Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

CSflim · 08-17-2003, 01:20 PM

Before I get into things, I would just like to point out that this is an interesting question, but it is nothing to do with clones. This type of misunderstanding is often abused in science fiction! A clone can be thought of simply as your identical twin, who does not necessarily share your birthday or your mother (as in the lady in whose womb you developed). I do however know what you meant by clone, I'm just a nit picking anal retentive ole bastard!

Anyway, I am going to put forward my views and argue them. I may appear to go off the point at times, but bear with me! This is a profound and complex thing that we are dealing with.

The mechanism you put forward is used a lot in science fiction, most famously Star Trek, where Caption Kirk and Co "beam down" onto a planet's surface.
The idea is that your "picture" is taken, this information is then encoded and sent at light speed to your destination, where an atom-for-atom replica of you is made...teleportation!
Of course one consequence of this seems to be unexplored. What happens the "original" you?
"Sir, we have just received word that you have successfully arrived at your far away destination. We can now dispose of your current body at this location!" hmmm....don't think so.
But do I believe that the "construction" at the other end is conscious? Yes I do. So what happened to our stream of consciousness? How can our "being" split into two? Is the "construction" alive? Or is it merely a non-living automata, emulating our actions? I will come to that briefly.
I don't believe in any Aristotelian eidos, or magical "consciousness stuff". A quick read around some of the other threads (A question for atheists, Free Will, Souls) will inform you of my strong views on this subject. I see consciousness as an (unexplained as of yet) phenomena which occurs due to the chemical and electrical physical activity of our brains.
I am also not a subscriber to the philosophy of "functionalism" or "Strong A.I.". This philosophy basically states that an algorithm, which when executed, will cause consciousness to manifest if the algorithm is sufficiently complex. So in essence, if we were to create an intelligent "man machine", not only would it appear conscious, it would actually be conscious. I find this viewpoint rather ironic, as it results in having to accept the existence (on some level) of the very same "consciousness stuff" that we set out to avoid! (If anyone wants an elaboration on my disregarding of functionalism, please ask, but I don't wish to go too far off topic here).
I believe that our minds are non-algorithmic, and are fundamentally different to that which can be emulated by a computer. In essence I believe that our brain relies on physical phenomena which are non-computable. I also believe strongly that quantum effects play a large role in our brains.
I hope people will not claim that I am contradicting myself by dismissing functionalism, but also claiming that I believe our "being" is encapsulated by the physical actions of our brain. The important thing to realise is that physical phenomena are not necessarily computable. The simplest example of this is to define a location in space. If we are to define it precisely then we will require a number with a lot of decimal places. Actually we will need an infinite number of decimal places. the number will be an irrational number. Iratational numbers are of course non-algorithmic. (again an elaboration on the non-computable aspects of physical nature with respects to the operation of our brains is available on request!

)
So to return to the original question about duplicating a human being, we must ask if it were possible in principle.
Well we must first ask what makes someone, "themselves". Is it the atoms that constitute their body? Hardly, we are constantly shedding our "atoms" and replacing our "atoms". Our personhood can have nothing to do with the atoms. More impotently, one atom is entirely equivalent to another (of the same isotope). It differs only in state. If we were to instantaneously replace an atom in one system with an atom of the same state, the system would not only behave in the same manner, but it would be indistinguishable from the time prior to the swap. In some ways we could say that it is in fact the same system.
So it would seem that our personhood would be in fact just the pattern of the particles in their specific states that make up our body. So would that allow us to photocopy/teleport ourselves? Well, so far so good.
We have to ask, in principle, how could we go about taking our "photo". Is it possible. I'm sure I won't be the only person to bring up Heisenberg. It would be impossible for us to determine fully the state of any particle (yet alone all) in your body. So our "photocopy" mechanism seems fundamentally flawed. We are not going to be able to encode the state of the particles in our bodies to transmit to another station for reassembly, and anyway, as I pointed out, it this would be impossible in principle to encode these values as they would be irrational.
However there is a way out of both of these problems. We simply need to ask, do we actually need to know the state of the particles? I put it to you that we do not. We simply need to transmit the state in some form or another. Would it be possible to transmit a signal, which remains at the quantum level and thus, despite being unknown to us, carries all of the required information? I put it to you that we can. And as it is only the particles position relative to each other that we are worried about we could transmit the "person".
So does this mean that we can duplicate a person? Actually, no. This is due to the quantum mechanical principle that it is impossible to duplicate a quantum state.
To explain it another way.
Suppose we have a proton in an unknown state W. We can cause it to interact with an electron, in known state Y, in such a way that the electron will emerge in the state W. However the state of the proton will not remain unchanged. It will in fact be in state Y!
We could then transmit the electron, with the correct state to our destination, where it could be reassembled to form the conscious human. However by the very process of transmission, we would have destroyed the original. Heisenbeg triumphs again!
Also, there is obviously no imaginable way in which this teleportation could be done, I can't see how it would be possible. However, were are merely talking about what could be done in principal.

