True Immortality is possible

But the fact is the process doesn't demand the original "you" be killed. Consider the fact that there is no physical transfer of your mind, your original brain dies and you are gone. Any copy is not you, just a reproduced map of your neuronal network.

The only reason you would willingly believe that somehow this is something the REAL you is able to experience is because you're afraid of dying. Accept your death and live a better life as a result.

Someday I'll be a robot loli

I didn't say anything about physical transfers. How does not work for transferring consciousness?

Because what part is actually being transferred other than the information that makes up your mind?

The transfer is that you are CLONED, did you even read

I'd rather have pseudo immortality in the form of never aging until the day comes where without a doubt I can transfer my consciousness and still remain me rather than an identical copy. Regardless if true VR becomes a thing you could hypothetically alter how your brain processes time in order to live in a virtual world near indefinitely.

If you can't see how a clone isn't you then I have nothing else to say. Enjoy the false security of living forever, I hope it improves the quality of your (finite) life

Mind/Brain uploading is the only true form of absolute immortality as it enables the possibility of surviving the heat death of the universe.

Thus it infinitely eclipses any other types of so called immortality as mind/brain uploading is the only one that actually enable you experience/witness the true definition of "Eternity" and "Infinity".

Information/Data/Consciousness could theoretically survive the heat death of the universe.

newscientist.com/article/dn22028-computer-that-could-outlive-the-universe-a-step-closer/amp/

artselectronic.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/from-paper-to-the-lab-a-space-time-crystal-computer-that-can-outlive-the-universe/amp/?source=images

Attached: crystalcomputer (1).jpg (560x482, 46K)

from your clones perspective*

Does "immortality" merely mean not dying, or does it mean invincibility in the sense that one can defy all reason, logic and sense and still hope to get away with it?

>become an immortal avatar
>be able to live long enough to experience thick amazons with huge dicks who will rail my mouth and ass for eternity

i love the future

Attached: you used to call me on the cell phone.jpg (480x360, 16K)

>ctrl+f
>"tsuki"
>0 results
Man you guys are brainlets

Ironic that immortality in the past was obtained by being a "great person"
your immortality was contingent on history.

I see a parallel here. That while this "mind uploading" is trying to say that your consciousness will be transferred.
In reality you are just putting your experiences in an ageless robot which will guarantee that your story will continue on forever.

On the "localization" of consciousness have we even disproved the collective consciousness theory?
I mean empathy is a hard skill to master but it can be done none the less.

Attached: 1453977247663.jpg (500x735, 57K)

> women
> with dicks
traps are gay

*bombs your avatar project progress*

Attached: war_never_changes.png (2052x2496, 2.39M)

A 1:1 copy of you is all that happens constantly from instant to instant, you don't actually think you have some ethereal soul do you?

this.

it will just be a copy of you, not an upload of your consciousness.
so while the copy might live on, possibly with severe degradation of the mapped information, since mapping synapses is not all it takes, to the point of ending up as a vegetable, your ass will still be dead.

Oh yeah we going to war before anything like this happen.

No it doesn't, it's the same nuerons firing the same chemicals/electrons in the same physical substrate.
I do not accept the "theory" that the same pattern in a different substrate would be "me", as you then have to accept that I would be experiencing BOTH bodies/existences at the same time regardless of the distance between us. That's fucking retarded.
Even if you made an EXACT copy (which you can't do) of every single synaptic firing, it wouldn't be your "stream of consciousness".

Relax! - Let The Immortality Begin and Death Be A Choice - I got the Key to Immortality - Staying Absolutely Healthy All The Time, for Infinite Health = Immortality - Everybody can become Immune To Any Diseases - By doing my Discovery (just an exercise for a minute a day), that cures and prevents any Diseases, known on Earth, even Aging and Radiation Disease, for every cell of our bodies is shielded 100% from any external/internal (genetic) detrimental impact - I will describe my Discovery to everyone, who sends me an E-check for one million US Dollars (money can be negotiated) - In less than a month everybody will become Infinitely Healthy, Radiation-Proof and Immortal - Like the Gods who created us humans.

