Would You Clone Your Mind to Live Forever? Virtually Human

MarlaDesat

New member
Aug 22, 2013
733
0
0
Would You Clone Your Mind to Live Forever? Virtually Human

Martine Rothblatt argues that sentient digital clones are only a few decades away in her book, Virtually Human.

Read Full Article
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Nope. It doesn't do me some great peace to think I'll be dead but a copy of me would still be around. It still wouldn't be ME, sure it would be "ME" but a copy of my experiences isn't the same as living through them, plus the fact that I wouldn't be continuing on, just the information I'd accrued over my lifetime would. Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
 

Lotet

New member
Aug 28, 2009
250
0
0
otakon17 said:
Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
Unless we figure out how to convert brain matter into another material that can sustain your mind, I doubt that will ever happen.

The rest of your post, I totally agree with.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
Having just read like 90% of Dune, you're essentially talking about a ghola(with memories unlocked, of course)

Sure, why not? At least of a while anyway. I don't see the point in wanting to live forever. All that comes with eternity is boredom.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
I think I would leave that decision to those who survive me, since I won't be around to suffer it's prescence. ^^
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,758
654
118
Huh...we had this exact discussion in the Off-Topic forum about a week ago or something.

But, yeah, the copy of you is just a copy, it's not you. Whats to stop you making a copy and still being around as yourself?

Also, there's nothing to stop you from making several copies. I would argue that they can't all be you, and that, being identical, this means none of them are you. By extension, if you just had one, it wouldn't be you.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Yes, I absolutely would. Have thought of this and am eager to see if I make it to the day where this is possible. Preferably waiting for something like version 3 or 4.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
The book sounds interesting, gonna check if its on the Kindle store. For a concise reason for anyone wanting to avoid things like this in the future:-
 

MarlaDesat

New member
Aug 22, 2013
733
0
0
otakon17 said:
Nope. It doesn't do me some great peace to think I'll be dead but a copy of me would still be around. It still wouldn't be ME, sure it would be "ME" but a copy of my experiences isn't the same as living through them, plus the fact that I wouldn't be continuing on, just the information I'd accrued over my lifetime would. Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
Since we're talking about digital clones, I dont really see how there could be any difference between transferring and copying, except that the original biological brain would be destroyed in the process for the former.

thaluikhain said:
Huh...we had this exact discussion in the Off-Topic forum about a week ago or something.

But, yeah, the copy of you is just a copy, it's not you. Whats to stop you making a copy and still being around as yourself?

Also, there's nothing to stop you from making several copies. I would argue that they can't all be you, and that, being identical, this means none of them are you. By extension, if you just had one, it wouldn't be you.
I'd argue the opposite, really. If each of the clones are so much like you that it's pretty much impossible to tell them apart from both the original you, and each other, then they're all you simultaneously.
 

Triaed

Not Gone Gonzo
Jan 16, 2009
454
0
0
Hell yes. I would clone my mind, but not for the purpose of "immortality"
I'd do it for being able to learn and maybe experience new things. Just for the heck of it. For science.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
J Tyran said:
The book sounds interesting, gonna check if its on the Kindle store. For a concise reason for anyone wanting to avoid things like this in the future:-
That's more a commentary on avoiding corporate control over our lives than anything regarding this.

That is still better than dead.
 

SilverHunter

New member
Sep 22, 2014
47
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
otakon17 said:
Nope. It doesn't do me some great peace to think I'll be dead but a copy of me would still be around. It still wouldn't be ME, sure it would be "ME" but a copy of my experiences isn't the same as living through them, plus the fact that I wouldn't be continuing on, just the information I'd accrued over my lifetime would. Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
Since we're talking about digital clones, I dont really see how there could be any difference between transferring and copying, except that the original biological brain would be destroyed in the process for the former.
No difference? You're completely ignoring even the simplest concepts to try and say that. Let's make it simple shall we?

You have a file on a computer that you want to move, and only have two ways of doing it:
Cut-&-Paste (transfer): There is only that singular file, the original, being moved. Any alterations made will affect it, and should it be deleted (dies), that's it.
Copy-&-Paste (cloning): There are two files now, the original you still possess and the second one, the copy, on another computer. From this point on, any changes to one fill will no longer affect the other, and should the original be deleted, there is a copy of it but there's in all likelyhood at least SOME changes, which means it is no longer like the original.

Now replace the file with the concept of the self, your consciousness. In one instance you still exist, and in the other there is you and then there is "you". To try and argue there is no difference between digitally transferring and digitally copying your consciousness completely ignores free will. Not to mention it's extremely naive. Even with all of your memories and experiences, a second you will be different no matter what. Merely knowing that it is nothing but a clone will affect its choices.

Which makes this a terrible book. In completely ignoring a whole half of the equation (as the article brought up), the author has no actual respect towards this concept as a whole. It's as if Asimov chose to not write the three rules of Robotics simply because he was so enamored with how cool it would be to have robots around.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
Clone my brain? Why? It doesn't give me immortality. Now, if we were to talk about TRANSFERRING my consciousness into a more permanent vessel, I'd be down with that. But actual transfer would be a lot trickier.

If you're asking "Why would it be trickier?" consider what happens when you cut & paste a file - a new copy is made at the designated location and the old one is simply deleted. It's the same thing as copy&paste, with one extra step at the end. What I want is to preserve the original file (i.e. myself).

