Implants in Science Fiction

[Norseman]

In fact, without resorting to a soul or other religious arguments, I can't actually see why people are so married to this notion that you can't conceivably back up a brain, because "it's not you".

Funny... without a soul that somehow magically transferred between bodies I couldn't see why anyone would think that a backup is you.

[ThomasP]

In fact, without resorting to a soul or other religious arguments, I can't actually see why people are so married to this notion that you can't conceivably back up a brain, because "it's not you".

Funny... without a soul that somehow magically transferred between bodies I couldn't see why anyone would think that a backup is you.

Why wouldn't it be? It has literally everything that qualifies as "me".

What magical qualifier makes it "not-me"?

[Samuel]

In fact, without resorting to a soul or other religious arguments, I can't actually see why people are so married to this notion that you can't conceivably back up a brain, because "it's not you".

Funny... without a soul that somehow magically transferred between bodies I couldn't see why anyone would think that a backup is you.

Why wouldn't it be? It has literally everything that qualifies as "me".

What magical qualifier makes it "not-me"?

What happens if we run the backup on something else while you are still alive? Which one is you?

[ThomasP]

Both?

[Shroom Man 777]

So you wouldn't find it disturbing at all if you were "erased" since that copy is still you and you would still be alive and you would still be living in that other you and you would still be breathing in that other you, eating inside that other you, fucking in the form of that other you?

I don't give a fuck if they managed to perfectly copy my mind and put it in a perfect physical copy of me. If there were two mes and someone pointed a gun at me, I'd sure as hell would prefer it if they shot the other me while giving me-me booze and hookers and I'd be very cross if I was the one who ended up dead while other-me ended up having the booze and hookers.

Original ThomasP: "Oh, but it's still me!"

*Other ThomasP Copy Clone gets invited to a party with lots of booze and hookers*

*Original ThomasP is not invited because "he" (Other ThomasP Copy Clone) has already been invited*

Original ThomasP: I feel left out?

[Sarevok]

Does it even matter ? I am unfortunate to be born in a meat body and thus destined to die. A digital copy of me could live forever. Does it matter it is a copy of me instead ? Not at all. I am obsolete and doomed to oblivion. Might as well embrace a future generation that can effortlessly backup their digital minds. Progress has to start somewhere even if the people who developed the tech cant use it themselves to become immortal.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, yeah, it won't matter. Not to you and I when we get to become wormfood while brain-copies of you and I are enjoying flying cars and cyber-hookers and space beer and crap. *jealous*


I still think the key to posthumanity's future is consumer product organs and pre-fabricated embryonics. If postpeople want to have postbabies then they'll have to go canvasing for what kind of organ systems they want their babies to have before producing them in the post-mommy's post-uterus. In turn, this can be decided by the post-eggs being created in the mommy's post-ovaries and the post-sperm created in the post-daddy's post-testicles, and they obtain these by purchasing reproductive organs from the dystopic sci-fi megacorporation of their choice.

Of course, if they purchased reproductive organs and embryonics from say... Shroomlan-Yutani and the company goes bankrupt (after non-profitable ventures with acid-blooded aliens) and in typical evil corporate fashion does some corporate corner cutting... then if the post-mommies and post-daddies buy their corner-cutted consumer products, it might result in ugly deformed mongoloid post-children.

Evil dystopic megacorporation Shroomlan-Yutani might end up issuing recall orders for all the deformed ugly mongoloid post-children created by its factory defect genital products. This could very well bankrupt the company.

Posthumanity! The Postman's future!

[ThomasP]

So you wouldn't find it disturbing at all if you were "erased" since that copy is still you and you would still be alive and you would still be living in that other you and you would still be breathing in that other you, eating inside that other you, fucking in the form of that other you?

I might, but I'm not sure how I feel about it has any particular bearing on what defines "me", though. There's a lot of things humans find unintuitive that aren't necessarily rational outlooks.

I don't give a fuck if they managed to perfectly copy my mind and put it in a perfect physical copy of me. If there were two mes and someone pointed a gun at me, I'd sure as hell would prefer it if they shot the other me while giving me-me booze and hookers and I'd be very cross if I was the one who ended up dead while other-me ended up having the booze and hookers.

And your copy would feel exactly the same way

I'm not sure why the argument has to boil down to a matter of that choice, though. If your mind is just a collection of data, then replicating that data is replicating you. That there's no precedent for multiple instances of the same person in history doesn't make the idea untenable; it just means people aren't used to it.

