Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "RealLifeLore" channel.

Theoretically there is a possible way of "uploading" your mind to a computer, that doesn't just create a digital copy of your mind while your own mind is still stuck in your body. If you could build an artificial, self-replicating cell that mimic braincells and is designed to replace your biological braincells as they die and find some sort of treatment that prevents your body from rejecting these artificial cells, then eventually your brain would grow to become a computer, and philosophically speaking it would still be your own mind that inhabits this computer since your original biological brainfunctions never actually ceased but slowly adapted to using artificial braincells instead of biological ones. Pulling this off however would be tricky to say the least. Not only do we need much more sophisticated engineering in nanotechnology to build individual cells out of non-organic compounds that are also compatible with human braincells, you would also need much more deeper knowledge of the human immune system in order to prevent the body from rejecting the foreign cells. Also, this is only based on the little theoretical knowledge we have of how the mind works. It's hard to be absolutely sure that our real mind and self would actually adapt to these braincells or if the mind would simply retreat further and further into the remaining biological cells, until eventually you'd run out of biological cells and your mind would die, but other people might not even notice since the artifical cells might be so well designed at mimicry of regular brain cells that no one else would be able to tell the difference. So before allowing the artificial cells to "overtake" the biological functions, you'd have to devise a method of testing if the artificial cells are actually working in conjunction with other braincells rather than just simulating brainfunctions artificially. However that might be the easy part since you could basically just implant these artificial cells in the parts of the brain that governs other bodily functions than the mind and see if the surrounding neurons connected to the artificial cell are "firing" or not as they would normally.
148
This was a triumph... I'm making a note here: huge success! It's hard to overstate my satisfaction...
6
@jasonmarinara6492 The problem with digital cloning is that there's no guarantee of demonstrable continuity of consciousness. Example: Your current consciousness is currently locked inside your own body (Jason A). You make a digital clone of your consciousness uploaded to a computer (Jason B). Since the day you were born, you have only been able to experience the world from the perspective of Jason A. Jason B, while having a duplicate of your mind, is still his own individual, separate form you (Jason A). Jason B might think, reason and react just like Jason A does. But Jason A will never be physically capable of experiencing the world directly through Jason B's senses. There's no continuity of consciousness between Jason A and Jason B. One is just a separate duplicate of the other, but they're still two persons/individuals, experiencing the world through their own senses. And unless you're of a religious persuasion, you can't really prove that if Jason A were to die, then Jason A would basically have his consciousness "transfered" to Jason B, just because Jason B is a duplicate. So you're not gonna die in Jason A's body, only to suddenly wake up as Jason B afterwards and continue living.
2
@james palmer No, there should not be a "technology limiter" because it infringes on personal choice and personal freedom. If you don't want to utilize technology to extend your lifespan then that's your prerogative, but you have no business interfering with someone else who might want to do just that. People like you need to stop acting like Nazi's.
2
Since this video, several western countries have agreed to send Ukraine military aircraft in sizeable numbers though. Although the delivery times look pretty long with most of the aircraft not being delivered until next year.
2
It would be terrible for black people. They would no longer have the "muh slavery"-card to pull out every time they feel like excusing their crimes or spending their days as improductive, unemployed crack addicts. :P
1
King_Oskar: The majority of people on planet earth doesn't have sex out of some desire to procreate. In most cases procreation is a side-effect (sometime unwanted) rather than the goal.
1
Roomba Boi: Well it doesn't really matter. I'm just stating the facts, not potential values surrounding it. People enjoy fucking. For obvious reasons. It's pleasurable to most people. More pleasurble than most other forms of pleasure. And the human race is genetically hardwired to pursue pleasure.
1
Roomba Boi: I'm not upset. But maybe you are due to your concerns? I find that it's very difficult to live life with expectations of what one would "like" humanity to be rather than accepting humanity for what it is. There's good stuff and bad stuff. Overall it's usually good stuff though, since the species is geared towards survival deep down, and it's easier to survive and thrive through being pro-social and generally peaceful. Don't expect humans to be virtuous angels, because that will just leave you disappointed and bitter. But there's really no reason to expect humans to be evil either, because we're neither.
1
Roomba Boi: Don't mention it. :)
1
Gotchi!! :3 So you're saying that i'm "messed up" because I consider it evil to rape children. Yet you are "not messed up" for not seeing anything inherently evil about it? Okay then...
1
Gotchi!! :3 But you're arguing that we should "adapt" the the fact that child rapists are "happy" when they're raping children instead of condemning it. You've really painted yourself into a corner here. :)
1
If we did live in a simulation, there would be no way to prove or disprove it. So asking the question is kind of moot.
1