Electronic Consciousness?
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
I suppose it depends if you believe in spiritualism.
.-. |o,o| ,| \_\\=/\_ .-""-. ||/\_/\_\\\_\\ /\[\] \_ \_\\ |\_/|(\_)|\\\\ \_|\_o\_LII|\_ \\.\_./// / | ==== | \\ |\\\_/|"\` |\_| ==== |\_| |\_|\_| ||" || || |-|-| ||LI o || |\_|\_| ||'----'|| /\_/ \\\_\\ /\_\_| |\_\_\\ -
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
This idea is central to the later books in The Heechee Saga[^] by Frederik Pohl, a series of science fiction novels. The Heechee, an alien race, store their consciousness in a device when they are near death. Family members carry the devices with them, and the stored intelligences are an integral part of their culture. Humans adapt the technology for themselves. The main human character through the series eventually becomes 'vastened' himself.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This idea is central to the later books in The Heechee Saga[^] by Frederik Pohl, a series of science fiction novels. The Heechee, an alien race, store their consciousness in a device when they are near death. Family members carry the devices with them, and the stored intelligences are an integral part of their culture. Humans adapt the technology for themselves. The main human character through the series eventually becomes 'vastened' himself.
Software Zen:
delete this;But do you think it will ever be possible? :)
-
I suppose it depends if you believe in spiritualism.
.-. |o,o| ,| \_\\=/\_ .-""-. ||/\_/\_\\\_\\ /\[\] \_ \_\\ |\_/|(\_)|\\\\ \_|\_o\_LII|\_ \\.\_./// / | ==== | \\ |\\\_/|"\` |\_| ==== |\_| |\_|\_| ||" || || |-|-| ||LI o || |\_|\_| ||'----'|| /\_/ \\\_\\ /\_\_| |\_\_\\Does it? Its either possible or not I think? :)
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
The information that you'd have to store would at most be the full state (including quantum state) of every particle that's involved (because that's literally everything that could be involved somehow, even if we don't know how). That would be a problem, but it's very unlikely that you'd need that kind of detail - for example, an MRI of your brain changes a lot of quantum states, but not your consciousness (I hope!), implying that not all state is relevant. Most likely the classical state alone is plenty, and you probably wouldn't even need it in unlimited precision. TL;DR: Yes.
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
Hi Lee, I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can define "consciousness," but I think that may take more than one life-time; is this urgent ? yours, Bill
“Humans are amphibians: half spirit, half animal; as spirits they belong to the eternal world; as animals they inhabit time. While their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imagination are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy is undulation: repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
Well Lee, The moment you make computers feel compassion, you'll be able to store consciousness. Now just solve the compassion thing and you're settled. * In other words, never Cheers, E
Never underestimate the difference you can make in the lives of others.
-
Hi Lee, I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can define "consciousness," but I think that may take more than one life-time; is this urgent ? yours, Bill
“Humans are amphibians: half spirit, half animal; as spirits they belong to the eternal world; as animals they inhabit time. While their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imagination are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy is undulation: repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
BillWoodruff wrote:
soon as I can define "consciousness,"
Not unconscious. Problem? :trollface:
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
I believe one day that it will be possible to have a computer approximate a human mind, but in the end, it will be a computer mind, with its own idiosyncrasies, capabilities and limitations. In addition, I believe it will not be possible to "download" a real person into a computer as a way of cheating death, because even if the computer accurately emulates the person's consciousness, the person himself will still die. In other words, the machine will be a copy of the person, not the actual person, so the person will not achieve immortality.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
Perhaps eventually, but I would place that as perhaps as much (or as little) as a thousand years from now. The main problem is with the term "consciousness." Consciousness is not a static thing that can be stored in memory cells - consciousness, as I recall it being defined somewhere once, is the self awareness of constant change, including one's own thoughts. So an electronic consciousness, in my definition, wouldn't just be a snapshot of the thinking and memories of a person at a particular point in time, it would also have to support continual changing perceptual awareness, and that adds another significant layer of complexity to the concept. And again, by "perceptual", I don't just mean the traditional five senses, I mean the perception of self, identity, the thing we are referring to when we use the word "I". Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My Blog -
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
I view consciousness as akin to an operating system (not Windows 8, hopefully) with memories archived in a WORM-like storage area and accumulated experiences and knowledge executing as programs. Therefore, machine consciousness is possible once the proper computing environment is provided.
