We (the human race) had better do something NOW about income inequality and corruption. If 1/2 of what Kurzweil says is true and we are exponentialy racing towards a fully technically augmented reality, whoever has the power to control your devices, or access to devices will have ultimate control of the individual. Who can be trusted with such power? The govt.? Corporations? Under the current status quo neither. This is serious and must be dealt with before it's to late. You cant stop progress.
Being uploaded into a machine means no dancing, beach parties, pizza, beer, wine, and ice cream. No simulation can make up for the real things. No preprogrammed response can make up for the new and the unexpected. The incalculable, the unimaginable, the impossible, the incomprehensible,; cannot be put in the stupid computer, no matter how sophisticated it's artificial intelligence is. My unique name is what makes me real. No one can be me. No one can share the totality of my experience.
@whenstorm "The incalculable, the unimaginable, the impossible, the incomprehensible,; cannot be put in the stupid computer" TRUE!
"no matter how sophisticated it's artificial intelligence is" WHAT?
In the first part you say "stupid computer" then you follow it with "no matter how sophisticated"!!!??? If it's sophisticated, then it's not stupid. If it's not stupid, then all of those things that you mentioned as beyond the reach of a stupid machine would be within its reach.
@RadicalModeV I would argue that being sophisticated and stupid are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. A thing can be complicated and stupid, or smart, right? I'm complicated but can be tremendously stupid, and brillant. If the premise that: if it's soshisticated it's not stupid is invalid, your deductive argument is fallacious.
@whenstorm Anything is possible if the public will says so, no matter how long we have to wait for it or how many steps it takes to get there. When the people discover it (and there are plenty of people), they'll want it . And when they want it, they'll stop at nothing until it happens. That's how the general public behaves and why information tech is advancing so rapidly.
Being uploaded into a machine means no dancing, beach parties, pizza, beer, wine, and ice cream. No simulation can make up for the real things. No preprogrammed response can make up for the new and the unexpected.
@Keyguya There is definitely that subjective part of consciousness that seems so mysterious. It's quite frustrating from a scientific standpoint, and some philosophers and scientists like Daniel Dennett choose to ignore it completely. I prefer to see it as Steven Pinker does; that we humans seem to have reached the limit of our cognitive capabilities in this area.
@Keyguya Well, "you" are really not as persistent as think. You don't think of yourself the same way you did 10 years ago. Now, at the moment when you duplicate yourself, the 2 "you"s are identical. But from there on, they start diverging because the start having different experiences. The 2nd you would probably think that it was the original you too. That is, until it's demonstrated to the second you that it's actually a copy.
The problem all you nay sayers have is that your looking at all this advancement as if its transcending the natural process.But really we've been advancing eversense sunlight reacted with the molecules in our ocean and created the first amino acid chains 2 billion years ago,
Has anyone here ever tried to explain these concepts to someone? The typical response is nothing at all, basically a nice way of saying "OK crazy person, leave me alone now." Everyone knows computers are just going to get more and more powerful, but they don't even consider what we will do with it. THINK PEOPLE! THINK!
@TheJuliusJT Ray is kidding himself if he thinks they can reverse engineer that. They may be able to mimic something based on programming, but not spontaneous self awareness.
I cant wait for the goddam fucking future!!!! I cant wait till us humans can live for thousands of years in our youth. I cant wait for virtual reality. Ray kurzweil predicts that we will have virtual reality like in the movie the Matrix by the early 2030's. In virtual reality you can fuck anyone and anything, you can be anyone or anything. . If you wanna have sex with underage girls you could do that too. But only in virtual reality so thats why i cant wait for the future.
@Barnarded So...you can't wait for the future so you can fuck little girls in a life like simulation such as that in The Matrix? That's so fucked up man. I mean, the evidence of technological progression so far seems to support Ray's predictions, no disagreements there...but there are better, more productive uses of such splendors of technology than living out pedophilia fantasies. Hell, there are better unproductive wastes of time than living out pedophilia fantasy.
@Crazygeneral VR Sex will be there in the future; it will take many forms and there's NO way we'll turn down the opportunities. If he decides to act in VR pedophilia, he'll do that and other people will also experiment. And women will do the same to young VR boys (this goes on in the real world, too).
