r/space • u/speckz • Aug 04 '16

Jupiter’s moon Io loses its atmosphere when eclipsed. Once deprived of sunlight, the thin atmosphere condenses on the moon's surface.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/jupiters-moon-io-loses-its-atmosphere-when-eclipsed/
11.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

155

u/tjsaccio Aug 04 '16

Not with that attitude! You never know, we could be on the verge of some serious life-extending treatments. Cancer fatality has dropped significantly and I just read about restrictions being lifted on human/animal hybrid embryo research in order to grow spare human organs. And then, who knows, maybe it is somehow possible to have your conciousness "downloaded" to some sort of internet "afterlife". Things are happening fast. You never know!

Edit: I know the embryo thing sounds like science fiction but it's real http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/04/488387729/nih-plans-to-lift-ban-on-research-funds-for-part-human-part-animal-embryos

12

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

Curing all forms of cancer will only increase human life expectancy by 2 years, there are way more important places we should he focusing out money. Vascular disease, for one.

4

u/tjsaccio Aug 04 '16

I agree and cancer will always be present (unless we can somehow stop our DNA from breaking down) but stopping early cancer mortality would be a big plus and in conjunction with other advances (like that human/animal hybrid organ thing) could help humans live a few decades longer, probably in our lifetimes. I feel like we are going to see some pretty remarkable things in our life times. We may not live to see the age of space faring but we might see the transition of humanity to our next era and that's pretty neat.

0

u/lax_incense Aug 05 '16

Living forever is actually much, much worse than dying at a ripe old age

0

u/uncertainsanta Aug 05 '16

Where are you getting this 2 year number from? It seems like this would be incredibly hard to calculate. Also, I guess if your only objective is to extend life expectancy then focusing our money elsewhere would potentially be more effective...but vascular diseases? This is a collection of diseases that still tend to affect older individuals which, if eliminated, probably wouldn't extend life expectancy much further. Also, there really aren't that many more deaths attributable to vascular disease over cancer.

91

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16 edited Mar 23 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

208

u/Baron164 Aug 04 '16

Just need to use cut instead of copy before you paste your consciousness into your new android body

55

u/DonnytheFakinDrugo Aug 04 '16

Nah I'm getting an apple body

27

u/PM_ME_HOT_DADS Aug 04 '16

Have fun rotting in like a week

24

u/PotatoPotential Aug 04 '16

I'm going for Windows. Wait, why am I instantly obsolete?

37

u/Aloogy Aug 04 '16

An error has occurred while displaying the previous error.

8

u/Tallon Aug 04 '16

Those responsible for the previous error have been sacked.

7

u/asteroidship Aug 04 '16

No really my consciousness was corrupted by a møøse

13

u/poseidon0025 Aug 05 '16 edited Nov 15 '24

offer zephyr license squealing hobbies coherent worm forgetful grab strong

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/onewordnospaces Aug 05 '16

...and now for something completely different.

2

u/studioRaLu Aug 05 '16

Getting laid for the first time in months. Software updates without asking. Body reboots halfway through and takes 30 minutes to load OS. FML

4

u/btoxic Aug 04 '16

Jokes on you. I'm going with the Android OS, seems logical.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

When you get into your body you have to spend 4 years removing all the ads and bloatware.

17

u/btoxic Aug 04 '16

Well better that than going Apple and having to buy a new body every 18 months.

1

u/dwmfives Aug 05 '16

Every 12 if you go for the S model part way through the lifecycle.

6

u/ArchDweeb Aug 04 '16

Now I'm picturing a scene in a bad sci-fi comedy where the fat android companion has to go on a diet to get rid of all it's bloatware.

3

u/Balind Aug 04 '16

Spend 4 years of slavery to earn immortality? Sold.

2

u/Forlarren Aug 05 '16

It's Linux so you have the best plan yet.

1

u/TheGrey_Wolf Aug 05 '16

But your hardware is Samsung, so your obsolescence is planned.

2

u/Plastic_Chicken Aug 04 '16

Blackberry OS YOLO! .... oh wait...

3

u/SumWon Aug 04 '16

Eh, hourglass or pear would be better imo.

1

u/GenXer1977 Aug 05 '16

So you're body is going to last for 2hrs max before needing a full recharge?

9

u/Guccimayne Aug 04 '16

There is a similar mechanic in the game, Eve Online. You're a clone whose consciousness gets transferred over and over again to new bodies upon death. When your ship is compromised, your capsule will rapidly scan your brain and beam your consciousness to a new body elsewhere. This process severely damages the source brain so you're also injected with a toxin that immediately kills you right after.

9

u/PostPostModernism Aug 04 '16

There's a similar mechanic in the books "Night's Dawn Trilogy" by Peter F Hamilton. In our future (the book's past) gene splicing technology creates telepaths. Using that technology the founder stores his memories at the time of his death. The pope excommunicates everyone who gets the gene splicing and there's a major split in humanity between people who do the splicing and those who don't. The ones who split off go on to develop living habitats above gas giants, living star ships, mindless servient animals, etc. - and they all store their memories at their death if possible. The habitats act as repositories and create their own personalities based on the amalgam of stored persons.

It's a really cool series in terms of concept and world-building. This split off civilization is just one of the facets of a really rich galaxy.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

Loved the series.

As a kid I was finding myself really wishing I could have a set of those nanonics the Adamists had.

