Mind Uploading Would Actually Transfer Your Consciousness: Debunking the "One Me" Fallacy

Imagine someone presents you with a replication device similar to the Star Trek Teleporter which instantly makes a totally perfect copy of your body, and simultaneously destroys your original body. Would you get in such a device, if given a million dollars? Most people would say "No, because the copy wouldn't actually be me". I will explain why most people are wrong. I know it sounds ridiculous, but copying and simultaneously killing yourself is the same thing as a true "transfer" of consciousness (mainly because there is nothing to transfer in the first place). 

Imagine the same replication device described above, with a twist. Right after copying you, but before destroying the original body, it is allowed to switch an identical portion of your brains (assuming you believe you are your brain)*. It has a settings knob titled "swap percentage" that is adjustable from 0% to 100% which determines the % of brain switched. For example:

• At 0%, nothing is switched; it just copies you and destroys the original like before. 
• At 10%, it cuts out the same 10%-sized chunk out of each brain and surgically swaps them perfectly before killing the original. 
• At 100%, it does a full brain transplant to swap the brains before killing the original; at this point it's basically killing the copy and leaving the original intact. 

If you're like most people, you believe that you'll die and be replaced if the settings knob is at 0% (because the machine killed the original you), but you'll live if the settings knob is at 100% (because your brain was moved over, before killing the original body), right?

Assuming this is true, if 0% results in death and 100% results in survival, then one of the following must be true for the in-between percentages between 0-100: Either at some point the answer abruptly changes from "death" to "survival", or increasing the percentage knob gradually changes the result from "death" to "survival".

1. Abrupt: If the answer abruptly changed from death to survival at some point, that would mean there exists some "threshold" percentage of brain matter swapped, which when crossed would suddenly result in your original consciousness "jumping over" to the new brain, despite it being physically identical to previous scenarios with slightly lower percent. In other words, you'd be claiming that there exists some percent, e.g. 50%, whereby if we swap exactly 50% of your brain matter, you will jump into the copied brain, but at 49.9999%, you will stay in the original brain. 
2. Gradual: If increasing the percent of the scenario gradually makes you more and more alive, that implies that in between, it is possible for you to be in a half-alive state, with your consciousness straddling two brains. In other words, you'd be claiming that at some percent e.g. 50%, your true consciousness is half in one brain and half in the other brain, even though in this scenario both brains are exactly physically identical to before the operation, thus have no physical capability to feel any different than what they would've normally felt without any modification.

We established earlier that if it's true you die at 0% swap and live at 100% swap, either the abrupt or gradual case must be true. If you agree neither the abrupt nor gradual cases make sense, then there is only one rational conclusion: The original assumption was wrong. Your answer to whether you live or die, must be the same at 0% swap as at 100% swap. In other words: Copying you and killing your original self, has the same exact effect on your consciousness as copying you and killing the copy!

How is this possible? In short: "One true you" is an illusion. The uncanny first-person awareness exists only in the present moment, and every passing moment can be thought of as a different person inheriting the old one's memories. The physical memories in your brain are the only reason you feel like a single continuous entity throughout time. 

You are not the brain. You are a moment of information produced by the brain. I know it's hard to digest, but I think it is a lot more believable than the "abrupt" and "gradual" options I have outlined above. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Responses to common rebuttals:

"Isn't this just Ship of Theseus?"

No, you're not gradually moving more and more of your brain; you're setting the knob between 0%-100%; the machine switches out that amount of your brain in one fell swoop.

Isn't this just Sorites Paradox?"

No, Sorites Paradox literally just ignores that changes can be fuzzy/gradual. Something I explicitly addressed and debunked is the possibility of fuzzy/gradual change in your consciousness in spite of your brain remaining completely the same. 

"But of course consciousness exists; how can you deny the first-person experience?"

The only sure thing about the first-person view is that it's happening right now. It's "I think therefore I am", not "I think therefore I was". There's no evidence your first-person awareness has any connection to the past, beyond what your physical brain memories are telling you. 

"It's impossible to partially replace the brain and have everything be okay. The result will be brain-damaged etc."

You are debating the implication of a futuristic device which can materialize a whole person atomically from scratch so completely that they're indistinguishable from the original. So why is it when I start talking about partial brain replacements it's suddenly impossible?  

"Maybe the part of the brain responsible for consciousness is just a tiny portion or even 1 neuron, or maybe some other part of the body is involved (e.g. muscle memory, gut bacteria)"

Modify the replicator in the experiment to swap a % of whatever physical thing you think produces consciousness. Whether it's a brain or something else is inconsequential to the argument as long as it's physical and divisible. 

"Even the slightest modification of the brain results in an impostor who just thinks he's you, so you're actually dying in all the scenarios except 100% swap."

