fullmetalangel:

Dugarel:
I think it's important to remember when discussing uploading one's mind that a computer uses just electrical signals while the brain is a complex biological machine that incorporates both electrical and chemical signals. So to those who said it wouldn't actually be you in the computer but just a data bank, that's in part true. In order to transfer the "soul" the chemical make-up of the brain must be transfered as well.

On the ethics of it, I don't see why it's not ethical to wish for something else for one's own existance. The unethical part would be the government or private companies messing with the downloaded conciousness.

Also, downloading one's mind into a robot or android could provide us with a form of immortality or at least an extended lifespan that could then make it possible for a machine based human concioussness to colonize distant planets and continue the human race in some form. The android humans could even bring preserved human DNA to make biological humans on the colonized planet but that opens a whole other can of worms.

Welcome to the Escapist and thank you for bringing in some very valid points. However, me being the contrary person that I am, would like to counter those points =)

Firstly, those chemical signals could be replaced with electrical signals that serve the same function. In fact, if you get rid of the rest of the body, I'm not entirely sure you even need those chemical signals, since you'd basically be a disembodied brain given a humanoid (or otherwise) shape thanks to the simulation you have inserted yourself, or been inserted, into.

Secondly, there's always economical, and emotional issues. If your mother, father, child, or best friend one day decided to upload themself into a computer, there could be some serious emotional backlash. Also, what exactly would a digital citizen do for the economy? How about hard labor? Or just maintaining these computers? Would it cost money? Would it be government funded?

And finally, last but not least, colonization. Intriguing idea you have there, and it does indeed remove many of the constraints of space travel such as the biological limits and necessities of a human being. Unfortunately, with mind uploading, if it is indeed in public hands (and if it's not, that's a whole other issue) I don't think colonization would be worth it.

Thanks for the welcome

Replacing the chemical signals of the brain and maintaining the whole concioussness of the person may be more difficult than is reasonable. The majority of our emotions, that which makes up our soul some would argue, is comprised almost entirely of hormonal balances in the brain and body and replicating them electronically, although possible, seems far more difficult than simply copying what the brain does.

I agree with you on the second point, there are always going to be issues. Assuming the digital citizens could download themselves, or at least a part of themselves, into a robot they could do more complex and dangerous tasks. Bomb-defusing robots or military applications to bio-hazard and chemical spill clean-up for various companies, and in return for their services they receive server space. Beyond that I think androids could be provided for those who no longer wish to rent server space and wish to once again mingle with the rest of humanity. And yes, it would cost money. Everything does in modern society, unfortunatly.

I still think colonization would be worth while, if not to find a new suitable home for biological life, it would still help to satisfy our never-ending curiosity about things. Humans are born explorers, which is ashame our scientists can't get funding to conduct space exploration or smash atoms together without offering stupid corporate gimics. It would not only provide new scientific knowledge but it would also provide those seemingly immortal androids something to do instead of constantly repeating the same thing over and over in a simulation.

Also, I was thinking about evolution and how the goal of all life is to reach the optimal situation for survival. Humans have now developed both phisicaly and mentaly to the point that those who would have been left behind to die in the past now live wholesome and productive lives, so would downloading ourselves into a computer to extend our lives indefinetly be the next step up to ensure our survival. Sure we can't necissarily reproduce biologically, but after becoming immortal is that really necissary?

I hope this makes sense, it's getting late here and I've been writing three other papers besides this.

...Simply put: Fuck ethics, I deserve to live forever. Yeah, space issues. I'll just become massively important, so I can't be deleted. Maybe I'll kill everyone who knows how to make pie and become the last person who knows how. Practically guarentees eternal life, because nobody wants to go without pie. Even virtual pie.
On a more serious note: Really, fuck ethics. I don't even see anything wrong with extending your lifetime, even if it is just virtual. Especially if it could be a .hack//Sign-esque world, with interesting magics and such.
TL;DR, I think the idea is pretty excellent, and would gladly take part.

Dugarel:
Thanks for the welcome

Replacing the chemical signals of the brain and maintaining the whole concioussness of the person may be more difficult than is reasonable. The majority of our emotions, that which makes up our soul some would argue, is comprised almost entirely of hormonal balances in the brain and body and replicating them electronically, although possible, seems far more difficult than simply copying what the brain does.

