The following agora took place between the 31st of July, 2021, and the 9th of August, 2021. The moderators were Sammy23, Nociav, and Aivintis. The participants were Nociav (Nuswaree), Canadian Technocrats (Red), Patchourisu, and Dazzle.
Sammy
Brought to you by TechTag, here’s our RL topic: How do you think on humans putting their minds into the virtual reality?
Opening Statements
Canadian Technocrats
This topic has a few very important pre-assumptions that have to be made to allow for a productive discussion. These are as follows:
- The Mind (or consciousness) arises out of a complex, yet physical (or bio-chemical) system that can be understood and replicated.
- If one were to somehow obtain a perfect copy of such a system (see: brain) it would behave exactly as the original
If these are not true than either consciousness arises not from matter alone and is therefor not understandable by scientific analysis.
The Mind is a complex puzzle, but given assumption 1) some might argue that just copying the structure of the biological Brain into a computer simulation of high enough detail and you have successfully “transferred” the Mind and given 2) I could not falsify this claim. The result would be a system that behaves exactly like the original of which it is a copy, it might even think itself to be said original.
But copying a system does not make it become the original. If you assume the “Self” to be a continuous thing, bound to its physical “hardware”, such as might be a computer program, copying the source-code to a different set of hardware is not a transfer, its a replication. The behaviour is non-differentiable, but the “original” stream of “Self” is not connected to this version. Its a brand new instance.
In the Framework of mind-transfer this would mean you would not go to sleep and wake up in the computer, but instead you would die and something (or someone) completely different wakes up in the simulation, unaware of the “old” selfs demise.
I would argue that a slow replacement, like replacing single neurons at a time would keep this stream of self coherent, because the brain isnt static and yet the stream seams to be stable during smaller changes that happen all the time. The “Ship of Theseus” argument that stems from this is the real problem in my view.
Running out of Characters now, sorry for the very long opening statement.
Patchourisu
Well, whether Mind Upload is good or not is arguable.
For the advantages, we could say that mind-upload could liberate us from our biological shells (although we would fall into a mechanical shell). We could also access through this to virtual worlds and The Wired Network, infinite only to our imagination and connected to everyone (although we could do so with mind/machine interface, such as VR Sets, this would be more automatic with Mind Upload)
Let’s say we do. How could we do so?
-
- Hardware Replica
We could replicate each neuron of the brain in a synthetic brain, thus creating a copy of ourselves. However, doing so, the Mind Uploaded wouldn’t be the we, but a replica of the We. And, like a clone, it could be exactly like we, but not we. The difference would lie in the Qualia or our personal perceptions of the world, though. I would still see that the biological me sees, and the virtual me would see their own things. Now to do it, we may have to break the brain, hence break the virtual shell and kill the biological self. Or a scan may be sufficient to do so. Depends on how fine the scan may be.
-
- Understanding and transfer of the consciousness
For that, we would have to understand what is the “we”. It could be a neural signal, it could be something transient, it could be the brain. I think it is the former, though. Kinda emulated with all the neural signals that goes throughout the brain. Anyway, understanding how it works and how it moves, we could build a system that allows this signal, whatever it is, to go from one source, the brain probably, to another, the machine. Hence, abandoning the biological shell, the “ghost” would go to the machine and we wouldn’t exist anymore on the biological body but on the machine, the qualia being successfully transferred. For that way, though, we need to understand how the consciousness works, not just the brain.
Nociav
If mind transfer is possible at all then I stand firmly against it.
First of many reasons would be a matter of privacy. If your brain can be scanned and copied then your thoughts, memories, and everything else kept there would be accessible. The power to rewrite someone’s brain would be the ultimate weapon. It would make any form of privacy absolutely impossible.
Second, that brain that gets uploaded wouldn’t be you anymore. I believe a human is more than the sum of its parts. Throwing together parts of different people to make a Frankenstein-esque thing isn’t a human. Humans are when the body and the brain work together, even if disjointedly. Separate a human’s brain from their body and you get a sack of muscle in one pile and a brain in another.
Third, how would we know if humans are suited to such radically different environments? We evolved to be mortal. Death is what our minds expect. It is perfectly reasonable to assume we will suffer some forms of psycholical harm from something so fundamentally at odds with what we evolved to deal with.