[Shroom Man 777]

I might, but I'm not sure how I feel about it has any particular bearing on what defines "me", though. There's a lot of things humans find unintuitive that aren't necessarily rational outlooks.

Technically, that thing would still be "me" in that it's exactly "me" and has all of "me." But it isn't "me" because my own perspective, what I see, hear, touch and feel and experience as a human being, is confined to this physical body and if I am ended, then for "me" me is gone. So, for me and my perspective, only me is me.

And your copy would feel exactly the same way

Exactly! He is he and me is me, pardon the bad grammer. Despite being exactly the same in all attributes, we are in fact two separate individuals. Unless in our identicality, both of us also share a hive-mind or something, and THEN we'd be one. But we're not.

I'm not sure why the argument has to boil down to a matter of that choice, though. If your mind is just a collection of data, then replicating that data is replicating you. That there's no precedent for multiple instances of the same person in history doesn't make the idea untenable; it just means people aren't used to it.

He would be me in that we're both identical. He would not be me, and me would not be he, in that we'd still be separate beings. He could die, he could win the nobel prize, but those things that would happen to he would not happen to me because even though we're the same person... we're not the same person.

[Zixinus]

There is also the half-way solution, the few persons today who actually have had their sight restored by implants have the implants itself only act as a receiver, having to interface with an external camera to get the actual visual data.

<snip>

Meaning in a lot of situations where your unmodified soldier wouldn't just have lost his sight, but actually be dead, your implant-having soldier could very well still be alive and kicking.

Except that you can mount a display on the soldier's helmet/visor to do the very same thing.

That way, you have mostly all of the advantages of the half-way solution but none of the possible medical or technical drawbacks.

Again, why use something that if not more expensive but certainly requires more logistics when a simpler, if more bulkier and more cumbersome, version of the same tech will do just as well?

I'm not saying that all non-implant gear is superior to their implant version. But you have to consider other things than just mere technical feasibility.

Finally a bluetooth headset that I will never forget to bring with me!

The novelty can wear off quickly when someone realises all the possible drawbacks: possible medical problems, possible technical problems that will manifest inside your ear, security issues, cost of surgery and maintenance, etc.
All of which could be avoided if you just make a proper place for the headset.

Even if the tech will be available at a mostly affordable price, it is likely that people will get it out of eccentricity rather than utility, especially if you count improvement in ergonomics.

Even if they're not viscerally afraid of the technology or doubt its safety, most people still be queasy when you try to put something into their bodes that hasn't been in their bodies in the past 15+ years, unless they have a very good reason to (like, they're blind or crippled, thus the alternative is far worse).

Posthumanity! The Postman's future!

[ThomasP]

Technically, that thing would still be "me" in that it's exactly "me" and has all of "me." But it isn't "me" because my own perspective, what I see, hear, touch and feel and experience as a human being, is confined to this physical body and if I am ended, then for "me" me is gone. So, for me and my perspective, only me is me.

It'd be an instance of Shroom Man, yes, and that instance of you would be unique; but I don't see where that's been in contest.

Identity and instances of an identity are not necessarily the same thing, as I see it, just like you can fire up 10 copies of Windows in virtual machines and do different things with them.

Each instance would be aware and conscious just as (the metaphorical) "you" are, but it's still just software being run.

[Starglider]

But it isn't "me" because my own perspective, what I see, hear, touch and feel and experience as a human being, is confined to this physical body and if I am ended, then for "me" me is gone. So, for me and my perspective, only me is me.

This is a powerful intuition but it can be deconstructed and proven to be inconsistent (i.e. not just wrong, actually nonsensical) by a series of experiments. Daniel Dennet does this as thought experiments in 'The Mind's I', and Greg Egan has a (a somewhat less complete) fictional version in 'Permutation City'. Obviously we don't have the technology to do it for real yet, but we'll get there. I have reiterated this thought experiment sequence here in the past, although it's kind of tedious so I'm not eager to do it again in this thread.

Despite being exactly the same in all attributes, we are in fact two separate individuals.

Having more than one physical instance of an abstract system at the same time is of course an important change from just having one. However the ethics and philosophical consequences of copying people are separate from those of backing people up and restoring them. Of course if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then everyone is being constantly copied and split anyway, it's just that the copies don't get to interact.