Well, yes, I realize it may be more complicated than ... I wouldn't say possible but it would definitely be a feat of truely epic proportions if humanity achieves it. Of course, this thread was about the ethics of mind uploading, not the possibility, so I put in the OP that the assumption in this case was that yes, it is possible, and it can be done to an exceedingly refined point.

I agree with you on the second point, there are always going to be issues. Assuming the digital citizens could download themselves, or at least a part of themselves, into a robot they could do more complex and dangerous tasks. Bomb-defusing robots or military applications to bio-hazard and chemical spill clean-up for various companies, and in return for their services they receive server space. Beyond that I think androids could be provided for those who no longer wish to rent server space and wish to once again mingle with the rest of humanity. And yes, it would cost money. Everything does in modern society, unfortunatly.

Oh yeah, that slipped my mind, I already mentioned doing that to someone else but somehow I couldn't connect from that to actual work.

I still think colonization would be worth while, if not to find a new suitable home for biological life, it would still help to satisfy our never-ending curiosity about things. Humans are born explorers, which is ashame our scientists can't get funding to conduct space exploration or smash atoms together without offering stupid corporate gimics. It would not only provide new scientific knowledge but it would also provide those seemingly immortal androids something to do instead of constantly repeating the same thing over and over in a simulation.

Yes, human curiosity is a pretty major force but I don't think anyone's ever going to get the funding to actually colonize a new planet/asteroid/moon unless there's a very good reason to.

I hope this makes sense, it's getting late here and I've been writing three other papers besides this.

Yes, you're making lots of sense, and sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from any work, thanks for the conversation, people like you are why I love the Escapist =)

Dugarel:
I think it's important to remember when discussing uploading one's mind that a computer uses just electrical signals while the brain is a complex biological machine that incorporates both electrical and chemical signals. So to those who said it wouldn't actually be you in the computer but just a data bank, that's in part true. In order to transfer the "soul" the chemical make-up of the brain must be transfered as well.

Given a good enough model of physics and chemistry, you can run all the chemical reactions in simulation. Using a computer to simulate a physical process is really the basis of the modern sci-fi "uploading" idea. Or, expressed in terms of information theory and computer science: if the brain is a Turing machine, then a universal Turing machine can be used to simulate it.

mathias53:
Lets just say for sake of conversation that everybody jumped on this band wagon and downloaded themselves into the world. Ok so people can die but then how will people reproduce? Is there such thing as robot sex? If so im not sure i want to be there for that.

If you have the technology to fully simulate every molecule of a human brain, you probably have the technology to create a virtual brain from scratch, creating children who were never "real". The tricky bit is managing its development to produce something that thinks in a human way (why you would want to do it that way is a different question).

-- Alex

Alex_P:

mathias53:
Lets just say for sake of conversation that everybody jumped on this band wagon and downloaded themselves into the world. Ok so people can die but then how will people reproduce? Is there such thing as robot sex? If so im not sure i want to be there for that.

If you have the technology to fully simulate every molecule of a human brain, you probably have the technology to create a virtual brain from scratch, creating children who were never "real". The tricky bit is managing its development to produce something that thinks in a human way (why you would want to do it that way is a different question).

-- Alex

You also have to think that as more people have virtual children, you would need more complex programming to run each and every one. Unless we were to place people's consciousness into a child program when they died in the virtual world. Assuming that people age and die in the virtual world, instead of living at the same age for eternity.

xitel:

Alex_P:

mathias53:
Lets just say for sake of conversation that everybody jumped on this band wagon and downloaded themselves into the world. Ok so people can die but then how will people reproduce? Is there such thing as robot sex? If so im not sure i want to be there for that.

If you have the technology to fully simulate every molecule of a human brain, you probably have the technology to create a virtual brain from scratch, creating children who were never "real". The tricky bit is managing its development to produce something that thinks in a human way (why you would want to do it that way is a different question).

