idea that it's a copy, is probably the same person, or close enough.

A copy that knows its true provenance, though, probably isn't.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:37 PM   #167
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,699
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Undetectable to whom?

I'll concede that a copy with the same memories, and no idea that it's a copy, is probably the same person, or close enough.

A copy that knows its true provenance, though, probably isn't.
I submit that a copy who replies to the question ' Are you the real Guybrush Threepwood?' With 'No I'm a copy' fails to fulfil the condition of being undetectable by quite a long way.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 01:37 PM   #168
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In principle it should be possible, I agree. But I don't see it being done with current computer technology, or even by hypothetical vastly more sophisticated versions of current computer technology.
If you can do one you can do a hundred, you can do a million, a billion and eventually 100 billion.
The Blue Brain project is currently simulating 30 000 neurons and 8 million connections (down to the molecular level!!!) to understand the principles behind how neurons and the brain function exactly.*
Once those principles are understood it would be much simpler to model large numbers of neurons with all the needed connections and functions.
We have also only recently started designing and building hardware specifically to emulate neural networks. Probably lots of room for improvement there.

Blue Brain already have a model to simulate the complete mouse cortex and are ready to start running EEG experiments on it, but the model is too 'heavy' for the super computers they use.
Modelling a human brain might not be as far in the future as some think.

*If you are interested, I think it's really cool:

In all mammals the arrangement of neurons in the cortex is very similar. It seems the neuron is not the functional element of data processing in the brain, but rather something called a cortical column.
A CC consists of six layers and contains multiple different types of neurons that are functionally and structurally distinct.
The mouse has about 30 000 neurons and humans 100 000 per CC.
A mouse CC has now been modeled down to the molecular level and the human one is next.
Once we understand how all the different neurons in a human CC function together and how a CC works as a whole, it would be possible to model a CC at the neural, rather than molecular level. This would immediately increase the size of brain we could model accurately by orders of magnitude.
Or even better, it might be possible to model a brain at the CC, rather than neuron level, even more efficient. Humans only have around one to two million cortical columns.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 15th August 2019 at 01:49 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 03:48 PM   #169
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Right. So we're now down to whether there's a difference between the original and an _identical_ copy. Fine by me, actually.

Well, we're back to where you draw the line. Let's start simple. Are you the same person as you were 30 years ago? Are any of your relatives / friends / loved ones / whatever, the same person they were 30 years ago?

Well, according to Stanford University, it takes about 10 years for almost every cell in your body to have died and been replaced with a new one. Some parts are refreshed much faster, but 10 years is what it takes to be reasonably sure that there's buggerall left of the original. So after 30 years, not only you ARE a copy, but you're actually a copy of a copy of a copy of the original person. Ditto for your wife or whatever.

Does that qualify as a different person?

If no, then what difference does it make? I mean, what functional difference anyway?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:01 PM   #170
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Right. So we're now down to whether there's a difference between the original and an _identical_ copy. Fine by me, actually.

Well, we're back to where you draw the line. Let's start simple. Are you the same person as you were 30 years ago? Are any of your relatives / friends / loved ones / whatever, the same person they were 30 years ago?

Well, according to Stanford University, it takes about 10 years for almost every cell in your body to have died and been replaced with a new one. Some parts are refreshed much faster, but 10 years is what it takes to be reasonably sure that there's buggerall left of the original. So after 30 years, not only you ARE a copy, but you're actually a copy of a copy of a copy of the original person. Ditto for your wife or whatever.

Does that qualify as a different person?

If no, then what difference does it make? I mean, what functional difference anyway?
What is the being you consider to be "you"? Is your concept of identity so relaxed you don't believe in your own existence? Somebody else sufficiently like you is you? That's not just bad science and worse philosophy, that's literally insane. People who don't recognize themselves as distinct entities are crazy.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:34 PM   #171
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,508
Star Trek Transporter Paradox.

That is all.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:00 PM   #172
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Star Trek Transporter Paradox.

That is all.
Even Tom Riker didn't imagine he was a commander just because Wil was. They didn't see through each other's eyes, or pay each other's credit card bills, or even date the same person. They knew they were two separate people, whatever their origins. And if one killed the other he'd be a murderer.

Ironic, seeing how Wil did kill a clone of himself in an earlier episode, but somehow that wasn't a problem! (Nobody minded when Pulaski killed her clone.)
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:22 AM   #173
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What is the being you consider to be "you"? Is your concept of identity so relaxed you don't believe in your own existence? Somebody else sufficiently like you is you? That's not just bad science and worse philosophy, that's literally insane. People who don't recognize themselves as distinct entities are crazy.
Considering that the scenario you have been proposing is a literal case of Capgras Syndrome, I would advise against going down the route of decreeing who's crazy if they disagree with you

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Even Tom Riker didn't imagine he was a commander just because Wil was. They didn't see through each other's eyes, or pay each other's credit card bills, or even date the same person. They knew they were two separate people, whatever their origins. And if one killed the other he'd be a murderer.
The point you're missing is that at the moment of cloning both thought that they ARE Wil Riker. Both had the same identity.