[Shroom Man 777]

But it isn't "me" because my own perspective, what I see, hear, touch and feel and experience as a human being, is confined to this physical body and if I am ended, then for "me" me is gone. So, for me and my perspective, only me is me.

This is a powerful intuition but it can be deconstructed and proven to be inconsistent (i.e. not just wrong, actually nonsensical) by a series of experiments. Daniel Dennet does this as thought experiments in 'The Mind's I', and Greg Egan has a (a somewhat less complete) fictional version in 'Permutation City'. Obviously we don't have the technology to do it for real yet, but we'll get there. I have reiterated this thought experiment sequence here in the past, although it's kind of tedious so I'm not eager to do it again in this thread.

I mean, you can replicate all those things in a copy of me and he will be me. But if I blow my brains out, and they manage to create a carbon copy "backup" that still doesn't change the fact that the me who blew my brains off is still dead. It just means that there's another me. One me has its brains painted on a wall, another me is going to continue on living. And he better not see that corpse of me.

But for the perspective of the me who blew its brains on the wall... well, it won't have anymore perspective since it's dead. The perspective of the copy me, well, if his perspective remembers everything including the moment of suicide, then to copy-me he might as well be an exact direct continuation of me.

Would you agree to having your brains blown out, and then have yourself restored in the form of an exact backup? Or would you prefer not having your brains blown out?

Despite being exactly the same in all attributes, we are in fact two separate individuals.

Having more than one physical instance of an abstract system at the same time is of course an important change from just having one. However the ethics and philosophical consequences of copying people are separate from those of backing people up and restoring them. Of course if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then everyone is being constantly copied and split anyway, it's just that the copies don't get to interact.

EDIT:

I swear, I got into this exact same discussion in SLAM before. But, um, I still don't grasp this thing.

[Starglider]

But for the perspective of the me who blew its brains on the wall... well, it won't have anymore perspective since it's dead.

'Perspective' is another of these fuzzy intuitive things that doesn't fare well under rigorous materialistic analysis; again, Daniel Dennet has done a good job of deconstructing it. I realise it sounds ridiculous, but frankly, pretty much all of modern science sounds ridiculous to uneducated people (matter is 99.999999% empty space? Impossible!).

The perspective of the copy me, well, if his perspective remembers everything including the moment of suicide, then to copy-me he might as well be an exact direct continuation of me.

Accepting that no copy of an analogue system will be 'perfect' (though certainly the error can be far less than the inherent noise level), so even this has an implicit similarity threshold.

Would you agree to having your brains blown out, and then have yourself restored in the form of an exact backup? Or would you prefer not having your brains blown out?

I wouldn't do it for a laugh, but if there was a significant incentive (i.e. a monetary reward) then I would.

[Shroom Man 777]

But for the perspective of the me who blew its brains on the wall... well, it won't have anymore perspective since it's dead.

'Perspective' is another of these fuzzy intuitive things that doesn't fare well under rigorous materialistic analysis; again, Daniel Dennet has done a good job of deconstructing it. I realise it sounds ridiculous, but frankly, pretty much all of modern science sounds ridiculous to uneducated people (matter is 99.999999% empty space? Impossible!).

But mang, there is still someone who dies.

What if the situation doesn't involve death or destruction? What if instead of backing someone up after death, we backed someone up after... getting hit in the groin? So instead of the 'original' being dead and the backup being not-dead, the original will instead be writhing in the ground with dick-pain and left there while the perfectly identical backup wakes up to life?

Death or no-death, it doesn't change the fact that despite being the same, the original and the backup are also different and separate.

The perspective of the copy me, well, if his perspective remembers everything including the moment of suicide, then to copy-me he might as well be an exact direct continuation of me.

Accepting that no copy of an analogue system will be 'perfect' (though certainly the error can be far less than the inherent noise level), so even this has an implicit similarity threshold.

Even if it is perfect, that doesn't change the fact that mere moments ago some shmuck still blew his head off and died. Whether or not there's a backup, there's still a dead person who is very dead and who won't be getting back up. For that dead dude, he's no longer living, he was living but now he's dead.

Would you agree to having your brains blown out, and then have yourself restored in the form of an exact backup? Or would you prefer not having your brains blown out?

I wouldn't do it for a laugh, but if there was a significant incentive (i.e. a monetary reward) then I would.

But then your brains would be splattered all over the wall and all you'd see would be black and you would be dead.

