next »

[Magurp244]

#2cents
I'm not sure if i'd consider Catherine as apathetic to life or that people commited suicide perse. I mean, if you copy someones mind then they fundamentally become two different people, as they move through life they gather different experiences, perspectives, and opinions. So people getting this bizzare idea that if they kill themselves their "other self" will live on in the Ark or that there "can be only one!!11!" is absurd, and is what seems to form the basis of alot of the existential angst in the game.

What if Simon didn't kill his other "self"? What would stop him from just leaving a note or another copy of Catherine so he wouldn't be alone? How many other versions of Simon could actually be walking around? And all thats not even getting into the evolutionary adaptation of the WAU (which as simon is the foundation of all AI, could actually be another simon?), and what could ammount to the birth of a new form of life/eco-system that would grow out of the structure gel and requisite personality encodes? Lots of material to write expansions/sequels for.

The commodified existence aspects of it are also quite disturbing and thought provoking, something else to think about.

[ProgramGamer]

I've actually thought about it for a bit, and the answer seems intuitive to me.

In my opinion, unless the process of copying one's mind destroys it in the process, continuity is bullcrap. The reason I say that is because the process of destroying something to copy it preserves a process of cause and effect, which a mind needs to keep going. Unless that happens, you're just sending a copy of yourself to the matrix to live there forever. And the process of copying and destruction can't be separate in any way, they have to be the exact same to work. However, if you do copy-paste the data of your mind after the scan, you still end up with two instances of you, they just happen to be identical.

Actually, processing a mind digitally might destroy that cause-and-effect principle as well, turning you into a simulation, and therefore a different entity than what you used to be. I just don't think that our current technology would allow for anything like that yet, but like I said, all this seems intuitive to understand once you've grasped all the concepts.

[gimymblert]

I won't say they are identical, they are now at two different perspective despite sharing the same source.

But there is also the case of that experience channel through a body is different than from a machine, so the experience will change the person per default.

It's not true for machine only, it works for any modifier of experience, cloth can have the same effects, so does psychotrope, books, mentor, etc ... you don't become a simulation of yourself in another clothes, but the process of identity is one of constant change, there is no "real you" in absolute sense, you are not the child you use to be, you will not the school students once the father, entire outlook can change on a whim, identity is continuity of changes. Being in a machine would just be an experience more on top of all experiences.

I don't much buy mind body separation.

[ProgramGamer]

That's not what I meant though. In the case of a simulated mind, the underlying structure of how that mind is processed and modified is inherently altered way more than by changing clothes or by being taught something. It's so low level that it defies the nature of experience. Mind you, a simulated mind is still capable of sentience, it's just not a direct continuation of the sentience it's based on.

[gimymblert]

But is that structure the hardware or the process? If the hardware is different but the process perfectly emulated? What about case of lobotomy? the brain is separated in two and the "individual" continue but with two slightly different personality each controlling one side of the brain, we can even ask them the same question and it lead to different answer! Some people report case of picking a cloth and the other hand taking it and putting it down.

[s0]

What if Simon didn't kill his other "self"? What would stop him from just leaving a note or another copy of Catherine so he wouldn't be alone?

you don't have to kill your other self. you can just leave him in the pilot seat. idk if that affects anything tho.

to tell you the truth i don't even know if the game has multiple endings.

So people getting this bizzare idea that if they kill themselves their "other self" will live on in the Ark or that there "can be only one!!11!" is absurd, and is what seems to form the basis of alot of the existential angst in the game.

welp they're also the last humans on earth living in a shithole of an underwater research facility that is getting taken over by an AI turned tentacle monster.

also catherine is definitely apathetic to human life. remember the part where you have to kill a robot with a stun rod to get a new tool chip? if you choose to kill the "human" robot, catherine doesn't care and seems almost annoyed that simon is having moral qualms. if you kill the helper bot thing that opens doors for you, she gets upset.

there is no "real you" in absolute sense, you are not the child you use to be, you will not the school students once the father, entire outlook can change on a whim, identity is continuity of changes. Being in a machine would just be an experience more on top of all experiences.

yes there is. real you = your own consciousness. you can't transfer or "upload" your consciousness.

