Pure gibberish.

I like the way you took it, because indeed it was a little offensive, although I was not addressing to you, personally and my remark was not a criticism but it came from a real surprise. I see questions like these very often in Quora but this is not a philosophical forum/community: All kinds of people participate in it. That's why I specified "in here". Anyway, I'm sorry if I have offended you.

I will also explain my surprise:
1) People in general try to assign to Artificial Intelligence (including robots), computers, etc. all kinds of qualities, features and abilities of the human mind, including thinking, rationalization, imagination, feeling and emotions, morality and so on. This huge mistake comes from misunderstanding or not really knowing what both the mind and computer are and do.
2) I have I heard about "uploading" the brain or the mind to a computer hundreds of times. It sounds totally ridiculous for someone knows what a mind and a computer are and how they work. So, I believe that if someone originates a discussion regarding this subject, he should know well these things. I mean, esp. in here. Because, outside "in the world", one can hear a lot of nonsense.

It happens that I am an IT person and I also know a lot about the mind and how it works. So, most probably, because of this and also the huge amount of nonsense I have heard on the subject, I use to overreact to considerations, propositions and sometimes allegations, such as the one of this topic ...

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund

To me, it sounds as the most possible scenario,so far, for humans to achieve some kind of "immortality". At consciousness level at least. Don't know if that could be via uploading mind on computers or transplanting brains into machines or whatever.

But in general consciousness has much better chances to remain in a way immortal, rather than body itself. The problem is, how you replicate general body functions that play their role in brain(which is the organ for consciousness) processes also, into a synthetic machine?? Still a lot to be answered.

I don't believe in it either and consider it total nonsense but then why Wiki puts it that way? Mind upload.

You think it's possible to program a mind in a robot body?

.hahastillhere — universeness

hahaha! :lol:

It happens that I am an IT person and I also know a lot about the mind and how it works. So, most probably, because of this and also the huge amount of nonsense I have heard on the subject, I use to overreact to considerations, propositions and sometimes allegations, such as the one of this topic ... — Alkis Piskas

Awesome! :up:

Pure gibberish. — 180 Proof

Gibberish is the only language we can apply if we want to describe what is meant by mind transfer or de- and upload. The way Wikipedia describes it is no upload.

I have I heard about "uploading" the brain or the mind to a computer hundreds of times. It sounds totally ridiculous for someone

So, I believe that if someone originates a discussion regarding this subject, he should know well these things. I mean, esp. in here. Because, outside "in the world", one can hear a lot of nonsense — Alkis Piskas

But many individuals in the world of Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering, cybernetics, electronic/quantum/biological computing, physics/chemistry/biology do think that transplanting the human brain into an alternate container to continue an individual consciousness IS plausible.
I agree that extracting an individual consciousness from an organic brain and 'downloading' it is a much harder problem as there is still so much we don't know about the workings of the brain but we will advance in our ability to emulate the brain.
How far do you think we could advance transhumanism in the next 1000000 years of scientific endeavor. If it's true that the first person to live to between 130 and 170 years is alive today then what do you personally think human lifespan may be, 1 million years from now.
I understand you may choose not to speculate but I do choose to speculate such as do many others, including those who

knows what a mind and a computer are and how they work. — Alkis Piskas

hahaha! :lol: — L'éléphant

If we do ever achieve consciousness downloads or a human brain contained in a fully cybernetic body or a brain transplanted into a cloned body etc I wonder if all the theists will refuse to take part?
I think it's more likely that they will claim such technologies as 'inspired by god, all part of its cunning plan.' They might insist that the file extension be called

.godwantsitthisway

could be shortened to just

.god

which might stand for genetically organised download.
Okay, I might have taken my attempt at humour too far! :blush:
I got carried away because my career was teaching computing science and you laughed a wee bit at my .hahastillhere joke. :smile:

Good that you don't believe it!
As for Wiki, although I generally trust it for a lot of things, I have found a lot of insufficient, inaccurate and false data, based mainly on ignorance. Note that it, besides proved data, it also contains opinions. So, I couldn't abide to a motto such as "If it is written in Wikipedia, it means it is true".

You think it's possible to program a mind in a robot body? — Haglund

I don't know what does "mind" mean to you, but the functioning of robots, like computers, is based on electronic circuits. And these circuits work on the basis of rudimentary and logic (AND, OR, XOR, etc.), which are reduced into 0/1 states. This occurs at a "low level". At a higher level, human beings use programming, which can involve quite sophisticated and intelligent algorithms, and this programming --software-- is then "translated" into low level commands for the computer/robot firmware and hardware.

