Ray Kurzweil on Personal Identity
Raymond Kurzweil is an American inventor and futurist. He is involved in fields as diverse as optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology, and electronic keyboard instruments. He is the author of several books on health, artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanism, the technological singularity, and futurism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil
In this clip, Ray discusses why we should consider ourselves to be “patterns of information,” and how using this conception we can imagine a future when non-biological systems can be both conscious and match (or exceed) present levels of human intelligence.
Duration : 0:7:40
[youtube bi6F8Wlkm_Q]
@MrSamuelChen yes, …
@MrSamuelChen yes, but i think it’s because there’s nothing much to talk about identity. there’re multiple layers of identity and if you peel them off you’ll see nothing underneath. there is no human essence and i believe this is the most arid part of the desert of truth. being a human is a dogma which we may never get rid of.
The question that …
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.
Right, but he never …
Right, but he never really tailors the conversation back to personal identity. He just gets stuck on transhumanism.
@j1514120119: We …
@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.
The type of …
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
@PianoIsTheRemedy …
@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.
@PianoIsTheRemedy …
@PianoIsTheRemedy but not impossible
@PianoIsTheRemedy …
@PianoIsTheRemedy Read about professor Henry Makram
Furthermore, I …
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.
The best image on a …
The best image on a monitor these days is 1920×1080. I can look at an image that is 1280×720 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.
When you try to …
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?
Could you be …
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?
@MrSamuelChen Most …
@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.
Right on, Sam!
…
Right on, Sam!
West Side!
W
Original content …
Original content takes a lot more effort than just stealing clips made by other people.
However, if I have some spare time in the next few weeks I’ll think about making some original stuff as well.
Yes, I reread what …
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.
And yes, I’ve read …
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.
Hmm… I think that …
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.
Our minds interact …
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.
What is it exactly …
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….
It’s kind of …
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.
the value of life …
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.
Lenny, these …
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…
Ahh the guy that …
Ahh the guy that made me my pants because of the essay I had to make about him. I ended up dropping the subject.
Now it works lol.
Now it works lol.