What makes 'YOU' - you?

[Fred]

The problem is... how does one copy a human being?

You would have to probe all the individual atoms, the configuration of electrons yada yada yada, then presumably enter it into an alien 'god' supercomputer that can simulate all the relevant quantum fields (nevermind Descartes demons)

Enter Heisenberg, if we probe it, we alter the configuration.

So the initial state is forever hidden from us.

The way I see it, we could probably get fairly close to creating a clone, but then as you let the system evolve (even with identical stimulus) the two entities would diverge rapidly.

Theoretically if we ignore the initial state problem, and we had a 'god' computer that could simulate things to amazing accuracy in a perturbation series (since I imagine the eqns are not analytic) then yea we would have a perfect clone.

But notice how the assumptions get dangerously close to religion.

 

[Natoma]

I don't know if Heisenberg can be used to discuss brain transferral techniques. Currently we have ways of imaging the brain such as those that use magnetic resonance. Does that mean that whenever you undergo a CAT scan or MRI that you come out of the tube as a different person, merely because of the scan itself?

I think not.

Personally, I believe that the mind/soul/consciousness is a byproduct of the brain structure itself. I believe that consciousness forms due to the way in which the brain interprets the electrochemical signals that are created in the hippocampus. Our consciousness, i.e. who we are individually, is the interpretation of those electrochemical signals.

I get burned. Electrochemical signals race through my nervous system to my spinal cord, which connects directly to my brain. The signals will run into a similar configuration in stored memory (electrochemical in nature) and possibly bring up a parallel occurrence and another memory of that event will come to the front of your mind, so to speak. An electrochemical marker denoting the experience is then stored in memory in electrochemical status. If no similar configuration exists, a new one is formed and the feeling of pain is associated with it. Much in the way that a new taste of food, such as chocolate was for me, is associated with the feeling of pleasure, for instance.

The brain is basically a electrochemical computer. Our computer just happens to be more advanced than any other creature on the planet. Frankly that's one reason why I believe that if you took all the information stored on everyone's computer and wrote one program to interface with all of that information effectively, we'd have one conscious being instantly, via the internet. If you look at the topology of the internet, it very much mirrors the topology of the human brain. It's just that with the internet, each neuron is its own individual island, as opposed to working as a whole, as they do in our brain.

AI, imo, is not going to be as difficult to 'solve' as people think.

 

[Himself]

I thinik there could be intelligent machines, but it wouldn't be anything like a human unless it had our senses and could move around and experience things on it's own. It would also probably take 20 years before it was worth talking to, just like a human.

 

[Fred]

'Does that mean that whenever you undergo a CAT scan or MRI that you come out of the tube as a different person, merely because of the scan itself? '

Absolutely, in fact everytime a cosmic ray goes through your body, your future is changed.

A lot of brain activity is at the classical lvl, there is some quantum effects (say for instance resonance of carbon atoms like one learns in organic chem) but they are fairly small and semiclassical and the uncertainty principle (the wave nature of particles) is pretty muted out.

But its kinda like the weather, you change one ripple in a pond and you have already begun a process that will lead to the failure of your theory vs reality at some future time.

Keep in mind, one has to measure all activity instanenously.

 

[Natoma]

I understand what you're speaking about when you bring up the cosmic ray through the body changing your future and whatnot. But the many worlds theory of Quantum Mechanics doesn't automatically preclude the existence of those infinite worlds as being completely and irrevocably separate.

For instance, the mere fact that an atom changes automatically creates a new Quantum state universe. However, what we perceive as differences do not show up. So there are an infinite number of universes that are the same as this universe, save for one atom out of alignment, somewhere in the universe. But does that change us as we perceive it? No.

 

[DemoCoder]

There is no need to copy down to the exact state of every electron unless you believe neurons are saving state by storing it electrically. Cryonic experiments that froze worms and revived them months later with neuron memories intact provide good evidence that learning is based on changes in physical configuration, not electrical. I believe there have also been experiments tha replaced nematode neurons with artificial neuron simulation that worked.

As for the soul in the exact copy, I was talking about a physical copy only. So you construct a human being with the same exact brain structure (at the molecular level). It claims to be the same as you, same memories, same personality (yes, they will diverge from that point pax, but that's not my question) My question is, does this copy have a soul? And if so, how did it get one?

