(untitled)

How can I upload my consciousness to the Internet?

What we refer to a consciousness appears to be more or less a public-facing mask generated by the brain. Since the brain is a pattern-matching machine, it matches patterns indicating relationships between itself and other things that it becomes aware of (objects in the world, people, etc.) The consciousness is how it interacts with those other things to receive and deliver relationship information. Since we haven't yet isolated the brain functions the specifically deal with consciousness, and since memory is a core part of pattern-matching anyway, you would probably need to create a close 1-to-1 mapping of the brain in a combination of software and hardware. Then you would need to have it mimic your own brain patterns and stored electrochemical signals(memories). It wouldn't be your own specific consciousness per se, but you would have another "you" on the Internet.

wait 20 years

>>11735 I think 20 years is awfully optimistic.

Rewatch SEL like 64 more times.... Then it just comes to you

There's argument to be made about whether what is uploaded is actually 'you' or just a copy

>>11765 what's the difference?

>>11766 if you uploaded your conscious, would you actually wake up in the cloud or would you die and your digital copy continue to live? We don't really know where and how consciousness occurs in the brain so we can't really know if the digital version would actually be 'you' in the construct

>>11767 we also can't know if "I" am the same "I" that went to sleep last night.

>>11768 If it's any consolation, I don't think you are

>>11769 well then, if we're all fine with that, why should we care about uploading our minds?

>>11765 >>11767 Video games Soma and Observer deal with this philosophical topic.

>>11770 Why should you care about preserving books? Why should you care about anything at all? This sounds like a very personal question. You need to come up with the answer yourself. Dont ask randos on the internet about it. To answer personally, I dont feel I need a reason to preserve myself. It is a logical extension of the impulse to self preservation.

>>11735 Make it 100

>>11767 This is honestly just a very personal thing, theoretically a perfect transfer of your memory >>10735 I don't think your consciousness is unique to you, rather it's your memories and conclusions derived from your memories that defines who you are, consciousness is just a tool for the brain to collect information, analyse and conclude from it.

>>10735 One post at a time.

Use full telemetry with google, facebook and microsoft software. Eventually some undiscovered AI will be learning from it and if your consciousness is worth being put on the internet, it will probably assimilate your thoughts. That said most consciousnesses on lainchan aren't worth anything.

I think consciousness is kind of like Linux. Even if your own personal hardware craps out, Linux is still always going to be out there in some form. Of course all your files and preferences will be lost, but you kind of lose those constantly anyway. Your memories are constantly being corrupted and distorted and written over as you access them. Human OS has a terrible file system. So your personality is already kind of a ship of Theseus. So yeah, your specific memories and personality are doomed. But they already are basically gone--you're not really the same consciousness you were a few years ago. You'll die or change in a manner equivalent to death, but the human platform is still around so it doesn't matter. Self-awareness and free will are likely just an illusion anyway. Don't worry about what hardware it's on.

It already is, friend. Look at you now! Consciousness doesn't only reside in the human body.

> Uploading our brains to the internet? Fat chance, I just can't see how it would be done. Even if you were able to copy yourself on to the internet; when you die how would that still be you? Could you leave something in your decaying body that would prevent your other "you" from stopping? Your body would eventually all rot out so I can't see it being possible. Perhaps if your physical consciousness was something that could literally be extracted from a human, and then preserved... MAYBE we could live on throughout whatever medium we wished. Something I see far more likely is passing on your consciousness on to another human being. I def. don't know how, but it seems like that would be the first steps we would be experimenting with in this subject since it seems the most plausible.

The conciouness is a continuum as you never stop to change throughout life, because of that some say there is no you or concience since it cannot be fit one definition all the time. I don't believe that is true, a thing doesn't have to be immutable to be classified as such, and that is the problem i have with upload your conciousness on the internet. How would it change? If it stays the same always, then is it really you? I don't think so, without change it would be as if in a infinite loop prison. That is more like an automation with no free will (or as much will a human can have).

>>11907 I've always sort of felt that this was an extention of our inability to perceive time in the same way we perceive the other three dimensions. I've always wondered why our existence has this kind of limitation and what the next evolution of consciousness is, or if maybe it's already happened somewhere else.

>>11766 Adult you can't act in society the same way as kid you. Your interaction with the enviroment is as much defined by your body as by your consciousness. If you swap the container you swap the result.

>>10735 Haven't you watched SE:L? First step is to get a job at cloudflare.