But its only pedophilia in the real world (underage kids aren't interested in sex and can't defend themselves). In VR it might be different. It could represent a whole new concept of "loving".
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
Closer to Lunacy indeed. But one can at least thank the man for making the howling non-sequitur that was latent all throughout nice and explicit right at the end. Though I suppose that by this time many were inoculated against it. Perhaps that's a strategy.
Mike Treder - in his articles for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - completely rips Kurzweil's arguments into shreds. The exponential growth of technological progress will be sidetracked by ethical, economic, political and environmental issues.
@skopofil yeah this realization hit me hard one day...took about a year to get over it...had to rebuild from the ground up, so to speak. The human "essence" might just be the basic desire to attain goals; to "get on," if you will. The lack of this feeling of motivation coincides with the definition of depression. But depression could just be a modern affliction of Western capitalism...
Then again, why should we assume we can understand the true nature of "being" any more so than a dog?
The question that will transcend all of time is this. What is I? Just as Godel explained the incompleteness of mathematics there will always be the notion of consciousness as being UNDEFINED. the year 2479 they will ask what re we? This is the beauty of reality.
The type of personal identity he talked about, based on patterns of information, is not very important. The one that is important is one called by some "numerical identity" and what is meant when people say "I wish I were that person" or "if I were you...", which is independent of information patterns, and is what matters to people when they imagine that they die. This kind of identity is neither dependent on matter nor on information patterns; it is dependent on nothing and thus it is universal
@j1514120119: We can't, however, do this. We imagine that we can really be in someone else's shoes, and unfortunately we don't realise imagination's limitations. We are finite creatures of matter, after all.
or simply an evolutionary survival mechanism. Identity is a means of creating importance about oneself, thus, continuing and striving towards further survival.
@itanimullitenretni blah blah blah, you can tell that about everything. naturalists accuse theists of god of the gaps, when you are employing evolution of the gaps whenever there is a problem in your ontology
Hmm... I think that the information content though, is not finite... See: Zeno's Paradox.
So capturing that information as digital data would be impossible. You could copy someone, but the copy would be at low resolution and not REALLY that person.
In recent months, I have tended toward the thought that there are some advantages to being organic rather than digital even given the limits of quantum computing power.
And yes, I've read Kurzweil's book and am informed on nanotech methods of neuronal "copying". I'm skeptical that it would ever work in the way they hope it will.
Could you be specific about which part of zeno's paradox is relevant here? I only know a little bit about zeno's paradox and I don't see how it applies to what you're saying, which is that information is infinite?
When you try to subdivide anything into smaller and smaller subunits, you run into the problem of subdividing infinitely. What I'm saying is that in order to "copy" a human and his/her brain, there would be the question of how detailed your copy would need to be inorder to make an exact copy. It's different, than say, copying an image at low or high resolution. I'm guessing that to copy a human, the resolution would need to be so high it would be infeasible. Make sense?
The best image on a monitor these days is 1920x1080. I can look at an image that is 1280x720 and think that it is the same image, just not as high quality. The problem with copying a human at less resolution is that I don't think it would work near the same way. Either A) The human is nonfunctional, or B) the human is DIFFERENT and not the same as the original. Copying neuronal connections and having the thing function the same would be immensely difficult.
Furthermore, I would argue that copying a human brain into a computer is not possible at all, and that DNA, proteins, neurotransmitters, and all the functional aspects of the human brain are impossible to simulate on a computer unless you can simulate chemical reactions and the atomic world. But the question then is why go to the trouble? Just make AI beings, shed the mortal coil, and give up the notion that organic beings are special. The only way to copy you would be organically.
@PianoIsTheRemedy There is a resolution limit below which further probing is unnecessary to capture the functional equivalence of a neuron and its networks.
Eg; I don't need a device that manipulates atoms to reproduce the functional equivalent of a door. Same with humans brains. we might just need the spatial distribution of neurons or a lil more resolution but certainly not finely grained to the point of copying quarks.
It's kind of annoying to hear Kurzweil respond to questions, he almost always gets lost in a rant about some transhumanism ideal and forgets to focus on the issue of personal identity.
