The idea of uploading consciousness is misdirected narcissism | Hacker News Reader

The idea of uploading consciousness is misdirected narcissism

mleverything.substack.com

20 pointsbko24 comments

It's an interesting notion that the "my-ness" of my consciousness requires continuity – it must be continuous and uninterrupted.

Here's a fun thought experiment – imagine slowly, individually replacing each neuron in your brain with an identical copy, one at a time. You wouldn't notice each of these (a similar process probably happens throughout your life). Is it still "your" consciousness at the end of this process?

Now imagine that instead of an identical biological copy, we use some kind of technological copy that perfectly mimics the biological in I/O (of course, you must imagine we've invented such a thing). Now at the end of the process, your brain is completely electronic. Still "your" consciousness?

Now, take it one step further and imagine that instead of a technological copy that mimics I/O, we instead (slowly, one-by-one) hook the terminals of each neuron to some kind of transducer that allows us to simulate that nerve in a computer, but deliver the I/O back to any neighboring biological neuron (again, you must imagine we are able to do this). By the end, your brain is completely simulated. Still "your" consciousness?

It's difficult to say at which point in this progression the "you-ness" is lost. But I think most people would agree that it _is_ lost, at some point.

(FWIW, I realize that this argument is somewhat isomorphic to a Ship of Theseus – with a little bit of techno-dysphoria mixed in).

Tangent: this thought experiment reminds me a bit of Dennett’s “Where Am I?”.

https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf

That was a fun one! Thanks for sharing.

Maybe the answer is there is no self.

In the book "Why Buddhism is True", the author tries to layout the Buddhist idea of "not-self". It's tough to grasp and apparently takes years of meditation and thought to truly understand, but it can be summed up by explaining what the self isn't.

> He conducts this search systematically; he goes through what are known as the five “aggregates” that, according to Buddhist philosophy, constitute a human being and that human’s experience. Describing these aggregates precisely would take a chapter in itself, but for present purposes we can label them roughly as the (1) physical body (called “form” in this discourse), including such sense organs as eyes and ears; (2) basic feelings; (3) perceptions (of, say, identifiable sights or sounds); (4) “mental formations” (a big category that includes complex emotions, thoughts, inclinations, habits, decisions); and (5) “consciousness,” or awareness—notably, awareness of the contents of the other four aggregates. The Buddha runs down this list and asks which, if any, of these five aggregates seem to qualify as self. In other words, which of the aggregates evince the qualities you’d expect self to possess?

He then goes to poke holes in all the aggregates, primarily through arguing that we don't control any of these (including emotions), so without control, can you really call it self?

Example of dispelling the first aggregate:

> For starters, he links the idea of self to the idea of control. Listen to what he says about the aggregate of “form,” the physical body: “If form were self, then form would not lead to affliction, and it should obtain regarding form: ‘May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.’ ” But, he notes, our bodies do lead to affliction, and we can’t magically change that by saying “May my form be thus.” So form—the stuff the human body is made of— isn’t really under our control. Therefore, says the Buddha, it must be the case that “form is not-self.” We are not our bodies

I don't know, it still leaves the hard question of consciousness unanswered. Why does it feel like we're conscious. But perhaps we have the wrong hierarchy. Maybe consciousness is base layer and physical reality is downstream, rather than the reverse.

> (5) “consciousness,” or awareness—notably, awareness of the contents of the other four aggregates.

Not a Buddhist, but I have thought this as the real definition of consciousness - though I think it also includes being aware of the contents of the fifth "aggregate".

But I would also say that "self" is a unity of those things. In trying to separate it into parts, the thing (self) dies. (At least, at first glance that's my position - I'd have to think about it some more to be sure.)

As you say, that doesn't say anything about the hard problem of consciousness. In fairness, though, I don't think Buddhism is trying to solve that problem.

Maybe the answer is that any system which can't account for our experiences is wrong.

> It's an interesting notion that the "my-ness" of my consciousness requires continuity – it must be continuous and uninterrupted.

And yet, it's interrupted every night when I sleep (at least, for some definitions of consciousness). I've been out for some surgeries, too, and I was still "me" when I came back. So I disagree with the "must be uninterrupted" idea.

So, what does it mean for consciousness to be continuous? Is some brain activity enough, even if you're completely unconscious (i.e. anesthesia)? For that matter, if it wasn't continuous, would the current "you" be able to tell?

For that matter, if continuity of consciousness in general were an illusion, would the "you" at any given moment be able to tell? I guess the only reason it matters is that if there's no such thing as continuity, then nothing is lost upon upload (or death, really).

See my other post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30921217) for what I think consciousness is. So, no, some brain activity is not enough.

And, either after sleep or after anesthesia, I can tell that it wasn't continuous.

If continuity doesn't matter, then something still may be lost on upload - we won't know until we can interview someone who's been uploaded. And in death, if you don't believe in life after death, then something is definitely lost - the possibility of restart.

This is a line of thought about consciousness. It's constancy of predicting the future that defines it. It even becomes the basis of believing in afterlife because we simply don't know how to extend ourselves into the future at a gut level.