But many individuals in the world of Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering, cybernetics, electronic/quantum/biological computing, physics/chemistry/biology do think that transplanting the human brain into an alternate container to continue an individual consciousness IS plausible. — universeness

I don't know what kind of individuals are you referring to. Anyway, as I already said, if someone knows well what computers amdna mind are and how they work, cannot even think about such a thing. I have already explained the reason why in detail with facts. (At least, the computer part, which is much easier. I leave it to your reasoning and imagination trying to fit the human mind --with all its complexities, features and abilities-- into a computer chip! :smile:)

On the other hand, one could say that "Nothing is impossible" or "Everything is possible", which are also empty statements and prove nothing. That's why sci-fi exists: to satisfy such imaginative persons! :smile:

(If you had the same knowledge in both fields as I do, you would most probably say the same things.)

We seem to be able to download the thoughts of other folks; that's what we do, absorb information from books, articles, essays, papers authored by other peeps. There's no obvious reason why this is a one way street. We should be able to, in principle at least, upload our minds onto something :meh: or someone :scream: Socrates lives on in me! :scream:

I don't know what kind of individuals are you referring to. — Alkis Piskas

That's true you don't and I can't/won't provide their names, contact details and qualifications here.

I know how computers work and no one yet knows fully how the human brain works, including you.
Why do you limit your thinking to downloading a single human consciousness onto what is currently identified/labeled 'a computer chip?' Who suggested that?
That seems rather restricted, unlikely and simplistic contemporary thinking.
We have made astonishing breakthroughs in the past. Do you really think that we never will again?
Do you think human scientific endeavor will simply not achieve a full understanding of how the human brain works and be able to 'replicate it?' Even if we consider a timescale such as a million years of scientific effort?
What do you think you know about human consciousness that proves that downloading an individual human consciousness and storing it outside the vessel of the traditional physical human body with triune brain, is impossible?
How often has sci-fi become sci-fact? I think often enough is the answer.

Probably the label 'computer chip,' will be as technically advanced to the transhumans of 1m years from now, as the label 'sharpened flint,' is to us now.

(If you had the same knowledge in both fields as I do, you would most probably say the same things.) — Alkis Piskas

No, I wouldn't as I am not you and don't think like you.

no one yet knows fully how the human brain works, including you. — universeness

I didn't say "fully" --that would be foolish-- I said "well". Huge difference. Try to duplicate what people are writing. It helps using TPF Quote feature to quote exactly the other person's words.

Why do you limit your thinking to downloading a single human consciousness onto what is currently identified/labeled 'a computer chip? — universeness

I don't. This was just an example.

Do you really think that we never will again? — universeness

I don't. And it's irrelevant to my point.

Do you think human scientific endeavor will simply not achieve a full understanding of how the human brain works and be able to 'replicate it?' — universeness

It has already a very good undestanding of the brain. Very little though about the mind.

What do you think you know about human consciousness that proves that downloading an individual human consciousness and storing it outside the vessel of the traditional physical human body with triune brain, is impossible? — universeness

I know enough to exclude such a possibility. You also know that, only you don't allow yourself discover it because you are based on false assumptions. E.g. that consciousness is of a material nature.

How often has sci-fi become sci-fact? I think often enough is the answer. — universeness

Often. But this is is also irrelevant to my point.

No, I wouldn't as I am not you and don't think like you. — universeness

Certainly not., since you don't have "the same knowledge in both fields as I do".
But again, you missed my point. It was a way of saying, not to be taken literally.

I think I have answered all the questions of your "questionnaire". That was quite long. So, please don't ask me more questions! :smile:

.godwantsitthisway

could be shortened to just

.god

which might stand for genetically organised download.
Okay, I might have taken my attempt at humour too far! :blush:
I got carried away because my career was teaching computing science and you laughed a wee bit at my .hahastillhere joke. :smile: — universeness

Nice to meet you. Yeah, cause you got the joke, too.

Those are great extensions, btw!

Cause I was thinking of some good ones:
.foolish
.fake

:lol: Careful, we don't want to entice others and incite a 'who can come up with the best file extension or file name with extension for a future downloaded human consciousness competition'

How about:
DonaldTrump.awForFu**Sake

How about:
DonaldTrump.awForFu**Sake — universeness

:lol:

I don't wanna get uploaded in that file! The chips might explode!

I don't wanna get uploaded in that file! The chips might explode — Haglund

I bet the whole computer including the chip, would turn bright orange with a yellow top and its first communication would be
"Seriously folks, this is the best, most wonderful chip of all the chips that have ever existed in a Universe full of chips, really folks, its the truth, it really is, all those other chips are just .fake and .foolish chips @L'éléphant"

I bet the whole computer including the chip, would turn bright orange with a yellow top and its first communication would be
"Seriously folks, this is the best, most wonderful chip of all the chips that have ever existed in a Universe full of chips, really folks, its the truth, it really is, all those other chips are just .fake and .foolish chips — universeness

:lol:

Would be a nice sketch!

