Marijuana.com

macphearsome

imagine programming a human mind exactly into a computer. like, copying the state of the brain (even at a molecular level and based on the rules of chemistry) into a computer. In my opinion, this computer copy would be fully conscious.

now imagine that you make a copy of your mind and then turn it on when you die. You'd die, I'm not saying you wouldn't... but imagine the copied mind. It would remember your life. It would remember dying and then waking up, and would consider its life to be an extension of yours. "You" would die, but... there'd be a new "you."

this always makes me think loopy. I'm interested in hearing somebody else's perspective on this.

__________________
"the only way to achieve certainty is to amputate inquiry"
Marvin Minsky

 

Herbal Meditation

I dont think it would be possible to truly copy human mind and consciousness though.

macphearsome

well, at this point of course we don't have the ability to copy the state of a brain exactly, and I suppose we never will be able to do it exactly on account of quantum state uncertainty. But if you could make such a copy, do you believe it would be conscious? Or are you saying that there is something in the human mind that is conscious that could never be copied? A soul perhaps?

maybe after you had a conversation with a simulated human mind, and it told you its fears, hopes and dreams, you would change your mind?

THC Fiend

The computer's specifications may exactly replicate the human mind, but is it a basis for true "understanding"? (See Searle's "Chinese Room").

__________________
"Nietzsche is dead."
-God

brevity is... wit

macphearsome

this is a computer simulation that would exactly emulate the chemistry and physical structure of a brain - there should be no question about "understanding" because the computer simulation would be able to answer every question that its human donor would have been able to answer.

 

THC Fiend

Same with Searle when he's locked in the Chinese Room. He answers everything exactly as a Native China-man would. Does he understand Chinese?


Also, if you're saying it has the exact chemical and physical structure... then that is called a clone. If you call the exact replica a machine, then I'm also a machine, and so you are "begging the question" (this means that the answer is already implied and necessitated by the question itself).

macphearsome

I don't really feel like responding to something that you are only faintly alluding to. I am not very familiar with Searle's Chinese Room except that I once proof-read a first-year philosophy paper that my friend wrote where he argued against it.

THC Fiend

Well there are obviously arguments against anything in philosophy... otherwise it would cease to be philosophy.

You asked for others opinion, so I provided it.

the problem is that there is already such a vast disagreement in what is meant by "consciousness"

the reason i brought up the chinese room the second time was because of this:
Searle's whole argument is in the difference between answering questions and the nature of "understanding". I found it particularly relevant.

macphearsome

true.
and I appreciate that, it's just that I wished you had provided some relevant points of interest about Searle's Chinese Room so that I could better understand your point of view.

I'm looking at it now on wikipedia, and as far as I can understand, the Chinese Room almost turns any discussion of intelligence into rubbish, because if you extend it to the human mind, you could prove that WE don't understand anything either, which isn't a very functional definition of understanding.

macphearsome

could you elaborate on this? I wouldn't be super hesitant to call humans "machines" but I'm not sure what implications this carries.

In any case, we have to be clear about something - the "exact replica" is a computer simulation. The "machine" is a computer that runs the simulation.