So to answer your question:
Yes to Teleportation (in principle)
No to Duplication.
No to Souls
No to Conscious Computers.

As for the possibility of a conscious A.I. machine which is not a computer; Well I think that such a thing is possible, it would simply not take the form of a Turing Machine. This machine would not operate in a discrete ,digital, way. Rather it would have to work with, rather than against, the non-computability of nature. In particular it would be required to take advantage of "quantum magic" in order to work. I believe that the incredibly primitive field of "quantum-computing" would make significant contributions to such a machine. However I believe that before we can build said machine, we will need to gain a firmer grasp of the nature of quantum mechanics. As most of us know, relativity and quantum mechanics cannot, in their current form, both be true. There are areas where they appear to contradict each other. What we are looking for is our infamous "Grand Unified Theory".
Some people take such a search the wrong way. It is as if people are out to prove quantum physics and Einstein's relativity wrong. I wouldn't strictly agree with this. Rather they wish to further the knowledge that has been pioneered by these fields. In the same way that Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong when he put forward general relativity. Rather he expanded on Newton's theories.
Anyway, I believe that the knowledge we require to understand consciousness and hence to build it, is in the GUT.
A very interesting book on this is The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. Highly recommended!

08-17-2003, 01:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Before I get into things, I would just like to point out that this is an interesting question, but it is nothing to do with clones. This type of misunderstanding is often abused in science fiction! A clone can be thought of simply as your identical twin, who does not necessarily share your birthday or your mother (as in the lady in whose womb you developed). I do however know what you meant by clone, I'm just a nit picking anal retentive ole bastard! Anyway, I am going to put forward my views and argue them. I may appear to go off the point at times, but bear with me! This is a profound and complex thing that we are dealing with. The mechanism you put forward is used a lot in science fiction, most famously Star Trek, where Caption Kirk and Co "beam down" onto a planet's surface. The idea is that your "picture" is taken, this information is then encoded and sent at light speed to your destination, where an atom-for-atom replica of you is made...teleportation! Of course one consequence of this seems to be unexplored. What happens the "original" you? "Sir, we have just received word that you have successfully arrived at your far away destination. We can now dispose of your current body at this location!" hmmm....don't think so. But do I believe that the "construction" at the other end is conscious? Yes I do. So what happened to our stream of consciousness? How can our "being" split into two? Is the "construction" alive? Or is it merely a non-living automata, emulating our actions? I will come to that briefly. I don't believe in any Aristotelian eidos, or magical "consciousness stuff". A quick read around some of the other threads (A question for atheists, Free Will, Souls) will inform you of my strong views on this subject. I see consciousness as an (unexplained as of yet) phenomena which occurs due to the chemical and electrical physical activity of our brains. I am also not a subscriber to the philosophy of "functionalism" or "Strong A.I.". This philosophy basically states that an algorithm, which when executed, will cause consciousness to manifest if the algorithm is sufficiently complex. So in essence, if we were to create an intelligent "man machine", not only would it appear conscious, it would actually be conscious. I find this viewpoint rather ironic, as it results in having to accept the existence (on some level) of the very same "consciousness stuff" that we set out to avoid! (If anyone wants an elaboration on my disregarding of functionalism, please ask, but I don't wish to go too far off topic here). I believe that our minds are non-algorithmic, and are fundamentally different to that which can be emulated by a computer. In essence I believe that our brain relies on physical phenomena which are non-computable. I also believe strongly that quantum effects play a large role in our brains. I hope people will not claim that I am contradicting myself by dismissing functionalism, but also claiming that I believe our "being" is encapsulated by the physical actions of our brain. The important thing to realise is that physical phenomena are not necessarily computable. The simplest example of this is to define a location in space. If we are to define it precisely then we will require a number with a lot