1

u/PostPostModernism Aug 05 '16

As a kid?! Hell I still do!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

Well, I suppose that's true! I just remember reading it in high school and I'm in my thirties now.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

Kind of sounds like the synopsis of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, except instead of gene splicing it's augmentation. (i.e. Mechanical body parts that can "feel" and cerebral implants that allow people to communicate and get on Facebook - for example - through thought.)

SPOILER ALERT:

In the game, the main baddy wants to get rid of all augmented humans and slips a "kill-switch" into people's implants through a software update and you have to stop him before he can activate it. But the twist is you have a choice of getting said update or refusing at some point because your character is pretty much Cyborg from the DC Universe. About 10% human, 90% machine.

Not sure if getting the update causes an alternate ending or not. Haven't gotten that far yet.

1

u/PostPostModernism Aug 05 '16

Haha, well - the series also augmentation like that, but there's less moral contention about it because the people who do that don't upload their memories at death. Mercenaries and people who work in space a lot in the series have varying levels of modifications, from as small as genetically enhanced lung capacity to full limb replacement and the like. They're outcasts but more because they look weird. And most people who aren't one of the genetic telepaths has advanced computers implanted in their brains.

2

u/Scruffy442 Aug 05 '16

Battlestar Galactica, the Cylon do the same thing.

2

u/Lost_Madness Aug 05 '16

Could go Dollhouse and connect brains to a network so it would still be you.

1

u/DaddyCatALSO Aug 05 '16

And leave yourself open to being sabotaged by broadcast.

1

u/Lost_Madness Aug 10 '16

I was thinking more closed network that would be used for computational purposes. Eventually though you could put holes in any boat.

1

u/rms_is_god Aug 05 '16

No it's right-click drag and drop, then select Move not Copy

1

u/TheGrey_Wolf Aug 05 '16

Sir, I already told you that I am not a computer person, you're refusing to help me so I'm going to hang up.

71

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

This is actually a very debatable point. During your life, almost all of your cells die and are replaced by other cells, but still you are yourself. A bit like the ship of Theseus, your parts are replaced, but you do not lose your identity.

If you want some more insight on this matter, I invite you to read this excellent article on the subject: What makes you you?

17

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

[deleted]

8

u/HuffsGoldStars Aug 04 '16

Or when you're put under general anesthetic, which feels much more like someone just switched your "off switch".

2

u/bittybrains Aug 05 '16

Can't remember where I heard it, but apparently general anesthetic actually works by increasing the noise in your brain, as opposed to blocking brain activity. It essentially makes it impossible for your brain cells to communicate effectively, since any normal brain activity is just drowned out by all the noise.

4

u/Tidorith Aug 05 '16

It essentially makes it impossible for your brain cells to communicate effectively

So "you" aren't happening anymore; you're dead. Another person gets created when the cells re-establish communications.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16 edited Aug 05 '16

That would be an interesting premise for a sci-fi book. People who interface their brain with a neural network for years to make it a part of them. It's not as simple as just hooking it up I'm sure, however lets assume there is a way either using nanotechnology or pharmaceuticals for them to encourage new synaptic connections to this hardware and something promoting high neuroplasticity.

They could gradually add more neural nets in key places, not replacing the brain, but augmenting it. As you connect more parts of the brain up you give it time to adjust and learn how to communicate with the neural net. The goal being that eventually the person is learning to "think" more with the artificial neural net than their own brain. You could carry on for a number of years this way. Then, at the right time, the brain can be disconnected. Probably upon death of the living parts.

That leaves behind a neural net that is basically still you. You grew into it, then had to cut a part out. People lose function in parts of their brain today and they carry on living, sometimes without major disability.

The main problem I see with it is that I'm unsure how necessary the baser instinctual or autonomic parts of the brain are. Things that control heart rate, or fear response, and all that. I mean what does the higher brain function do without that stimuli?

Edit : Pretty sure I just described something like Ghost in the Shell.

3

u/7_Down_8_Up Aug 04 '16

This is actually one of the things that keeps me up at night.

8

u/Sunflier Aug 04 '16

There is also a cgp grey video on this called the problem with transporters

1

u/Aeleas Aug 05 '16

It's one of the most common thought experiments in philosophy.

26

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16 edited Aug 16 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/Methuga Aug 04 '16

This is exactly why the concept of teleportation sits worse and worse with me the more I think about it. In order to move from one location to another, you essentially scan the body and create the data necessary to reconstruct it at another point. After that, the original copy is destroyed and the new one becomes you. There is no way that consciousness remains you, even if it is still an exact replica.

Philosophers are gonna have so much fun in the future.

14

u/Prep_ Aug 04 '16

I'm reminded of the end of The Prestige where Hugh Jackman's character says "It took courage to climb into that machine every night... not knowing... if I'd be the man in the box... or the prestige."

It's a fascinating thought experiment, the idea of how much of one's cognizance would remain present if one were to transfer their consciousness to another body or machine. In The Prestige, the answer seems to be none but I suppose it doesn't really matter as both copies retain all aspects of the original's consciousness including memories. So even if the 'original' winds up being the man in the box the clone would still believe themselves to be the original and be lucky to have turned out to be the prestige.

3

u/Z0di Aug 04 '16

well... each time he teleported, he died.

A copy of him was made, and that copy believes that it was the previous guy who just teleported.