And that if the one whose beam had made it to the Enterprise had been killed in a transporter accident (one of the most common hazards in Starfleet) -- say, their beam decoherred or whatever technobabble, and they couldn't materialize him -- and they had found the other one still on the planet, everyone would have had no problem thinking he IS Wil Riker. They wouldn't even think, "oh, we still have a copy on the planet." They would have just thought that the transporter didn't work at all, and Wil is still on the planet.

Later one of them took another name to avoid confusion, but that's no different than if I started to call myself Max instead of Hans to avoid confusion with another Hans at the office.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2019 at 02:31 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:33 AM   #174
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,491
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
(Nobody minded when Pulaski killed her clone.)
A lot of people minded that she only killed the clone.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:34 AM   #175
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Finally, you don't seem to understand what he meant by the transporter paradox in the first place.

The problem is that once you went through the transporter once, you ARE a copy. Even if Wil hadn't split in that particular incident, he would have just been copied once more, on top of the hundreds of times it already had happened, and the original destroyed.

But nobody, not even themselves, thinks "oh, that's totally not Riker" when they first used a transporter.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:41 AM   #176
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,699
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Even Tom Riker didn't imagine he was a commander just because Wil was. They didn't see through each other's eyes, or pay each other's credit card bills, or even date the same person. They knew they were two separate people, whatever their origins. And if one killed the other he'd be a murderer.

Ironic, seeing how Wil did kill a clone of himself in an earlier episode, but somehow that wasn't a problem! (Nobody minded when Pulaski killed her clone.)
I wasn't familiar with that episode, so I looked it up.

Originally Posted by Memory Alpha
The transporter must have driven them crazy!
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:23 AM   #177
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Finally, you don't seem to understand what he meant by the transporter paradox in the first place.

The problem is that once you went through the transporter once, you ARE a copy. Even if Wil hadn't split in that particular incident, he would have just been copied once more, on top of the hundreds of times it already had happened, and the original destroyed.

But nobody, not even themselves, thinks "oh, that's totally not Riker" when they first used a transporter.
But neither Riker ever thinks they are one person. They agree, as does everyone else, that there are now two separate Rikers. That's my point here: being identical in every way does not make two beings one.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:31 AM   #178
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,699
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But neither Riker ever thinks they are one person. They agree, as does everyone else, that there are now two separate Rikers. That's my point here: being identical in every way does not make two beings one.
Yes, we all agree on that, it was never in dispute as far as I'm aware. The point is, at the moment of the transporter malfunction there are two real Rikers (or two fake ones depending on your point of view) and it doesn't matter which one you kill, you are left with the real Will Riker.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:35 AM   #179
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But neither Riker ever thinks they are one person. They agree, as does everyone else, that there are now two separate Rikers. That's my point here: being identical in every way does not make two beings one.
I don't think anyone claimed that two beings are one.

But you still don't fully realize the implication there. BOTH are equally copies of the original Riker that was transported. (Who in turn was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.) Yet nobody has any problem treating one of them as the "real" Riker.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:37 AM   #180
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Yes, we all agree on that, it was never in dispute as far as I'm aware. The point is, at the moment of the transporter malfunction there are two real Rikers (or two fake ones depending on your point of view) and it doesn't matter which one you kill, you are left with the real Will Riker.
Except from the POV of the Riker you just killed. Once you concede they are two separate beings you have granted then both personhood, and it matters very much to a person whether it exists or not. One being's similarity to another doesn't render it a nonbeing.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:39 AM   #181
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I don't think anyone claimed that two beings are one.

But you still don't fully realize the implication there. BOTH are equally copies of the original Riker that was transported. (Who in turn was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.) Yet nobody has any problem treating one of them as the "real" Riker.
The other Riker isn't UNREAL. That's the point. Killing the copy is still murder even though you have "a" Riker left afterward.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:45 AM   #182
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,699
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Except from the POV of the Riker you just killed. Once you concede they are two separate beings you have granted then both personhood, and it matters very much to a person whether it exists or not. One being's similarity to another doesn't render it a nonbeing.
Of course, but if you don't kill one of them, (or leave him stranded on a planet for 8 years to give you a half-arsed reason in the script to regard them as different) then how do you divide up their stuff and who gets to be Picard's number one?
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:40 AM   #183
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Of course, but if you don't kill one of them, (or leave him stranded on a planet for 8 years to give you a half-arsed reason in the script to regard them as different) then how do you divide up their stuff and who gets to be Picard's number one?
That wasn't an issue, even for the Rikers themselves, as the incident that created a duplicate happened long before one of them wound up on the Enterprise. Tom only had claim to possessions and entitlements dating from before the split. He had never even met Picard before.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:43 AM   #184
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,491
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Tom only had claim to possessions and entitlements dating from before the split.
Wil must have had one hell of a transportersplit lawyer to draw up a pretransporter agreement that tight.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:50 AM   #185
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The other Riker isn't UNREAL. That's the point. Killing the copy is still murder even though you have "a" Riker left afterward.
Hmm? I don't think I was saying he's unreal.