-- Alex

You also have to think that as more people have virtual children, you would need more complex programming to run each and every one. Unless we were to place people's consciousness into a child program when they died in the virtual world. Assuming that people age and die in the virtual world, instead of living at the same age for eternity.

the only possible way of this theory working, as in creating a virtual baby, would be if you followed the tabula rasa way of thinking. And if you dont know what tabula rasa is (no not the mmo) then go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa it basically means that babies are born with no initial programming and they learn through life experiences. If you could fabricate that then yeah it would be possible.

mathias53:
the only possible way of this theory working, as in creating a virtual baby, would be if you followed the tabula rasa way of thinking. And if you dont know what tabula rasa is (no not the mmo) then go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa it basically means that babies are born with no initial programming and they learn through life experiences. If you could fabricate that then yeah it would be possible.

Why do you say that?

If you have the ability to truly simulate every detail of the biological development of a brain, then all of the information that's supposedly in it "innately" will be there.

-- Alex

I really don't get what's unethical about it, or even how ethics figure into the equation. Is this like suicide or something?

Could someone explain this?

Silver:
I really don't get what's unethical about it, or even how ethics figure into the equation. Is this like suicide or something?

Could someone explain this?

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one.

"Should we do it?" is the least difficult ethical question associated with "uploading".

-- Alex

the moral or ethical question is coverd id think by the choice to do it being up to the person donating the brain waves.

this reminds me of a star trek book i read ages ago, when there was a transporter 'malfunction' and an exact copy was made of spock, just some of the questions were, wich one was the original and did it in fact matter? the answer was supprising in that the book treated it by saying that an exact copy of something at the time of its CREATION was the same thing as the original and that in this case neither 'spock' had a more valid clame to being the original than the other.

in the case of simply uploading your mind into a machine its clear that your uplode wont BE you, any more than a clone of me, down to the sub-atomic level would BE me, the question really only takes on meaning if you can in fact transfer the soul, or if you propose to have the original destroyed during the process of uploading.

i use the transporter as an example because this whole concept has been done before, and done well. the argument is that during the process of transporation the original body is destroyed and an exact copy is created at another location, one way around the question of copy vrs original is by star trek using the concept that the matter that makes up the originals body is simply transfered and reconstituted at a new location and the argument seems to be that the soul is attached to the flesh and by simply reusing that flesh than the soul is not destroyed or set free from its bonds to the flesh. i dont know if i buy THAT argument, but i can say with some certianty that a mear copy of my brain waves, no matter how exact, wont be ME anymore than a toe nail clipping or a lock of hair is 'me' once cut. indeed the copy would have LESS clame to being me than a toe nail clipping or other thing of that nature simply because no part of the copy was EVER part of me.

ultimatly the question for me only becomes moral or ethical if you can transfer the soul. and even then as long as the person being asked to donate is allowed to make the decisions than morals or ethics neither one enter into the question.

and before anyone askes id say that NO "Data" is in fact NOT alive and isnt entitled to the rights of a truly living being.

Puppeteer Putin:
(QUOTES)

OK fair enough.. then what's the point? You're just making another person. It's like making a clone of yourself; if one of you passes away, the other may still think like you but ultimately you are not prolonging you're life, you have made another.

Then comes in the issue of the creation of life... we've come full circle!

I'm pretty sure that in this "mind uploading" process, you're actually transferring your own consciousness into a computer. He said in the description it wouldn't be a copy, but more of a cut-and-paste. So you're not copying yourself, you're transferring your brain into a different shell.

But either way, the only way you could do that is by connecting a brain to a computer, and then the brain would probably die shortly after because of age, and the only thing you could do then would be to 'copy' the brain's data into a massive hard-drive, in which case it would be pointless, because you'd be running a simulation to satisfy a hard-drive, not a human.

If in this hypothetical universe, though, you could transfer the consciousness over to a computer, I would say it's totally fine for people on the brink of death, (especially scientists, so they could continue to benefit the world with their intelligence, until they became obsolete) but for people who are healthy and prime, it should be disallowed.

vdgmprgrmr:

Puppeteer Putin:
(QUOTES)

OK fair enough.. then what's the point? You're just making another person. It's like making a clone of yourself; if one of you passes away, the other may still think like you but ultimately you are not prolonging you're life, you have made another.