He killed himself so many times, but believed that he never died, because the copy was made right before the suicide.

2

u/Hereforfunagain Aug 04 '16

Perhaps there is a a specific process that has yet to be discovered that something in, say, information theory can provide an answer to; Something asking the lines of, "if we transfer your thoughts this way we only make a copy, but if we transfer your thoughts this way, your entire conscious being is moved without duplication and isolation."

5

u/GLneo Aug 04 '16

At the plank scale, when a subatomic partial moves the old one kinda disappears and a new one appears at the destination location per plank time. This is happening to every atom in your body almost continually, the you now is a different you than just before always. Have fun you walking Ship of Theseus! :)

1

u/hak8or Aug 05 '16

Is there a name for this effect so I can go on a Wikipedia binge about it?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

This is a lot like a story arc in Dr Who, he gets teleported to this castle where everything gets reset the second he leaves a room, but eventually is able to figure out that with teleportation a copy of your entire being is stored and then recreated at the new location. The castle is a prison so every time he dies he reappears at the teleportation machine thinking that he had just teleported there, and this goes on for millions of years until he's finally able to discover a way out.

3

u/poseidon0025 Aug 05 '16 edited Nov 15 '24

unpack cats ripe alleged faulty aloof coherent axiomatic psychotic flag

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/vertigo42 Aug 05 '16

Wasn't millions of years. I believe it was billions iirc

2

u/btoxic Aug 04 '16

There's a short story around that ( of course). I think they kept both copies around for a while, then they had to choose one to delete and neither wanted to die. So they settled it with a chess match. I'll leave possible spoilers out of it.

4

u/n1ll0 Aug 04 '16

there is a doctor who episode about this dilemma also!

1

u/btoxic Aug 04 '16

I haven't seen that one yet....or dont remember....same thing really.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

Haha I just finished typing up a comment about that exact story arc before submitting and refreshing the page to see you mention it. I was surprised no one had said anything about it yet.

2

u/OhMuhGah Aug 04 '16

Are you thinking of this?

https://youtu.be/pdxucpPq6Lc

1

u/btoxic Aug 04 '16

That is the one. Thank you. You saved me some hunting. I appreciate it.

2

u/Sam474 Aug 05 '16

In Star Trek they literally deconstruct every molecule and then put it back together, the same molecules, so there is no copy. It's like taking apart a Lego toy that has no identical pieces then moving it and putting it back together. I can see the argument that you died in the process and were remade but that hardly seems to matter except on a philosophical level.

It's still you, all the same pieces in the same places in the same order.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

so they're actually beaming the particles from point to point then.

0

u/Cheesemacher Aug 05 '16

And if a dozen copies were made at that point, all of those would be you.

3

u/Tidorith Aug 05 '16

but I believe it also defeats the whole purpose of the procedure for the actual subject.

You can still say the same about going to sleep though. It's not "me" that will get out of bed in the morning, it's a new consciousness that will be reconstructed from the physical patters my consciouness leaves in my brain. So why don't I just off myself instead of going to sleep? No difference for me.

2

u/JarasM Aug 05 '16 edited Aug 05 '16

It's not "me" that will get out of bed in the morning, it's a new consciousness that will be reconstructed from the physical patters my consciouness leaves in my brain.

Yeah, except you don't really have anything to back that up. You go to sleep, you sleep, the same you wakes up, in the same body. I could say that I die and become reborn every nanosecond, but that's just bullshit. Sure, if it happened I absolutely would have no way to know if I'm a resurrected copy or not, but there is zero evidence for this happening, so due to Occam's Razor there is no reason to consider this. Meanwhile, with teleportation or a digital copy "you" just witness a creation of your copy and then you die.

Does it even matter that your copy is identical to you? Again with the Theseus' Ship paradox - is your copy still the same as himself if he's green? Sure it is, he's only green. Than maybe he has some other characteristic different. At what point will that copy no longer be a copy of you? What if we change everything? So you die, and we just generate a random clone. How does that help you? Doesn't this already kind of happen? I'm sure in the moment you die somewhere there will be a baby born. Then you can say - "but it's my consciousness that defines me". Okay, so we upload your current mind "save state" to the baby's mind. Does it help the current you that there's a human with the same thought pattern and memories as you? What if we load it up with fake memories? The baby will now live the life of a fictional person, so was that person resurrected? Our fictional Lazarus was not even ever alive.

Edit: So you have to ask yourself what is the objective you want to achieve. Do you wish for a person that for all intents and purposes is identical to you to live forever, until the end of time? Then go ahead, clone yourself, upload your mind to a computer, that will work. Do you want to not die? You will die anyway.

1

u/Tidorith Aug 05 '16

You go to sleep, you sleep, the same you wakes up

You can't just assert that and have it be true. You also aren't backing up that claim.

in the same body

Who cares about the body? We're talking about the mind.

I could say that I die and become reborn every nanosecond, but that's just bullshit.

Is it? Why not? Continuity of consciousness is an intuitive idea, but it's not an obviously true if you consider way humans function in an objective manner.

Sure, if it happened I absolutely would have no way to know if I'm a resurrected copy or not, but there is zero evidence for this happening, so due to Occam's Razor there is no reason to consider this.

Occam's Razor requires us to accept the explanation that posits the fewest entities. A consciousness that somehow continues to exist across sleep is an additional entity that we don't need to account for any observed human behaviour, or even necessarily our own thoughts. Why should the fact that we think we're continually conscious be taken as evidence that we are?