Fourth, the economic impact of brain uploads would be far reaching. It would deprive the world of labor, kill numerous industries immediately, and generally cause complete economic havoc.
Fifth, society and politics will be fundamentally changed. How would we know if this is for the best? I believe we should stop risking humanity in pursuit of something as vain as immortality.
Dazzle
As tempting as any significantly advanced scientific prospect is to explore, I would also take the view that it is quite certainly in humanity’s best interest to avoid such technology at all costs. To objectivise human consciousness would no doubt lead to its commodification and ultimate desacralisation, turning our civilisation and social order on its head, with far reaching consequences.
A super-majority of the developed population would become absurdly polarised along religious and political lines, enabling global civil unrest. I pose social order would be decidedly disrupted by protests, riots, acts of obstruction and agitation that would only serve to inflame our already majorly dividing inter-species conflict.
Most importantly, I take monumental issue with the prospect of human immortality as a whole. Death is an inevitable and essential aspect to the human condition and experience. Not only that, it is an equaliser. Rich or poor, black or white, left or right, the reaper doth come for us all. In that way, we all enter and leave this world the same. To clash with this force of nature would not only be to significantly (and I mean significantly) exacerbate class divides, allowing the poor to work forever and the rich to forever profit from their exploited labour, the very quality of human existence, its inherent short-livedness, would be cheapened, even debased.
Finally, I am reminded of the Star Trek transporter problem. As far as I understand, the process would by no means truly transport consciousness from the material to the virtual. Rather, the material consciousness is copied, eradicated, and then replicated in a virtual space, and vice versa. Practical implications aside (though integral nonetheless), what must certainly be resolved is the prospect of, rather than genuine transportation, a conjoined suicide and cloning dressed up as such.
Cross Examination
Patchourisu
Hmm, a question for you, Dazzle. You say that “what must certainly be resolved is the prospect of, rather than genuine transportation, a conjoined suicide and cloning dressed up as such.”
Do you mean that it is a goal we have to attend to? Or do you mean that is the techincal way to resolve the mind-upload problem?
Moreover, if so, do you think this is the sole way to do it?
Dazzle
In accordance with the principles set out and human understanding of the nature of technology as far as I’m aware, that would likely be the sole way to do it. However, to suggest that our extension of thought on these topics has reached its final frontier is frankly arrogant; the possibility for advancement beyond, well, comprehension certainly exists and with it, in a potential scenario, other ways to manifest consciousness in the virtual do too.
Though, it is also a goal we (as in the four of us) must ‘attend’ to, insofar as collectively agreeing such a method of manifestation would be wholly disagreeable for various evident reasons.
Patchourisu
I agree with those statements! There may be other ways but we don’t know enough about consciousness to theorize them, thus this replica method is the only we can technically think about. And we are agreeing to say that it is not a desirable method.
Nociav
I’d like to ask everyone the moral question. Is it moral/ethical to upload minds?
Canadian Technocrats
why would it not be? If someone chooses to undergo the procedure (of which I am I am so far convinced is just a fancy suicide that generates data) than I have no issue with that.
Consensual mind uploading would definitely not be ethical.
If you freely choose (Determinism be damned) to do it, than there is no reason to name it immoral, which goes with most if not all things (of course the prerequisite is that the person is capable of consent)
Dazzle
I would say so, yes. There are essentially two aspects to it: the cloning of the individual ‘consciousness’ (what we here are assuming is a biochemical effect), and the suicide. I believe enabling the consciousness-replication would be immoral on the basis of its effects, and enabling suicide in my opinion is also certainly (in most cases) immoral.
Patchourisu
I agree that the suicide aspect would be murder, hence immoral, except if the individual is ready to die and accept to die in the process. Then I guess it can be as morale as euthanasia and assisted suicide. It could be a comfort, in some case, for some (more or less) doomed people, to know that they still exist somewhere, in some form.
In fact, it could be more morale as the relatives still can talk to “them”, in some ways. (This could also be an argument to say that it is immorale, as it could be disturbing, that it is not really “them” anymore and that “they” don’t exist anymore. Let’s call A the mind-uploaded. A’s qualia is no more, but A is replicated in B. B has not A’s qualia but A’s persona.)
For mind-cloning, same as cloning. I say that, for that technique to be morale (and even perhaps a form of reproduction or a way to enrich the world), that clones must be differenciated from the start. B looks like A, but B is not A. B and A have different qualias, hence they are not the same person. Even if they share the same persona. Hence, a tiny (or a big) difference must be written to them to show that A is A, and B is B, and that they drift into different beings.