I don't know what does "mind" mean to you, but the functioning of robots, like computers, is based on electronic circuits. And these circuits work on the basis of rudimentary and logic (AND, OR, XOR, etc.), which are reduced into 0/1 states. This occurs at a "low level". — Alkis Piskas

The reduction to 0/1 states occurs in our minds, and not in the physics of the machine.

At a higher level, human beings use programming, which can involve quite sophisticated and intelligent algorithms, and this programming --software-- is then "translated" into low level commands for the computer/robot firmware and hardware.

You can see and try to understand these words. That exemplifies "mind". Unlike a computer, your mind is in the physics (biochemistry) of the brain.

Anybody who thinks you could load a mind into a digital computer in the way you suggest doesn't understand how either brains or computers work.

The reduction to 0/1 states occurs in our minds, and not in the physics of the machine. — Daemon

Do you mean that when we switch a light on/off and its result, when we turn a device on/off and its result, etc. occur in our minds only?

You can see and try to understand these words — Daemon

I do undestand them. Do you?

your mind is in the physics (biochemistry) of the brain. — Daemon

Well, show me where imagination, logical thinking, crativity, etc, take place in the brain ...

Anybody who thinks you could load a mind into a digital computer in the way you suggest doesn't understand how either brains or computers work. — Daemon

You missed in that, too. I am a professional programmer and work with computers since 1982!

@Daemon, I can see that you have no idea what either the brain or the mind are. And most probably, you don't know either how a computer --which is the subject in question here-- works.
So, try not to pass your ignorance and delusions onto others. You just make your case worse.

Alkis, Alkis, sorry, but I think we should show Daemon some gratitude! I think he's right that the 0's and 1's in a computer are just patterns of voltages without intrinsic value or direct connection to the world. Computers function differently from the brain. There is no program stored in the brain, operating on the spike potentials and directing them around. The neural network itself guides the potentials and the strengthening between neurons affects the running around of patterns, not a program stored in another part of the brain, like in computers. The brain has a dynamic memory capacity of 10exp(10exp20)! A computer chip, max 10exp25? You can store a number of books on a chip, or whatever kind of information you assign (another difference between brain and computer!) but in the dynamic brain, every neuron can be involved in many different memories. Memory in the brain is not stored like static 1's and 0's.

I think we should show Daemon some gratitude — Haglund

I would, if he weren't blame others for his ignorance, as I said.
See, there are different ways to make a point, which are totally acceptable. Like yours, for instance.

Computers function differently from the brain. — Haglund

Well, I already said that I know computers well. I actually work with computers. And of course I know that the brain works digfferently, although I don't have the same experience and knowledge about it; not even close.

And I never said that the brain works on a 0/1 basis like a computer's hardware. But I know that the brain works on an automatic stimulus-response mechanism, which is much more complicated that a 0/1 mechanism. And that it can be programmed to function automatically without thinking. Example when we wash our teeth, we are walking, etc, we don't think how to do that. Because the brain does not think. We --and esp. the mind-- think. This is the difference between brain and mind. They are two different and separate things.
Of course, you seem to know more details about how the brain works, but this doesn't change the situation.

So, to come back to the subject ot the topic and to conclude:
It is ridiculous to think that our minds can be uploaded to computers, since they cannot even be "uploaded" to our brains, which are much more sophisticated systems than computers.

It is ridiculous to think that our minds can be uploaded to computers, since they cannot even be "uploaded" to our brains, which are much more sophisticated systems than computers. — Alkis Piskas

That's the best argument so far, in my humble opinion! I think its an ridiculous statement too. I don't even think computers or robots can be made conscious. Good to know there is someone "on my side"! Especially as that comes from a specialist in IT! :wink: :up:

:pray: for your kind words. And I am :smile: to see people realizing these things ... There are not many, unfortunately ...

It is ridiculous to think that our minds can be uploaded to computers, since they cannot even be "uploaded" to our brains, which are much more sophisticated systems than computers — Alkis Piskas

I started programming computers with assembly codes and then soon moved onto BBC BASIC.
Late 1970's. I then moved on to writing compilers for a while. After Uni I started to get involved in real computing science. In those days, Programming was often called 'monkey work.'
If your mind is not contained in your brain Alkis then where do you think it resides?
In what way are you using the label 'mind?' Are you using it as a synonymous label for your consciousness or do you have something else......in mind?