Pro tip: If you've ever slept or had something grab your attention such that you've forgotten what you were doing, by your definition you've lost your "stream of conscience" and become another person. May as well just kill yourself and get it over with since you'll die at most within the next 24 hours anyway.

From past claims it seems fair to say you always need to take "futurist" timelines with a grain of salt. Perhaps a very large grain at that given that we'd been promised Rosie level robo-maids and vacations around the solar system right about now.

My question is after the initial "eye roll", how much buffer do you guys add in calculating a "realistic" timeline in your head?

Holy shit user. Is this actually what you tell yourself to hold onto the hope that you will be able to upload your brain?
When I'm asleep my brain hasn't turned off nor have my neurons changed. There is no change is the substrate. To claim that every time go to sleep you're a completely different consciousness is ludicrous.

>my brain hasn't turned off nor have my neurons changed. There is no change is the substrate.
Oho, so suddenly the patterns matter more than this "stream of consciousness" now? That's quite the change from your original post.

>being this fucking stupid

Good argument bro you sure convinced me with those hot opinions. Another pro tip for you: If you got a problem with what I said it's due to that guys terrible definitions.

Exactly enough so that I live to see it. Optimism is a fantastic delusion.

My original post was that the SUBSTRATE is the most important. This is also why you can change someones physical brain structure (which is what happens whenever you learn something new) and they retain their stream.
You can copy my brain exactly into another 'harddrive', and whether the other harddrive is another human brain or a silicon based cpu or some third thing it still won't be ME experiencing it - it's not as though I'd take in sensory input from both minds, and have both minds thinking at the same time, etc. We're locked into our bodies and brains.

So it's not the memories that make someone, not their ideas or intelligence, or problem solving skills, the things they've learned or believe in, there reactions or instincts. No, instead it's literally the meat. Bad news for you though, your brain is still changing while you sleep. Since you also don't have a stream of consciousness at that point you're brain changes I guess you still die every night. Sucks man, my condolences.

Yea, it's literally the meat. I'm not the one saying that, it's not ME making that claim, it's just how the laws of physics and computation work.

Right, so if I grind up your brain into mulch it's still you then right? Why are you so worried about dying in that case? Sure, your molecules get moved around a bit, but the whole substrate is still somewhere. You're already immortal!

I never said I was worried about dying.
If you destroy my brain I'll be dead in the same way that if you try to transfer it it won't be me.

Wait, what? How would you be dead? The substrates still all there.

Ending aging is more reasonable

if you make an exact copy of your physical body, and your physical body is what spawns your consciousness, what have you not transferred that keeps the clone from being the same you? what's the transfer missing? some sort of an overlying mystical property, a soul?

it's looking like it's no use arguing with this dumbfuck

lost

this could be done to you every night of your life and you wouldn't know
thousands of yous that perished in the process... wouldn't know either, because they are fucking dead
the implication is horrifying though

Attached: 1451365895254.png (512x768, 713K)

actually that isn't true because from moment to moment there are tons of changes going on in the body.

I mean 1:1 copy of you would be an identical twin.
A clone even
I have heard of "weird" twin effects at a distance.
But you don't necessarily share the same consciousness as your twin.

Immortality will be done with nanomachine in a constant state of work trying to maintain your body from degrading, and ensuring your neurons are firing.

you can't download a consiousness.
and if we did we would need much better quantum computer than what we have now considering the amount of parallel processing that goes on in the brain.

also to note, that we can only measure "brain activity" in terms of blood flow and EM waves.
there could be more to the mind than just these two, and I am hopeful that there is.

I measure those things in terms of "space" and not time.

Why would you want to live another day in this particular type of avatar?

Nothing I said is wrong. If you make an exact copy of you down to somehow the position of the electrons in your brain (impossible but assume you can) you will not be experiencing consciousness in both bodies. To assume you could is fucking retarded and is closer to a "soul" than anything I have asserted. The clone will think it was you and have your exact memories and personality but YOU will still be in your original body and brain, and there is no way to move your consciousness from your body/brain into another one.

>you will not be experiencing consciousness in both bodies
[argument needed]

that's exactly what's happening. obviously you don't experience split reality, but you do end up experiencing different things in the same time frame because there's two of your body. why's this a problem for brainlets?

