Altered Carbon

[RGX]

Originally posted by manker+10 August 2004 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker @ 10 August 2004 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 21:41
I, and others posting yesterday, had half a notion at least that we&#39;d cease to be even if we copied ourselves, that we wouldn&#39;t be here to experience things even as the new copy was walking around. At least purely from our point of view.

I felt I&#39;d be dead if if the information in my brain was copied, and the copy continued instead of me, whereas brenda suggested that the entire body is part of one&#39;s conciousness, which might mean that a new body wouldn&#39;t be you, either.



Would your answers mean that both of you, ck-uk and manker might be able to deal with the kind of world I described in my initial post?

<!--QuoteBegin-Re the book altered carbon

It&#39;s this sci-fi novel set in a distant future where people have these sort of hard-drives called cortical stacks in their necks.

Basically, it defines what is human.

When you go to prison, your mind, uploaded from the cortical stack, gets put on storage.

And unless you can afford to pay for the storage of your body, a prisoner released from the same prison may get downloaded in your body, referred to as a "sleeve".



The question is, and I have been thinking a lot about this, whether you would still be you.

I mean, don&#39;t we consider ourselves to be our brains, in a manner of speaking?

This was my first thought, which means one would get killed every time one would swap bodies, as the mind in that body gets replaced with that of the new occupant.

But it&#39;s more than that, in the book the protagonist also looks at other bodies, and it seems to me he&#39;s thinking about them as one would a car, "is it modified", "tuned up" and so forth.

So it seems to me that he identifies himself by the information in his hard-drive rather than that in his mind.

EDit: form.

I&#39;ve read the whole thread now. It certainly is very interesting, SnnY you make a good chairman. I particularly liked the part about the teleport in Star-Trek, I think in a similar way but am not much concerned with the philosophy behind having our molecules ripped apart and then reconstructed because provided they are reconstructed in exactly the same way, I see no problem.

I think a little different to the others in the thread, apart from ck-uk it seems.

I consider myself to be encompassed completely in my brain, and yes, I think of my body as a &#39;sleeve&#39; if you&#39;d like to put it that way. I&#39;ve taken great care of my body through sport over time but I&#39;ve never thought I have to be contained inside it to continue being me.

I think all this can be summed up in a procedure which is almost science fact. A brain transplant would engender the same emotions and debates because if a perfect copy of the brain is made then it would be akin to a brain transplant. I&#39;d have no problem with that if it saved my life and if it was a success then I&#39;d still be the same person - though affected by the experience just as I&#39;m affected by every other experience in life. [/b][/quote]
So you do not beleive in a soul or higher conciousness, and beleive we are simply a sum of our component parts?

[ck-uk]

how could you be sure the conciousness would be kept alive, not just the data storage?

This would depend on the technology&#33;.

You have to hypothesize,make you opinion like us&#33;

[RGX]

Originally posted by ck&#045;uk@10 August 2004 - 21:13

how could you be sure the conciousness would be kept alive, not just the data storage?

This would depend on the technology&#33;.

You have to hypothesize,make you opinion like us&#33;

I am hypothesising. I am hypothesising that you might be wrong.

[manker]

Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by manker+10 August 2004 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker &#064; 10 August 2004 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 21:41
I, and others posting yesterday, had half a notion at least that we&#39;d cease to be even if we copied ourselves, that we wouldn&#39;t be here to experience things even as the new copy was walking around. At least purely from our point of view.

I felt I&#39;d be dead if if the information in my brain was copied, and the copy continued instead of me, whereas brenda suggested that the entire body is part of one&#39;s conciousness, which might mean that a new body wouldn&#39;t be you, either.



Would your answers mean that both of you, ck-uk and manker might be able to deal with the kind of world I described in my initial post?

<!--QuoteBegin-Re the book altered carbon

It&#39;s this sci-fi novel set in a distant future where people have these sort of hard-drives called cortical stacks in their necks.

Basically, it defines what is human.

When you go to prison, your mind, uploaded from the cortical stack, gets put on storage.

And unless you can afford to pay for the storage of your body, a prisoner released from the same prison may get downloaded in your body, referred to as a "sleeve".



The question is, and I have been thinking a lot about this, whether you would still be you.

I mean, don&#39;t we consider ourselves to be our brains, in a manner of speaking?

This was my first thought, which means one would get killed every time one would swap bodies, as the mind in that body gets replaced with that of the new occupant.

But it&#39;s more than that, in the book the protagonist also looks at other bodies, and it seems to me he&#39;s thinking about them as one would a car, "is it modified", "tuned up" and so forth.