[gimymblert]

I'm not sure about that part about "real you", le's say we clone something perfectly, obviously the "real him" is also duplicate in that the continuity works on both side, both share the same perception of the past and the consciousness of being "one", but isn't that an illusion?

[s0]

but if you create a copy of yourself you won't suddenly experience life as the copy, your consciousness will remain tied to your own physical body, right?

i mean IRL, in the game universe it's random which copy becomes "you"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YgiLLWxeJig

[gimymblert]

Well but the copy who still experience being a copy as if it was you?
If a copy is perfect does that make it a copy or an original? I mean when you download a mp3 is it a copy? where is the original? Is it the continuity of hardware or the continuity of process, or the continuity of data that define the self?

I mean if you are the data, then the same data in another process still experience continuity but start reasoning differently, in fact it can happen in real life when you have an epiphany and change your behavior.

If you are the process, with different data you act accordingly, can happen in real life with ... amnesia ... or with psychotropes and meds, I mean that's how we take care of depression right?

If you are the hardware, can you still be yourself if the data and the process don't change? We aren't there technologically, although we can replace or extend the body a lot, just not yet the brain.


I haven't played the game, I address the IRL matter : P

[s0]

you should at least watch a playthrough of it on youtube if you can't play it, it's really good.

[s0]

seems like science hasnt answered the question of consciousness transferral yet

[gimymblert]

stand alone complex? soliton wave?

Tangentially, the theme of ghost in the shell stand alone complex second gigs, where there is a wave of immigration that the government take advantage of with a background of terrorism is particularly striking given our current situation.

[s0]

just saw this randomly on youtube and thought of this thread lol





looks like we don't even have a working definition of consciousness yet. humanz r dum

[ProgramGamer]

humanz r dum

That's a suitable definition by my standards

[J-Snake]

looks like we don't even have a working definition of consciousness yet. humanz r dum

The majority of people are fooled and/or spoiled, that's correct judging by possible standards. However a formal definition of consciousness isn't possible by principle, regardless how smart you are. It is because you can only provide models for abstractions. In order to model consciousness you would need abstractions which resolve abstractions, so in the end you still end up with a form of abstractions. Thus your model will never reach the meta meaning which is consciousness.

The implication is that consciousness is something a computer will never understand, while a human is living it. Of course if someone consumes quantities of visionary youtube talks and hollywood films he might believe something else, in the illusion of having an "open mind". True understanding of things is something different however.

[gimymblert]

Hold on, consciousness is something we can actually measure.

There is a spectrum between dead, coma, sleepy, hypnotize, suggestive state, aware.

Absolute formal definition of anything is impossible anyway. So is true understaning (who ever come up with true understanding of logic, math, physics, etc ... is a liar, can't wait him to explain logarithmic sequence of prime number using anabelian geometry).

[J-Snake]

What I am saying is that consciousness cannot be understood in terms of formal entities, it can only be experienced. Consciousness cannot be defined by a behavior, it is a state of being itself. In order to explore consciousness you have to be conscious in the first place. The proof lies within me, you, and every single one of us.

[gimymblert]

that's true for most thing, try to explain color to a blind person ... still it can be understood in term of formal representation.

BTW if you take page on current ANN research you would NN can experience thing in a a very diffuse way more and more similar to human.

[J-Snake]

that's true for most thing, try to explain color to a blind person ... still it can be understood in term of formal representation.

It's not the same thing. What you have here is a function (often even injective): given a formal representation you can output the corresponding color on a physical medium. However given a formal behavior you cannot assign a state of consciousness to it since a relation between it doesn't exist: a formal behavior can be entirely robotic, for instance.

[gimymblert]

We can, it's call the turing test.