Then comes in the issue of the creation of life... we've come full circle!

I'm pretty sure that in this "mind uploading" process, you're actually transferring your own consciousness into a computer. He said in the description it wouldn't be a copy, but more of a cut-and-paste. So you're not copying yourself, you're transferring your brain into a different shell.

But either way, the only way you could do that is by connecting a brain to a computer, and then the brain would probably die shortly after because of age, and the only thing you could do then would be to 'copy' the brain's data into a massive hard-drive, in which case it would be pointless, because you'd be running a simulation to satisfy a hard-drive, not a human.

That's exactly what I was trying to say! I know I got slightly confused but in my own convoluted way that is exactly what I meant.

I agree on your second point. Those who have full function of all their senses shouldn't be allowed. However it would be good for the deaf and blind as it may give them a chance to experience senses their physical-self could not.

One word : Pirates

Software theft is nothing compared to Wetware theft.

Puppeteer Putin:
That's exactly what I was trying to say! I know I got slightly confused but in my own convoluted way that is exactly what I meant.

I agree on your second point. Those who have full function of all their senses shouldn't be allowed. However it would be good for the deaf and blind as it may give them a chance to experience senses their physical-self could not.

Why shouldn't it be allowed? What's wrong about it?

I think the general concept is awesome, although realistically implementing it could be a problem. Can anyone see this ever happening in the near future? If so, how? If not, why?

People believe in a soul for two reasons: 1) punishment/reward for action in life 2) that we're not just a mishmash of electro-chemical responses. boiling down the human experience into data is not a great idea either, what will happen while the law catches up to this new reality? will it be legal to kill someone as long as they're outside of their bodies? Then how long to where the flesh is merely an inconvenience to be shirked as often or as soon as possible? Who decides how long someone stays in this realm, who owns the data generated by the thoughts of the occupant (say I dream in the machine of a new doodad, would they be able to steal that idea?)

The examples that you've given in the initial post make me believe that these people who decide to live in the machine can be legally classified as goods (certainly not life, since as you've stated they no longer eat, excrete, and reproduce and those are vital for a scientific life classification as it is now). I can only begin to imagine the horror stories if MicroSoft or GOOGLE started to buy and sell 'Grandma' to enhance their own bottom lines.

I'd still do it occasionally though, just for experiencing things that are currently denied to me by either physics, biology, or our legal system. :D

vdgmprgrmr:

I'm pretty sure that in this "mind uploading" process, you're actually transferring your own consciousness into a computer. He said in the description it wouldn't be a copy, but more of a cut-and-paste. So you're not copying yourself, you're transferring your brain into a different shell.

But either way, the only way you could do that is by connecting a brain to a computer, and then the brain would probably die shortly after because of age, and the only thing you could do then would be to 'copy' the brain's data into a massive hard-drive, in which case it would be pointless, because you'd be running a simulation to satisfy a hard-drive, not a human.

If in this hypothetical universe, though, you could transfer the consciousness over to a computer, I would say it's totally fine for people on the brink of death, (especially scientists, so they could continue to benefit the world with their intelligence, until they became obsolete) but for people who are healthy and prime, it should be disallowed.

if you can transfer you, your mind and soul and all that makes you YOU, your 'essence' into a machine thats different. for me in order for this question to even be valid you would need to establish number one that their is a soul, and number two that you can transfer it from one body to another, (organic or mechanical makes no real difference) if you can do that than you BECOME a God and create your own moral/ethical code. this wont happen of course. we wont ever know that the 'essence' we transfer ISNT a mear copy unless we become Gods ourselves and if we can prove this to a moral satisfaction than i susspect that we will have other alternatives to uploading to a computer in the first place.

it would be like discovering how to build a warpdrive starship then spending time talking about the morals and ethics of a horse and buggy.

unless you can KNOW that the soul has made the transfer than its just a copy no matter how exact. and i dont know about you but ive allready been promised that my soul/essence would be 'uploaded' too a better existance after death so why would i want to settle for some crappy Microsoft knockoff? that is unless you can disprove God and the soul and its the only choice left to me, but in taht case if there IS no God and no after life than i think id rather just pass into nothingness rather than spend all of time subject to someone elses whims about how my hardware was to be configured. what if a billion years from now aliens show up and steal our computers and turn us all into unending slaves for their evil purposes? how do we pull the plug on our computer to end our existance?