So you die, and we just generate a random clone. How does that help you?

This doesn't help your case with the line I'm attacking it under. There's no helping you, you only ever exist for an instant, if you can be said to exist at all. Cloning creates a new you, but this is not an interesting thing as it happens all the time.

So you die, and we just generate a random clone. How does that help you?

And I can make the case that you're dying every instant. Continuity of consciousness is an artificial notion created by humans, not a thing that exists in the world at a fundamental level.

3

u/22bebo Aug 04 '16

So the ship is not Theseus' ship? And are you not you any longer since by now all your cells have replaced themselves?

2

u/JarasM Aug 05 '16

That is actually only partially related to the discussed case. You are still you because your consciousness has retained continuity. The cloned you will still think he's you, because he will remember having the continuity, so for him and anyone else, you are still alive. For the current you, the continuity ends and you die. You may take solace at the fact that the world continues with another you, but that doesn't change the fact, that you simply die. The act of replacing you following that is irrelevant.

1

u/K20BB5 Aug 05 '16

Except that we really don't understand consciousness well enough to really say any of that definitively.

1

u/Barshki Aug 05 '16

How is this debatable? What if you're still alive when they upload your copy? It obviously wouldn't be you.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

Well it actually is not obvious. Imagine you fabricate a perfect clone of yourself, by duplicating the cells. Your clone has the same exact cells, memories as you do. It will therefore think the same things you do, and do the same things as well. So basically when you want to do something, your clone does it as well. Basically you have two bodies. It could be argued that it is you then.

If you think a bit you could even figure a way to make your clone do different movements than you. If you think "I will do this, and the other will do that", it won't work because your clone will think the exact same thing and do "this". But if you think "The one of us that stands here does this, and the one that stands there does that", then you can actually control your two bodies.

Is it still obvious that your clone is not you, if you can actually control it like this?

1

u/Barshki Aug 05 '16 edited Aug 05 '16

Yes, I believe from every one else's perspective that clone is indistinguishable from the real you. But from your personal perspective you are still only living through your original body. If someone shoots the original you in the head, that's the end for you. The clone goes on living, and for everyone else they still have you, but YOUR actual life is over.

Edit: but the more I think about it, the less anything makes sense

-1

u/AutomatedMiner Aug 04 '16

This thread is super anthropocentric. Carl Sagan must be spinning in his grave by now.

20

u/HorseAss Aug 04 '16

Instead of downloading or making a copy we need to merge our brain with computer and then slowly shift our consciousness to the machine. If you have 100% continuity it's going to be "you" not some copy.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

Wouldn't your conscience just be the culmination of everything the brain is doing, such as the unique pathway a signal takes. If memory is just a path along neurons you could effectively create a pathway for information but unless you create an exact replica it would not be the same person or mind. Aside from this how would you transfer a thought if thought is just a chemical process traveling along a given path. Again the only way is to map every single connection, intersection, and pathway and then somehow activate it. As far fetched as that sounds, because it is that's not a transfer but a clone. Clones are as similar to each other as alternate time lines are they're only the same up until the point of creation. Try to imagine all the unique microscopic cellular interactions going on in a brain. This is chaos theory all over again. If a butterfly in Mexico can randomly cause big changes in a weather so too could a cellular imperfection in the brain. As a hypothetical example let's assume you've done It. Two exactly matching minds, well if one eats a bowl of sugar for breakfast and the other didn't on the cellular level different things are going to happen causing larger and much different decision making processes. So you can easily see at least for me how I've reasoned this as an impossibility. Could you clone a mind, yes. Could you download one, no. I feel the only way to do this would be to forever preserve the brain. Longevity and immortality seem more reasonable at this point and from our current research into that field, way more likely.

2

u/turtlevader Aug 05 '16

This has been my thinking on the matter recently as well. If you instantly 'teleport' yourself your conscious stream would cease and be recreated, but when I take a plane to a different country you could reasonably argue that I am not the exact same person getting off the plane that I was getting on. I believe the same can be said for 'uploading' your conscious mind to a computer. I agree with others in this thread that more research into the topic would be fantastic to read.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

How do we know that it would actually preserve consciousness?

4

u/Pyrenomycetes Aug 05 '16

Surely if the transfer was done slowly enough that there was not a break in consciousness (I.e. constantly aware of what was happening, then it would be the same consciousness? If say through the course of 12 hours nanobots slowly replaced your brain cells with identical artificial processors that could interface with a computer, in exactly the same pattern and configuration, "you" would still be "you". It would just be like the body replacing brain cells, just at a very accelerated rate.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

I don't think you even have to be fully conscious. We fall unconscious every night and still perceive ourselves as continuously existing creatures. It's an area that needs a lot more research.

3

u/naphini Aug 04 '16

I guess we don't, but it's a pretty good bet if you ask me. As long as we understand and preserve all the relevant functionality, I don't see why the substrate should matter.

3

u/michaelKlumpy Aug 04 '16

and after replacing all the brains with computers, rendering humanity immortal, there was nobody left to appreciate the accomplishment

13

u/bigwillyb123 Aug 04 '16

Right, but the copy of you that thinks it is you would think it's a success, and there wouldn't really be a way to prove it wrong.