>>11778 I really don't like this kind of answer I actually think that asking anonymous people on the Internet is the closest we can get to a random, still related, answer I also believe random and chance is the true voice of God, who is a chaotic being Ain't that the whole premise of Lain?

>>11911 As Nietzsche roughly said (and was way less famously quoted in cyberpunk classic Gunnm): "The mind is but a plaything of the body." I agree, we don't have bodies; we are bodies. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's totally impossible to make an artificial consciousness or even transfer one between media, but I think it would become pretty alien to our own consciousness as a result. Which is frankly even more awesome. If we succeed with AGI n my lifetime I'd love to see just how fuarrrking incomprehensible its style of thinking would be. Basically a hallucinating, impenetrably-complex computer that shares almost no context with our own world of hallucinating clothed primates running billion-year-old firmware developed piecemeal on many other previous animals. (spoiler: we won't see AGI our lifetime, sorry. That last 5% is going to be hellishly complex and difficult, and we aren't yet anywhere near that far.)

>>11908 Do we perceive time or create the perception in our minds? I don't constantly feel time passing so the feeling of time as an cerebral invention has always been there for me. I'll try to expand on this later.

>>11931 I just think we lack the ability to perceive the passage of time. There's some kind of sense (and you have way more than 5) that allows you to know when the wind's blowing even if you can't see air because you can perceive the effects in real time. Trees move, your skin gets cool, your hair blows around. Time passes and you look around and it can seem as though a lot or a little time has passed or how it passed. We use a clock to measure time because we're incapable of perceiving its passing (for whatever reason), but I think time has way more variability than a linear clock, what other force on our existence is that rigid and unchangeable? I literally don't believe it, there must be some aspect of the universe that we are limited from perceiving.

>>11746 on the 100th watch you unlock the secret alice x lain ending

>>10736 >>11767 Your consciousness can be (and is) in endless different places at any time. Not confined just to the lump of stuff in your skull.

>>11934 Well, according to Kant, time is but a perception of the mind

>>11997 Kant said your perception of time is a factor of your perception of time. Meanwhile, outside of the land of the brain damaged, here in reality, there's an actual dimension called time and while your individual perception of that dimension is individual, there are rules. Read about time in a singularity.

its hardly yours.

>>12020 Time does not exist as a thing outside the mind, it is merely a tool to cope with the change of states. The idea of time being a "dimension" is just a misconception of mathematical and physical terms, popularized by scifi tropes. How is it that the relativity of time proposed by Einstein somehow "proves" the objectivity of time?

>>11739 I'm feelin' like 25 years. NN's are getting way too good at solving problems.

>>12041 Einstein argued the opposite, time being supremely subjective. Only when time is considered in relation to space, so called spacetime, is there a meaningful causality (which is about the closest thing to this "objectivity" you're referring to, my guess). To my understanding you're right that factoring time as a dimension is only useful for mathematical construct. Despite this, these constructs serve as meaningful abstractions that allow us to make observations. I'm guessing lain mixed up their concept of time and "individual perception of that dimension" to rather mean spacetime and time, who knows. A lot of this discourse about time is really fishy, since it never distinguishes real parameters or discretizes experiments. Like scale and locality of events within the brain, and the point at which quantum mechanical physics has to be considered for the biochemical processes underlying our perception of time and spacing. I'm not able to construct a constructive argument either, because I admit it's fuarrrking hard and in reality understand all these even less the more I try to think about them..

>>10735 My opinion is that you can't until you figure out how to share your consciousness with computing hardware. Only then can you begin to figure out how to build a body for yourself in different hardware. It looks like a downgrade but be my guest. If you're in a hurry, hardcore study the laws of nature, Sanskrit and Hebrew texts are for that. Maybe Chinese, too, seeing how the I-Ching is Chinese.

>>12778 Wut. How would reading any of that junk help you figure out how to upload your consciousness? Here's my main argument against uploading consciousness: how likely do you think it is for several petabytes of very specific data to all stay intact and online for like eighty years? You would be screwed if you put your brain up there. Nobody would host you reliably.

>>12738 Neural nets are not getting way too good at solving problems. They're actually really limited in the scope of what ought to be solved using them. You can't just ML your way through any problem given an infinite stack of fancy GPUs. That's just lazy VC thinking we're seeing around the bay area these days. They're being reported as solving all our problems, though! Never any follow up, suspiciously. I would be immensely surprised if we gained the technology to totally decompile, replicate, and simulate a specific human brain well enough to transfer consciousness inside of 300 years. Like for me that would be an insanely optimistic lower bound. 25 years—hell nah, sorry.