The benefit of the clone is that it is a reasonable facsimile of a person (i.e you). It will have your memories, personality, desires, dreams, goals, loves, etc..

To those around it, it is you. It will adopt your life through interaction and it will find it's place as you in said environment. This would likely be a very quick process, a mental or psycological melding of the entity into a world of interactions that it was predestined to fulfill.

In other words, the only thing making "you" you in this situation is your neural patterns. For all intents and purposes, the experience of your consciousness can exist in multiple bodies, but only experienced by itself, contained within it's own body copy.

Remember the episode on STTNG where Riker got caught in the transporter buffer and a clone of him at the exact moment was left on the planet while another copy of him made it to the ship? They found him a few years later and he developed into a completely different person via his experiences even though his core ideals and loves were still there.

What a brainlet.

Yes but those particles arent you, you are something more than them. All those cells turn over entirely several times in your life. The you is purely the memory of the past instances of those particles, a memory which could exist in a clone, a computer program or just you second to second.

To add, if you make 100 copies of yourself, each and every one of them will think they were the one the copies were made from considering they were copied with the memories and experience of wanting copies made.

They would all sincerely believe the we're the original, real you.

You could even have them all fight to the death (with the original you in the fight too) and each one of "you" would believe themselves to be the original fighting to retain their originality.

Obviously 1:1 was an expression, of course there are causative changes but nothing bridges the gap between all these instances. There is not a single part of you the same over a sufficient period, just the memory over time and the afferent and efferent signals in thought.

>exact copy of your physical body
Since your original biochemical system (body) is made of other atoms, it cannot be identically copied, since the atoms are completely different.
>what have you not transferred
The "flow of consciousness" (which is a limit on the rate of change of your current biochemical system), running on the current body. The copy is an entirely different entity all by itself with a separate rate of change from yours.
If you're killed (the change of the biochemical system exeeds a given hypothetical "speed of consciousness" limit), you die, while the clone continues to live as a completely separate system. If that's your plan, you might as well kill yourself now, since the results (from your point of view) will be the same.

This. A very gradual replacement of brain, without the loss of consciousness, is the only death-proof way to be sure you'll survive. All other ways, like uploading or copying basically kill you like a brainlet schmuck.

Absolutely nonsensical. Transfer of consciousness is just the experience of such anchors in thought from preceeding thoughts, go read about thought insertion and thought signals. If you were to give a computer all the same set up to yourself at a given moment it would be you and would experience a continuity and history as real as you do any second. Slow transfer is a total waste of time designed to appeal to morons who have no spent a single second thinking about identity and subjectivity.

>If you were to give a computer all the same set up to yourself at a given moment it would be you
>as real as you do any second
But it won't be me, you moron, since I'd still be here. It's an entirely new system made of different atoms.
>identity and subjectivity
Abolutely nothing identarian or subjective about it. You're a machine that runs a process and if this process is interrupted, you die. Copy and transfer it all you want, your process (consciousness) will still only be running on current body, with a given limited rate of change of the system. Replacing the parts of the system at that limited rate as to not disrupt it is the only way to actually stay "alive".

>lose consciousness
>go to ER
>get saved and recover
>actually not because you died the moment you lost consciousness, and then at the ER a new person was born

...
Some of your neurons die off in sleep sometimes and pass info to newer neuron cells... Effectively shutting down and then the brain carries the dead away to be osmosified...

citation needed

You actually lose complete consciousness only at brain death.

How else do you propose you change the original hardware (i.e. the original "hardwired" physical system that is you), other than gradual replacement?

ITT: brainlets implying there is such thing as a "self"

Nope, it's actually:
ITT: brainlets hold onto the idea that they will actually experience consciousness in two separate bodies at the same time just because they want mind uploading to be real.

>They would all sincerely believe the we're the original, real you.
maybe because they are? there's nothing setting the clones apart and determining where the "real" you is. obviously the instances of you would start drifting apart after divergence, and eventually they could be considered different persons. it's only a matter of preference. but there certainly are no problems in this thought experiment, apart from the ones you're making up.