who would YOU trust to run the on/off switch for all time?

good lord no, the more i think about this the more certian i am, id rather fade to nothingness at the end of my life than risk someone else having controll over my very soul. i havent ever met or heard of the person id be willing to give that authority too. ive been known from time to time to look at God (or my idea of God anyhow) with a harsh eye because of some of the decisions he makes in my life i couldnt immagin trusting a fellow human with that kind of power and authority.

if i could just pop into a machine and pop back out again into my body under my controll that might be different, but a perminent existance in a machine with who knows who in control of the on/off switch, no, and again no.

For arguments sake lets say that our soul is transfered into the machine and that we know for certain that it is us in the machine and not a copy. With that said...

howard_hughes:
The examples that you've given in the initial post make me believe that these people who decide to live in the machine can be legally classified as goods (certainly not life, since as you've stated they no longer eat, excrete, and reproduce and those are vital for a scientific life classification as it is now).

We can look at history and see that the definition of 'person' has changed before and there is no reason that it couldn't change in the future. Arguing that only living creatures have rights would seem rather pointless since I know we have never granted rights to animals, which are alive. The argument is, I think, one of sentience. Are our transfered selves sentient? I would surely think so since if we are truly transfered then we should be able to think and reason for ourselves as we do now. So the digital 'people' are on an equal mental playing field with those that have not transfered, so they should be afforded the same rights to life, liberty, and property. It was a similar situation with slavery. The slaves could reason and think just as well as any white man, and in some cases black slaves who escaped became even more educated then their white masters, but because they were different in form they were considered inferior. We have since corrected that mistake as a culture and recognize them as equals (or at least I hope we do), so would it be with our digital brethren.

Wyatt:

who would YOU trust to run the on/off switch for all time?

Well only myself, of course. I think I mentioned earlier that perhaps instead of perminantly transfering ourselves into a massive data bank we could transfer into advanced robots which would allow us to still interact with our fleshy bretheren on a physical level. We could then plug into the data bank Matrix style and experience any type of virtual world we would life.

Of course there would still be issues of hacking and corporate schemes, but a fail-safe mechanism deep within our concioussness, a kill switch perhaps, could allow us to choose either to live in a corupted state or end it all. There could also be a type of virtual police that could watch for things like this and prosecute those who essentially murdered someone and then do the best they can to restore the corrupted conciouss.

Dugarel:

Well only myself, of course. I think I mentioned earlier that perhaps instead of perminantly transfering ourselves into a massive data bank we could transfer into advanced robots which would allow us to still interact with our fleshy bretheren on a physical level. We could then plug into the data bank Matrix style and experience any type of virtual world we would life.

Of course there would still be issues of hacking and corporate schemes, but a fail-safe mechanism deep within our concioussness, a kill switch perhaps, could allow us to choose either to live in a corupted state or end it all. There could also be a type of virtual police that could watch for things like this and prosecute those who essentially murdered someone and then do the best they can to restore the corrupted conciouss.

the core of this idea is too transfer your ability to think into a machine. in order to conroll any of the machines you talk about , from the basic computer 'matrix' to those robot bodys will require some form of computer program that can interface with your thoughts in order to turn them into real world actions. its a simple fact that any software program can be hacked, leaving you totaly at the mercy of anyone with the ability to do it. even 'fail safe kill switches' would still require a program in order to transform your thought of dieing into actualy tripping the switch, that program itself is open to being hacked.

as for the police idea, i dont trust cops. well let me put that another way, its not that i dont trust them its that they are only human. and i couldnt bring myself to trust another human no matter how talented or how 'good' or how well meaning to govern my 'mind' forever.

i just keep thiking of gandalf saying to frodo (paraphrasing) 'if you cant give something back life than do be too quick to take it'. point being that i wouldnt trust anyone or anything other than my original creator (God in this case) to be in charge of my soul for all time.

it might be cool to check out a true VR, or even to be able to transfer to a machine body, but unless i was totaly certian my machine body couldnt be highjacked by anyone with hacking skills and could offer me the same level of 'software security' my own body does now than no i wouldnt do it.

heb in fact i dont look forward to the day when bio-tech reaches the level where our bodys can be 'hacked' and controled by someone else. now THATS a question of morality or ethics worth exploring.

