My other/better half did work in an office where IT would come into the main floor and say "sorry everyone, we've had a server crash so you'll all have to restart your computers" and half the office just pressed the button on the monitor.
But I think we seem to think of "us" as being a minute speck inside the brain. Not a homunculous, exactly, but not distributed. Hence why it's easy to talk of "my visual cortex is telling me" and "my pre-frontal lobe is saying..." and so on. When really, these are you, and if you really want to push a more distributed idea of you, then your nervous system is, your senses are. I mean, you stab yourself in the arm, you feel pain in your arm right? Even thought that's juts an illusion and it's all your brain telling you (see how easy it is to do this?) that it's in your arm. Or is it? As nerves do actually connect there and it's all physically wired up...
This way, madness lies.
Though... this has bugged me recently about mind uploading. How, exactly, do the expect to scan the brain thoroughly enough to do this? In Caprica they get around it by reconstructing people's personalities and memories basically from their presence on the internet and download that into a conscious entity, but do people expect magic to do this? We're talking about a highly detailed and highly dynamic system here - which is why I doubt cryonics will ever work, you can keep some of the information, but you completely lose that dynamic aspect by freezing people. Now, I don't doubt that we'll have the computational power to simulate enough neurons to theoretically make the piece of digital meat needed, but uploading someone else into it? Do people honestly think CT and MRI are going to be able to do that? I suppose that's the magic step, and I'm not talking Clarke's Third Law magic, either.
This type of stuff fucks up my mind when I try to think about it for too long. I guess that we just won't know until we advance far enough to know.
That's what Dennett called the Cartesian theater. And mind uploading (whatever that means) is definitely not going to be done with fMRI or CT -- what we need is a form of single neuron imaging (SNI) that doesn't damage the brain in the process of scanning it.
I was goign to say what Nebby said - but without the knowledge base. You would have to understand each and every neuron AND each chemical process in place to "upload" a brain. WE don't know what memories are, where they are, how they are made, how they are retrieved, why they get lost, if they are "really lost" or just "touch point access lost". The amount of information we would have to "decode" to actually make ADK feel anything like ADK when we "turned him on" is unbelievably complex.
And, i'm still dubious that you could upload your brain onto a robot and think "i am still me", cause it would FEEL wrong. On the other hand, I bump my fat butt into things, cause i "fell" like i did 50 lbs ago.
perception is a strange critter...
The "me" that encompasses a body and the "me" that is independent of that is a very good point. I mean, contrast the standard Turing Test where everything is conducted via a text terminal and the Total Turing Test where your AI needs to look and listen, and actually feel objects to make its decisions. Though, so long as you're aware of those two bounds and are clear what you're talking about, I don't think there's much of a problem to say that a computerised "me" is still "me" in a body-independent sense. Otherwise being blinded or paralysed would also cause someone to cease being "them".
Yeah. that's what's the mind fuck of it, for me. If I cut off my arm, "I" have not changed, though I have. What makes "me" "me" didn't go away. i could lose my ability to walk, to talk, even hear, and my brain adapts, but i'm still ME. if i took away my memory, I'm not "ME" anymore, I"m someone else. it's very strange.