>>11965 >the brain is a device that hones in on consciousness By that logic we're already the Internet itself if all we are is energy, the ether.

Shitpost everywhere as much as you can. The Internet will remember it. Forever. It can be later used to create a brewing soykaf chatbot for your offsprings when you're dead.

>>12779 >reliably archive.org >Neural nets are not getting way too good at solving problems This. They're basically recognition engines, and little more. We have yet to understand how to train them, their threshold function, organization, initialization, and so on in the context of "thinking". >By that logic we're already the Internet itself if all we are is energy, the ether. I lol'd pretty hard at this. Not you, but the idea we're basically the internet. Imagine what a headache you would have constantly.

Why not just upload your personality and thought process to an ai that would make the same decisions as you 1:1 so that it recreates your personality and psyche while at the same time leaving behind a journal for this intelligence to pick up? Although with computers the issue is that their ability to "think" about subjective input is binary, 1|0, up or down, positive or negative. While for humans the interpretation of input is postive, negative, or neutral; 1, 0, -1; black, grey, white. Getting a machine to think like a sentient living organism and act spontaneously with those urges that inform and shape your personality is the first big hurdle, especially due to the failings of random number generation to truly be random. Although it can be argued that you are not a truly random being since all whimsy or spontaneity you produce is informed by your environment. Besides, you can think in binary terms and in non-binary terms about things a computer can't truly do that. What is currently possible is predicting your behavior a'la the large data mining services that jewgle and the rest have produced so you could use those techniques for self-surveillance to generate the AI with a neural network and leave a journal for it. It would be a separate consciousness, but one that is as close to a 1:1 clone as you could have right now.

I think that you are actually a mathematical object. So you exist independent of any particular real object and if there are multiple real objects that are you, they're all the same you. Like, 2 is 2 regardless of whether it's 2 or two or 1+1 or these apples. You are you regardless of whether you are these atoms or those atoms or these bits or those bits. So, the answer to the question of whether an uploaded you would really be you is yes. Well, in principle. There's still the practical matter of figuring out how to build instruments that can measure your atoms precisely enough to get it right. But, that's an issue for the engineers. Us philosophers needn't be bothered with getting out of our armchairs for that. >>11907 >without change it would be as if in a infinite loop prison Reminds me of this book. I recall a guy doing something like that to himself in it.

Do you think your mind can be encoded in a finite string of numbers? We can't really know for sure of course but it seems profoundly unlikely to me.

>>16276 I'm under the impression that it could be done with right technology, BCIs for example look promising which is just the first step.

>>10736 >consciousness appears to be more or less a public-facing mask generated by the brain How so? I understand what you said about consciousness being the phenomena of processing patterns, but what do you mean about it being a public-facing mask? Also, when one ``uploads'' one's consciousness, it'll be his consciousness, not another consciousness that is similar, but the same consciousness. One of the problems is that, for the person to transfer his experience with the consciousness would require the change be gradual, sufficiently slowly so that the source person can become accostomed to each change before the next one. If too much changes too fast, the consciousness might split, and then there'll be a separate consciousness that is similar to the source consciousness. This is we cringe at ideas about ``uploading'' one's consciousness: that idea---uploading---is thought of as doing the whole thing at once or quickly, so that: here's me, uploading ... uploaded, there's me (but I'm still here, so that other ``me'' is a ``copy'' (really, it's not merely a copy, because it's living on it's own, and it's identity starts diverging immediately, because it's starting to get new experiences---much raising children, except there's only one parent, and the ``body'' is synthetic) of me) >Do you think your mind can be encoded in a finite string of numbers? We can't really know for sure of course but it seems profoundly unlikely to me. Do you think a sexy person can be encoded on a piece of paper? We can't really know for sure of course but is seems profoundly unlikely to me. The reason that it seems unlikely is because sexy ladies and pieces of paper are very different. This, of course, is a fallacy. Just because two types are quite different does not mean that it is impossible to find, for each instance of one type, an instance of the other type that is isomorphic to the former instance of the former type. For example, there is a piece of paper that is an encoding of a sexy person. It's clearly not the same as a sexy person, but for my purposes, it's indistinguishable from a sexy person. The fallacy seems to be caused by people confusing complexity or difficulty with high improbability, and confusing high improbability with impossibility. You might argue, based on conceptions of how things might be, that so-and-so is impossible; the most, for now, that you'd prove, is that, in that conception of how it might be, it's impossible. If it turns out to be possible, then, by contraposition of your proof of it's impossibility in that conception, it'll be proven that that conception is wrong. So speculate all you want, but if you're going to be banal about it, regurgitating speculations or assuming they're right, don't be surprised when people think you're boring and annoying, or stupid and gullible. For example, I think you're boring and annoying, or stupid and gullible, because you posted a single sentence regurgitating a cliche opinion without any elaboration. For each fact, until proven one way or the other, the truth value is ``unknown''---which means it may be true, and it may be false. If we know that it can't be one of those truth values, then we'll know that it must be the other. Thus, by default, it's possible. We might prove that it's possible, which will not change our default position of ``it's possible'' (sometimes expressed with a double-negative ``not impossible'') The only way to know that something is not possible is to explicitly prove it's impossibility. Thus, until we prove that it's impossible to encode numerically a psyche, we must be satisfied with it's nonimpossibility, which is equivalent to possibility.