That being said, I might see it working. First thing that comes to mind is a gradual replacement of brain matter with a more permanent substance. When I say gradual, I mean over a course of months, maybe even years, with each individual piece being replaced isn't significant enough to impact you, but you gradually adapt to the new brain tissue and slowly "migrate" over to it. Eventually, all the original brain tissue is replaced and you're left with a shining new cyberbrain :D
 

kasperbbs

New member
Dec 27, 2009
1,855
0
0
Even if it has my memories it would no longer be me. The moment my mind would be cloned and it became conscious it would be an entirely different person with experiences and thoughts seperate from my own. Why would i want that? Well it's not like i'll live long enough to see things like that become a reality , and if by some miracle it did then none of us could afford it anyway.
 

MarlaDesat

New member
Aug 22, 2013
733
0
0
SilverHunter said:
Gundam GP01 said:
otakon17 said:
Nope. It doesn't do me some great peace to think I'll be dead but a copy of me would still be around. It still wouldn't be ME, sure it would be "ME" but a copy of my experiences isn't the same as living through them, plus the fact that I wouldn't be continuing on, just the information I'd accrued over my lifetime would. Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
Since we're talking about digital clones, I dont really see how there could be any difference between transferring and copying, except that the original biological brain would be destroyed in the process for the former.
No difference? You're completely ignoring even the simplest concepts to try and say that. Let's make it simple shall we?

You have a file on a computer that you want to move, and only have two ways of doing it:
Cut-&-Paste (transfer): There is only that singular file, the original, being moved. Any alterations made will affect it, and should it be deleted (dies), that's it.
Copy-&-Paste (cloning): There are two files now, the original you still possess and the second one, the copy, on another computer. From this point on, any changes to one fill will no longer affect the other, and should the original be deleted, there is a copy of it but there's in all likelyhood at least SOME changes, which means it is no longer like the original.
I dont think you understand how computer files work. The only way to transfer a file is to make a copy of it somewhere else on your hard drive and delete the original. Hard drives record data by magnetizing thin films of ferromagnetic metal, with the sequential changes in direction of the charge representing binary data bits. There's no way for the drive to pick up the magnetic polarization and move it somewhere else. The only way to 'move' it is to copy the polarization pattern on a different part of the disk, then delete the original.

SilverHunter said:
Now replace the file with the concept of the self, your consciousness.
So what, a Star Trek style teleporter?




SilverHunter said:
In one instance you still exist,
No you dont. You died in the transfer. That 'you' is just a copy.


SilverHunter said:
and in the other there is you and then there is "you".
So? If the copy is so similar that your own mother or wife could talk to both of you and not tell the difference, then the difference is completely moot, isn't it? Hell, that goes double if you both think that you're the original and nether of you can actually tell who's right.
Granted, that particular point relies on the body being copied too, but I think that it's still philosophically relevant to the discussion.

SilverHunter said:
To try and argue there is no difference between digitally transferring and digitally copying your consciousness completely ignores free will. Not to mention it's extremely naive.
Few points here. One: Define free will. Two: Why is free will relevant to this discussion at all? Whatever free will is, wouldn't it be copied as well? Three: How is it naive to apply the physics and mechanics behind digital data storage to a discussion about digitally copying/transferring you brain into a mechanical body?

SilverHunter said:
Even with all of your memories and experiences, a second you will be different no matter what. Merely knowing that it is nothing but a clone will affect its choices.
That's not relevant. For data in a computer, 'transfer' just means 'copy, then delete the original.'

SilverHunter said:
Which makes this a terrible book. In completely ignoring a whole half of the equation (as the article brought up), the author has no actual respect towards this concept as a whole. It's as if Asimov chose to not write the three rules of Robotics simply because he was so enamored with how cool it would be to have robots around.
Okay. Not really relevant to my point, but okay.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Lightknight said:
J Tyran said:
The book sounds interesting, gonna check if its on the Kindle store. For a concise reason for anyone wanting to avoid things like this in the future:-
That's more a commentary on avoiding corporate control over our lives than anything regarding this.

That is still better than dead.
Pretty sure the video made it clear it was about the legal ramifications of any possible technology where people upload their consciousness as well as highlighting how little control someone would have over their mental state and memories being "adjusted", it even covered "crime and terrorism acts" and who would be be responsible for copy written works after such an upload.

Corporatism is one of the factors but its not the main point.
 

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
WouldYouKindly said:
Having just read like 90% of Dune, you're essentially talking about a ghola(with memories unlocked, of course)

Sure, why not? At least of a while anyway. I don't see the point in wanting to live forever. All that comes with eternity is boredom.
haha and that always turned out so well in dune. yeah a virtual ghola essentially.

i will admit my first response reading this was an instant gut reaction of "um no, thats fucked up". i will definitely be skipping this and if this mind clone of me was actually made and thought like i do they its reaction would be the same, this is a messed up idea to do to someone. yeah its a virtual you, but ultimately not you. now imagine right now waking and knowing that you are just a copy and one made of someone eles likes, dislikes and how they act. not to mention never having that life anymore, never being able to walk around, smell anything, hear anything like you do now, not being able to experience a walk like you do now because you know its all virtual.

i understand people wanting to have themselves live forever and virtually seems awesome but to me its a fucked up virtual hell