 

[Natoma]

There is no need to copy down to the exact state of every electron unless you believe neurons are saving state by storing it electrically. Cryonic experiments that froze worms and revived them months later with neuron memories intact provide good evidence that learning is based on changes in physical configuration, not electrical. I believe there have also been experiments tha replaced nematode neurons with artificial neuron simulation that worked.

You could make the argument, however, that in a given instance where enough neutrinos bombard the atomic nuclei of your neurons (think heavy water experiments deep underground that show the existence of neutrinos), that it could cause the destabilization of your DNA, thus setting off a chain reaction of cancer within the memory centers of your brain, thus altering your consciousness and who you are.

There is an argument to be made for the atomic level directly affecting the macro. But then, that would not necessarily be a Quantum State universe that you could conceivably call "the same," as in the example I gave earlier wrt infinite quantum universes that are identical to your own, save for an atom out of alignment somewhere in that particular universe.

Use the frozen worm as an example. Let's say you choose a worm from this universe, and a worm from another universe with the exact same atomic signature. We'll say for experiment sake that the atom-out-of-alignment is in the virgo cluster. So the two worms are completely and irrefutably identical in every way from the micro to the macro.

If you freeze both using the same exact technique, same exact machines, to the same exact microsecond, there is a good chance that you will have changed one worm because one of the atoms in one of the worms' brain is different than the other, despite the identical freezing process. This would be in line with the heisenberg principle. However, I don't believe that the very essence of the worm would be irrevocably different. Only if you're studying it from a classical heisenberg viewpoint would it be different. But we're talking about consciousness now, and consciousness is something far more defined than one particular atom.

I'm merely saying that the argument can be made for both, and should not be so quickly discounted.

 

[DemoCoder]

And in digital circuits, a particle can strike a trace and alter voltage, by say, 10%, but that doesn't neccessarily switch a 0 into a 1. On your AM radio station playing Mozart, you can have interference, but still the essence of Mozart is still there and the song's information (the melody/notes) haven't been altered. An analog system may look on the surface to have more precision, but from a Shannon information theory point of view, it has less than other digital systems. (most people who think about analog precision fail to consider signal to noise)

There are some who believe that animal nervous systems are utilizing every last trick in the book to pack information, and while there is no way to disprove them at our current stage, it is a hypothesis that is needlessly multiplied. We understand enough about the theory of computation, and about bio-molecular mechanics to theorize how the information and processing can be done classically, utilizing knowledge at the level of chemistry and thermodynamics. For example, we know one way life stores information: DNA, and it is completely classical. We know how it is transcoded, and how it is executed (ribosomes for example). We know much of how proteins work is based on their geometric structure, as a sort of routing mechanism for instruction signaling. I don't expect neurons to be any different (classical). Like I said, much of the hoping for QM in neurons is some yearning for our intelligence or life processes to be "special" above and beyond mechanics.

 

[Fred]

One doesn't need to invoke the many worlds interpretation of QM. Just a thought experiment. Imagine two identical worlds, one where the human has a cosmic ray going through him (it doesnt even have to flip a bit), the other without. I contend from time t = 0 to t = infinity, the two entities will diverge at some point.

Fundamentally, neurons are electrical entities. They have voltage drops, charge etc etc. By bouncing photons off them from say a microscope, we alter the EM field configuration in a small though potentially dangerous way (Aharanov-Bohm effect in pathological cases). I very much doubt we will ever be able to capture the initial state flawlessly.

The two entities will still probably be very similar, (same tastes, more or less the same memories, etc) but they will diverge.

 

[DemoCoder]

You don't even have to go that far. Even a perfect replica down to quantum state would begin diverging immediately because his position is different than the original. He will be breathing in difference air molecules, observing from different angles, etc etc

The question of course is if these divergences really matter. It could be that the integral of all these minute environment effects is essentially a random number generator input to our system. However, it is not neccessarily true that there is enough signal to matter. For example, let's say you ask me to think of a number between 1 and 10. It may be that the number I come up with is a function of mostly classical information processes according to my mood, short term memory, etc and that any external inputs aren't enough to push a neuron that wasn't going to fire over a threshold value.

Over time, certainly the two beings will diverge. They would diverge even if they were in a purely classical realm isolated from the rest of the universe.

I think the real question is, whether or not any of these effects (cosmic rays, EM radiation, QM effects) get amplified to the point where they affect our macroscopic thought processes in ways that matter (instead of just random perturbations) The universe, our environment, buy and large has a dramatic effect on our mental development. The question is, what is the importance of classical macroscopic effects and QM effects in how our brain works.