@MrSamuelChen Most academics who are accustomed in any way to speaking publicly don't go onto a show with the assumption that people have heard their stuff before, as in most cases they haven't.
Lenny, these lecturers are bringing in some very interesting philosophical questions that are driving me to drink more coffee. Never-the-less, the idea of extending the concept of the self to structures and mechanisms that are not of our physical bodies; such as: memory chips, robotic prosthesis & so forth, will lead to the redistribution of cost of life or the value of life. Religious sects see other sects as being lesser than unless they convert. I cannot imagine the redistribution of...
the value of life when amalgamations to the physical body are then regarded as adding above and beyond to the value of that being's life than someone without these extensions/amalgamations. It seems like that form of science would be walking the same path as those who have been deluding their communities as to who has value and who has not. I may not be completely clear on this...I will try to think of a better way of representing my response to such philosophy as present in this vid.
What is it exactly that worries you? Kurzweil isn't making pronouncements about the "value" of life but is simply talking about the phenomenon of the plasticity of the self. It is well known that prostheses are often taken to be, in a very real way, extensions of the self of the person using them. Our selves are not comprised only of the goings on in our minds but are largely made up of the parts of our environment that our minds interact with regularly....
Our minds interact constantly with our bodies and so bodies (or whatever substrate minds might occupy in the future) are very tightly woven into the self concept.
But these are empirical questions about what is, not ethical questions about how we "ought" to view one another. In other words there is no value judgment inherent in this description of selves beyond what YOU and I and EVERYONE ELSE impose.
Yes, I reread what I wrote and that it is quite unclear. Forgive me for that. I am trying to raise a concern over something that has yet to rear itself. And that is: where extensions/additions to the human physiology become a cost asset that works against those who do not have access to these enhancement apparatuses. But, I am jumping the gun and need to be patient on how such things will play themselves out in the real world and not in the theoretical.
@sammcalpine Garbage. Your mind is your identity, it will adapt to you removal of all appendages. You could have the head on the life support and you would still be you. Incomplete physically but still you. Self awareness can not be created by science. I bet my left nut on it.
Another victim of "An error occurred, please try again later." Damn you youtube!
On a side note, hey lenny you planning on making an original videos in the near future? I love all clips you post, but would also enjoy seeing some original stuff come out of your camp.
We (the human race) had better do something NOW about income inequality and corruption. If 1/2 of what Kurzweil says is true and we are exponentialy racing towards a fully technically augmented reality, whoever has the power to control your devices, or access to devices will have ultimate control of the individual. Who can be trusted with such power? The govt.? Corporations? Under the current status quo neither. This is serious and must be dealt with before it's to late. You cant stop progress.
halfzombiehalfrobot 2 months ago
Being uploaded into a machine means no dancing, beach parties, pizza, beer, wine, and ice cream. No simulation can make up for the real things. No preprogrammed response can make up for the new and the unexpected. The incalculable, the unimaginable, the impossible, the incomprehensible,; cannot be put in the stupid computer, no matter how sophisticated it's artificial intelligence is. My unique name is what makes me real. No one can be me. No one can share the totality of my experience.
whenstorm 8 months ago
@whenstorm unless you map every individuals brain structure and you reconstruct the model according to their sensual perception
FreeYourMind818 8 months ago
@whenstorm
That's quite ignorant and wrong of you.
meckerarma 8 months ago
@whenstorm "The incalculable, the unimaginable, the impossible, the incomprehensible,; cannot be put in the stupid computer" TRUE!
"no matter how sophisticated it's artificial intelligence is" WHAT?
In the first part you say "stupid computer" then you follow it with "no matter how sophisticated"!!!??? If it's sophisticated, then it's not stupid. If it's not stupid, then all of those things that you mentioned as beyond the reach of a stupid machine would be within its reach.
RadicalModeV 7 months ago
@RadicalModeV I would argue that being sophisticated and stupid are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. A thing can be complicated and stupid, or smart, right? I'm complicated but can be tremendously stupid, and brillant. If the premise that: if it's soshisticated it's not stupid is invalid, your deductive argument is fallacious.