And honestly, you seem to be the only one obsessed with killing clones at this point. Is there something you're trying to tell us?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:56 AM   #186
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Hmm? I don't think I was saying he's unreal.

And honestly, you seem to be the only one obsessed with killing clones at this point. Is there something you're trying to tell us?
If I had a duplicate we'd get along very well. So well it would disturb other people very much.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 06:23 AM   #187
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If I had a duplicate we'd get along very well. So well it would disturb other people very much.





What a disturbing coincidence. Mrs Cheetah said almost the same thing about a week ago. She said that if TragicMonkey had a duplicate they'd get along very well. So well it would disturb other people very much.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 08:00 AM   #188
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If I had a duplicate we'd get along very well. So well it would disturb other people very much.
I think most of us would. After all, you have the same interests, topics, etc, as yourself. Humour probably wouldn't work well, though, considering you already know all the jokes you'd tell yourself

Regardless, I think the topic of whether you'd kill a clone is entirely orthogonal to the topic of whether having the same synapse configuration means the same identity.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 08:05 AM   #189
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I think most of us would. After all, you have the same interests, topics, etc, as yourself. Humour probably wouldn't work well, though, considering you already know all the jokes you'd tell yourself

Regardless, I think the topic of whether you'd kill a clone is entirely orthogonal to the topic of whether having the same synapse configuration means the same identity.
I'd bang my clone. I thought that was obvious. I'm super hot.

And not really: the personhood of a duplicate proves its separateness of being. Unless you're dealing with a Trinity situation where you have one being "in three persons" or whatever insanity people argued about for millennia now. Don't send Jesus through the transporter, you'll end up with between one and six beings in two bodies.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 08:05 AM   #190
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,491
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I think most of us would.
Not necessarily in the same way TM would, I suspect.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:40 PM   #191
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,024
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Right. So we're now down to whether there's a difference between the original and an _identical_ copy. Fine by me, actually.

Well, we're back to where you draw the line. Let's start simple. Are you the same person as you were 30 years ago? Are any of your relatives / friends / loved ones / whatever, the same person they were 30 years ago?

Well, according to Stanford University, it takes about 10 years for almost every cell in your body to have died and been replaced with a new one. Some parts are refreshed much faster, but 10 years is what it takes to be reasonably sure that there's buggerall left of the original. So after 30 years, not only you ARE a copy, but you're actually a copy of a copy of a copy of the original person. Ditto for your wife or whatever.

Does that qualify as a different person?

If no, then what difference does it make? I mean, what functional difference anyway?
Your brain cells are not replaced if they die or are damaged.
As the thread is about AI brains etc, then yes, you are the same person as your brain cells have not been replaced at any point in your life.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 06:37 PM   #192
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Your brain cells are not replaced if they die or are damaged.
As the thread is about AI brains etc, then yes, you are the same person as your brain cells have not been replaced at any point in your life.
The cells may not be replaced with new cells, but the molecules that make up the cells must be?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 01:18 AM   #193
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Actually, it's a myth that neurons stop being produced and replaced in adults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_neurogenesis
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 01:28 AM   #194
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, it's a myth that neurons stop being produced and replaced in adults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_neurogenesis
Yes, but I think it's true that many (most?) of the neurons in our brains aren't replaced during our lifetimes.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 01:31 AM   #195
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Unless you have a holodeck a simulation is still just a simulation. A simulated intelligence would simulate thought, but not actually think.
I'm still curious about this. What is a simulated thought? It seems to me that thought is simulation. A simulation of a simulation is still just a simulation.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 08:12 PM   #196
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm still curious about this. What is a simulated thought? It seems to me that thought is simulation. A simulation of a simulation is still just a simulation.
Are your brain cells real, or simulated?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 09:07 PM   #197
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are your brain cells real, or simulated?
They are obviously real. Similarly my computer's hardware is also real.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 09:50 PM   #198
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Are your brain cells real, or simulated?

Your thoughts are the information propagating across the network of your brain cells. Whether that network is made of meat neurons or simulated neurons or electronic neurons does not affect the propagation of information across the network. All that is needed is that the network be functionally equivalent. On what it runs is of no consequence.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 17th August 2019 at 09:55 PM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2019, 02:53 AM   #199
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Your thoughts are the information propagating across the network of your brain cells. Whether that network is made of meat neurons or simulated neurons or electronic neurons does not affect the propagation of information across the network. All that is needed is that the network be functionally equivalent. On what it runs is of no consequence.
This.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2019, 06:53 AM   #200
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,797
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Your thoughts are the information propagating across the network of your brain cells. Whether that network is made of meat neurons or simulated neurons or electronic neurons does not affect the propagation of information across the network. All that is needed is that the network be functionally equivalent. On what it runs is of no consequence.
In which case you can prove it by construction a thinking non-brain. Do you believe this has been done?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.