>Since your original biochemical system (body) is made of other atoms, it cannot be identically copied, since the atoms are completely different.
for all intents and purposes perfect copies of an atom are the same. if you build your definition of continuous consciousness of physical particles (which is retarded to begin with), you are dying all the time as your atoms change.
>The "flow of consciousness" (which is a limit on the rate of change of your current biochemical system), running on the current body. The copy is an entirely different entity all by itself with a separate rate of change from yours.
>If you're killed (the change of the biochemical system exeeds a given hypothetical "speed of consciousness" limit), you die, while the clone continues to live as a completely separate system. If that's your plan, you might as well kill yourself now, since the results (from your point of view) will be the same.
so what? I could kill myself no problem if I did have a clone.

You aren't the same mental "you" from second to second anyway. How can you be such a brainlet to believe you have some permanent immaterial self? You are different instances of mental experience connected together by 1) memory 2) the afferent signals in thoughts. Without those two things you would feel no relation to previous instances of your body.

A computer you would feel just as much conscious continuity from the past as you do.

Isn't uploading your brain to a computer basically just cloning yourself? You could technically do it while you're still alive.

You will never actually be "immortal", you'll just die, and a new "you" will be created.

Attached: shrug-chan.jpg (1090x1200, 117K)

sorry i should have clarified
you're making several assumptions that need substantiating evidence

indeed, the continuous "you" is merely an abstraction, reflecting the maximal difference between your different versions that you are willing to accept to be "you". this goes identically for past and present "you"s as it goes for "you"s in different locations in space. brainlets think "you"s at different moment are obviously the same entity, but "you"s at different positions aren't.

there's no reason to assume that a simulation running zeros and ones that can be interpreted as a brain would actually spawn a consciousness.

there's no real reason to assume that a consciousness exists either

other than the fact that I'm experiencing it right now. why are you people spouting your opinions after having spent 1 second thinking?

They say it doesn't exist and they deny qualia because they want mind uploading to be real.

denying qualia is like the most retarded thing you can do. I don't see how that would help anybody cope

weak argument
how are any of us to consider you seriously if you pussy out of the most basic validation

let's just say arguing with you would be a complete waste since you sitting there thinking that you don't exist implies a complete lack of logic

>so what? I could kill myself no problem if I did have a clone.
You consciousness flow won't magically transfer to the clone when you die.

>for all intents and purposes perfect copies of an atom are the same.
They are made of different matter (different as in not part of your current biochemical system) that you are. Also, they can't be the exactly the same since the forces acting on them from the surrounding environment are different (since they can't occupy the same space). Different objects are different (holy fuck).

>if you build your definition of continuous consciousness of physical particles (which is retarded to begin with), you are dying all the time as your atoms change.
I'm saying that the illusion of "consciousness" humans have is only maintained within a given limited rate of change of the system. Exceeding this rate kills you.
Creating a copy does absolutely nothing for your current system. It doesn't magically transfer the biochemical reaction in your brain (your "consciousness") to the copy. it makes no sense to even consider that possible. In this scenario, when you die, you just disappear (from your point of view) and your separate copy continues to live.

>You aren't the same mental "you" from second to second anyway.
Obviously you aren't. I never said that. I literally said that the system has a given rate of change whitin which you have the illusion of "consciousness". Exceeding it (i.e. 12 gauge to the skull) kills you.

>consciousness flow
ah, so even if somehow an exact copy of myself appears in a different location it won't be me because of this mystical transcendent property... a soul, if you will?

>illusion of "consciousness"
consciousness is literally the only thing you can be sure to exist. but have fun trying to make your le illusion model fit, dennet.

>ah, so even if somehow an exact copy of myself appears in a different location it won't be me because of this mystical transcendent property... a soul, if you will?
YOU are the one making up some concept of a "soul" that somehow can magically flow through spacetime regardless of distance just because the arrangement of chemicals/electrons is the same. We're saying it doesn't even matter if there is an equivalent electrical configuration, in the same way the salt on my table is exactly the same as the salt on some other guy's table on the other side of the world but it's NOT connected to each other via some mystical force that you must assert exists in order to rectify your theory.