1979descartes 6 months ago
@whenstorm Wow. You are truly a fool
eaglez1177 6 months ago
@whenstorm Anything is possible if the public will says so, no matter how long we have to wait for it or how many steps it takes to get there. When the people discover it (and there are plenty of people), they'll want it . And when they want it, they'll stop at nothing until it happens. That's how the general public behaves and why information tech is advancing so rapidly.
stokepogue 6 months ago
Being uploaded into a machine means no dancing, beach parties, pizza, beer, wine, and ice cream. No simulation can make up for the real things. No preprogrammed response can make up for the new and the unexpected.
whenstorm 8 months ago
Now all we need is a third party.
Woody Allen.
Domzdream 11 months ago
They are twins!
Cool.
Domzdream 11 months ago
Hey! I've got those monitors in the background at 0:25. Event TR-8.
Ahem.
shatminer 11 months ago
They missed the point. The self is the fact that there is anything at all.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
This is an excellent analogy!
CalumnMcAulay 11 months ago
Is this guy interviewing himself in a different shirt?
felixx2012 1 year ago
@felixx2012
So right. haha.
Domzdream 11 months ago
Here is what I don't get (PLEASE, post if this question has been asked from kurzweil):
If the pattern of you is you, and you copy that pattern, then there should be 2 yous. But the prio you (from your perspective) is still you.
This would suggest YOUR consciousness is somehow localized or something.
So from MY perspective even if I was copied and pasted it still would not be me (even though for everyone else it would be the same) argu.
What makes you to have the conciousness that you have?
Keyguya 1 year ago
@Keyguya There is definitely that subjective part of consciousness that seems so mysterious. It's quite frustrating from a scientific standpoint, and some philosophers and scientists like Daniel Dennett choose to ignore it completely. I prefer to see it as Steven Pinker does; that we humans seem to have reached the limit of our cognitive capabilities in this area.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@Keyguya Well, "you" are really not as persistent as think. You don't think of yourself the same way you did 10 years ago. Now, at the moment when you duplicate yourself, the 2 "you"s are identical. But from there on, they start diverging because the start having different experiences. The 2nd you would probably think that it was the original you too. That is, until it's demonstrated to the second you that it's actually a copy.
zruth2 10 months ago
@zruth2 Thats a very intuitive way of looking at personality. Its a pleasure to hear from deep thinkers like yourself who understand this.
DK0526 3 months ago
The problem all you nay sayers have is that your looking at all this advancement as if its transcending the natural process.But really we've been advancing eversense sunlight reacted with the molecules in our ocean and created the first amino acid chains 2 billion years ago,
Aspanaut 1 year ago
Has anyone here ever tried to explain these concepts to someone? The typical response is nothing at all, basically a nice way of saying "OK crazy person, leave me alone now." Everyone knows computers are just going to get more and more powerful, but they don't even consider what we will do with it. THINK PEOPLE! THINK!
jag9998 1 year ago
well did we create ourselves or did our parents create us.. therefore I guess someone can create you... over again..
coilzard 1 year ago
all students must require to obtain a jewish identity
artregeous 1 year ago
@artregeous Lol , good one.
trulynot 1 year ago
Computers isn't capable of alot of things the human brain is. Empathy, Fantasy, philosophy, abstract thinking.. and so on.
TheJuliusJT 1 year ago
@TheJuliusJT I think Ray is smart enough to steer away from making assertions regarding self awareness.
trulynot 1 year ago
@TheJuliusJT Ray is kidding himself if he thinks they can reverse engineer that. They may be able to mimic something based on programming, but not spontaneous self awareness.
trulynot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Niggers, faggots and Jews are a waste of space on this planet. Nuke them all.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
I cant wait for the goddam fucking future!!!! I cant wait till us humans can live for thousands of years in our youth. I cant wait for virtual reality. Ray kurzweil predicts that we will have virtual reality like in the movie the Matrix by the early 2030's. In virtual reality you can fuck anyone and anything, you can be anyone or anything. . If you wanna have sex with underage girls you could do that too. But only in virtual reality so thats why i cant wait for the future.
Barnarded 1 year ago
@Barnarded So...you can't wait for the future so you can fuck little girls in a life like simulation such as that in The Matrix? That's so fucked up man. I mean, the evidence of technological progression so far seems to support Ray's predictions, no disagreements there...but there are better, more productive uses of such splendors of technology than living out pedophilia fantasies. Hell, there are better unproductive wastes of time than living out pedophilia fantasy.