>>10735 How exactly do you plan to make a full 3D map of your brain? How would you use it to replicate the function of a human brain?

>>11767 When you fall asleep you can say the same thing

>>16276 Your body consists of atoms and electrons etc that are interchangeable. In theory it must be possible to enumerate them, unless you believe in something non-physical/religious like a spirit or soul

Fun I was thinking a lot about that these days. Each time you interact on networks you put parts of your consciousness in it. But remember, Internet doesn't exist by itself. It needs hardware and electricity so without these it doesn't exist anymore. But I like the idea that our interactions on networks are a prolongation of our souls. What will remain in the absolute when all will be lost? When all the books will turn to silence. When all the meats will turn to ashes. The only certainty is the Void. All is contained by existence. Nothingness is limitless.

>Your body consists of atoms and electrons etc that are interchangeable. In theory it must be possible to enumerate them, unless you believe in something non-physical/religious like a spirit or soul You don't have to simulate single atoms/molecules, because there's the thing called emergence - atoms create molecules, molecules create neurons, neurons working together create neural networks. To upload consciousness to a computer, you only need to simulate the highest structure - the neural network called brain, unless quantum or metaphysical bullshit is involved.

If it's possible at all it's not possible with an ordinary computer and thus you can't be online unless the internet consisted of these special computers. Otherwise it's just a VR thing and you only view the internet not actually be in it if such a distinction even matters. There is a controversial theory that consciousness or the soul if you will exists in microtubules in the brain. This would make it possible for conciousness to not be limited to the confines of the brain. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093/full https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714379 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30453-2 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

>>10735 Oh I'm sure people here are aware of this https://new.systemspace.network/ It's an "arg" based on SEL where you could upload your soul when meat will no longer been needed. But it's dead.

>>16942 This has dead dead for around three years Lainon, was more of a LARP than an ARG.

>>12738 To make a physical copy of the entire brain isn't even possible yet much less reanimating the copy through, much less digital emulation of such a copy. They take tiny slivers of rat brains and catalog them digitally, it's only a tiny piece though. That's how far we are. A tiny little piece of it. It has to be shipped round the world to do it too as no single area has the technology to do the entire process. I'd link you sources but I'm too lazy. one place slices it very very thin, another scans it, another uploads it somehow, it takes many complexes just to have a tiny sliver of rat brain. Like, not even 1/100 of the brain is being scanned. It's pathetic. Even if they were to take the time to slice each brain all the way apart and scan each part of the brain 100 percent, it's still be a very tiny rat brain. 20 years, no way. If we were advancing that fast every year our technology would be twice as impressive in every way when we have not nanites eating cancer yet nor do we have an elevator to the moon.

>>16942 Where is the admin now?

>>16942 Oh man! Haven't heard this site mentioned in quite a while. I actually signed up because I thought it was interesting. You had to take a photo of a hand drawn picture to sign up. I remember that they left a directory listing open, so I downloaded like 5000 of these sign up photos. Still keep them as a memory. Other than that I remember that the web design of the site was really cool, hadn't seen something like that before. The founder was an underage though, which might explain why it was filled with Discord people. Still a cool thing, it reminds me of the old days of the internet where everyone would make their own weird and unique sites.

