Massimo Pigliucci - Life After Death: Virtual Immortality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Support the show with a Closer To Truth merch purchase: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Virtual immortality is the theory that when the fullness of our mental selves can be uploaded with first-person perfection to non-biological media, then when our mortal bodies die our mental selves will live on. But the complexity of the science is vast. And what about the nature of consciousness?
Watch more videos on life after death: shorturl.at/SRnRQ
Donate to Closer To Truth to keep our content free and open to the public: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Massimo Pigliucci is an Italian-American philosopher and biologist who is professor of philosophy at the City College of New York. He is a critic of pseudoscience and creationism, and an advocate for secularism and science education.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast wherever you listen: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I think Robert spoke more than his guest in this interview, and that's fine with me!! What I wouldn't give to have an evening discussing life, the Universe and everything with Robert over a glass of wine or two!!!
Nobody wants to hear Pigliucci's scientism.
How will u upload a natures character which is changing continuously throughout the life, but still remains the same in core from childhood?
I have to say that this whole line of thinking is just crazy. It is true that certain processes in the brain are linked to specific neuro chemical events etc. but consciousness is endlessly elusive. When I watched the film Ex Mechina it alluded to but never was conclusive if the AI was in fact self aware or just highly developed to (go through the motions) and so forth.
Mr. Kuhn should invite Federico Faggin. It would be a very interesting interview!
This guy is playing dumb. You scan the brain to some level of detail, may be molecular, and then run that on a computer, i.e. given this starting state you simulate all the chemical processes that happen in the brain. You also need to simulate a body or provide a physical one, because the brain needs input and output. And now you have uploaded your mind and consciousness. It will feel exactly as yourself. It will experience joy, love and pain exactly as you. Other than being technologically difficult, where is the flaw in this experiment?
@@degigi2003 This is like thinking detailed drawings of brain scans in a huge flip book would be thinking as you flipped the pages.
They actually addressed precisely the flaw in your line of reasoning in the video when they pointed out that even the most accurate computer simulated rain storm wouldn't be wet and computer sugar doesn't taste sweet etc.
"Life after Death"
Physical Death is nothing to be so feared about because it only affects your temporary physical body but NOT your immortal soul which is your true being that remains intact and survives forever...
... and the reason why your spiritual existence is eternal because your soul is a free split of the Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end...
... what you should be concerned about is your soul's eternal fate that solely relies on what you had freely chosen to believe, or not believe, regarding the existence of a loving Creator or GOD, before your physical death...
.. your temporary physical body plays an important role as a shield to your past spiritual life so that you can freely chose to believe without knowing God..
..again, we fell from Heaven because we lost faith in God's love, so, only by ragaining this faith that our souls can return Home...
.. if you had chosen to believe in a loving God to live a life with God's grace, regardless whether you are a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc., then Heaven is where your immortal soul belongs to live genuinely happy ever after...
..but if you had chosen to believe in Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama, ie., had chosen a life without God's grace, then your wish is your command.... your soul will end up in a cold dark empty state (hell) - an absence of God's blessings.... God can not force you Home because your soul is free....
If you were unable to make a choice because of early death due to abortion, infantacide, etc., your lost soul could be given another chance to reborn or reincarnate.
Reincarnation is heresy that no Christian should believe.
@@Theonewhoknocks879 did Jesus say that you need to be a Christian to be saved ?.. did Jesus use any Christian bible to share faith in a loving God ?.... was Jesus a Christian ?
The GOAL is for YOU to live forever. If you DUPLICATE the consciousness so there is a duplicate "You" in some computer-like device with _all_ your memories - it's STILL not YOU. At best, it's a digital clone.
Think back to 10 years ago. Was that you? How can we tell what’s you and what’s not? This is the ship of Theseus problem. I don’t think there’s a way to tell the difference.
I think the question of 'artificial consciousness' and multiple copies distracts from the important point here which is that if you're personal conscious experience is generated by your brain's activity, in principle, any brain whose network of neurons and global cells etc behaved precisely as yours would give rise to the same personal conscious experience.