The brain has a dynamic memory capacity of 10exp(10exp20)! A computer chip, max 10exp25? — Haglund

The amount of memory that a particular electronic computer system can access is not limited. It's down to the number of processors you use, the amount of parallel processing you can employ and the ability of your low level and high level systems software to coordinate all of the hardware involved and provide an efficient HCI (Human Computer Interface)
The memory capacity of a human brain can easily be accommodated by TODAY's electronic computers.
We cant download the content of a human brain and emulate its workings because we have very limited knowledge of how a human brain functions. Object-oriented programming and heuristic programming are probably small increments on the correct path but as I have already stated, electronic two-state computing is not ever going to be able to download a human consciousness so you are correct in that but few people have ever suggested that it ever could but those who say it could NEVER be done despite the tiny green shoots popping through from developments in quantum and biological computing reminds me of the ancient mindsets who thought that leaving our caves was a bad idea.
A few thousand years from now, you and I will be considered ancients as will your thinking.
In a million years time (or maybe more,) I am sure the biological replicants containing one or more downloaded human consciousness which are traveling all over galactic and perhaps even intergalactic space will 'exchange information,' about the ancients that said this was all impossible.

You missed in that, too. I am a professional programmer and work with computers since 1982! — Alkis Piskas

It's very common for programmers not to understand how computers work. It isn't taught, even on university level computation courses.

Do you mean that when we switch a light on/off and its result, when we turn a device on/off and its result, etc. occur in our minds only? — Alkis Piskas

That's a very muddled question, I try to express myself more clearly than that.

To explain what I mean I can draw an analogy with an abacus. The beads on the abacus wire are analogous to the computer's electronic and mechanical components.

The abacus user may say that the bottom line of beads represents units. Here's the analogy with a computer:

Input Voltages for Logic Gates

Logic gate circuits are designed to input and output only two types of signals: “high” (1) and “low” (0), as represented by a variable voltage: full power supply voltage for a “high” state and zero voltage for a “low” state. In a perfect world, all logic circuit signals would exist at these extreme voltage limits, and never deviate from them (i.e., less than full voltage for a “high,” or more than zero voltage for a “low”).

However, in reality, logic signal voltage levels rarely attain these perfect limits due to stray voltage drops in the transistor circuitry, and so we must understand the signal level limitations of gate circuits as they try to interpret signal voltages lying somewhere between full supply voltage and zero.
Voltage Tolerance of TTL Gate Inputs

TTL gates operate on a nominal power supply voltage of 5 volts, +/- 0.25 volts. Ideally, a TTL “high” signal would be 5.00 volts exactly, and a TTL “low” signal 0.00 volts exactly.

However, real TTL gate circuits cannot output such perfect voltage levels, and are designed to accept “high” and “low” signals deviating substantially from these ideal values.

“Acceptable” input signal voltages range from 0 volts to 0.8 volts for a “low” logic state, and 2 volts to 5 volts for a “high” logic state.

“Acceptable” output signal voltages (voltage levels guaranteed by the gate manufacturer over a specified range of load conditions) range from 0 volts to 0.5 volts for a “low” logic state, and 2.7 volts to 5 volts for a “high” logic state

This demonstrates what I meant by "The reduction to 0/1 states occurs in our minds, and not in the physics of the machine".

In the case of the abacus, the status of the bottom row of beads as representing units is analogous. It's in our minds, not in the physics of the abacus.

The most probable future scenario will be that people start realizing, after failed attempts to program consciousness, which is bound to non-programmed natural processes, and repeated confrontations with nature, inherent in the western ideal of so-called progress and technological development (which actually is a backwards development, a regress, throwing the natural paradise in the remorseless fire of progress and development) that it's a false ideal leading to a distancing from nature and eventually extinction. And not only of the human species (in which case it could be forgivable somehow) but of the largest part of creation.

The human species has survived over a 100 000 years already and the people back then were not significantly different from those now. The scientific culture is only 3000 years or so in existence. There are many non-scientific modes of being. A lot of them have stopped to exist in the name of "progress". Progress is not only finding new technology, new means of medicin, better rockets, cars, TV's, computers, etc. If that's your idea of progress then it's a very limited one. It's the western idea though. We even define era's by the technique or scientific knowledge of the that era. The atomic age, the computer age, the space age, the steam engine era, the radio- era, etc.

Saying everything will be accomplished and known in the future, as you do, is the easy way out and will lead to a self-fulfilling disaster. Science needs to be put in it's rightful place. As one culture amongst many. It should absolutely not be given political power as it has nowadays. It's fun to do science but it has it's limits and certainly not the answer to all questions.