Then you believe you're replaced by a new consciousness even if you lightly bump your head and kill 1 neuron by accident. Either that or you misspoke and you're actually okay with switching a very small number of neurons or at least atoms, in which case the original argument still applies... 

"Mind uploading is different from physical copying"

The same scenarios can be applied to partially uploading a brain and connecting it via BCI to the corresponding un-uploaded biological part. It's the same issue as before: "drawing a line" has absurd implications about consciousness. 

"Maybe consciousness is supernatural, beyond the brain, etc"

 You are entitled to that belief and it is beyond the scope of this article. The intended audience are people who, like me, believe consciousness is purely caused by physical processes in the brain. 

The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is actually the “Hard Problem of Now”

Everything meaningful about the hard problem of consciousness (i.e. problems that are actually "hard" or impossible to solve) always boil down to "why is there a now and why is it from my point of view" instead of "why does a brain make a subjective feeling".

• Qualia are by definition completely utterly undeniable with a 100% chance of existing. That automatically means the past and future already don't qualify. In fact, opponents like Daniel Dennett have done a pretty good job at refuting qualia, but they're refuting the idea of qualia which persists through time. The fact is even when you remember a recent memory, the only sure thing is that you feel like you're remembering a memory. The only thing that's absolutely sure to exist is whatever you're feeling at this very instant. Therefore, qualia only really ever exist in the "present moment".
• Current formulations of Hard Problem of Consciousness are extremely linguistically ambiguous. One common problem is that opposers will prove that consciousness is not mysterious in the way proposed, and supporters will say "but of course I wasn't talking about that kind of consciousness!" (this is apparent from online arguments as well as the wikipedia page). It is a lot easier and less prone to misinterpretation to reformulate it as a problem of "now". "Now" shouldn't even exist -- there's no objective evidence of it at all. There's nothing physical which denotes this moment in time as a "special point" in the universe. Yet, we can all agree it exists, and in fact is the one sure thing to exist!
• Even though we can all agree "now" exists, it is physically impossible to agree on when "now" is. Theory of Relativity proves that everyone's "now" must be different because there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity (no one reference point in the universe which says "this is the real now"). The question is why does there appear to be an undeniable singular "now", happening right now, which happens to be from your point of view, when in fact no such thing exists in the objective world.

tl;dr fundamentally Hard Problem of Consciousness is really a question about subjective inner mind vs objective world. It asks why there's a subjective inner mind in the first place. But the subjective inner mind really only ever exists "right now", so the problem should be simplified (and made much less prone to linguistic misinterpretation) by asking "why is there a now" instead of "why is there a subjective side to consciousness".

The chance of X existing is unknowable

What are the chances that Harry Potter, unicorns, etc. actually exist? Most people would say almost none, but I’m here to tell you that the answer is actually that there is no answer. It is impossible to estimate the chances that something exists if we’ve never seen that thing before.

If anyone disagrees with me, I invite them to answer the question: How do you calculate or estimate the % chance that any particular thing exists beyond our known bubble of space-time?

It would boil down to the # of expected particles needed for that thing to randomly come into being, and the total # of particles that are beyond our known bubble of space-time. We can estimate the first, which would be astronomically large. How do we even begin to estimate the latter? What if it is also astronomically large? How do we know if there are other bubbles of space-time, and if so, how many particles a “typical” one has?

If the “typical universe” has an unfathomably huge # of particles, way beyond what’s in our present-day universe (say graham’s number or some other ludicrously high number), then everything we can conceive would exist, via nothing other than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem*. Given a large enough amount of random stuff, eventually the amazing thing will be found somewhere inside that mess. A related idea is the Boltzmann Brain.

You can only estimate probability based on data if you have prior data. When you try to answer questions like “are there other universes” or “how much stuff is in a typical universe”, your sample size is literally 1. We have no way of knowing.

*There is nothing that triggers me more than someone derailing my argument by pointing out that literal infinity is impossible, or that the infinite monkey theorem needs monkeys. The infinite monkeys theorem only requires a large enough amount of stuff (monkeys is only an analogy) for the near-impossible to become probable, and does not require literal infinity unless the probability is literally zero.

Why Men Like Lesbian Scenes

Lots of guys give really retarded reasons for why they like lesbo scenes. Girls are always so confused!

But FEAR NOT. I finally have a technical psychological explanation of why we (men) like lesbo porn so much. It all dawned upon me while I was gazing at a lesbo picture I found to use for my dream note. Contrary to popular belief, it is not because of the absence of penises (though that may have a minor impact as well).

Reason 1: Sympathetic response.