If we could for example somehow link every one of Massimo's neurons with Robert's so that they perfectly mirrored them, we would in principle have two equally valid instances of Kuhn's personal conscious experience.
Again, in principle, it wouldn't matter if it were Massimo's brain or a copy of Robert's brain placed in a vat or a brain composed entirely of artificial neurons provided it was linked to and perfectly replicated Robert's neurons' behavior.
So now if heaven forfend Robert 1.0 were to die, suppose we had a living clone of Robert, Robert 2.0, whose brain was linked to Robert's as described earlier, in principle Robert 2.0 could carry on as Robert without any interruption or alteration of his personal conscious experience.
I would say that's every bit as legitimate as instance of Robert as Robert 1.0 if it's the process that matters and not the particular brain whose neurons are 'Robert-ing' so to speak.
I think this concept gets lost in the shuffle when we consider sci-fi scenarios such as duplicates interacting with one another etc.
I'm not arguing of course that any of this will ever be possible but if indeed we are what our brain does then any brain doing that _is_ identically _us_ ; Massimo's brain is 'Massimo-ing' and Robert's brain is 'Robert-ing' but in principle _any_ brain can 'Massimo' or 'Robert'.
@@seanpierce9386 its still me 10 years ago in core, I'm the same observer taking different experience of life.
Next: Uploading dreamlands for the artificially conscious
The question is, "If we can do it, do we do it?"
How does the evidence support the theory that consciousness depends for its existence on brains but not support (or not equally support or not equally not support) any theory incompatible with the theory that consciousness depends for its existence on brains?
There is overwhelming evidence that our personal conscious experience is dependent upon brain activity.
It can be predictably and consistently altered or suspended by drugs that act on particular brain function, brain injury, degenerative neurological diseases, etc.
The nature and quality of consciousness clearly changes as our brains develop and change over the course of our lives and cognitive abilities and intelligence and apparent degree of awareness clearly correlates with the size, structure, and complexity of brains across the animal kingdom.
You'd have to be willfully blind not to see the evidence.
If you genuinely doubt that your personal conscious experience is dependent upon brain activity I challenge you to sincerely interrogate yourself as to whether or not you would be willing to undergo a lobotomy provided it could be painless and not leave a scar etc.
You can say whatever you want but I think we both know you wouldn't and why.
On the other hand, if consciousness was fundamental per some form of idealism or what have you there are things we would expect to see as mundane aspects of everyday reality that we don't.
Lose a limb? Wish it back into existence! Get blown to smithereen? Think yourself back!
Why don't we see this? Why is something like anaesthesia possible? Why does brain injury and degenerative neurological disease alter our personal conscious experience and cognitive abilities?
You're engaging in wishful thinking. You _want_ consciousness (or more precisely our personal conscious experience) to be independent of brain activity because you don't want it to end at death.
If we were immortal I don't think you'd find idealism so plausible.
Mind you (no pun intended), even if physicalism or materialism is false and in reality ontologically everything is made of some spooky immaterial mental 'stuff', it would change nothing so far as our personal conscious experience is concerned. It would still be demonstrably dependent on the same brain activity which ends at death and is vulnerable to damage during life.
Because we are created from our brain and exist only within it, anything outside of it will not be us, no matter how accurate the copy. "It" will feel like itself and look at us as a separate being, and we will do the same. We are not transferable due to the very nature in which we become ourselves. This is it, folks. Make it count.
Why not just preserving the brain in its head attached to a life support system? It's presumably not immortal because all biological systems eventually deteriorate, but it could last for a very long time.
Easier than creating a new receptacle into which to transfer all aspects of the mind, all memories, conscious or subconscious or unconscious-- a package which we have no idea what's really in there.