Also, what're you going to do to earn your storage space and compute cycles in this "virtual afterlife" that's assumed will exist? Especially if "uploaded people" images can be copied, there's going to be a lot of "digital people" for whom no one has any use. Talk about your exploitable underclass.

How many people who consider uploading as a desirable thing think they might end up playing an NPC in a "Grand Theft Auto" game? Over, and over, and over again...

That's a good point. If you believe that the simulated AI from the scans (called Copies in Permutation City) is a living thing, you're bringing them into existence in a very precarious environment. If you really love yourself that much, would you trust that your Copy would be granted all the rights and dignity that you currently experience?

Depending on the rights those copies hold and the capabilities of the technology, couldn't they be merged to avoid unnecessarily duplication of persons?

In the future, your boss will be uploaded and you will be running with menial tasks coming from there.

People who think that uploading is "afterlife" or retirement are badly mistaken. Pre-uploading is "prelife".

People are already effectively playing as NPCs in popular videogames. They're called gold farmers.

If you gave me the option as I got closer to 70, that I could be uploaded, and take up zero physical space, and live forever, I would jump at the chance. I don't think it's narcissistic at all. Imagine being able to communicate with your ancestors.. the opportunities for preserving knowledge and ending physical suffering, including the impact of humans living on the planet. Maybe we all just live forever until we run out of disk space. Maybe eventually we can have a lottery/queue where people take turns getting decanted for some IRL living.

With current trends of surveillance capitalism and nickle-and-diming for every single useful feature, I can only imagine mind-uploading getting closer to an eternal torture than a pleasant afterlife.

Some interesting resources that explore this view, which also happen to fill me with existential horror at the prospect of being uploaded (especially against my will):

Tom Scott's video "Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

qntm's short story "Lena": https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

I can especially recommend "Lena". It's from the 'I have no mouth and I must scream' genre of horror.

I loved what they did in Altered Carbon S01: the concept of double-sleeving, where the same consciousness inhabits 2 bodies at the same time.

Given that (methinks) consciousness is just a sensation generated by a feedback loop, with the exception of a mild confusion caused by the fact that discrete identity (Theseus' Ship) is just a human construct (as opposed to a continuum with everything connected), there is nothing special about this.

For the person who believes they're Jesus, they are really Jesus. How would you know that you are yourself? What if you suffer form amnesia? Make it temporal and you are really onto some mind-bending territory.

Teleportation suffers from the same affliction: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

Here's my take: Consciousness is real only to the one experiencing it. Just like Love - yeah, it's as real as anything can be for the subject experiencing it, but for everybody else the only real thing about that Love is how it manifests.

Maybe you can separate it from the 'machine' running it, put it in another machine, but is it the same? Yes, of course, for the machine(s) running it, not so much for the outside observers that cannot experience a given sensation outside themselves.

The individual =/= its (current) consciousness, therefore uploading consciousness achieves just as much as 'uploading' my genes into a new individual (a child). Something will go on existing, but it's not me. It's another machine that might have my memories and SENSE of identity.

It is impossible to know if you have successfully uploaded a consciousness, just as it is impossible to really know whether your neighbor is conscious, or whether the device you're reading this on now experiences consciousness, or whether a rock does -- or an electron, or a cell, or a city.

One related word: Panpsychism.

Even if it is consciousness, who’s to say that it’s the same consciousness? You can have multiple copies, including a real life copy, at the same time, all could have different experiences.

Agreed, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where you don't get a copy -- in which case the consciousness "forks", and the loss of either one is still a death. It's like that movie The Prestige.

The only case I can see otherwise is one where a person "melds" with a machine, and over time the balance shifts, like the Ship of Theseus.

Perhaps it's really all about communication bandwidth. I got this idea from Vernor Vinge, I think, but it's also just in the air.

That idea can be tested somewhat by considering the opposite case: Not parts combined into a whole, but wholes severed into parts: People with brain injuries, so that they seem to e.g. understand different things depending on which eye sees a thing.

Based on conversations I've had with people about uploading conciousness, my experience has not been that people think of it as a monument to their ego. For those with interest in this tech, the understanding seems to be that they will continue to percieve and think through this new, uploaded form. This also seems to be how it's usually portrayed in media (e.g. Black Mirror's "San Junipero" episode) though of course, it may turn out to be impossible.

I guess I haven't spoken to enough rich, eccentric types :) But seriously, if there are people who think of it like building a monument to one's self, I'd be interested in whether/why that is satisfactory for them.

> that people think of it as a monument to their ego

Sueprisingly enough but Shinseiki Evangerion (at least the original one, never had the chance to see the remakes) is exploring the aspect of ego.

> people who think of it like building a monument to one's self

It is another interesting introspective question wherever you want something for the others to remember you even if you would never have the chance to know if they did.

I refer everyone to this interesting take on the subject:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32109569-we-are-legion-w...

Uploading consciousness is a breakthrough comparable to speech if we ever have it.

You can't begin to imagine the transformativity of this change. It is the singularity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com