Then some other person - a separate entity - is going to wake up with a body that's yours and thoughts that are yours. While your corpse, which is you, gets hauled off to the incinerator.

One of them ends. Another one continues. It sucks for the one who ends.

[Starglider]

One of them ends. Another one continues. It sucks for the one who ends.

I have a marvelous disproof of this statement but it will not fit within the confines of this text box.

Actually I could argue against this pretty well, but we've already hijacked this thread enough, and I'm not in the mood for another ten page thread on the continuity flaw. Anyone who's curious what my argument would've been, buy yourself a copy of 'The Mind's I', it's a fun read.

[Shroom Man 777]

Gah, you're right. I'll get off this since I'm probably too stupid and, really, stuff like that makes my head explode.

[Broomstick]

Even if they're not viscerally afraid of the technology or doubt its safety, most people still be queasy when you try to put something into their bodes that hasn't been in their bodies in the past 15+ years, unless they have a very good reason to (like, they're blind or crippled, thus the alternative is far worse).

Not even then, sometimes.

One of my sisters had a pacemaker/defibrillator installed on her most recent birthday (definitely on the "birthday presents that suck" list). Now, she's a doctor, very familiar with technology, with medicine, she concentrates in geriatrics, has helped install these in other people.... and it's messing with her head somewhat. Now, she really does need it, the alternative is death, she knows this... and still isn't happy about it.

Likewise, I've known several people who were quite worked up about cataract surgery - the alternative was blindness, but they were still a little wiggy about it... and mind you, two of those folks were PhD and MD level educated folks working in medical research.

I think part of it is a very normal resistance to one's body being breached. It's related to people not liking surgery in general or even getting poked with a needle. It's not just the pain - let's face it, most needle-pokes are trivial - but a resistance to something foreign entering the body. That is actually an adaptive mindset, as most of the time you don't want anything getting past the outer layer of skin. Humans are an adaptable lot and you can train yourself to get past that resistance - many diabetics, for example, jab themselves multiple times per day with needle, lancet, or both - but that resistance is actually a normal human trait.

The other part, of course, is societal inertia. Cataracts are, again, a good example of this. It used to be big-deal surgery, now it's fairly routine. The lenses implanted (and they are an implant) are far better than they used to be and in some cases result in fewer refractive errors than the original organic lens. We, don't, however, remove eyeball lenses from young people, we issue glasses and contacts or even use LASIK instead. There's an example right there of choosing the external modifier over the internal implant (there's also the detail that it is much easier in a technical sense to remove an old eye lens than a young one due to changes over time in its structure).

Right now, we tend to use external modifications. Partly that's due to technical limitations, partly to cultural norms. But even if an implant was arguably superior to the organic item it replaces I'm not convinced massive numbers of people would automatically upgrade. After all, most people don't drive the most technologically sophisticated car available either (however you may define that). To some extent it's a matter of cost, but in other cases people settle for "good enough" and desire to expend resources on something else.

So, in the future, I could foresee someone who is deaf getting a hearing implant (let's assume it's far, far more sophisticated than our current cochlear implant) to restore normal hearing, but also opting to have a phone built into it, or a radio, or whatever because, what the hell, you're already implanting something and it may not cost much to add the rest. But I can also foresee that same society being one where most people have their phone/radio/whatever as an external device because why have even minor surgery for that? Don't think that could happen? Don't we simultaneously have eyeglasses, contacts, and LASIK in our society? Three different and overlapping modes of vision correction right there, all existing simultaneously. For most people which method used is a choice entirely driven by personal preference and it's very clear not everyone makes the same choice.

[Shroom Man 777]

On the whole societal thing, I personally dislike useless cosmetic surgery but apparently this shit is becoming the rage now in my country - with doctors making big bucks over nosejobs and stuff for insecure Filipinos who want American-type noses or titties. I myself scrubbed in on a nose job on a woman who had a boob job just two weeks before (hey, having unnecessary invasive procedures every other week is a sure way to get infection due to compromised or weakened immune system, lol!) and woah, the surgery kind of get slowed down because before the doctor could insert the gore-tex implant, he was pretty busy since he had to remove previous silicone injections from the woman's nose and I don't think he was previously aware of their presence.

But yeah, this personal anecdote serves as a counterpoint for Broomy's example. I mean, shit, people having one useless surgery done after the other, for just no good reason at all. Can't get better than that.

[Broomstick]

I think it's safe to say both extremes exist - so I doubt any future society will go completely one way or the other.