It's basically a baloney discussion.
frequently materialists say things like…
there is overwhelming evidence that consciousness depends for its existence on brains
there is very good evidence that consciousness depends for its existence on brains
the evidence points strongly towards the conclusion that consciousness depends for its existence on brains.
but what is the proposition in contention? in light of the evidence it is rational to prefer physicalism over idealism?
what is the argument for that claim?
P1)
P2)
C)...
how is that evidence for the proposition that consciousness depends for its existence on brains? by virtue of what account of evidential relation is that evidence for the proposition that consciousness depends for its existence on brains?
In virtue of what is that evidence for the proposition that consciousness depends on brains?
you need to show that the evidence supports the proposition that consciousness is brain dependent but doesn't support or doesnt equally support any proposition incompatible with the proposition that consciousness is brain dependent
“consciousness is brain dependent" has evidence, "consciousness is not brain dependent" has no evidence, you might say
but in virtue of what is the evidence evidence for the proposition that consciousness depends for its existence on brains?
you dont think it’s evidence for that proposition? you might ask
and my answer would be: i'm not entirely sure. i suspect it is evidence for it, but i just want you to show in virtue of what it is evidence for it, so we can have a set goal post or some defined criteria by which something is supporting evidence for a proposition. that way we will be able to determine whether the evidence supports the proposition that consciousness is brain dependent but doesn't support or doesnt equally support any proposition incompatible with the proposition that consciousness is brain dependent…or if it just turns out that the evidence equally supports both propositions (or supports neither proposition)
Simulated sugar does not get your coffee sweet, but it does get your simulated coffee sweet, that can be enjoyed by a simulated person with simulated consciousness.
Enjoyment is a property that can only be experienced by an experiencer as its fundamentally an experiential experience…. Simulated experience isn’t experience.
The question for people living now: Is it enough to conserve some of your memories for a later upload into a future dummy-consciouness machine?
If we are successful in creating two copies of conscious entity, which is a long ways away, upto the point of splitting they can and will rightfully claim ownership of the shared memory, after that their memorand histories will start diverging but they both can legitimately claim to be that same person. We will have to simply adjust our notions of identity. What is the big incredulity about.
Crudely speaking, if we make a very very exact same copy of a currency note, shuffle the notes, both could be used to buy stuff.
Uploading one's ego identity for preservation is a dubious enterprise.
It’s the sort of thing that seems cool in principle… but then you realize that only multi-billionaires will be able to afford it. Plus, at what point do you “quit”, so to speak?
@@OceanRoadbyTonyBaker The idea of uploading your ego is usually very poorly and naively argued.
There's something about the spectacle of a computer and the fact that it has moving parts and we can interact with it and it can do things for us that causes us to fail to recognize that any simulation of brain activity running as a instruction processing algorithm on a computer has precisely as much potential to be conscious as a mountain sized collection of hand written instructions describing in exhaustive detail how to process any particular input etc.
This doesn't mean that artificial consciousness or more specifically an instantiation of our personal conscious experience is necessarily impossible but I don't think "uploading your mind" would be the right word for it.
The canonical example is the idea that in principle, if you could replace any one of your brain cells (i.e. neurons and glial cells etc) without your personal conscious experience being altered you could replace all of them, at which point you'd effectively have a conscious machine generating your personal conscious experience.
Moreover, if it could generate _your_ conscious experience, another artificial brain would presumably generate it's own personal conscious experience etc.
Note that from this alone we _still_ wouldn't understand _how_ this conscious experience is generated by that activity; we'd just he able to verify it via our own subjective experience.
You'd really have to be able to toggle back and forth between the brain you were born with and the artificial version, where only one is active at a time. If you could do that without gaps in your subjective personal conscious experience you would know that it doesn't matter whether or not the brain cells are natural or not so long as they're doing the same things.
That's easier said than done however but that's a hypothetical example of how a conscious machine might be possible.
Refer to Indian philosophy, first person experience is illusory, the first person really does not exist. Even if every thought and emotion is captured digitally, that digital experience will never be you
Why would the transporter produce a clone? It would not be a clone but the same person reconstructed!