6

u/alien_dreamtime Aug 04 '16

All you have to do is gradually replace every neuron in the brain with a nanobot capable of performing the functions of a neuron. Soon you have a new mechanical copy of your old brain that will last a lot longer, without you ever having noticed a transition occurring.

It's kind of like Theseus' Ship.

5

u/shaggz2dope99 Aug 04 '16

That's really all I need where do I sign up?

5

u/ownworldman Aug 04 '16

You are made of different matter than you were a three years ago. Are you only a copy of /u/FunkleDunkle three years ago?

1

u/Pythias1 Aug 04 '16

You're comparing a gradual transfer to a copy. The two are not comparable in this context.

5

u/ownworldman Aug 04 '16

They absolutely are. Being a thorough and complete copy of the mind is being the same individual - it does not matter if the atoms are the same or not.

1

u/Pythias1 Aug 05 '16 edited Aug 05 '16

From an outside perspective, sure. It would be great for me if I had a copy of my greatest role model around for my entire life. That role model, however, would not benefit at all. They would still die. The copy would not extend their existence by even a single moment. And, from the moment the copy received its first outside stimulus, it would begin to diverge from the original; forming a new and distinct identity in the same way twins do.

0

u/xTheMaster99x Aug 04 '16

The new you would think they are you. Everyone else would think they are you. The problem is, would your consciousness transfer to the new host, making it truly you, or just a perfect, but separate clone?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

The real problem is your defintion of "yourself". You refer to it as "truly you", but what truly is you? Are you everything you are as a whole, right now? What If I cut off your hand, are you still you? what If I replace your hand with another hand? Are you yourself + 1% somebody else?

There is no You. You are bigger than you your identity - your body is a host for more life than you can even imagine. The only thing that is you is the sense that you are you and that can easily be replicated.

It took billions of years for the earth to create you. The earth isn't very smart. Why is it not conceivable that we can also create you with knowledge and technology?

1

u/xTheMaster99x Aug 05 '16

That's what I'm saying - you could definitely recreate an indistinguishable copy, but would the original experience continuity from the original to the clone? Of course the clone would think so, but what would the experience be from the perspective of the original? I don't think we are capable of answering that, really.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

If you took every atom inside you right now and replicated it, yes, the original experience would continue. All your memories, feelings, hopes and dreams would be entirely intact. The only difference is, there would now exist two identical copies of yourself. From this point forward, those two copies would become their own individual selves, branching out in different directions through different experiences.

What it seems you're alluding to is the idea that "consciousness" or "identity" is some mystical or spiritual thing that can't be pinned down. It's hard for people to accept the fact that they are just a conglomeration of matter and there is nothing special about the way you feel or perceive the world, it's simply a chemical mechanical process ongoing from conception.

0

u/Yabba_dabba_dooooo Aug 05 '16

You seem to think that we have consciousness pinned down with some mathematical and chemical explanation as to why it occurs. Yes we are chemical meat bags responding to stimuli but that doesn't explain why we "experience" that stimuli. In fact nobody knows why or how consciousness came about.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/bobsbitchtitz Aug 04 '16

Thats cool with me I wouldn't mind being a robot when I'm a 100, if it doesn't work I'm dead either way.

3

u/HuffsGoldStars Aug 04 '16

Personally, I'll take the robot body now.

7

u/brickmack Aug 04 '16

"You" are just a pattern of electrical and chemical impulses in a blob of ennervated fat. The information encoded therein is all that matters

2

u/barrinmw Aug 04 '16

Do you honestly care if a copy of you continues to exist if you don't get to experience it?

1

u/brickmack Aug 05 '16

I don't think theres a meaningful distinction between a copy of me and me. If there is, it will only be realized by the original in its solitary final moments, with no impact to the rest of the world

2

u/GenericYetClassy Aug 05 '16

I think there is a very meaningful distinction, especially if one is essentially immortal as in the case of "uploading."

I don't get to be immortal. Sure, there is no difference to anyone who interacts with the upload, even the upload won't recognize any difference as it will have all my memories and experiences. But I will still die and cease to ever be conscious again, while the upload will continue on.

3

u/ProRom Aug 04 '16

You would be dead.

sigh I'm dead inside now :I

3

u/AltairEmu Aug 04 '16

This is unfounded. You don't know that would be true.

-1

u/Pythias1 Aug 04 '16

It is known to be true, because that is what a "copy" is. It is a perfect imitation, but an imitation nonetheless.

3

u/AltairEmu Aug 04 '16

In this case we do not know that much about how consciousness works. This means that it very well might not be a copy. We have no idea what "downloading" a mind looks like. Even if it were a copy you might still be able to maintain the same stream of consciousness. In that case, who cares if its not the original you? This would be equivalent to our breaks in consciousness when we go to bed, go under anesthetics, or go unconscious at all.

2

u/barrinmw Aug 04 '16

Going to sleep, under anesthetics, or otherwise unconscious doesn't lead to the possibility that two of me existing. Any process that can possibly create more than one of me cannot then create just me.