>>17039 Killed himself, I heard https://invidio.us/watch?v=n5wV5s-ZfYc

>>16936 >To upload consciousness to a computer, you only need to simulate the highest structure - the neural network called brain This is not true in general. You can't, for instance, simulate the world's climate systems by sampling real time data from weather stations. Even if we covered the globe with weather stations 1 meter apart our predictive simulations would quickly skew away from reality because the fluid dynamics of the air between the sensors is important. The quantization error does not die down to a stable average; it feeds back on itself and blows up to a totally different macro structure. This is the essence of deterministic chaos: sensitivity to small changes in initial conditions. it isn't something you can get around by adding computing power because *any* sampling error, no matter how small, will eventually lead to a totally different trajectory through state space, and of course perfect embedding of an infinite thing into a finite thing is impossible so you will always have error. In principle I think if you mapped the connectome of a human to a computer you would get something that might reasonably be called "conscious" but i'm not sure it would behave like a human consciousness let alone a particular person. It seems very intuitive to me that minds are infinitely "deep" in the sense that there isn't a threshold of physical scale below which you can ignore particle interactions and just look at the macro structure. This is just speculation of course but I'm bringing it up to illustrate that minds are not necessarily "finite" just because we have finitely many neurons.

>>17085 i just thought of a more direct way to explain this: your brain may have finitely many neurons but the internal "state" of each neuron is infinite in nature, in other words there are infinitely many ways the internal particles that make up the neuron can be arranged, and there are infinitely many such particles. the assumption i'm making is that the configuration of these particles actually impacts how the neurons function. (recognizing of course that "particle" is as much an abstraction as "neuron", and i guess also leaving open the possibility that there really is a fundamental particle under there that can't be broken up into smaller sub-particles... though that would be a very strange thing to assume without evidence)

>>10735 Given the current conditions of the internet and the path it's following I would advice against doing something like that. It's a chaos, and a boring one, like an extension of real life.

>>17041 Can you dump the images somewhere?

>>17082 i have him added on steam hes so fuarrrking nice

>>17616 He sent his ip face and other soykaf in exchange for dr. akus cock 84.26.27.179 https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198359173083/ his steam? (2017 and only friend of snoop) i still have all this stuff saved and hold onto the beginnings of systemspace dearly, i keep my eid submission framed. tsuki is a jew from the moon tho and i regret giving him my soul but I miss all the original members deeply. It feels like everyone is a soulness hollowed drone now. gas the jews unlock the reich soykaf soykaf soykaf.

wait 10 years

>>17741 why do so many people actually take what this guy says seriously?

>>17747 >why do so many people actually take what this guy says seriously? He's a good con man. His soykaf is not real. We don't even know how consciousness works neither can map the whole brain. I'll be surprised if he sends people to Mars by 2030, not to speak of digitizing brain. You can read what his companies really do, by looking at Tesla: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-cars.html

>>17748 The idea might be to stumble into how the brain works through trial-and-error. You put this web thing into somebody's skull, then you start looking for patterns. If you can make sense of the patterns, you don't need to understand the neurology behind them. These patterns would be different for everyone but it might be possible to create a technology that calibrates to the individual quickly and fluidly.

>>17978 I'm always astonished that people think this kind of lazy fuzzing approach is sufficient to reverse-engineer the most complex object in the known universe by far and consciousness itself. There's no way Musk is gonna ever get close to upload tech. That's not within any of our lifetimes. That problem is so enormous that it's nearly impossible to appreciate its true difficulty. We've gotten a lot better at communications technology, but to be honest nearly every other field has stagnated since the sixties. Just incremental improvements; no revolutions or breakthroughs really. His rockets are just chemical fueled, ground-launched old cans too. Nothing like that will get live humans to Mars and back. It needs to be an orbit-to-orbit stage with some form of nuclear propulsion. You know, like we were planning decades ago before we decided obsessing over the internet was better than exploring the actual universe.

>>17981 Why does it have to be complex? It might be just waves in the ocean. An emergent feature of the system. Looking at single water atoms simply wont get you any closer to what a wave is.

>>17981 Elon isn't interested in fully understanding or mapping the brain, he's interested in creating "good enough" brain interfacing tech so he can market himself as the brain uploading guy and get a bunch of people to jerk him off on social media.

>>10735 You'll need a USB to TTL serial adapter

>>18295 You are definitively wrong my Lainon. An ethernet cable plugged through meatware/hardware bridge allowing "hum" protocol to be interpreted by the brain with "qeerz" encryption is what OP needs. Nothing more. How could someone be so ignorant on some basic things.

>>18296 Right, the Quantum Encrypted Emission Receiving Zul encrytption is definitively good for that purpose. It allow brainwave encoding at a rate of ovar 9000 petaflops/s. Under this value you lose packets data through High Unified Manchine protocol that could lead to alternate state of consciousness and corruption of brainware.