of decimal places. Actually we will need an infinite number of decimal places. the number will be an irrational number. Iratational numbers are of course non-algorithmic. (again an elaboration on the non-computable aspects of physical nature with respects to the operation of our brains is available on request! ) So to return to the original question about duplicating a human being, we must ask if it were possible in principle. Well we must first ask what makes someone, "themselves". Is it the atoms that constitute their body? Hardly, we are constantly shedding our "atoms" and replacing our "atoms". Our personhood can have nothing to do with the atoms. More impotently, one atom is entirely equivalent to another (of the same isotope). It differs only in state. If we were to instantaneously replace an atom in one system with an atom of the same state, the system would not only behave in the same manner, but it would be indistinguishable from the time prior to the swap. In some ways we could say that it is in fact the same system. So it would seem that our personhood would be in fact just the pattern of the particles in their specific states that make up our body. So would that allow us to photocopy/teleport ourselves? Well, so far so good. We have to ask, in principle, how could we go about taking our "photo". Is it possible. I'm sure I won't be the only person to bring up Heisenberg. It would be impossible for us to determine fully the state of any particle (yet alone all) in your body. So our "photocopy" mechanism seems fundamentally flawed. We are not going to be able to encode the state of the particles in our bodies to transmit to another station for reassembly, and anyway, as I pointed out, it this would be impossible in principle to encode these values as they would be irrational. However there is a way out of both of these problems. We simply need to ask, do we actually need to know the state of the particles? I put it to you that we do not. We simply need to transmit the state in some form or another. Would it be possible to transmit a signal, which remains at the quantum level and thus, despite being unknown to us, carries all of the required information? I put it to you that we can. And as it is only the particles position relative to each other that we are worried about we could transmit the "person". So does this mean that we can duplicate a person? Actually, no. This is due to the quantum mechanical principle that it is impossible to duplicate a quantum state. To explain it another way. Suppose we have a proton in an unknown state W. We can cause it to interact with an electron, in known state Y, in such a way that the electron will emerge in the state W. However the state of the proton will not remain unchanged. It will in fact be in state Y! We could then transmit the electron, with the correct state to our destination, where it could be reassembled to form the conscious human. However by the very process of transmission, we would have destroyed the original. Heisenbeg triumphs again! Also, there is obviously no imaginable way in which this teleportation could be done, I can't see how it would be possible. However, were are merely talking about what could be done in principal. So to answer your question: Yes to Teleportation (in principle) No to Duplication. No to Souls No to Conscious Computers. As for the possibility of a conscious A.I. machine which is not a computer; Well I think that such a thing is possible, it would simply not take the form of a Turing Machine. This machine would not operate in a discrete ,digital, way. Rather it would have to work with, rather than against, the non-computability of nature. In particular it would be required to take advantage of "quantum magic" in order to work. I believe that the incredibly primitive field of "quantum-computing" would make significant contributions to such a machine. However I believe that before we can build said machine, we will need to gain a firmer grasp of the nature of quantum mechanics. As most of us know, relativity and quantum mechanics cannot, in their current form, both be true. There are areas where they appear to contradict each other. What we are looking for is our infamous "Grand Unified Theory". Some people take such a search the wrong way. It is as if people are out to prove quantum physics and Einstein's relativity wrong. I wouldn't strictly agree with this. Rather they wish to further the knowledge that has been pioneered by these fields. In the same way that Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong when he put forward general relativity. Rather he expanded on Newton's theories. Anyway, I believe that the knowledge we require to understand consciousness and hence to build it, is in the GUT. A very interesting book on this is The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. Highly recommended! __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 08-17-2003 at 01:45 PM..