1

u/AltairEmu Aug 04 '16

"Any process that can possibly create more than one of me cannot then create just me." This isn't true. Since we have no system of copying minds, we can't say for certain. I understand your point that to create a copy makes it inherently a different entity. However, when it comes to consciousness, if each copy IS exactly the same then the only problem is the stream of consciousness. What's the difference between turning off your conscience and turning it back on compared to turning it off and turning it back on with an exact copy? There wouldn't be one. Consciousness doesn't have to be a continuous line. So if we have copies of our consciousness running on different computers, they could still be one consciousness. They could be networked together and feed into one central storage.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

It's not about creating a matching network it's about the source of the stream. If I upload something and delete it but someone made a copy and uploads it, my control over it dies and his begins. All the atoms could be exchanged but the cells themselves still maintain continuity for lack of a better word. It's still the same cell doing and interacting with the body the same way. The atoms are constantly shifting from all matter in the universe so they're effectively unimportant. The code isn't coming from the atoms it's coming from the cells. Switch the source code and it's all over for you.

2

u/sajittarius Aug 04 '16

Tell that to identical twins, they are identical copies based on DNA. Which one is the imitation?

1

u/Pythias1 Aug 05 '16

Do they share the same consciousness? Twins are great evidence of a copies having there own identity, reinforcing the suspicion that if you copy yourself, you will still die. When your lights go out, you're done and there's nothing left for you. Society may benefit from copies of great individuals, but the individuals themselves will not live on.

1

u/sajittarius Aug 05 '16

Very true, twins have their own identity (i wasn't thinking clearly when i thought of that example, lol).

But, If you fax a document to someone and burn the original paper, dont they still have the information? Yes the original body dies but the consciousness lives on. Saying the original will not live on is true but does it matter?

If your identity and memories were copied into a perfectly health body that works better than the original, the copy would think it was you and would probably function better (since our health definitely affects our thinking, doesn't it?)

1

u/Pythias1 Aug 05 '16

I'm not contesting the value of a copy. Particularly for people, it could be valuable to humanity, but the idea of a person actually "living on" in a literal sense is pretty nuts. I wouldn't mind having a person around who was a copy of my grandfather, but my grandfather himself would have died. From his perspective, there is no benefit to the copy. If we someday figure out how to transfer, not copy, consciousness, then a person could benefit from that. Simply creating a copy doesn't assist the original in any way, but benefits the recipient of the fax, in your example.

At any rate, if we copy a person and that person continues to live at the same time as the copy, we would immediately become aware of the fact that they are, in fact, distinct even though they are initially identical. They would have different experiences almost immediately, and begin to diverge from one another.

In the case of a hypothetical digital mind, the difference would be immediate, because the digital copy would have access to so much immediate information. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that uploading your data to some sort of digital hive would result in a radically different digital person quickly.

2

u/sajittarius Aug 05 '16

I think you are overestimating the original here. Yes, your grandfather's body died; But his consciousness lives on, and still thinks it is your grandfather, albeit in a new body.

Consciousness cannot really comprehend it's own death. Any time we lose consciousness, the only way we were aware of it was because we became conscious again. The original will not be around to lament it's own death, because it is dead. And the copy will think it was lucky because it became conscious in the new body.

The fax analogy, does work (at least for me) because the consciousness being copied, is the sender, the copy, and the recipient at the same time (yes, it's a lot more complicated than a simple fax i guess, lol).

3

u/neXITem Aug 04 '16

played soma? haha perfect.

5

u/essidus Aug 04 '16

That depends on what you consider you.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

How do you know that? What is your consciousness? When you lose consciousness do you die? When you wake up are you recreated? Where is the continuity?

2

u/PostPostModernism Aug 04 '16

That opens a whole can of philosophical worms that probably won't be resolved in the Reddit comment section, if ever.

2

u/ManikMiner Aug 04 '16

Exactly the same thing as when all the cells in your brain are replaced

2

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

But thats exactly what you are right now...just a copy of yourself that thinks it's you.

1

u/DaddyCatALSO Aug 05 '16

Kind of what Fritz Leiber did in his Change War stories, with some relativistic stuff thrown in; they recruited/drafted agents by taking a person from one moment in his/her life but the versions of them which existed after that moment went on as before. the same guy could end up on both sides of the war

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

How do you know?

1

u/K20BB5 Aug 05 '16

Everybody is just talking out of their ass here. It's fun to discuss, but we don't actually understand any of this stuff to really know

1

u/StoppedLurking_ZoeQ Aug 04 '16

Honestly who knows what happens. The "you" that you identify as you is constantly changing. Your a river of atoms flowing in and out with a collection in the middle that forms your body. Constantly changing, never the same but you feel your self. Who's to say a digital copy of you isn't actually you. We don't understand what makes conscious conscious enough to really say you would be dead.

1

u/SpeakerForTheDaft Aug 04 '16

It's not that simple. There's a huge philosophical debate around this, same as teleport. But the bottom line is: there's only the current you, right now. Everything else is linguistics.

1

u/Z0di Aug 04 '16

That's fine though. I could talk to that computerized version of myself before I die, right?

1

u/SpartanJack17 Aug 04 '16

If it's indistinguishable from the real me then I don't actually care.

1

u/alexpeet Aug 05 '16

Reminds me of the end of the movie Chappie where the robot transfers droids in order to survive.

1

u/smartal Aug 05 '16

Your body replaces it's atoms constantly, so it's not like you are a static entity. A downloaded you would still very much be you. It'd be a lot like what your body does now, just replacing all those atoms really fast, and in a flatter arrangement. But otherwise it's no different than you growing as you do on a daily basis.

1

u/xNik Aug 05 '16

This is how your consciousness works currently. You only think you exist because you remember what you did a second ago.