You see, naturally when humans see other humans we develop "sympathetic reactions" aka we feel things in place of someone in the picture. If the presence of the male is overpowering in a picture, you might find yourself subconsciously sympathizing with the woman. In this instance you might even imagine a man's touch on you as part of your automatic sympathetic response, even if it feels unpleasant. You are getting in touch with your "gay side" which statistically/evolutionarily speaking is probably not as strong as your straight side, and may even be negligible!

Now, consider lesbian photos...

The beauty of lesbo scenes stems from the fact that no matter whom the viewer subconsciously "chooses" to sympathetically respond to, he will find his heterosexual response stimulated by the notion of feeling up a perfect curvy body, and will thus always feel great. In my viewing of one such photo, I observed that my sympathetic response rapidly switched between the females, resulting in me being able to feel both of them up virtually SIMULTANEOUSLY in a POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP.

Reason 2: The illusion of abundance.

How do you feel when you look at a hetero picture? You may feel slightly turned on (or not, if you are desensitized to such things), but the feeling is overshadowed by jealousy. The viewer cannot comfortably put himself in the shoes of the male because he knows that the dude is getting the girl rather than he. He might even become combative and develop a desire to PUNCH THAT DOUCHE IN THE FACE (this is a highly exaggerated description of my reaction, which involved only minimal jealousy). This arouses feelings of resentment which curtail the viewer's arousal.

Now look at a lesbian photo. Note your greatly reduced levels of jealousy due to the absence of males. In such a scene with a plethora of females and an absence of males, we are subconsciously led to believe that the world is full of hot babes who, ***lacking access to males, must resort to each other for sexual release*** (this is a key point, especially to all girls who say "but they're lesbian so they wouldn't go for you anyway"). No matter the background story or nature of the scene, this is the subconscious illusion that we create from watching such images. And it feels very good because it means we can have sex with all of them and give them lots of babies, with absolutely no competition.

And those, my friends, are the REAL reasons that men like lesbo scenes.

Disclaimer: I do not really play favorites with depictions of lesbian vs heterosexual sex. This entire article is extrapolated from my response to ONE hot pic of two lesbians in a shower.

Do You Feel Sorry For Pedophiles and/or Animal-philes? A Scandalous Survey.

I just saw Doubt (2008).

Pedophiles and animalphiles are distinct from other people of uncommon sexual desire (such as LGBT community) because many argue that the objects of their desire have no ability to consent. They are shunned by society even in comparison to LGBT's, but for what reasons?

1. Are animals capable of consent? I would think that if an animal did not give any signs of resistance and orgasmed then it would qualify as consent, no? Who are we to say that they "can't think for themselves and therefore it is bad for them"?

2. Are children capable of consent? Children are humans aka pretty damn smart and would probably give resistance if they did not like something. Anyway puberty hits as early as 9. Some say children just don't know any better or don't know what they want or are confused, but I am averse to that sort of PC fluff-talk and would like evidence to support it.

Whether or not animals or children are capable of consent, I feel sorry for all those weird people. They did not ASK to be born with such strange sexual desires. The only reason these people are branded as disgusting creepers who deserve no sympathy, is that society is full of myopic band-wagoners who are too pea-brained to place themselves in someone else's shoes.

3. Do you feel sorry for pedophiles and/or animal-philes? Why or why not?

The Ultimate Philosophical Question

One of the most intriguing questions in philosophy (and religion I suppose) is "why was there a world, instead of nothingness?" Well, I've got an even scarier question. It is:

Why is there such a thing as your first-person consciousness? (from my point of view, I substitute "your" for "my")



That question is the ultimate question and sadly slips by many people's brains. I have pondered it since I was three. It was extremely hard for me to word, and I tried to ask my friend this question years ago to no avail; he kept misunderstanding me. He kept saying "because I was lucky enough to be born into this world," which, although true, is completely unrelated to my question.

Hopefully, now that I have worded it a bit better, people will understand the question. In a nutshell, what I am asking is "why isn't the world just full of he's and she's? Why was there a ME?" WARNING: I am not marveling at my fortune for having been born, or put forth in the world, or existed or whatever; instead, I am marveling that there is such a thing as a "me" consciousness in the first place.

Do you understand my question? If so, please discuss, or offer better wordings.

The Ultimate Philosophical Question

One of the most intriguing questions in philosophy (and religion I suppose) is "why was there a world, instead of nothingness?" Well, I've got an even scarier question. It is:

Why is there such a thing as your first-person consciousness? (from my point of view, I substitute "your" for "my")



That question is the ultimate question and sadly slips by many people's brains. I have pondered it since I was three. It was extremely hard for me to word, and I tried to ask my friend this question years ago to no avail; he kept misunderstanding me. He kept saying "because I was lucky enough to be born into this world," which, although true, is completely unrelated to my question.