6:07 In 2015 the seems made a experiment “upload” (make a copy) of worm brain to a robot, so in principle by that experience, would be possible to do the same with human brain the future (besides in my personal opinion the consciousness it’s extra-physical like math).
Extra-physical suggests that there is some nonphysical aspect to it, but that seems to conflict with what you just said. Did you mean something else?
Your comment on math I found interesting. Personally I think physics and math are the same kind of thing, just one is scaled up. They’re connected by Turing-completeness, which allows things to simulate each other. Incidentally, that’s the exact principle by which mind simulation works.
@@seanpierce9386 indeed it's conflict, that's I've put it in parenthesis, like the ''upload'' in my opinion was just a copy never been truly upload, consciousness it’s extra-physical like math, it goes beyond physcis, I don't think like many said that Math it's man made, on contrary I think Math it's some kind of extra-dimesion ''entity'' always been on the infinity, rules over the physical universe (that's why math is always the ''tool'' to explain the physical universe) , but Math it's dimesion above the physical things and consciousness it's is in the same level, the brain would be just a kind "receptor" to express the non-physical consciousness in the physical world. in this dimesion where Math and consciousnes is, physical laws of this universe it's "bellow" what it's possible there (As you can do in math things that you can describe in Math but it's impossible in this physical universe) this is my opinon for many reasons some of them been even scientific tested, but don't know why it's happened. example if you swear a plant and other treat well, the one treat badly get sick even died, other growing well, many things goes beyond physics, consciousness is one of them, it's my opinion.
its the first time ever RLK interrupts his interlocutor continously and in fact talks more than the guest. Time to retire?!
They need to read the bible where it says.its easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to heaven
Black holes have found the most optimal way of recycling ♻️ information
Why do I think that the fastest CPU would be a human brain running that quantum super computer.
there is a category error here ..
What is it? Are you suggesting that humans differ from other things in a categorically different way?
like george castanza told jerry, if you believe it then it's not virtual.
I like how he explained conciousness in less than 10 seconds, while no one else ever had a theory to explain it.
No he didn’t. He made sloppy assumptions and passed it off as an explanation. Mind may have a biological basis but that doesn’t mean awareness (consciousness) does. Consciousness is not observable, there’s no evidence to suggest it is a process at all, all processes are observed, that observation is consciousness, it isn’t the process it’s the awareness. To “explain” it in 10 seconds is a red flag and shows he has not truly thought about the issue.
I love how people who don't know anything about consciences (and that includes everyone) think they know how consciences works .
Incredulity?
Approximately think Electrical, Pneumatic and Hydraulic circuits with equivalent drag,pressure,flow and voltage,current,resistor,capacitor. Complexity is the key to consciousness. Naturally evolved consciousness is biological, by which we really mean organic chemistry based system - why? because that was what was available and capable of supporting complexity. Evolution is unguided so it took 2+ billion years of trial, fits and starts to climb the complexity cliff to get to Humans. Now Humans who have agencies and can control the environment will create consciousness in less-messy, guided and structuredly manufactured silicon based substrate. Consciousness is a an imperative result of sustained complex systems. It is like it was said in Jurassic Park, nature will find a way.
These are by far very thought provoking discussions about the nature and the fundamental basis of human consciousness. We still are far way from agreeing or even having uniform and consistent definition of consciousness. I for one think we will ask whether pure nonbiological systems have "consciousness" 10K years from now
Till now all your research about conciousness is limited to your own mind, and you are researching your mind on behalf of consciousness, you cant understand conciousness with yoyr mind, yes moving beyond mind can give you a gate way to understand beyond, again its the matter of mind to be silence to dive beyond,
P1) either the evidence points equally to physicalism and idealism or it doesn't point equally to physicalism and idealism. (p or q)
P2) if it doesn't point equally to physicalism and idealism, you need to show it doesn't point equally to physicalism and idealism. (if q then r)
C) therefore either the evidence points equally to physicalism and idealism or you need to show it doesn't point equally to physicalism and idealism. (therefore p or r)
Kamala Harris has entered the chat.