Some very good points, but I suppose I should explain my robot idea a little further.

In my idea the transfer to the robot or android is a transfer to a closed-system, where the entire system for storing and running your conciouss is contained within the android body (assuming some day we can manage to build technology at that level) so the threat of hacking only comes from connecting to the VR, which is a willful choice that carries the concequences.

Of course even digital humans should not have to worry about the dangers associated with things that should be common place in their lives, which is why there would have to be so many fail-safes and safety measures in place, and even then the danger still exists.

As for the cops, as long as people can think for themselves there is a risk of corruption since the base human inpulse is to act in a way beneficial to the self, which is the premise of uploading one's mind into a computer in the first place in order to prolong life. So yes, dangers will always persist, but is the same not true of all our own daily lives right now? When we step into a car being driven by someone else our lives are willfully put into their hands for better or for worse. To me it would seem that the benefits of uploading far outway the risks, especially if I was on my death bed. It's not that I would want to live forever, Lord knows the human psychy can't last that long, but I would like to live long enough to experience everything this vast, vast universe has to offer.

Alex_P:

mathias53:
the only possible way of this theory working, as in creating a virtual baby, would be if you followed the tabula rasa way of thinking. And if you dont know what tabula rasa is (no not the mmo) then go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa it basically means that babies are born with no initial programming and they learn through life experiences. If you could fabricate that then yeah it would be possible.

Why do you say that?

If you have the ability to truly simulate every detail of the biological development of a brain, then all of the information that's supposedly in it "innately" will be there.

-- Alex

Just because we can fully simulate the brain doesnt mean we can make a human. the human brain is hundreds of times more complex than a computer. Humans can learn and think. If we could fabricate that, then we could use tabula rasa to make people. But the problem is tabula rasa is only a theory, we know nothing about the human brain and how it works. How do we learn? How do we know how to speak and think and dream? I highly doubt we will learn the answers to this in our lifetime.

mathias53:
Just because we can fully simulate the brain doesnt mean we can make a human. the human brain is hundreds of times more complex than a computer. Humans can learn and think. If we could fabricate that, then we could use tabula rasa to make people. But the problem is tabula rasa is only a theory, we know nothing about the human brain and how it works. How do we learn? How do we know how to speak and think and dream? I highly doubt we will learn the answers to this in our lifetime.

"Tabula rasa" is irrelevant here.

You're describing emergent characteristics. They result from the physical structure of the brain. There's nothing in your head that isn't caused by synapses and chemicals and the like acting in a structured, organized way.

"Uploading" sci-fi posits the ability to simulate all of the physical and chemical processes that occur in the brain with near-absolute perfection, down to the level of individual molecules or even quantum-mechanical interactions. Given that ability -- which is the sci-fi leap-of-faith you have to make to make any kind of "uploading" possible in the first place -- your "uploaded" mind can speak and think and dream and learn.

-- Alex

The decision to upload your mind into a computer is only ethical or not when you consider what you would then do after the fact, I think putting your mind into a virtual world is kind of a neutral activity, where you would then have to be judged on what you would do afterwords.

Alex_P:

mathias53:
Just because we can fully simulate the brain doesnt mean we can make a human. the human brain is hundreds of times more complex than a computer. Humans can learn and think. If we could fabricate that, then we could use tabula rasa to make people. But the problem is tabula rasa is only a theory, we know nothing about the human brain and how it works. How do we learn? How do we know how to speak and think and dream? I highly doubt we will learn the answers to this in our lifetime.

"Tabula rasa" is irrelevant here.

You're describing emergent characteristics. They result from the physical structure of the brain. There's nothing in your head that isn't caused by synapses and chemicals and the like acting in a structured, organized way.

