Replace small part of your brain with an artificial component

Artificial component would not be afected by body chemistry like your brain. Your memories would still cause same body chemistry changes but they would not affect your new brain same way... no, it would not work and you would not be same even after first change.

So your consciousness is a pinpoint somewhere and if you extract it, its gone? Or is it changing slightly with each modification without you noticing?
What's really going on is you're legitimately doing a meditation technique that can be use to reach satori enlightenment. Its called the no self experience I believe.

Consciousness and the concept of "self" are lies we maintain for simplicity of categorization. You can go to great lengths to maintain a sense of some arbitrary continuity and make the claim that "you" are still the most "you" because of that, but in the end you're just kowtowing to an irrelevant manifestation of the evolved instinct for self-preservation in an ancestral environment.
Slowly replace your brain, scan it all at once and move it to a different substrate, or make a billion close-enough copies of it. They're all sufficiently "you" for any worthwhile meaning of the word that doesn't stoop to "souls".
If you absolutely need to frame everything in simple concepts that ape-brains have evolved to like, and you consider a break in continuity as a sort of minor "death" where the "you" who wakes up is "different" than the "you" who went to sleep, then you should be perfectly accustom to that because you do the equivalent every night. And no, it's not somehow different because there is brain activity while you sleep. Your conscious mind isn't functioning continuously while you sleep, and there are plenty of people who are revived from the verge of death with activity-less brains shocked back to life who are just as much themselves after the ordeal.
So if breaks in continuity are "death", then you die all the time. That's a worthless definition because there's clearly no point in considering sleep as death, so clearly continuity isn't important.

imagine when normalfags unironically start cutting parts of their brains.

Attached: 1541183698049.jpg (782x600, 43K)

Pseudointellectual

There will be a point where you will not wake up.

Care to explain why, brainlet?

At some point you will replace the part responsible for your "point of view", and this is when another point of view takes over.

>finally decide to buy AI brain
>get the ryzen 2700x brainmaster pro
>go through surgery to install it
>days of pain and hospitalization
>finally come to
>check Jow Forums
>i9-9900k brainmaster ultra was released and its 50% faster
FUCKING GAMESTOP

01101011 01111001 01110011

So you think there are a bunch of neuron specially dedicated to consciousness? user...

Attached: 1511192807817.jpg (540x540, 19K)

Well, let's change the experiment of the OP a bit.
Let's suppose we replace a part of your brain with a part of my brain, and keeps doing so until all the brain is replaced.
Are you still on your body?

Can't put soul in the hardware.

It should work!
Get going friend :^)

You probably can, but need to know how it works first.

It's the same concept you retard, try thinking for more than 2 seconds, put those neurons to work

Yes it is.
But you think there is a difference between doing a full brain transplant and a piece by piece transplant for some magical reason.

What don't you understand of the consciousness being a "process"

Yes it is, but the machine running the process physically exists.

(you) is a spook. Ultimately there's no way to insure that the end result wouldn't be a p-zombie aka an NPC.

Just like there's no way to know that other people aren't NPCs. We can only "prove" the conscious experience of ourselves.

I never asked for this.

>Replace your whole brain at once
>Still have the same consciousness when you wake up

Tell me why this wouldn't work

>it's a /v/ermin fedora discovers Theseus' paradox episode
>it's a dozen 12 year old retards larp as neuroscientists episode
God, I hate this board.

Attached: dd.png (500x571, 233K)

me too caracalla

>God, I hate this board.
I understand your feelings, fellow neuroscientist.

more like actual brainlet
will be first among the biotech longevity scam deaths

I just want to know the odds of my being able to live forever/ indefinitely. I'm 27 now, any chance we'll have figured out RNA/DNA/AI/ whatever before I die?

Not all parts are responsible for consciousness. And if you mess up with that part ieven small hole make you a vegetable. Google frontal lobotomy you dumbass.

How do you know you'll still have the same consciousness?
You'd have to thoroughly test yourself each time you remove a part to make sure nothing changed, and I guarantee you something will.

Jow Forums - neuroscience and physiology

>and no one would be able to tell the difference.
Then what would it matter? Can you prove that you don't exist in that state now?

Swampman my nigga, swampman. At some undetermined point it would cease to be you.