 

[Fred]

Well I was talking about the case with equal stimuli. eg hook up your human subjects sensory nerves to a constant input.. Have your computer simulation take in identical data, etc etc.

The transition from qms to the classical case is always a problem, it is not perfectly well understood by any means (eg Schroedingers cat) so its hard to say. One can make approximations for simple cases, but its still problematic at a fundamental conceptual lvl.

The divergences of course will amplify over time, since even very small differences in states will take in the environmental data differently.

Of course, there will probably still be hardwired sections of your brains that are not energetically favored to change all that much. I imagine a child clone might show much larger discrepancies than a grown adult.

 

[zidane1strife]

mathematics.... truths.... they are beyond matter, beyond energy... the brain it allows for awareness, for emotion, for memory... but what is it that is aware? I think the essence of the mind, of reality is deeper than many seem to think.

Ask a boy what is the color blue... he will likely answer the color of the sky.... ask a physicist what blue is... and he will give you a more complex answer... ask a wiseman... and he will not know what it is...

Atleast then we will have a two fold solution: first, proof of the radical materialist view of the brain, and secondly, no need for a "religious" crutch anymore in society, since if you want to live forever, there's the technology to do it.

The technology that will be available within this and the next century is not going to allow you to live biologically/mechanically forever, you might not age, or get sick, but your body can be destroyed... you will change, chances are your present self, will eventually change...

To me, sleep without REM is death.

To me too, and it gives an example of life after death... every day... go far enough in space or time... let infinities pass... in either... and see.... that GL was not lying when he said "far far away..."...

Personally, I believe that the mind/soul/consciousness is a byproduct of the brain structure itself.

Well, I too believe the brain allows what many call consciousness to arise, with its processes.... emotions, memories, awareness.... It is a machine that allows a portion of reality to be aware of itself....

You don't even have to go that far. Even a perfect replica down to quantum state would begin diverging immediately because his position is different than the original.

Isn't that quantum teleportation, isn't the original material automatically teleported if a perfect copy is made?

 

[DemoCoder]

The technology that will be available within this and the next century is not going to allow you to live biologically/mechanically forever, you might not age, or get sick, but your body can be destroyed... you will change, chances are your present self, will eventually change...

So what? I'm changing right now by responding to this message. I'm just interested in the continuation of my personality/consciousness. I'm not interesting in remaining identical to the way I am now forever. When I look back just 10 years, I see I am a dramatically different person today. I'm not sad, since I improved. If technology is available to extend life, and in 100 years, I am much different than today, I won't regret it.

You can't guarantee death from accident or other mechanisms (Sun dies, killer asteroid wipes everything out, etc) but atleast you won't die of the terminal disease that every human being is born with: aging. Depending on technology, you can lower the probability of accidental death. Produce backup copies, send them on colony missions to other areas of the solar system, or further.




Quantum teleportation isn't teleportation in the star trek sense. It just allows you to copy the quantum state of a source particle onto a destination particle, and in the process, it disrupts the state of the original.

Quantum state cannot be copied non-destructively.

 

[darkblu]

I think the real question is, whether or not any of these effects (cosmic rays, EM radiation, QM effects) get amplified to the point where they affect our macroscopic thought processes in ways that matter (instead of just random perturbations) The universe, our environment, buy and large has a dramatic effect on our mental development. The question is, what is the importance of classical macroscopic effects and QM effects in how our brain works.

don't be mistaking the actual phenomenas for the related (human) notions the former get addressed by. "macroscopic" effects are just as much a subject to quantum interactions as "microscopic effects" ('micro' and 'macro' are human-invented notions, nothing more).
as about your question, i believe it is generally addressed by classic electrodynamics, combined with a healthy dose of statistics (which two just happen to look at things from their respective POVs).

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, but macroscopic effects are an aggregate of an uncountable number of microscopic level effects occuring, leading to emergent behavior, that is well, hard to predict from first principles without massive amounts of computation. Just look at how much computation relatively simple calculations in Quantum Chromodynamics requires. Or for that matter, attempting to calculate the chemical properties of atoms, say Oxygen, from the underlying quantum mechanics.

You can tell me that the operation of an apple is based on microscopic quantum mechanics, but show me an Apple that can tunnel, be in a superposition, or produce interference patterns when fired through slits.