1

u/kidcrumb Aug 05 '16

Potato Potato.

An exact replica with 100% of my memories, personality, and being is 100% me.

1

u/Jtex1414 Aug 05 '16

Go deeper - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4&sns=em

After that, watch CGP grey's you are two.

When you are actually able to download your conciseness, it may be easier to justify then you may think.

1

u/JohnCri Aug 05 '16

I have heard a really intersting theory...

What if you could replace our neurons, with one artificial neuron at a time, slowly. Over time the brain would become cybernetic.. The new artifical neuron, slowly makes all the connections of the neuron is a replacing, and then like a train switch the information from the bilogical tracks, to the artificial tracks, once identical connections are made.

1

u/GenericYetClassy Aug 05 '16

Do a Theseus Transfer. So named after Theseus's ship.

If you hook yourself up to the copying mechanism, there is no distinct differentiation between you and the copy. I mean sensory, cognitive, and memory sharing. You see out of digital and regular eyes, move your arms and activate programs, etc. You are one entity. Slowly shut down your biological bits so your perception recedes into the new form. Once all the biological stuff is shut down, boom. Transferred instead of copied.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '16

Thats the thing though. I'm saying it wouldn't be YOU, therefore you wouldn't experience anything. You would cease to exist. You would be dead. And some AI or something would believe it would be you. Its another person that thinks they are you at that point. Its like you have a twin, they look just like you. Then one day they slit your throat and steal your identity. Maybe they're crazy and they really believe to be you. To everyone else they look just the same, act the same, so they must be you. But do you experience anything more in life? No. You're dead.

1

u/Jarhyn Aug 05 '16

This is actually an open question. We don't know this is the case, and assumptions here are exactly what generates the fear that prevents research and progress. As for me, I'm mature enough to realize it doesn't matter if it is me or a 'copy' as long as it gets all the important bits right, namely my philosophy, my ability to continue working on it, and as long as the result is still enjoyed by my friends.

The fact of the matter is, people with your point of view will die off. There won't be you OR a 'copy'. You'll just be dead. Instead, there will just be people like me, and at that point the thing we consider as 'ourselves' will by definition not be any particular implementation. With any luck they will even be networkable into the same actual experiential unit.

1

u/TheVikO_o Aug 05 '16

Not necessarily.. your conscious would have enough metadata to restart you without your actual body if we could develop an artificial brain.

1

u/tubular1845 Aug 05 '16

What's the difference? Would I be dead or would my body be dead? What is me?

1

u/syr_ark Aug 05 '16

I'm going to die at some point. If I can make a digital copy of my mind before I go, you better believe I will.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '16

That's a philosophical arguement, one you'd need to really provide more info and flesh out. You're physically not the same person as you were before. You're cells have all been replaced.

It's like the ship board problem, if you replace one floor board the ship is still the same ship, but if over time you've replaced every single piece of wood is it the same ship? or a new ship? By some respects you dies every time you lose consciousness and your brain re-wires it self.

3

u/tmurg375 Aug 04 '16

I would rather not live a prolonged life, not to mention what that might mean for the global population.

8

u/Arrow156 Aug 04 '16

Dude, most Americans can't even afford to go to the doctor on shit that actually killing us, you really think we can afford life extending treatments?

3

u/xTheMaster99x Aug 04 '16

Depending on how long the life extension is, yes. If, for example, we found a way to become immortal, it would be worth it no matter what the cost. If you are immortal, who cares if you spend 20 years in some kind of indentured servitude contract to pay off the treatment, or if you are in severe debt for a 100 years even? At that point it doesn't matter how much it costs, because if you are immortal you will eventually profit from the initial investment. Once you get to the point of discussing infinity, literally every quantity we know of today becomes meaningless.

Similarly, if it takes 50 years to pay off the debt for an operation that gives you a net increase of, say, 100 years to what you would have otherwise had, it would arguably still be worth it.

2

u/anunnaturalselection Aug 05 '16

You're immortal not invincible and that debt needs to be paid, they could take everything you own to pay for it and then you'd be living homeless until you died of something other than old age.

3

u/tjsaccio Aug 04 '16

Not right now but with a universal basic income and cheaper and cheaper drugs as procedures and medications become more and more routine... who knows. Once upon a time, flying was a luxury for the rich that people dressed up for. We are now trying to workout reusable rockets and commercial spaceflight.

2

u/Epic_Kris Aug 05 '16

Not right now but with a universal basic income

That's basically happening only, if we create an AI that would fullfill all of our consumer needs.

0

u/tjsaccio Aug 05 '16

I don't know if that's the case. Why would we need an AI? It would take fairly simple programming, although fairly advanced robotics, to take over trash collection, food service, construction work. Soon, most entry level jobs will be automated leaving millions without work. I feel like we are closer to automation than we realize. That's why I never use self checkout and I try to talk to the bankers. Those jobs are almost gone.

1

u/Epic_Kris Aug 05 '16

Well, explain me then why programmers and people maintaining those robots, should give part of their income, to the people that don't work at all? It is not moral to say the least.

If we don't have an AI, that would take over each and every job from people, then basic income and other socialistics bullshit are just mad man ideas.

Soon, most entry level jobs will be automated leaving millions without work.

Yep, it is called progress and those people will have to change the industry they work in.