>flow through spacetime regardless of distance just because the arrangement of chemicals/electrons is the same
ever heard of the concept of emergence? the concept of a circle can exist in multiple points in space, even if the particles making it up aren't the same and the particles themselves contain no properties that the circle does.

>soul
Wtf are you talking about? I never even implied there's anything metaphysical about this. Actually, you do it through assuming the interactions within 2 systems are somehow related without directly interacting with each other.
>exact copy
First, it's impossible because of the different environmental interactions.
Second, it's impossible because every quanta is inherently different by the virtue of existing separately from every other, thus they cannot be the same.

Yes and every single copy of that circle will be difference, even if they are made of the same chemicals and are exact copies. (just like my video game is an exact copy of yours but they are not connected whatsoever).

>First, it's impossible because of the different environmental interactions.
it's completely irrelevant whether it's possible in practice.

>Second, it's impossible because every quanta is inherently different by the virtue of existing separately from every other, thus they cannot be the same.
quanta? qualia? what overlying factor makes them different just because they're spawned by different physical bodies? both bodies can perfectly easily be subjected to the same conditions, there will only be one branch of consciousness. it doesn't matter how many physical bodies are supporting it, just like it doesn't matter if there's slight divergence. you're still talking of the same consciousness, unless you also think you're not the same person you were 5 secs ago.

understand, the physical object of particles forming a circle is different from the concept of a circle, just like a consciousness is different from the atoms causing it to emerge.

>irrelevant whether it's possible in practice

Attached: 1518107622786.jpg (883x990, 123K)

instead of a low-effort ad hominem, it would be more polite to just admit that you were wrong.

citation needed
also happy 16th birthday

>it's completely irrelevant whether it's possible in practice.
How so?

>quanta?
Yes, as in "particles"

>what overlying factor makes them different
The factor that they exist independently of each other.

>both bodies can perfectly easily be subjected to the same conditions
No they can't. The conditions in 2 point in space cannot ever be the same as the field interactions are different. ( ex: gravity has an infinite range, meaning all the matter in the universe interacts differently with it in every point in spacetime)

>branch of consciousness. it doesn't matter how many physical bodies are supporting it
Going into pseudoscience.

>think you're not the same person you were 5 secs ago
"Consciousness" is not a tangible concept and is thus metaphysical (i.e. an illusion). I mentioned the rate of change maybe 10 times already.

Not me, though.

refer to >How so?
we're discussing theory either way, as none of this is possible today and won't be for a long time. ever heard of theoretical discussion?
>The factor that they exist independently of each other.
and because of this there exists some sort of force that declares they can't be the same consciousness?
>No they can't. The conditions in 2 point in space cannot ever be the same as the field interactions are different. ( ex: gravity has an infinite range, meaning all the matter in the universe interacts differently with it in every point in spacetime)
you put 2 identical bodies in the same room and let them do whatever they want. they'll behave exactly the same, regardless of your nitpicking.
>Going into pseudoscience.
this is whole topic philosophy, retard. philosophy is a superset to science, so don't use it as an insult.
>I mentioned the rate of change maybe 10 times already.
and failed to make it relevant to the discussion.

the lack of arguments coming from your side tells another tale man

>"cogito"

dude one of the most important thoughts is "cogito ergo sum", literally the ONLY thing you can prove exists is that you are conscious. Everything else is an assumption.

>force that declares they can't be the same consciousness?
Because "consciousness" is a function of matter. "branching out" consciousness is complete bullshit with no basis in reality.
>nitpicking
You basically lost the argument, since you're dismissing objective criticism through abstraction (muh room) without a counterargument.
>philosophy
Putting your baseless assumptions and nonarguments under "philosophy" doesn't make them less pseudoscientific.

Doesn't the "person" likely rely on the body as well? Neuroscience shows we aren't just the brain. I don't see us transfering minds anytime soon before solving the mind-body problem.

a meaninglessly minor deviation in two different consciousnesses is not an objective criticism for them being the same. you CAN theoretically build two exactly similar bodies if you compensate for every force appropriately, but that slight deviation is absolutely meaningless either way. that's the length of your "winning argument". in the meantime you've basically skipped refuting several of my points with "m-muh pseudoscience".