We don't even know what consciousness is.

But we have a very very good idea.

No we don't. Prove it. Source from a neuroscientist please, not some CS technofuturist cuck.

livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html

Those are all half-baked theories on some popsci site. Are you fucking joking?

The theory is that the artificial neurons should perfectly replicate the physiological response of the real ones they replace. In your example, naturally they wouldn't so you just wouldn't do it like that.

scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/

At some point you become a computer emulating you instead of you. At what percentage is anyone's guess.
Then it becomes a question if the computer emulating you is also complex enough to emulate your feelings. Which you may not have the self-awareness at this point to process.

>american
Into the trash

neat question, like a more complicated form of something like "take something you built, now replace a bolt; now replace a widget; how long until it is no longer the thing you built?"

Weird, I'm seeing no articles or backing discussing that we know nothing about consciousness.

Yes, but do they replicate the thing that makes your "point of view"?
I don't think you can just substitute it and expect it to have it.
But i bet you can actually replicate it, no "magic", just extra research.

Feelings aren't complex.

Did you even read your own article?

>Two challenges lie ahead. One is to use the increasingly refined tools at our disposal to observe and probe the vast coalitions of highly heterogeneous neurons making up the brain to further delineate the neuronal footprints of consciousness. This effort will take decades, given the byzantine complexity of the central nervous system. The other is to verify or falsify the two, currently dominant, theories. Or, perhaps, to construct a better theory out of fragments of these two that will satisfactorily explain the central puzzle of our existence: how a three-pound organ with the consistency of tofu exudes the feeling of life.

This is just conjecture at the moment, with very little empirical evidence. We're in the early, early, early stages of figuring out consciousness. To say "we have a very good idea" is false.

Yes they are, because feelings also include projections of what happened to you to projections as to what will happen to you.
If there is ever a computer that can emulate that without having to experience it itself; the question will then be if it is really your experiences or just experiences a computer is telling you that you once experienced.
Yes there is a difference. A computer telling you about the things that it read from your mind is merely emulating your prospective reaction about those things.

>we know nothing about consciousness
That wasn't his claim, you sub 20 iq mong, and he's right. There's no rigorous theory of mind, let alone one capable of predictive statements.

It's more complex because there's the potential of something being tied to the specific parts, and not being replaceable by simply manufacturing another one.

Both failing to explain why we don't have a good grasp of the basics, let alone any reference material. Haha oh man.

No they're not.

>source literally contains multiple theories
They asked for proof. No one is going to debate that people are looking into it.

Are you mentally challenged or epic trolling?

It would work in theory. If all parties involved recognize it as the same person, then it's the same person.
Everything, including the "I", is just a pattern and patterns can be replicated for pattern-recognizing patterns to recognize them as the same pattern. Not much more to it.

Here you go, faggot. You might be confused by the source. It's called an academic paper. I'm sure if you google long enough you'll find some braindead pop-sci site for normies that can distill it into an inaccurate picture for your little pea-brain.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641373/

>Consciousness research has proven to be an actual and functioning discipline able to provide meaningful and reproducible results. Nevertheless, it has yet only scratched the surface in the attempt to solve some its bigger challenges, e.g., its many underlying questions of metaphysics (i.e., why does consciousness exist?) and questions of mechanisms (how does consciousness exist?).

>One major obstacle for consciousness research is the lacking consensus of how to optimally measure consciousness empirically. Another major challenge is how to identify neural correlates of consciousness. This challenge clearly relates to the first as one needs to apply a measure of consciousness in order to identify its correlates. Current consciousness research is already occupied with these questions that may even be said to dominate the scientific debate.

>Consciousness remains one of the biggest scientific challenges among all disciplines as the most fundamental questions are not simply unanswered—it is still highly unclear how one should even begin to answer them.

Even if it did "work," why bother? Would make more sense to to just take you out back and have the new and better "you" just shoot you.

Is this bait?
>make claim
>oh no; it's retarded
>haha burden of disproof is on you

I was waiting for someone to use the ncbi.
My favorite website when I need to pull sources out of my ass in Biochem classes

It's just a database for academic journals. What are you on about? You realize as a university student, you probably have free access to much larger databases.