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
soon as I can define "consciousness,"
Not unconscious. Problem? :trollface:
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
And what of the subconscious and collective unconscious? :rolleyes:
-
The information that you'd have to store would at most be the full state (including quantum state) of every particle that's involved (because that's literally everything that could be involved somehow, even if we don't know how). That would be a problem, but it's very unlikely that you'd need that kind of detail - for example, an MRI of your brain changes a lot of quantum states, but not your consciousness (I hope!), implying that not all state is relevant. Most likely the classical state alone is plenty, and you probably wouldn't even need it in unlimited precision. TL;DR: Yes.
This may give a snapshot of the mind at a certain point in time but I think consciousness goes well beyond this.
-
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
Perhaps eventually, but I would place that as perhaps as much (or as little) as a thousand years from now. The main problem is with the term "consciousness." Consciousness is not a static thing that can be stored in memory cells - consciousness, as I recall it being defined somewhere once, is the self awareness of constant change, including one's own thoughts. So an electronic consciousness, in my definition, wouldn't just be a snapshot of the thinking and memories of a person at a particular point in time, it would also have to support continual changing perceptual awareness, and that adds another significant layer of complexity to the concept. And again, by "perceptual", I don't just mean the traditional five senses, I mean the perception of self, identity, the thing we are referring to when we use the word "I". Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My BlogI like your definition. In a text I read on buddhist meditation, from memory, the author described 3 aspects of consciousness. Your's closely aligns with the third. 1. An aspect where you just "be", where the mind is clear, and you just exist in that moment totally absorbed by a task. eg meditation. 2. An aspect where you think about and are aware of the present moment, watch, feel, smell etc and comment on your existence in realtime. eg thinking I'm walking some stairs, these stairs are steep. 3. An aspect where you are able to reflect on your current or previous thoughts. eg I know I am/was thinking these stairs are steep.
-
I like your definition. In a text I read on buddhist meditation, from memory, the author described 3 aspects of consciousness. Your's closely aligns with the third. 1. An aspect where you just "be", where the mind is clear, and you just exist in that moment totally absorbed by a task. eg meditation. 2. An aspect where you think about and are aware of the present moment, watch, feel, smell etc and comment on your existence in realtime. eg thinking I'm walking some stairs, these stairs are steep. 3. An aspect where you are able to reflect on your current or previous thoughts. eg I know I am/was thinking these stairs are steep.
Member 9475889 wrote:
the author described 3 aspects of consciousness.
Hmmm, I think that's very close to something I was reading recently as well. And I'm also having this weird deja-vu experience, both with this post and with some code I'm debugging. :~ Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My Blog -
Member 9475889 wrote:
the author described 3 aspects of consciousness.
Hmmm, I think that's very close to something I was reading recently as well. And I'm also having this weird deja-vu experience, both with this post and with some code I'm debugging. :~ Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My BlogJust a glitch in the matrix :suss:
-
Hi Lee, I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can define "consciousness," but I think that may take more than one life-time; is this urgent ? yours, Bill
“Humans are amphibians: half spirit, half animal; as spirits they belong to the eternal world; as animals they inhabit time. While their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imagination are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy is undulation: repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
BillWoodruff wrote:
I think that may take more than one life-time; is this urgent ?
Are you kidding? Conscious = Not Friday night AND not named Dalek Dave.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
The information that you'd have to store would at most be the full state (including quantum state) of every particle that's involved (because that's literally everything that could be involved somehow, even if we don't know how). That would be a problem, but it's very unlikely that you'd need that kind of detail - for example, an MRI of your brain changes a lot of quantum states, but not your consciousness (I hope!), implying that not all state is relevant. Most likely the classical state alone is plenty, and you probably wouldn't even need it in unlimited precision. TL;DR: Yes.
I like that. It would imply we could have a system restore point.
-
Hi Lee, I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can define "consciousness," but I think that may take more than one life-time; is this urgent ? yours, Bill
“Humans are amphibians: half spirit, half animal; as spirits they belong to the eternal world; as animals they inhabit time. While their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imagination are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy is undulation: repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
Just let my back up know when you have the answer.
-
Well Lee, The moment you make computers feel compassion, you'll be able to store consciousness. Now just solve the compassion thing and you're settled. * In other words, never Cheers, E
Never underestimate the difference you can make in the lives of others.
You don't need compassion to be conscious, in fact you don't need any emotion to be conscious. Psychopaths don't have any and not just the murderous types. I'm sure they are still considered conscious. I'm not keen on having a back up made of my mind that was stripped of emotion however. But a part backup is better than none.
