Well, the "you" at the destination would believe that everything worked wonderfully. That doesn't mean that you didn't die though. The original stream of consciousness that defined the original you probably ended when you entered the transporter.
until finally it becomes negligible compared to the total processing taking place. At this moment the biological brain can be discarded, and conscience has completely migrated to the machine seamlessly, with no discontinuity - without "suicide".
Ah... maybe. Or maybe the machine portion starts doing most of the thinking as your brain loses function. Like brain damage, but on purpose. But you don't notice it since the machine is replacing the lost functions.
That the machine is replacing lost functionality does not automatically imply that it is taking on your consciousness. When the biological portion of your brain is gone, or just shriveled mostly away, your consciousness may go with it. Not that anyone else would notice, since the mechanical/silicon you would still act the same.
Without knowing how consciousness works there is no way to say one way or the other.
That assumes that the silicon analogue cells actually replicate consciousness. Since we cant explain consciousness at this point, it would be a pretty big thing to assume. With sufficiently advanced knowledge, I'm sure it's possible, but we're not anywhere near "sufficiently advanced" at this point.
It doesn't hurt that nearly every young man in the country is a trained militia-man, complete with combat weaponry. They can raise a relatively large army in a moments notice. I imagine that in addition to being officially neutral, is one of the main reasons they have not been invaded. I imagine it helps that they are almost entirely surrounded by mountains as well.
Has China sold some to Iran? Because China isn't going to declare war on the US. It would destroy their own economy. It's very likely that Chinese officials would be very grumpy about a US/Iran war, but they aren't going to join in.
That's why they wouldn't just barge right in. They would start by eliminating the Iranian air force and anti-aircraft weaponry. This would be followed by an aerial bombing campaign to take out all of the land based anti-ship missiles that they can find. Likewise with the smaller vessels. Only once the majority of such targets are eliminated would the main naval battle group advance. Mind you, Iran is fairly well equipped, but not really any more so than Iraq was the first time around.
and it was *questioning answers*, not the other way around...
No, it answers questions (after determining what the question actually is), and then phrases the answer as a question. Exactly the same as the human contestants.
Also, it's possible that such a virus could be released even if none of the researchers involved are insane. The article says that the research involved infecting ferrets with viral strains. There's a known history of PETA type folks breaking into research labs and releasing animals...
I decided a few years ago that a super-virus will almost definitely be released, eventually. The technology and knowledge is (relatively) easily accessible, there are more than enough crazy people out there, and it only takes one person getting infected to knock down the whole house of cards. It's just a matter of time. Honestly, I think the only promising defense we have for this scenario are potent generally effective antivirals. If we have effective antivirals, then we could possibly hold out long enough to develop a vaccine. Without that, society as it stands is probably pretty much screwed.
And what if one of those released research animals was one from the research project discussed in the article? Congratulations, you just unwittingly released a deadly virus into the general population.
Observation requires interaction with the entangled object. Interacting with it causes the wave function to collapse and the object "chooses" a definite state. There is no way to passively observe the entangled object.
To be fair, if you RTFA, you'll see a diagram showing the various measurements they had made. I've not counted them, but it appears to be several dozen different "spots" rather than the two that you suggested.
I don't see the attack that you did. They simply approached the talk differently.
The the basic argument that I heard from Haught was that the universe must have a purpose (more or less because we can't accept the alternative), and while science is valuable, it is not capable of determining what that purpose is due to it's limited view of reality/the universe. Thus religion is there to answer what science can not, and in that way is complementary to science. He didn't really address the opposing viewpoint.
Coyne basically argues that religion is not based on reality and thus can't give truths about the world. In that it is completely incompatible with science. He goes about it by directly addressing the opposing viewpoint and showing how the views are irrational.
Haught took that last part as being a personal attack, but it's fairly clear Coyne quoted Haughts ideas in his examples because they were pertinent to the argument that we was making (that religion is irrational). It wasn't a personal attack.
I think you are probably right with respect to "It is a future in which humans as we know them do not exist anymore." If the singularity occurs, and I don't see any reason that it wont, then the only way that humankind can remain relevant is to augment ourselves. Otherwise we'll never be able to keep up with the computers. Actually, even then I doubt we'll keep up with them. They'll advance so rapidly we'd be doing well to even understand them. Even if that weren't the case we would still compete among ourselves. Those that don't augment will be at a significant disadvantage compared to those that do. If you want to remain competitive you would have little choice.
Frankly we don't know much about consciousness. We can look at the electrochemical mechanics of neurons in the brain and see how impulses are triggered and the effects of those impulses as they work together to produce behaviors, memory, and language, but it would be fair to say that we haven't got a clue about how that arrangement leads to a consciousness.
Because of that, i think it's premature and a bit naive to assume that something that we create to replace a neuron will be capable of reproducing consciousness.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, France actually played a much larger part than the USA in the Libyan conflict.
Well, the "you" at the destination would believe that everything worked wonderfully. That doesn't mean that you didn't die though. The original stream of consciousness that defined the original you probably ended when you entered the transporter.
until finally it becomes negligible compared to the total processing taking place. At this moment the biological brain can be discarded, and conscience has completely migrated to the machine seamlessly, with no discontinuity - without "suicide".
