Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Antimutt t1_jdlwynw wrote

We wont rest. It's not enough to be copyable, we also need to be transferable, non-destructively. Then we leave this flesh behind.

13

OlderNerd t1_jdm8tet wrote

I read a book once that had this interesting thought experiment. It imagined a machine that could insert thousands of microscopic electrodes into the surface of your brain. Then it would read the electrical impulses in your neurons and copy that information over to a computer. Then instead of just copying it it would start to run the program that would replace the function of those neurons. You could switch back and forth between the computer program for that layer of neurons and your real brain. If there was no difference, then you could hit another button and it would remove those neurons and sink further down into your brain copying and replacing as it went. The interesting thing is that there would be no break in your consciousness in this thought experiment. I wonder if that would affect how people felt about destructively copying your mind over to a computer

10

RamaSchneider OP t1_jdlx6u0 wrote

That bit about "need to be transferable", I like that and it does indeed need to be there for a human to AI machine comparison. Thanks for mentioning that.

[Edit] Does that mean that humans are sub-computer?

2

Antimutt t1_jdlyqvp wrote

Or, perhaps, become the computer. If we can't crack strong AI, how about we copy a human cortex, train it to obey, market it. Odd idea? Here's the novel.

2

Philosipho t1_jdmrq9f wrote

But a copy of you isn't you. Also, unless the copy is alive, it's just another machine.

We can already replicate ourselves. It seems much more ethical, efficient, and definitive to simply find ways to make humans more capable.

2

DesertBoxing t1_jdmwu4m wrote

Why transfer when you can experience life through multiple bodies, wouldn’t that be something?

2