Crazygeneral 1 year ago
@Crazygeneral VR Sex will be there in the future; it will take many forms and there's NO way we'll turn down the opportunities. If he decides to act in VR pedophilia, he'll do that and other people will also experiment. And women will do the same to young VR boys (this goes on in the real world, too).
But its only pedophilia in the real world (underage kids aren't interested in sex and can't defend themselves). In VR it might be different. It could represent a whole new concept of "loving".
stokepogue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kurzweil is a religious leader and a pseudoscientific nincompoop. He's so fucking wrong it's not funny. PZ Myers tore his pathetic ravings apart in his recent blog post, and I like that.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
Closer to Lunacy.
NeoConvert 1 year ago
Closer to Lunacy indeed. But one can at least thank the man for making the howling non-sequitur that was latent all throughout nice and explicit right at the end. Though I suppose that by this time many were inoculated against it. Perhaps that's a strategy.
NeoConvert 1 year ago
I thought Ray Kurzweil was talking to himself..these two guys look like twins.
GeekMatrix 1 year ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
Mike Treder - in his articles for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies - completely rips Kurzweil's arguments into shreds. The exponential growth of technological progress will be sidetracked by ethical, economic, political and environmental issues.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
@skopofil yeah this realization hit me hard one day...took about a year to get over it...had to rebuild from the ground up, so to speak. The human "essence" might just be the basic desire to attain goals; to "get on," if you will. The lack of this feeling of motivation coincides with the definition of depression. But depression could just be a modern affliction of Western capitalism...
Then again, why should we assume we can understand the true nature of "being" any more so than a dog?
MisterAtoms 1 year ago
We're patterns of information? I guess to a hairdresser we're hair beings...
I wonder what he thinks of what eckhart tolle talks about...
padysplace 1 year ago
The question that will transcend all of time is this. What is I? Just as Godel explained the incompleteness of mathematics there will always be the notion of consciousness as being UNDEFINED. the year 2479 they will ask what re we? This is the beauty of reality.
johnstifter 1 year ago
The type of personal identity he talked about, based on patterns of information, is not very important. The one that is important is one called by some "numerical identity" and what is meant when people say "I wish I were that person" or "if I were you...", which is independent of information patterns, and is what matters to people when they imagine that they die. This kind of identity is neither dependent on matter nor on information patterns; it is dependent on nothing and thus it is universal
j1514120119 2 years ago
@j1514120119: We can't, however, do this. We imagine that we can really be in someone else's shoes, and unfortunately we don't realise imagination's limitations. We are finite creatures of matter, after all.
CathySander 2 years ago
@j1514120119
or simply an evolutionary survival mechanism. Identity is a means of creating importance about oneself, thus, continuing and striving towards further survival.
itanimullitenretni 1 year ago 8
@itanimullitenretni blah blah blah, you can tell that about everything. naturalists accuse theists of god of the gaps, when you are employing evolution of the gaps whenever there is a problem in your ontology
Rockstafeller 1 year ago
@itanimullitenretni :EXACTLY.
geodesicks 6 months ago
Hmm... I think that the information content though, is not finite... See: Zeno's Paradox.
So capturing that information as digital data would be impossible. You could copy someone, but the copy would be at low resolution and not REALLY that person.
In recent months, I have tended toward the thought that there are some advantages to being organic rather than digital even given the limits of quantum computing power.
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago
And yes, I've read Kurzweil's book and am informed on nanotech methods of neuronal "copying". I'm skeptical that it would ever work in the way they hope it will.
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago
Could you be specific about which part of zeno's paradox is relevant here? I only know a little bit about zeno's paradox and I don't see how it applies to what you're saying, which is that information is infinite?
sandform 2 years ago
When you try to subdivide anything into smaller and smaller subunits, you run into the problem of subdividing infinitely. What I'm saying is that in order to "copy" a human and his/her brain, there would be the question of how detailed your copy would need to be inorder to make an exact copy. It's different, than say, copying an image at low or high resolution. I'm guessing that to copy a human, the resolution would need to be so high it would be infeasible. Make sense?