"Uploading" sci-fi posits the ability to simulate all of the physical and chemical processes that occur in the brain with near-absolute perfection, down to the level of individual molecules or even quantum-mechanical interactions. Given that ability -- which is the sci-fi leap-of-faith you have to make to make any kind of "uploading" possible in the first place -- your "uploaded" mind can speak and think and dream and learn.

-- Alex

right but i think we are both are on the same side, i think. I completely agree that this is nearly impossible but just for the sake of the conversation lets roll with it the idea that it is possible to create a program that mimicked any chemical reactions in the brain, you would need a "blank slate" or tabula rasa to create new people. This whole conversation is about making robot babies if you recall. if you could make a "blank slate" or tabula rasa then the human race could live in a computer, but that would be the end of the human race. i think it is not ethical.

It would be interesting to be crashing on a hospital bed and about to die, then uploaded to a computer, then crashing again causing a loss of data and a fatal error...

mathias53:
... you would need a "blank slate" or tabula rasa to create new people. This whole conversation is about making robot babies if you recall.

But you don't need that hypothesis to be true. Not at all! The "tabula rasa" hypothesis doesn't help you at all here!

If I have the technological ability to simulate every physical aspect of a living brain, it's trivial for me to expand my technology to simulating the processes that created that brain. I can start with a simulated embryo and take it all the way through simulated human development and anything that's "innately" in the brain will be there.

If anything, it's the other stuff -- the developmentally acquired knowledge -- that would be harder to copy with precision.

-- Alex

Darth Mobius:

fullmetalangel:
Oh god, I just realized how hugely complicated this whole deal is.

To make it clear, as far as I'm concerned, once the copy exists, he/she is a person by all rights.

I read a theory on this, involving "Cloning" someone's mind so that they wouldn't have to vote, but the problem was that a Person at age 18 cares very differently than that SAME person at age 25. Basically, the idea was to copy someone's mind to a computer that would let their brain determine what laws should and shouldn't be passed. Of course, then you have to realize that while you mature YOUR thoughts and opinions will change, but this Clone Program's will not.

I guess, in my opinion, when you remove yourself from your body, you are removing what makes you HUMAN. (You don't have to worry about starving, going homeless, or paying bills, so your existence does NOTHING to benefit mankind.)

Okay, from what I understood from what you said, the same person will change as they gain new experience right?
Clones gain experiences too you know, their brains aren't set in anyway. Unless you deleted a computer clone's memory every day, or so to speak, he/she would gain experiences and mature in his/her own right.

Also, if you read a bit earlier, there was a discussion about the benefits of a digital citizen. If you're too lazy to go look for it, I'll summarize.
Basically, once we have the power to upload our minds to a computer, we could just as easily upload it to a robot or other form of machine with which we could interact with the physical world and perhaps do jobs that would be too dangerous for a normal human being in exchange for server space.

Besides that, why does the fact one doesn't contribute to society make one no longer a human?

Yes and I will when it becomes available. I hope it does. I don't really care about the ethical side of things as I see no wrong in doing it. I am also going to get any and all cybernetic implants that I can. I want synthetic organs, wet wired nerves, or if I can get it I want a full body conversion a la major Motoko Kusanagi in Ghost in The Shell. The human body is fragile and sucks. There is so much to be improved upon by technology and the possibilities are endless.

Alex_P:

Silver:
I really don't get what's unethical about it, or even how ethics figure into the equation. Is this like suicide or something?

Could someone explain this?

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one.

"Should we do it?" is the least difficult ethical question associated with "uploading".

-- Alex

Yeah, the OP really has nothing to do with ethics. It's more frightening to me that readers aren't really realizing this.

NordicNinja:

Alex_P:

Silver:
I really don't get what's unethical about it, or even how ethics figure into the equation. Is this like suicide or something?

Could someone explain this?

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one.

"Should we do it?" is the least difficult ethical question associated with "uploading".

-- Alex

Yeah, the OP really has nothing to do with ethics. It's more frightening to me that readers aren't really realizing this.

Okay, I was assuming everybody would have an intuitive sense about how they feel about this but I guess not.

Okay, first thing usually brought up by, forgive me but, ignorant people is that Mind Uploading is "unnatural", often bringing religion and all that jazz into this.