@@b.g.5869 Who's that?
@@highvalence7649 You don't watch the news much I guess.
Suffice it to say it's a very famous person known for spewing word salads.
The original post here takes three paragraphs to state the obvious and apparently thinks they have said something meaningful about physicalism and idealism.
@@b.g.5869 or your cerebrum is just slanted forward and that's why you dont understand what that means ;)
But what do you mean by word salad? Are you saying one of the premises is not propositional? Otherwise pick a premise you dont accept, because as long as the premises are propositional, and the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, as the logical deduction itself is valid; the conclusion is necessarily entailed by the premises.
@@b.g.5869 well, i dont watch the News much no, but i also dont know how much they talk about american politicians in my country, except the two main candidates of course.
As we all know, Jesus sits on the right hand of God.
And he is God. Therefore he sits on his own right hand.
It's only logical.
Fun episode. Like in Avatar 2, when Neytiri meets the demon commander now in an avatar, says, " demon, i will kiII you as many times as i have to." This was funny.
In phenomena there is the upstream and the downstream.
One is Wisdom the other episteme information.
In phenomena there really are these 2 main fundamentals I learned.
The procession and regression - ultimately the procession is the regression.
Buddha taught Brahmayana - the path to the absolute.
'Objective negation leads to subjective synthesis'.
It's of the nature of all corporeal organisms to survive and to thrive. Eugenics and augmentation they've likely been working on for decades now. Merging man with computer has been the goal for quite a time. Is it not further enslavement and bondage though? Whatever man seeks to possess always ends up possessing man. Samsara.
It would be nice to correct birth deformities and challenges. Where would you draw the line in the sand? Nature already will have an advanced move to play right back - cause and effect.
Me personally, I'm moving towards the wisdom of the ancients.
All science and technology is far away from doing so as science has not reached the fundamentals of consciousness and its functionalities to understand till now😂
I've had several ego death experiences...... dealing with reincarnation......it never ends......etc....etc......so I say hell no......both literally and figuratively .....on the other hand.....a dreamless sleep?????......I might check out now......just saying
Death doesn’t exist! 😉
Massimo is very intelligent. However, consciousness can be non-biological. As for Virtual Immortality, this may not happen for 100s of years.
We don’t even know what consciousness is. There is no reason to think it is or isn’t biological, as consciousness remains a total mystery. We can’t even mess around with simple organisms like virus’s without creating disasters.
Please provide your reasoning that a non-biological consciousness is possible? As far as I know, there are no examples of it.
@@brookschilders8505 I've thought a lot about what consciousness is and what it does. A few years ago, I discovered what I believe to be the definition of consciousness. So far, I have not been able to dis-prove it. The funny thing is, it is extremely simple. Shortly after this discovery, I decided not to pursue this tech. I believe it will absolutely cause the death of many people indirectly. It has little to do with A.I. or machine learning as is commonly known.
You can't simply declare "non biological consciousness is possible"; you need to present sound reasoning as to precisely how and why you think it's possible and cite compelling evidence to support your claim.
I think virtual immortality is going to happen in just a couple of decades because I think people are overthinking it. It doesn't require knowledge about how to do this or what is involved. I think it just requires a connection. Something like neuralink or Even a less invasive interface will be able to modulate first-person experience. Copy it into some non-local cloud and allow other people to share first-person experience. This will explode everything.
Hmmm.. Perhaps the utility of such endeavors are meaningful only to a psychology that suffers from what Dr. Iain McGilchrist refers to as "left brain hyperactivity coupled with right brain impotence". Such a psychology serves as a basis from which the "modern metacrisis" is progressively generated and sustained..
Telepathy is not understood let alone conciousnes.
Original comment deleted due to RUclips censorship.
Death has a secret it's like nothing, it does not exist
Very well said ! !