A way to do this could be to let A handle Physical World matters where B handle Virtual World matters. And A musn’t interfere with Virtual world, and B with Physical world on this case. But in a world where the two gets more and more connected, is it still possible?
Canadian Technocrats
I dont see why the mere ability would be immoral, in the same sense I dont think of a Hammer as Immoral, its just another tool/means to achieve an end.
The Tool could definitely be used for malicious intent, that doesnt make the Tool itself an immoral object.
Ignoring the Quantum Physics no Cloning Theorem (because this is not about Quantum Physics), I dont see why cloning would be immoral per se, because even if you generated exact instances of an individual with no differences, they would still be different individuals, having different experiences (on the fact that they cant physically overlap each other) and you can tell them apart by their location (because as said before, they cant overlap physically). Again I’d posit that its the way a thing is used that can be judged on moral grounds, not the thing itself.
Patchourisu
Yup
But if you do on the other hand take the part they are the same person, which they aren’t, you can confuse or can be confused by them, which can be pretty annoying. (Shion and Mion in the Higurashi series is a good example, although they are twins, as Shion takes the place of Mion to do some evil things). So that’s why they shoulda be differenciated from the start, with a different name and a different physical characteristic for example.
Dazzle
You’re right, the sword isn’t evil, using it to run a civilian through is, but unless we’re assuming the mind-uploading is happening in a different universe/hypothetical vacuum then the effects apply.
Canadian Technocrats
It is an incredibly dangerous technology for sure. Should we be careful with it? Absolutely. Should we regulate it? Probably, maybe. Can we ban it? No, than its just someone else that invents/tests/builds it. Its hard (or even impossible) to outright ban an idea or technology
Patchourisu
I agree
Even if you ban its development, you will find some eccentric that will try. And there’s always parallel markets. Which can be worse than direct markets, sometimes.
Closing Statements
Patchourisu
So, here are my last words for this agora:
The only way we can foresee mind Upload with our actual knowledge of Mind would be to replicate the architecture of the brain in the machine. Hence, replicating the Persona in the Shell. Now, would we kill the owner or let them live? We haven’t answered this question, although talked about the ethics on those cases. We can’t really agree, I think, but for one perspective, both could be inethical, both could be ethical, or at least in certain cases, like a dying patient Otherwise it could be murder. Cloning could lead to differenciated individuals, hence there wouldn’t be any problems. Although risky and highly debatable and debated, this technology could lead to an immortal lifeform, which could be a goal on its own.
I wonder though, if there’s some other way to operate Mind Upload.
Although we drifted, this was a really interesting debate! So thanks everyone for participating!
Nociav
To sum up my points and what I’ve learned.
The ethics of mind upload are extremely complex. A lot of it is philosophical and worthy of an entire debate on its own.
The feasibility of mind upload is also extremely complex and we’re nowhere near close enough to say definitively yes or no.
I’d like some future agoras to have the questions:
“Is mind uploading ethical?”
“What makes a human a human?”
I thank everyone for being good to debate with.
Dazzle
Technology is powerful. And with great power, comes great sociopolitical responsibility. There exists potential here for great disruption and wreaking-of-havoc to the existing societal order, some good, some certainly bad. We’ve agreed that consciousness-replication would, as far as we know, be the only feasible method of such a process, and realistically a reprehensible one at that, but naturally a wealth of options no doubt exist beyond the vale of the unknown, and with them, further room for debate.
This discussion was, for myself at least, an interesting and varied foray into all sorts of practicalities and implications revolving around the prospect of a ‘mind upload’, and there were great responses to read by all participants throughout. With this being my first debate, I only hope all those that follow hold to this merited standard.
Canadian Technocrats
So, to summarise:
Mind Transfer is a dangerous technology, even if it isnt a “transfer” and more a recreation of a separate being.
It seams that the debate centred around the problems of morality (because it might be classed as murder) and the actual effect it has (see: qualia) and I think we established that if not done consensual it is, indeed, unethical.
I can only second the request for an agora on the Morality of this matter rather than the overall system in general.
On the Agora itself: It was civilised, polite and I learned some new stuff. Thank you all for participating
THIS IS THE END (of the ending statement)