So it seems to me that he identifies himself by the information in his hard-drive rather than that in his mind.

EDit: form.

I&#39;ve read the whole thread now. It certainly is very interesting, SnnY you make a good chairman. I particularly liked the part about the teleport in Star-Trek, I think in a similar way but am not much concerned with the philosophy behind having our molecules ripped apart and then reconstructed because provided they are reconstructed in exactly the same way, I see no problem.

I think a little different to the others in the thread, apart from ck-uk it seems.

I consider myself to be encompassed completely in my brain, and yes, I think of my body as a &#39;sleeve&#39; if you&#39;d like to put it that way. I&#39;ve taken great care of my body through sport over time but I&#39;ve never thought I have to be contained inside it to continue being me.

I think all this can be summed up in a procedure which is almost science fact. A brain transplant would engender the same emotions and debates because if a perfect copy of the brain is made then it would be akin to a brain transplant. I&#39;d have no problem with that if it saved my life and if it was a success then I&#39;d still be the same person - though affected by the experience just as I&#39;m affected by every other experience in life. [/b][/quote]
So you do not beleive in a soul or higher conciousness, and beleive we are simply a sum of our component parts? [/b][/quote]
That is correct. I see nothing worrying about the prospect of a new sleeve, apart from logistics (the procedure going awry) and aesthetics.

[Snee]

My problem, as you will now have read, is that I don&#39;t quite consider a copy of myself to be a continuation of my conciousness, but rather a new individual, this would have been different, I believe, if the copy had coexisted with my brain since before I had achieved self-awareness.


I would consider the process of swapping brains the death of me, so to speak.

From an outside point of view tho&#39;, for the people around me, I suppose I&#39;d still be me.

However, this is what I believe, what I&#39;d want is for the copy to be me, as much as I am. I think, somehow, that I&#39;d like that scenario much better, even tho&#39; I do not subscribe to it.

Perhaps, if I had that hard-drive implanted now, and lived for centuries, I would then consider the person on the drive as much me, as the person inside my brain would have existed only marginally longer than the copy.

Also, since my brain, even with much more advanced technology and medicine than that of today, would have a tendency to degenerate, and the copy might not, the copy might actually be what I considered to be me in the end.

[RGX]

Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 21:21
My problem, as you will now have read, is that I don&#39;t quite consider a copy of myself to be a continuation of my conciousness, but rather a new individual, this would have been different, I believe, if the copy had coexisted with my brain since before I had achieved self-awareness.


I would consider the process of swapping brains the death of me, so to speak.

From an outside point of view tho&#39;, for the people around me, I suppose I&#39;d still be me.

However, this is what I believe, what I&#39;d want is for the copy to be me, as much as I am. I think, somehow, iId like that scenario much better, even tho&#39; I do not subscribe to it.

Perhaps, if I had that hard-drive implanted now, and lived for centuries, I would then consider the person on the drive as much me, as the person inside my brain would have existed only marginally longer than the copy.

Also, since my brain, even with much more advanced technology and medicine than that of today, would have a tendency to degenerate, and the copy might not, the copy might actually be what I considered to be me in the end.

This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread, but you put it much more eloquently. To outsiders, you may appear you, but the essence of your conciouness may have been lost....this new you might be, for want of a better word...soulless. A sum of parts working together like Snny would.

[ck-uk]

Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 22:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ck&#045;uk@10 August 2004 - 21:13

how could you be sure the conciousness would be kept alive, not just the data storage?

This would depend on the technology&#33;.

You have to hypothesize,make you opinion like us&#33;

I am hypothesising. I am hypothesising that you might be wrong. [/b][/quote]
Ok.

enuff brain work for tonight&#33;&#33;

[manker]

I see that as a very valid concern SnnY. A person&#39;s perception would be particularly important given the suceptability of the mind to suggestion. If you didn&#39;t consider the &#39;new you&#39; to be SnnY then it probably wouldn&#39;t be.

However the continuation of conciousness inside my head would be perceived as unbroken if the procedure went as I imagine it would. The copy of the brain would be made at the exact point that I lost conciousness to the anaesthetic. The new brain would then be implanted to the new sleeve and I would wake up after the proceedure was over.

Even if it took years to complete, in my own mind it would have been seamless. That&#39;s why I&#39;m saying that I believe I&#39;d be the same person. Although as the first paragraph ^^ indicates, I can see why those with different opinions on the soul/higher conciousness issue may not feel the same way.

[RGX]

@ Ck: Mhmm...

[DanB]

Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 22:35
@ Ck: Mhmm...

Tut tut, sshh