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago
The best image on a monitor these days is 1920x1080. I can look at an image that is 1280x720 and think that it is the same image, just not as high quality. The problem with copying a human at less resolution is that I don't think it would work near the same way. Either A) The human is nonfunctional, or B) the human is DIFFERENT and not the same as the original. Copying neuronal connections and having the thing function the same would be immensely difficult.
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago
Furthermore, I would argue that copying a human brain into a computer is not possible at all, and that DNA, proteins, neurotransmitters, and all the functional aspects of the human brain are impossible to simulate on a computer unless you can simulate chemical reactions and the atomic world. But the question then is why go to the trouble? Just make AI beings, shed the mortal coil, and give up the notion that organic beings are special. The only way to copy you would be organically.
PianoIsTheRemedy 2 years ago
@PianoIsTheRemedy Read about professor Henry Makram
AudacityOfGrey 2 years ago
@PianoIsTheRemedy but not impossible
AudacityOfGrey 2 years ago
@PianoIsTheRemedy There is a resolution limit below which further probing is unnecessary to capture the functional equivalence of a neuron and its networks.
Eg; I don't need a device that manipulates atoms to reproduce the functional equivalent of a door. Same with humans brains. we might just need the spatial distribution of neurons or a lil more resolution but certainly not finely grained to the point of copying quarks.
AudacityOfGrey 2 years ago
It's kind of annoying to hear Kurzweil respond to questions, he almost always gets lost in a rant about some transhumanism ideal and forgets to focus on the issue of personal identity.
MrSamuelChen 2 years ago
@MrSamuelChen Most academics who are accustomed in any way to speaking publicly don't go onto a show with the assumption that people have heard their stuff before, as in most cases they haven't.
Saerain 2 years ago
Right, but he never really tailors the conversation back to personal identity. He just gets stuck on transhumanism.
MrSamuelChen 2 years ago
Lenny, these lecturers are bringing in some very interesting philosophical questions that are driving me to drink more coffee. Never-the-less, the idea of extending the concept of the self to structures and mechanisms that are not of our physical bodies; such as: memory chips, robotic prosthesis & so forth, will lead to the redistribution of cost of life or the value of life. Religious sects see other sects as being lesser than unless they convert. I cannot imagine the redistribution of...
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
the value of life when amalgamations to the physical body are then regarded as adding above and beyond to the value of that being's life than someone without these extensions/amalgamations. It seems like that form of science would be walking the same path as those who have been deluding their communities as to who has value and who has not. I may not be completely clear on this...I will try to think of a better way of representing my response to such philosophy as present in this vid.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
What is it exactly that worries you? Kurzweil isn't making pronouncements about the "value" of life but is simply talking about the phenomenon of the plasticity of the self. It is well known that prostheses are often taken to be, in a very real way, extensions of the self of the person using them. Our selves are not comprised only of the goings on in our minds but are largely made up of the parts of our environment that our minds interact with regularly....
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Our minds interact constantly with our bodies and so bodies (or whatever substrate minds might occupy in the future) are very tightly woven into the self concept.
But these are empirical questions about what is, not ethical questions about how we "ought" to view one another. In other words there is no value judgment inherent in this description of selves beyond what YOU and I and EVERYONE ELSE impose.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Yes, I reread what I wrote and that it is quite unclear. Forgive me for that. I am trying to raise a concern over something that has yet to rear itself. And that is: where extensions/additions to the human physiology become a cost asset that works against those who do not have access to these enhancement apparatuses. But, I am jumping the gun and need to be patient on how such things will play themselves out in the real world and not in the theoretical.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
@sammcalpine Garbage. Your mind is your identity, it will adapt to you removal of all appendages. You could have the head on the life support and you would still be you. Incomplete physically but still you. Self awareness can not be created by science. I bet my left nut on it.
trulynot 1 year ago
Ahh the guy that made me shit my pants because of the essay I had to make about him. I ended up dropping the subject.
Nades129 2 years ago
Now it works lol.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
Another victim of "An error occurred, please try again later." Damn you youtube!
On a side note, hey lenny you planning on making an original videos in the near future? I love all clips you post, but would also enjoy seeing some original stuff come out of your camp.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago