Slashdot Mirror


Download Your Brain

Nicholas Roussos writes "Futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson predicts that death will be avoidable in the year 2050 by downloading your brain to a computer. Unfortunately, he is also predicting that the process will be only available to the wealthy for years after its release. I guess we should all start saving our pennies now."

43 of 1,147 comments (clear)

  1. It's a copy by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, like a photocopy. What's the point, you'd still be dead.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It's a copy by madprof · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quite. The only benefit might be that you can have arguments with yourself before you die, which would be quite cool.
      This is just for the vainglorious.

    2. Re:It's a copy by kpwoodr · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.

      --
      This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    3. Re:It's a copy by mrdaveb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Conciousness is so poorly understood that I don't think you can even say that for sure. Am 'I' the matter or the data in my brain? If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

      --
      Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
    4. Re:It's a copy by tanguyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?

      Well, until someone invents a person-capable teleportation device, i think the answer is No.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    5. Re:It's a copy by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the copy might disagree with you.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:It's a copy by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every cell in your body dies and is replaced over a scale of seven years or so. You're not the original you, having been replaced multiple times with a 'copy'. Care to redefine your idea of conciousness?

    7. Re:It's a copy by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The difference is continuity. If you replace a tiny piece of yourself, you are still the same person. The new peice is integrated into the rest of your previous self. Do it again, you are still the same person. Regardless of how many time it is done, you are still the same person, even if every original peice of you is replaced. However, if you replace everything at once, there is no longer any 'previous self' for the new peices to be integrated into, and continuity is lost.

    8. Re:It's a copy by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      After much searching, I'm thinking of James Patrick Kelly and his story "Think Like a Dinosaur", first published in August of 1997 A quoted summary here: ""Think Like a Dinosaur", uses two props of the genre, aliens and matter transmitters, to set up the narrator's moral dilemma. Michael Burr works for the hanen, an alien race resembling dinosaurs: he guides infrequent human star-travellers through the 'migration' process. In the course of the transfer, the humans are copied, one of the copies travelling on to their stellar destination, while the other is exterminated before regaining consciousness - the hanen way of thinking (hence the story's title) allows no sentimentality over the eradication of the copy left behind. When Burr releases a traveller from a malfunctioning device, only to discover that transfer has actually been effected, he must end the life of the copy he can only view as human... In this story, the technology is not cutting edge but a device of artistic licence, which aficionados of Hard SF might deplore - a clever method of achieving an artistic end: the unflinching examination of the human psyche, and Kelly does it brilliantly"

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    9. Re:It's a copy by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      A sad scientist was once heard to say,
      To upload my brain, I have found a way,
      But my memory contains
      Things not public domain
      And I'd violate DMCA.


      Hello alcohol, goodbye Karma. 8) Seriously, I just got this image of the RIAA breaking into the lab 'cause the cloned brain remembered the Happy Birthday lyrics.


      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    10. Re:It's a copy by lobsterGun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about this:

      a person has a special chip inserted in their skull that records their brain state over the course of their lifetime. The chip is wirelessly connected to the backup system and keeps it constantly and updated. Would that be a valid backup?

      Or how about this:

      Over the course of a lifetime, a person has various parts of their brain replaced/augmented with technology.

      Some of the implants replaced damaged brain functions (damage from a stroke).

      Some augment the senses (heads up display).

      Some add new capability (robo-telepathy).

      Eventually, the person replaces their entire brain to the point that they no longer need a body and can exist in a virtual world.

      When do they cease to be human?
      Is it when the last brain cell is replaced?
      Is it when the first one gets replaced?
      Is it somewhere in the middle?

    11. Re:It's a copy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The first thing it will probably say is, "What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"

      How would he/I know which was the copy?

      If you're going to investigate personal identity via gedankenexperiments involving copying "minds", you have to consider cases where someone might be unknowingly copied.

      Consider: some dark stormy night, a stranger who looks a lot like you shows up at your front door, explaining how while you were under general anaesthesia getting your wisdom teeth out a few years ago, they made a copy - you - and sent the original off on a top-secret mission...

      (This would be especially interesting if you were someone who held the belief that a "copy" isn't really a person, or is not personally-identical to the person before the copy.)

      we and all other animals are just machines.

      Your use of the word "just" reflects an unwarranted value judgement. If I am a machine, it follows that machines can be pretty damn wonderful. (I'm sure that using the word "machine" in that sense of "something that follows the `laws' of physics" is useful or informative - there would be nothing material that wasn't a machine.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:It's a copy by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a rather odd viewpoint you have.

      While I don't consider myself religious by any means, I don't see any reason to disbelieve that Jesus, Achilles, or Buddha were real people. While there's not enough evidence to give me overwhelming reason to believe in their existence, as there is with, for example, Napoleon, there's not enough evidence to disbelieve them either.

      This is history we're dealing with here, not science. Things in history, especially ancient history, don't need to be proven with overwhelming evidence, simply because such evidence just isn't available. What's important is to be aware of the facts surrounding any historical evidence, and keep in mind that it may not be completely accurate.

      I believe that a lot of mythological things came from true happenings. Things happen, and people talk about them. Since we're dealing with ancient times, and primitive, uneducated people, they don't retell the stories very accurately, and the stories aren't written down immediately. Over time, reality turns into myth. For instance, Achilles may well have been a real Greek warrior, but certainly not with any supernatural powers. But he was so proficient that common people thought he had them. Over time, various stories are written down, and a guy who was just a great warrior turns into a demigod. Perhaps the reality of Jesus is similar.

      We won't know the real truth about these people until someone invents a device which allows us to watch the past on a TV screen (check out Arthur C. Clarke's "Light of Other Days"). But this doesn't mean we should just discount that they ever existed in any form just because we don't have Achilles' diary in a museum.

    13. Re:It's a copy by LesPaul75 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trust me -- this is a road you don't want to go down. Your wife will die in childbirth, your children will be hidden from you, and the guy who used to be your best friend in the world will hack your limbs off. And then, just to rub salt in the wound, he'll tell your son that you're "more machine than man now, twisted and evil." What a prick.

  2. Gives a whole new meaning... by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to the blue screen of death.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  3. Meh. by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Futurologist is a cool title. I wish I'd invented it myself. Looking at any prediction anyone makes upon the future that far out is, well, ludicrous. This man is 'looking' 75 years into the future. If you look 75 years back you see: The Great Depression The Rise and Fall of Communism The Rise of the Computer The creation of massive individualized transportation Just to name a few. Great. But projecting things that far out doesn't quite deal with the possibility that this was an anomaly in human history. He's making assumptions based upon a dozen factors that psychics ARE more qualified to look at. Example from TFA: The Playstation 5 will be as powerful as the human brain. How could this not be him talking out of his rear end? 2020? People, as a rule, don't follow lines straight enough that you can figure out what they're going to be doing tomorrow. When someone predicts a phenomenon like BitTorrent 20 years ahead of time, I'll listen to them. Until then, well, you're just blowing steam. As for avoiding death, well, let's just say that IF a supergenius computer driven by 'emotion' suddenly appears, I personally will convince it that immortal humans are the best companions for it from the command line. Then we'll wait a week and suddenly teh supar majikul mind-to-computer link will suddenly put me inside as wil_e_coyote_super_Genius.o I get the cool filename. You heard the dibs here.

  4. BS by astro_ripper · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As Penn and Teller have stated before:

    He picked those numbers for his theory because he'll be dead by then.

    The end.

  5. Woo-hoo. Or not... by Ciaran_H · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh yay, so Bill Gates gets to be immortal as well as evil.

    "What are we going to do this millenium, Bill?"
    "Same as we do every millenium, Ballmer..."

  6. Unfortunately.... by AugstWest · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they forgot the -p flag when dumping it, and people will be restored with no moral codes.

  7. He's wrong. by podperson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Making a copy of yourself doesn't avoid death for you, it just means ongoing life for a copy of you.

    This is not a subtle point.

    Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot. Anyone who uses the title "futurologist" is likely the latter.

    1. Re:He's wrong. by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Interesting
      How do you know when you wake up in the morning that you are really the same person that went to bed the previous night? You don't have continuity of consciousness through the entire night. Maybe the "you" of yesterday died, and you are just a copy; how would you know? ("I'd know the difference." "No you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to.")

      If you went to the "uploading clinic", and they put you under a general anaestheic, uploaded you, and terminated the leftover hunk of meat, how would that be different than simply going to sleep and waking up (albeit in a new "body")?

      As you said,

      This is not a subtle point.

      Anyone who cannot grasp this either hasn't thought deeply about a subject, or is an idiot.

  8. Not for me by e_AltF4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NEVER do a backup without a working restore !

  9. News? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought this was supposed to be 'News for Nerds', not 'Speculation for Halfwits'...

    From TFA:

    He thinks that today's younger generation will benefit from the advances in technology to the point that death will be effectively eliminated. He explains his logic with a simple example.
    "The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain," he said. "It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain."

    OK...so where does that put the Xbox?
    Seriously, this 'explanation' of his 'logic' leaves much to be desired...but there's more.
    Also from TFA:

    It [Pearson's AI] would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an airplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

    Hmm...but what if the AI is a thrillseeker? Suicidal? Psychotic? What if it suddenly develops acrophobia? If we're going to have a true AI with emotions, these are issues that need to be addressed, don't you think?
    Here's another few nuggets from TFA:

    "You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched."

    Well, that 'completely global debate' should be ready by the release of PlayStation 5...

    'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

    'Smart yoghurt'? Sure I guess it's possible to think of that...about as possible as it is to think of magical elves, unicorn-riding gnomes, and smart futurologists.

    One thing conspicuously missing from this article is speculation over the possible legal status of either a true AI or a downloaded brain. Apparently, that paragraph got bumped in favor of 'smart yoghurt'.

    In short, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day (and I work in IT support). I'm sure that if Dr. Pearson didn't already have such a sweet position as 'head of the Futurology unit at BT', he could make good money writing speculative fiction...or reading palms.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  10. self centered by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After I have gone, young people will come with new ideas, new dreams, new problems. They will require the (intellectual) space fat ass rich guys will claim for their eternal life. I do not believe I have achieved enough in this world for my mind to persist past my body. All good things come to an end, and this includes me!

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  11. Not really living. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living".

    In other news, a new "smart bomb" that kills the very rich without harming the poor has been discovered... they call it an EMP.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Not really living. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until computers can smoke joints and get a buzz, drink beer and get a buzz, and have orgasms, I won't consider it "living".

      Maybe they will restrict the operation to those who do things to their brain other than try to deaden it and give way to instinct.

      As Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is someone who has found one thing that's more interesting than sex."

      And EMP wipes electronics, but doesn't destroy the contents of hard drives. You would be safe as long as you weren't stupid enough to download your brain to flash memory.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  12. Old T Shirt by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I haven't lost my mind; I'm sure it's backed up on tape somewhere."

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  13. Re:The obvious question... by m50d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What makes you the same person who went to sleep last night? Your conscious experience wasn't continuous, all that really makes you who you are is the things in your brain, the memories and personality and so on. If it's a perfect replica of your brain, the experience will be the same. If you were killed in your sleep last night and a replica made and put in your place, how would you even know?

    --
    I am trolling
  14. Yeah, whatever. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You may be able to download the electrical state - but that is FAR from certain, as the brain is very noisy, electrically - but how would you download the chemical state? Seratonin levels aren't exactly going to be trivial to scan, remotely.


    And once you have the chemical composition and the electrical composition, you ALSO need to know the wiring - the wiring between the neurons is unique to an individual, and isn't going to be easy to determine.


    Ok, so now you have all of the core information. Is it still useful? Well, no. You now need to know the physical layout of the brain - all the folds, the exact proximity of A to B, that sort of thing.


    Ok, is THIS enough? Still no. You still lack information on sensory input. You need to know what the range is on different nerves, because the brain is going to adjust to what the nerves deliver. If you don't know what the nerves deliver, then you don't know what sort of data the brain is expecting.


    NOW, is that enough? No. You need to know what the data is that is being fed into the brain. For example, those with tetrochromatic vision will be getting data in a whlly different format from those with trichromatic vision, and both will be different from those with bichromatic vision.


    Once you have all of this information, you MAY be able to reconstruct a person's brain well enough to be able to function identically. The keyword is MAY. As technology improves, our knowledge of the brain is improving. It is still seriously incomplete, but it is improving. There is so far no proof that we will ever know enough to actually duplicate the brain, although there is also no proof that we won't. All we have proof of, right now, is that we can't, right now.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  15. From Neuromancer by Dragon218 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    by William Gibson

    He turned on the tensor beside the Hosaka. The crisp circle of light fell directly on the Flatline's construct. He slotted some ice, connected the construct, and jacked in. It was exactly the sensation of someone reading over his
    shoulder.
    He coughed. "Dix? McCoy? That you man?" His throat was tight.
    "Hey, bro," said a directionless voice.
    "It's Case, man. Remember?"
    "Miami, joeboy, quick study."
    "What's the last thing you remember before I spoke to you, Dix?"
    "Nothin'."
    "Hang on." He disconnected the construct. The presence was gone. He reconnected it. "Dix? Who am I?"
    "You got me hung, Jack. Who the fuck are you?"
    "Ca--your buddy. Partner. What's happening, man?"
    "Good question."
    "Remember being here, a second ago?"
    "No."

    --

    "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
  16. Mathologist by nrlightfoot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just don't become a Mathologist, because 50 - 5 = 45, not 75.

    --
    what sig?
  17. ObSpock by Rufus88 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, doctor. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."
    --Spock, to Dr. McCoy, in "The Ultimate Computer"

  18. Re:download? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Irrelevant. You have no more (or less) facility in your own brain for initiating download than upload.

    The extropians have been using the term "upload" for many years, as has science fiction. It's based on standard use of computer industry terminology.

    I routinely use my laptop to initiate either uploads to or downloads from a server. And sometime the server initiates uploads from or downloads to my laptop (e.g., Z-modem). The terminology has nothing to do with which side initiates the transfer. It is a convention based on "up" being "to the (conceptually) bigger system". I certainly don't want to transfer my mind into a system that has less capacity than my current brain, so I want to upload it.

    And your "facility" claim doesn't even make sense. My brain does have the facility to initiate an upload, just as much as it has the facility to travel to Australia. My brain can choose to have my body buy an airline ticket and drive to the airport, or just as easily, to drive to an upload center, walk in the door, and sign the appropriate paperwork.

    The big questions are whether I will live long for the service to be available, and whether I'll be able to afford it. In his book "The Age of Spritual Machines", Ray Kurzweil makes a reasonably convincing argument that I will, thanks to Moore's Law.

    Ray points out that even if Moore's Law runs out of steam with regard to MOSFET technology, that there is good reason to believe that it will apply equally well to new technologies, since the known laws of physics still have "lots of room at the bottom" (as observed by Richard Feynman). He shows that Moore's law actually extrapolates fairly accurately all the way back to late 19th century mechanical calculators.

  19. "The wealthy... by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    will be able to download their consciousness into computers by 2050 - the not so well off by "2075 or 2080", claims futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson, head of the Futurology unit at BT."

    The second thing that comes to Senor Programmer, futureologistismo extroadinaires mind is...
    Once again those who wait will benefit from the excursions and expense of early adopters. The first thing was tooo involved to type fast and follows with SP's predictions as coda.

    Thing the first. Why is it that these arts and letters types, and Ian surely is one, Otherwise he'd be out working on brain loading rather than trying t get his arse in the history books as the prognisticating dude who ripped off my AC comments to /. and got his other A&L buds to print it. Or perhaps it's his barber shop dipl0ma d0ct0rate in the social upheavals resulting from the simple overhand knot as misapplied in early French lamb gut scum bag manufacturing. Which reminds me of that fugs tune, Saran Wrap. But I digress and am not to thing the first yet, it being...

    That why the heck is is always "the rich" or "the wealthy" with these A&L futurologists? I'll tell you why. Because it fits their hidden agenda of control through class warfare, that's why. Keep those brain loading researchers in their place by pointing out that they are working for THE MAN and not for the community good. But what does he care? He's a wealthy futurologist. Oh yeh, his position of wealth is both secure and non-suspect if he maintains his position as 'one who knows best' between the evil technocrats, scientists, engineers, and the 'po folk'.

    Coda follows as it by definition must.

    BZZZZTTTTTTT Ian's full of shit.

    First. It's not a matter of 'loading' ones brain into some bit of hardware. It's integration of that hardware into the brain function to the degree that, as has been observed for decades with other prosthetics, the brain ceases to recognize the machine as distinct from itself. As brain function is slowly replaced and integrated there will come a point at which the brain is totally aware of it's self yet that self is totally contained within the hardware which replaced it. WIth the rapidly declining cost of hardware and synthetic diamond for physical interfacing, it's more likely that somone will discover that he has been a machine for many years rather than consciously set out to 'load' his self into that machine. See the machine. Become one with the machine. Be the machine. But in this case, machine becomes you instead.

    PS
    If anyone is interested in a FOSS hardware-software project that will show up THE MAN and put the first consciousness, I propose a dog because you never know with cats and monkeys tend to toss unpleasant stuff about, in hardware, please let me know. Seriously. Well maybe not the dog part but the ever growing in functionality brain prosthetic would be FUN.

    PSS volunteers will be considered in order of descending donor ranking

  20. Re:Soulless by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uh, your memory engrams may be downloadable, but your consciousness and soul will die right along with your body.

    Doesn't that imply your soul is organic? I thought the point of a soul is a mechanism for an afterlife?

    Here's an interesting thought experiment. Say you have very good prosthetic and nanotechnology available. As you age your natural body starts to fail. You have organs, limbs, bones, even blood replaced over time. As your skin fails a nice polymer replaces it (with excellent nerve replacements of course so you don't notice a difference).

    Do you still have a soul at that point?

    OK, now your body is failing even more. Over another couple decades you've replaced everything in your body except for your brain with mechanical systems.

    Do you still have a soul at that point?

    Now, your nerves start to degenerate and your brain isn't signaling well. You get some nano-bots in there to replace the dendrites and get the neurons signalling right again.

    Do you still have a soul at that point?

    Finally the neurons are starting to go and you get some more nanotech in there that can replace failing ones on the fly as they go with more stable structures. Over the next 20 years all of your neurons are slowly replaced by nanotech, but it's very gradual so you don't ever notice it.

    Do you still have a soul at that point?

    The trick in this experiment is picking the point at which you don't have a soul, if ever, and identifying the change that caused the soul. Of course, if you can identify the change that lost the soul, it follows you've identified the temple of the soul.

    Discussion encouraged.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  21. Re:The obvious question... by Famatra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you were killed in your sleep last night and a replica made and put in your place, how would you even know?"

    I wouldn't know because I'd be a copy. That does not negate the fact that a consciousness was destroyed even though a new one (me) exists. Destroyed meaning that subjective experience would cease, as in death.

    When a person his or her subjective viewpoint ceases irrespective if one or more copies exist to take its place. Having copies, each with their own conscious view point, does not negate the death of the original.

  22. I prefer AI toasters to yogurt. by puppet10 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Toaster: Would you like some toast?
    Lister: Mm-mm.
    Toaster: Some nice hot crisp brown buttered toast?
    Lister: Mm-mm.
    Toaster: You don't want any toast then?
    Lister: No.
    Toaster: What about a muffin?
    Lister: Nothing.
    Toaster: You know the last time you had toast? 18 days ago. 11:36,
    Tuesday the 3rd. Two rounds.
    Lister: Ssshhh!
    Toaster: I mean, what's the point of buying a toaster with artificial intelligence if you don't like toast?
    Lister: I do like toast!
    Toaster: I mean, this is my job! This is cruel, just cruel.
    Lister: Look, I'm busy.
    Toaster: Oh, you're not busy eating toast, are you?
    Lister: I don't want any!
    Toaster: I mean, the whole purpose of my existence is to serve you with hot, buttered, scrummy toast. If you don't want any, then my existence is meaningless.
    Lister: Good.
    Toaster: I toast, therefore I am.
    Lister: Will you shut up?
    [He goes back to sniffing his way through the book. Rimmer enters.]
    ...
    ...

    Lister: Rimmer, there's nothing out there, you know. There's nobody out there. No alien monsters, no Zargon warships, no beautiful blondes with beehive hairdos who say `Show me some more of this Earth thing called kissing'. There's just you, me, the cat, and a lot of floating smegging
    rocks. That's it. Finito.
    Rimmer: Lister, if there's no one out there, what's the point in existence? Why are we here?

    Toaster: Beats me. Do you want some toast?

    --
    -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
  23. Re:The obvious question... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny
    When I woke up, would I be the one on the left side of the bed, or the right side?

    Yes.
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  24. bittorrent yourself... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Funny

    And label yourself "stephen_hawking.torrent".

  25. Re:The Outer Limits, cryonics, Alcor, etc. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This topic of self-copying should certainly be worth considering for every person, seeing as how we are all marching toward certain personal oblivion. But trust me, whatever the Outer Limits scripts have to say about this is hugely irrelevant.

    Right, so you missed the whole point. The story deals with the person whose job it is to kill the original, not with the copying technology. I, for one, hadn't considered it before. It's worth thinking about.

    You see, I have a contract with Alcor to have my brain vitrified in liquid nitrogen until I am able to be revived. I hope to awaken in a future where uploading is available as an option for superlong life and space travel....

    How are they going to prevent ice crystal formation in your brain tissue? The ice crystals will break the dendrite connections - it's only those connections that define who you are as opposed to who I am.

    And why are you so afraid of death?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  26. Ok, I'll take this one... by rmdyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider the following sentence...

    "It is not possible to understand why a rose is beautiful through any materialistic philosophy."

    There are a few things wrong with this line of reasoning. First, the thinking is absolute. As if one way of knowing is any more important than another. Second, a rose only exists for you to ponder its beauty because of material processes. Its DNA design has no inherent beauty code. Beauty is a judgement made by the viewer. Third, is the assumption that the experience of feeling beauty isn't something that could be given to a machine. The experience of beauty is very likely to be simple reaction. The "qualia" of an observed thing definitely depends on many factors inherent in the design of the brain. And the design of the brain has been evolved through millions of years of evolution. A fly probably doesn't have the same qualia from a flower as it does road kill.

    Now, I have a real problem with anyone who tries to discount "materialism" as being outright wrong. Most of the people who do have a very hard time understanding the interconnectedness of physical and electrical systems. Many people who talk about the mind being some kind of spiritual energy have no idea of what they are talking about. Spiritual energy of what? What is that energy measured in, and what are the opposites which bring about this manifested energy? And how does this energy interact with physical systems? I say BS. Most of the people you've mentioned and the books you've stated are all from armchair philosophers who have very little knowledge of the world. Their understanding of the world is from a fairytale perspective that predicts nothing, and doesn't change our state of existance one iota.

    We humans are animals. We have arms, legs, hair, ears, eyes, a nose, and a mouth. We belch, have sex, and eat. There is nothing that makes us any more special than a baboon except some skills with our vocal cords and hands. It is completely disingenuous to create some kind of fluffy comfy chair world where we can fly around in our heads and withdraw into a state of self denial.

    Get real. Wake up and smell the coffee. Learn how to perform some integral calculus or Laplace transforms. Definitely learn some engineering and computer programming. Then and only then will I give my time for debate with overzealous flunkies like Casey and Silva.

  27. Yes, but... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..will I run linux? Can I run a beowulf cluster of me?

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  28. Re:Soulless by GreenMarine · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be funny if they discovered the appendix in fact housed the soul. "And all this time we thought it was relatively useless!"

    --
    Brandon Reinhart