Hopefully, now that I have worded it a bit better, people will understand the question. In a nutshell, what I am asking is "why isn't the world just full of he's and she's? Why was there a ME?" WARNING: I am not marveling at my fortune for having been born, or put forth in the world, or existed or whatever; instead, I am marveling that there is such a thing as a "me" consciousness in the first place.

Do you understand my question? If so, please discuss, or offer better wordings.

How Altruistic Are You, Really?

How Altruistic Are You, Really?
The Ultimate Survey for the Intellectual.


Intro (skip to "survey" if desired):

Technically, according to Max's philosophy, even altruistic acts are selfish, because it is impossible to voluntarily do anything we don't want to do; it's a contradiction, see? "Voluntarily" doing what we "don't want..." is a paradox.

I could give away all of my money and property to charity today; but it would still be, at heart, a selfish act to satisfy my desire to help a lot of people.

I could jump in front of a friend and take a bullet, sacrificing my life; but it would still be, at heart, a selfish desire to save my friend's life out of love.

It therefore follows that every action done on purpose MUST have spawned from our wanting to do it in the first place. So our actions are ALWAYS going to be selfish -- even if that action is helping everyone in the world and making oneself suffer.

But still... Just ignore that for now, and take this survey about altruism.




Survey:

1.
Assume you love a person, who will now be referred to as "Person."

a. Would you still love Person if Person had no hair?
b. Would you still love Person if Person had no hair or face?
c. Would you still love Person if Person had no hair, face, or voice?
d. Would you still love Person if Person lost Person's hair, face, voice, and limbs?
e. Would you still love Person if Person had no body and was simply a brain in a jar with personality and memories?

f. Assume there exists a random ugly person who you hate, who will now be referred to as "Ugly." If Person's brain were to be exchanged with Ugly's brain, would you still love Person, now trapped in Ugly's body?

g.
Assume that Person's brain and Ugly's brain are restored, and all the limbs/face/voices are restored, and Person and Ugly are both normal people just like they were to begin with.

But then a scientist discovers how to isolate "consciousness" from the human brain. You see this evil scientist exchange Person's "consciousness" with Ugly's "consciousness," WITHOUT TOUCHING PERSONALITY AND MEMORIES. Do you now love Ugly, trapped inside Person's body, life, personality, and memories of you; or do you still love Person, trapped inside Ugly's body, life, personality, and lack of memories of you?

Keep in mind that now Ugly loves you and Person does not, since they have switched brains.


2.

The apocalypse is coming. Assume you have met or known about 0.0001% of the people in the world. Choose only ONE of the following (in both cases, you survive):

a. Save only the people that you know, including yourself. Everyone else in the world dies.

b. Save only the people that you don't know, plus yourself. Everyone you know in the world dies.



3.
One fine day, an evil scientist captures you and creates an identical you (who will now be referred to as "Other"), having your same exact cells, brain, memories, and personality -- the only difference is consciousness: You observe the world from your body, and Other observes the world from Other's.

You have a spouse, two kids, a good job, and a good life. If you kill Other, no one will know, the scientist will not tell, and you will continue to live your life normally. If you don't, your spouse and kids will have to love two of you at once, since Other is exactly the same as you.

Would you kill Other?





Results:

If you don't love Person in 1a-1d, you are disgustingly cruel.
If you don't love Person in 1e and/or 1f, you are reasonably cold-hearted.
If you love Person in 1a-1f, you are reasonably altruistic.
If you answered "no" to number 3, you are admirably altruistic.
If you answered "b" for number 2, you are extremely altruistic.
If you love Person's consciousness trapped inside Ugly's brain in 1g, you are... fanatically altruistic.

I could've done some cheesy "points" system but I opted not do since I already spent way too much work on this dumb note.

Morals Make us Fake

Would you sacrifice your dog to save the lives of 3 other dogs? No! If you were Spiderman and you could only choose one or the other, whom would you save: Girlfriend, or little kids? Girlfriend! Would you rather save your mom's life, or the lives of 5 starving children you have never heard of? YOUR MOM!!

I answered the above three questions for you assuming that you are human, and that you do not follow some higher, rationalized code of ethics. Morals are obtained from society and culture rather than our own instincts. Therefore, when you act upon morals you are not necessarily doing what you really want to do. The less morals you have, the more self-reliant and authentic you are. Don't be made fake by morals!!!! Consider the following:

A weak friend refuses to share his friend's secrets because of his strong sense of morality. A real friend refuses to share his friend's secrets because he cares about his friend.

A weak man stops himself from cheating on his wife with a really sexy woman, because he has morals. A faithful man stops himself from cheating on his wife because he loves her.