>article from a research professor in a well respected peer-reviewed academic journal
>haha it's bad because it's aggregated on ncbi
Why is this board full of literally the stupidest most autistic faggots to ever walk God's green earth?

Attached: (JPEG Image, 229 × 220 pixels).jpg (229x220, 8K)

Time is a flat circle, psycho-spheres, want to try mow my lawn too fucker?

That's what makes it so great.
Recently did a project where I had to test insects for a disease by isolating the bacterial DNA and ncbi helped with all the papers my professor made us write after. I had to source several ncbi articles concerning the disease in beetles. That and my state (Georgia) has a system called Galileo. Galileo is great for everything.

People have a problem with ncbi? Really?
Shit. That won't stop me. Still love it.
I pull sources from the bottom of Wikipedia articles when I have to. Still get As on those papers.

All your snippet says is that consciousness is a human construction.

>feels the need to burn some 12 year old retards instead of dropping actual knowledge or providing any valuable perspective whatsoever because feeling superior is more important to him than enlightening others

Attached: 8787.jpg (261x312, 14K)

t. dumb frog poster.

t. Does twice the work and gets the same grade as me, the Chad ncbi aficionado

There's no knowledge to drop.
That's his point. We know nothing about self and consciousness. OP posed a legitimate question, not realizing that there's no answer yet, but all the philisophical retards ITT came to Plato it up anyway as if there were.

>he didnt readed the ncbi link
we are literally creating self conscious robots right now, and you keep wondering if rocks are alive?

Attached: 220px-Platon.jpg (220x234, 14K)

Obviously you won't get a definitive scientific answer, like you just mentioned. But it's fun to contemplate what could be. There are loads of different interpertations of self and conciousness, and all seem to be logical to some extend. That's what makes it so hard. But also fun.

It wouldn't be practical, Nick Bostrom writes a nice piece about this in his book Superintelligence.

Attached: brainlet.thumb.png.ca50f4ed611cf82b87188dbbcfd4a4f0.png (530x600, 69K)

Oh, for sure. I agree.
I just don't see why so many people ITT are getting into genuine arguments as though there are proven explanations already present

Based unapologetic shill, loud and proud

>implying you're the same person after even an infinite small time step.

>artificial components cannot repair themselves like live cells do

nano technology could solve this issue

Everything has already migrated by then. Electronic memory is finite though and can't be made on the go. Except if it's stored in the (((cloud))).

01010000 01100001 01110100 01101001 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101111 01110010 01100001 01101110 01100111 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101000 01100101 01101100 01110000 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101001 01101110 01101000 01100101 01110010 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101100

Since neurons interact with eachother to communicate you would probably end up with a mix of 2 people

Well everyone have slightly different brains, so I would argue that someones consciousness would change even if you replaced just a tiny part with a part of another humans brain

Yes? If "point of view" is just the result of the collection of neurons called our brain than a functionally identical (but artificial) brain would produce the same result, whatever you think that is.

The "point of view" i speak of is the thing that makes you different from a identical, atom by atom copy of yourself.
The thing that makes such copy not be a bizarre case of looking thru two pair of eyes, or at least perceiving a teleportation when one of the two are killed.
If you make a clone as you said, artificial or not or probably even if its just a machine, it would be a different point of view, as you're using different materials.
The whole question here is "what is a different?"

This is nigger philosophy

nor this post are who you were replying to, but you're a pseudo-intellectual retard and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Why would "different materials", of all of the bullshit you could have chosen, change your """point of view"""?
We've already established that it's identical in function to your already existing neurons.

Okay, if i make an identical copy of you, like with teleporting, and then i shot you.
From your point of view, what you will see?

See

What is the turning point of OP's experiment? Where does it change from me to this so-called clone? Why does it mattery what kind of material you use? What you're saying here applies to neither my reply nor the original post.

Those are questions that we're not even close to know the answer, and the path to it will be quite horrifying.

Just file a warranty claim when you start seeing artifacts in your vision.

Attached: 1542402451210.jpg (1280x732, 387K)

>wanting spyware unironically inside your head

I like how it worked in Star Trek DS9 when Vedek Bareil had neuroimplants done and wasn't the same, but that's just scifi.