When someone says the brain is taking advantage of a Quantum Effect, they don't mean classic chemistry, they mean, the brain is relying on effects like superposition, entanglement, tunneling, etc that decoherence isn't occuring, etc This is qualitatively difference than saying that everything (chemistry, biology, psychology) is ultimately a manifestation of particle physics.

I believe life processes work at the level of aggregate macroscopic effects: chemistry, stochastic processes, thermodynamics, etc. I do not believe exotic QM effects are needed to explain how self replicating molecules work and can produce a myriad of other molecules that can function to do specific tasks.

 

[darkblu]

Yes, but macroscopic effects are an aggregate of an uncountable number of microscopic level effects occuring, leading to emergent behavior, that is well, hard to predict from first principles without massive amounts of computation. Just look at how much computation relatively simple calculations in Quantum Chromodynamics requires. Or for that matter, attempting to calculate the chemical properties of atoms, say Oxygen, from the underlying quantum mechanics.

yes, and still that does not change the fact that above phenomena are computable in quantum terms. the amount of calculations itself is irrelevant, as long as it's finite. just look at how much calculation a singe frame of your favourite FPS takes - a 19th century accountant could get a heart attack from the sheer numbers!

You can tell me that the operation of an apple is based on microscopic quantum mechanics, but show me an Apple that can tunnel, be in a superposition, or produce interference patterns when fired through slits.

hmm. are you positive you would distinguish those phenomena if you were shown an apple performing those?

When someone says the brain is taking advantage of a Quantum Effect, they don't mean classic chemistry, they mean, the brain is relying on effects like superposition, entanglement, tunneling, etc that decoherence isn't occuring, etc This is qualitatively difference than saying that everything (chemistry, biology, psychology) is ultimately a manifestation of particle physics.

and why wouldn't it be quantitatively different? just becasue the observer does not have the computational/intellectual power to perceive the phenomenon at its quantum level? or are you denying the fact that it exists on a quantum level in the first place?

I believe life processes work at the level of aggregate macroscopic effects: chemistry, stochastic processes, thermodynamics, etc. I do not believe exotic QM effects are needed to explain how self replicating molecules work and can produce a myriad of other molecules that can function to do specific tasks.

/bolding on my part/

'explanation' supposes an intelligent being trying to comprehend something. therefor, an explanation per se is bound to the intellectual capacity of that explanation consumer. you can explain to a 3-year-old what makes her stand on the ground, but do you believe you could explain to her the essence of the weak, electormagnetic, strong & gravity forces? the fact that humans, being intelligent beings, utilize broad approximations and generalizations does not mean that the universe works that way, i believe you see my poin.

 

[V3]

As for the soul in the exact copy, I was talking about a physical copy only. So you construct a human being with the same exact brain structure (at the molecular level). It claims to be the same as you, same memories, same personality (yes, they will diverge from that point pax, but that's not my question) My question is, does this copy have a soul? And if so, how did it get one?

If this copy is a living human, not machine, then there is a soul. A unique soul different from the original, even if everything else is made to be the same.

If you can implant your exact brain structure, to your copy which is also human, than its just similar to something like possesion, except without transfering your soul. So in effect, you're just passing information, similar to genetic information, but on a whole new level.

Death occur when the soul seperates from the body. So when you're replacing yourself with cybernatic parts and become full android, if death occur, than that android is just android who has your information. Your soul would be else where already.

 

[notAFanB]

If this copy is a living human, not machine, then there is a soul. A unique soul different from the original, even if everything else is made to be the same.

hang on what's your basis for this? I'm not going to quote the rest of your post since it seeems entirely dependent on the above.

just to clarify I am not asking for reasoning behind the 'soul'. only assumption that it cannot be copied (functionally equivalent) nor tranfered.

thanks.

 

[V3]

The basis is this, every human has physical body and spiritual soul. Memories, senses, awareness, brain activity, intelligence, ect are attributed to physical body. So another physical body even if it is made to be the same, will have a different soul.

So, there is no such thing as copying or cloning yourself to immortality, like say what that Relian(sp?) belive.

Of course if you're not Christian you won't belive in these things.

 

[Fred]

V3 surely you see the paradox there. What if I was to piecemeal replace human tissue one by one with different atoms (an android is still composed of elements).

At one time, the transition from a state with a soul to a state without a soul is comprimised of exactly replacing one atom.

Nevermind that this is impossible or silly, but just for arguments sake.