Ah... maybe. Or maybe the machine portion starts doing most of the thinking as your brain loses function. Like brain damage, but on purpose. But you don't notice it since the machine is replacing the lost functions.
That the machine is replacing lost functionality does not automatically imply that it is taking on your consciousness. When the biological portion of your brain is gone, or just shriveled mostly away, your consciousness may go with it. Not that anyone else would notice, since the mechanical/silicon you would still act the same.
Without knowing how consciousness works there is no way to say one way or the other.
That assumes that the silicon analogue cells actually replicate consciousness. Since we cant explain consciousness at this point, it would be a pretty big thing to assume. With sufficiently advanced knowledge, I'm sure it's possible, but we're not anywhere near "sufficiently advanced" at this point.
It doesn't hurt that nearly every young man in the country is a trained militia-man, complete with combat weaponry. They can raise a relatively large army in a moments notice. I imagine that in addition to being officially neutral, is one of the main reasons they have not been invaded. I imagine it helps that they are almost entirely surrounded by mountains as well.
Has China sold some to Iran? Because China isn't going to declare war on the US. It would destroy their own economy. It's very likely that Chinese officials would be very grumpy about a US/Iran war, but they aren't going to join in.
That's why they wouldn't just barge right in. They would start by eliminating the Iranian air force and anti-aircraft weaponry. This would be followed by an aerial bombing campaign to take out all of the land based anti-ship missiles that they can find. Likewise with the smaller vessels. Only once the majority of such targets are eliminated would the main naval battle group advance. Mind you, Iran is fairly well equipped, but not really any more so than Iraq was the first time around.
and it was *questioning answers*, not the other way around...
No, it answers questions (after determining what the question actually is), and then phrases the answer as a question. Exactly the same as the human contestants.
Also, it's possible that such a virus could be released even if none of the researchers involved are insane. The article says that the research involved infecting ferrets with viral strains. There's a known history of PETA type folks breaking into research labs and releasing animals...
I decided a few years ago that a super-virus will almost definitely be released, eventually. The technology and knowledge is (relatively) easily accessible, there are more than enough crazy people out there, and it only takes one person getting infected to knock down the whole house of cards. It's just a matter of time. Honestly, I think the only promising defense we have for this scenario are potent generally effective antivirals. If we have effective antivirals, then we could possibly hold out long enough to develop a vaccine. Without that, society as it stands is probably pretty much screwed.
And what if one of those released research animals was one from the research project discussed in the article? Congratulations, you just unwittingly released a deadly virus into the general population.
That's called a hidden variable theory, and experiments have been done that show that hidden variable theories are incorrect.
Observation requires interaction with the entangled object. Interacting with it causes the wave function to collapse and the object "chooses" a definite state. There is no way to passively observe the entangled object.
Well, of course you can't observe the effect directly with your eyes. The light bouncing off of the diamond would break the entanglement.
I don't think you understand what entanglement means.
I've heard that hypothermia is actually one of the more peaceful ways to kick the bucket. Not that I'd like to try it.
Well at least this one is 3 to 5 years away rather than the 5 to 10 that is normally thrown about. Progress?
You're assuming that we actually have one ourselves.
I don't disagree that the dipole claim seems weak. However, It does seem to me that these results are interesting enough to warrant further inquiry.
To be fair, if you RTFA, you'll see a diagram showing the various measurements they had made. I've not counted them, but it appears to be several dozen different "spots" rather than the two that you suggested.
I don't see the attack that you did. They simply approached the talk differently.
The the basic argument that I heard from Haught was that the universe must have a purpose (more or less because we can't accept the alternative), and while science is valuable, it is not capable of determining what that purpose is due to it's limited view of reality/the universe. Thus religion is there to answer what science can not, and in that way is complementary to science. He didn't really address the opposing viewpoint.
Coyne basically argues that religion is not based on reality and thus can't give truths about the world. In that it is completely incompatible with science. He goes about it by directly addressing the opposing viewpoint and showing how the views are irrational.
Haught took that last part as being a personal attack, but it's fairly clear Coyne quoted Haughts ideas in his examples because they were pertinent to the argument that we was making (that religion is irrational). It wasn't a personal attack.
Yes, it could apply to a two lane (one in each direction) road. Keeping close to the edge of the road makes it easier for other drivers to pass.
This new experiment seems much more suited to examining the speed of neutrinos. Can't wait to hear the results.
One would assume that his concept does have an asteroid/sun insertion engine. It would only be the interstellar portion that would be engine-less.
I think you are probably right with respect to "It is a future in which humans as we know them do not exist anymore." If the singularity occurs, and I don't see any reason that it wont, then the only way that humankind can remain relevant is to augment ourselves. Otherwise we'll never be able to keep up with the computers. Actually, even then I doubt we'll keep up with them. They'll advance so rapidly we'd be doing well to even understand them. Even if that weren't the case we would still compete among ourselves. Those that don't augment will be at a significant disadvantage compared to those that do. If you want to remain competitive you would have little choice.
Frankly we don't know much about consciousness. We can look at the electrochemical mechanics of neurons in the brain and see how impulses are triggered and the effects of those impulses as they work together to produce behaviors, memory, and language, but it would be fair to say that we haven't got a clue about how that arrangement leads to a consciousness.
Because of that, i think it's premature and a bit naive to assume that something that we create to replace a neuron will be capable of reproducing consciousness.