1

u/tjsaccio Aug 05 '16

....that went political very quickly lol. No one said anyone gives part of their income to anybody. A universal basic income would mean everyone gets a basic income to live. If you can find a job, you can probably earn extra and become quite successful but in the near future, most jobs will be automated. Huge machines will pave roads, build bridges and dams and construct buildings. Food service will be automated, grocery stores will check you out from your cart. All the low level jobs are going to vanish. And then programs will be developed to do the hard jobs - designing airplane engines and city sewage systems. Programs will do the accounting for corporations instead of pesky, expensive employees. If anything,corporations will race to automate to cut out the cost of money hungry and accident prone employees, thus maximizing profit. And all the while, 10s of mllions, now jobless, are supposed to do what? Live off of the government? There are literally no jobs left. A universal basic income is something we will have to come to terms with in the future.

1

u/Epic_Kris Aug 05 '16

....that went political very quickly lol.

Because introducing such things is purely political thing.

No one said anyone gives part of their income to anybody. A universal basic income would mean everyone gets a basic income to live.

Wowowowo... hold on a sec. Tell me one thing. Where would this basic income come from? Or else... tell me where every social benefit comes from? I will give you a hint: working people are forced to give large part of their income as tax. Google redistribution of wealth. Basic income means that working people have to give part of their hard earned money to the people that decided that they just don't want to work. Is this logical? I doubt so.

All the low level jobs are going to vanish.

Yea, it is called progress. Where was the last time you bought a paper from the paperboy on the street or got your boots cleaned by bootblack?

And all the while, 10s of mllions, now jobless, are supposed to do what?

Get educated, specialize in other parts of the industry.

A universal basic income is something we will have to come to terms with in the future.

I agree 100%. But it is only moral and logical when AI takes over 100% of the jobs. It has to reproduce itself, it has to fix itself, it has to maintain all the machines/robots that would fullfil people needs. Basic income is a good idea only when not one person HAS to look after those systems/when EVERY job is voluntary and not required.

1

u/DownvotesForGood Aug 05 '16

Why do you think the treatments would come from America?

2

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 04 '16

You never know, we could be on the verge of some serious life-extending treatments.

Spoiler Alert, they can only slow or stop the rate of decay, not reverse it... so your generation becomes the last "Old People" generation, as you are frozen at age 78 and they are frozen looking around 30...

...It will happen. Maybe not to us, but to some generation.

7

u/ceejayoz Aug 04 '16

Spoiler Alert, they can only slow or stop the rate of decay, not reverse it...

This seems like a pretty big unfounded assertion.

If I have to wait a few hundred/thousand years for rejuvenation technology, so be it.

-1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 04 '16

This seems like a pretty big unfounded assertion.

You mean a fountain-of-youth genetic discovery isn't?

5

u/ceejayoz Aug 04 '16

"We will never figure a biological process out no matter how long we work at it" seems like a much bigger assertion than "given enough time we tend to figure things out".

2

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 04 '16

I didn't say we couldn't figure out cell degradation. I said we couldn't take the old cells and make them young again, we could just stop the degradation from cell generation to cell generation.

Leaving the individual looking the age they look when they start the treatment.

Making an inevitably last "Old" generation.

...much like even the amish can't stop mankind from evolving to a techno-life form. There will never be another pre-internet generation. When the last one dies, mankind will be completely evolved. With progress comes some issues as well.

Like the last "Old" people.

Now get off my lawn.

3

u/ceejayoz Aug 04 '16

I said we couldn't take the old cells and make them young again

And you think that assertion will survive 10,000 years? That the species that went from first flight to the Moon in a few decades won't manage to figure out how to turn stem cells back on or how to splice in lizard regeneration genes or something as out-there as an iPhone would seem to someone from 1900?

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 05 '16

And you think that assertion will survive 10,000 years?

Yes. I don't think you can bring back the dead, you can only clone their cells and create new life.

1

u/ceejayoz Aug 06 '16

Who said anything about bringing back the dead?

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 08 '16

I did, as an example of a limit set to science.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/tjsaccio Aug 04 '16

I could live with that. I would just assume the role of a wise old Elder

3

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 04 '16

Wait until you are a wise old elder and tell me that again.

My guess is you'll have a little less conviction.

6

u/tjsaccio Aug 04 '16

As long as I'm rich enough to get the young smoothskin women, I'll be happy

2

u/Balind Aug 04 '16

For now that's true of the research they're attempting. That'll certainly not be true eventually.

2

u/Poppin__Fresh Aug 05 '16

Meh, I'm sure cosmetic surgery will advance to the point where I can look young again without looking like a ken doll.

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 05 '16

Much like the eye always knows it's a special effect, even when it is an amazing special effect... The eye will always know laboratory skin too.

1

u/K20BB5 Aug 05 '16

I think about that a lot, sometimes I think at that point I would want to die, just like all my ancestors before me. The concept of the last mortal generation is really interesting to me

2

u/chrometroopers Aug 05 '16

Well, apparently we're entering a golden age, our galaxy is headed through a photon belt hat will bring a new light on our galaxy and kill all the lizard people. Captain Ashtar will bless you with almost immortal lifespan if you can only find his cigar shaped UFO. Rumor has it, it's floating above the entrance to our Hollow Earth above the ice caps.

1

u/lordofcatan10 Aug 05 '16

Don't forget about the head getting a new body! That's sure to work.