More importantly however, there are issues such as hacking, which is made worse by an order of magnitude by the fact that these are human minds that are being hacked (see Ghost in the Shell), digital torture in which you would never die or go unconcious and they could just crank up the pain without even touching you and when you go insane they'll just reboot you and keep on going. There's also the problems of computer crashes, economics, emotional issues (what if your best friend/child/parent one day decided they were going to upload themself and you couldn't go with them or were unwilling to leave everything else behind).

Etc, etc.

fullmetalangel:
Etc, etc.

If someone uploads themselves without taking the proper precautions, than they're just going to have to run the risk.

Though, imagine a future where everyone trusts a Google-type firm to protect them from physical harm once they're uploaded.

I think the end-all argument for this is, "Be careful what you wish for."

NordicNinja:

fullmetalangel:
Etc, etc.

If someone uploads themselves without taking the proper precautions, than they're just going to have to run the risk.

Though, imagine a future where everyone trusts a Google-type firm to protect them from physical harm once they're uploaded.

I think the end-all argument for this is, "Be careful what you wish for."

Still, that doesn't change the fact that there are indeed "ethical" facets to the subject. Also, no amount of encrypting, firewalling or securing in any way is ever fool proof, even if it's a closed network.

Having said all of that, I still think that the ethical positives outweigh the ethical negatives by a lot, and personally, I would go ahead and upload myself if I could.

fullmetalangel:
More importantly however, there are issues such as hacking, which is made worse by an order of magnitude by the fact that these are human minds that are being hacked (see Ghost in the Shell), digital torture in which you would never die or go unconcious and they could just crank up the pain without even touching you and when you go insane they'll just reboot you and keep on going. There's also the problems of computer crashes, economics, emotional issues (what if your best friend/child/parent one day decided they were going to upload themself and you couldn't go with them or were unwilling to leave everything else behind).

My point is that these issues aren't just part of the "Should we do it?" question.

Answering "Yes" to "Should we do it?" opens up thousands of other questions (kinda like the ones you've offered, though you are all pretty pedestrian compared to the metaphysical confusion) that are far more interesting than "Should we do it?"

Answering "No" to "Should we do it?"... well, it's not going to happen for long. Eventually we'll do it anyway and all the follow-up questions will still need to be answered.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

fullmetalangel:
More importantly however, there are issues such as hacking, which is made worse by an order of magnitude by the fact that these are human minds that are being hacked (see Ghost in the Shell), digital torture in which you would never die or go unconcious and they could just crank up the pain without even touching you and when you go insane they'll just reboot you and keep on going. There's also the problems of computer crashes, economics, emotional issues (what if your best friend/child/parent one day decided they were going to upload themself and you couldn't go with them or were unwilling to leave everything else behind).

My point is that these issues aren't just part of the "Should we do it?" question.

Answering "Yes" to "Should we do it?" opens up thousands of other questions (kinda like the ones you've offered, though you are all pretty pedestrian compared to the metaphysical confusion) that are far more interesting than "Should we do it?"

Answering "No" to "Should we do it?"... well, it's not going to happen for long. Eventually we'll do it anyway and all the follow-up questions will still need to be answered.

-- Alex

Agreed and I also think that if we haven't managed to all kill each other by the time this happens that there will be no way anything social, political, or religious could stop this from happening.

If you can't tell, I stand firmly behind Yes and I would.

I'm slightly confused as to why you're replying specifically to me about that, however, I just read some of your earlier conversation and wow, the idea of procreation entirely slipped my mind. Yet another issue to add to the ethical debate.

Another question related to procreation would be if those beings created are actual humans, but that's another can of worms (aka, my Do Animals Feel thread, or whatever I named it).

Also, I think creating a virtual human being from scratch might be a bit harder than emulating something that already exists. Then again, if you copied a brain onto a computer, you'd probably have a perfect understanding of its inner-workings. Or would you? I could imagine that it's possible to have developed something you don't even understand (see Wikipedia Technological Singularity.)

edit:

Actually, creating a human being from scratch would be possible if you could perfectly emulate a human brain, but creating a unique mind? I don't know about that...