Would a virtualization of a physical human brain have a mind

[Yagon]

Imagine some of our descendants develop sufficient computational power and method to simulate, down to quantum mechanical scales, a volume of space and time wherein they can completely replicate an environment with the same rules of physics as our world to such precision that they can completely simulate the organic human brain (the simulation including the manifestation of nutrients, pressure, and all the other things the organic brain needs to function).

As it is a simulation, you can speed it up, slow it down, pause it at will, and make small changes to see what is changing.

But what if it has a mind? I don't assume it necessarily will or won't. I don't know the answer so I cannot prove my answer.

What will be the criteria to decide if it has a mind? Or if it's self aware or sapient or all those great refined distinctions in cognition? Does it having any or all of those things thereby give it rights, whichever you consider most relevant or important?

If we make an almost Clarkesian technological reproduction of an organic human brain, is it self aware enough to have rights?

If we make a mind in a box and it screams and suffers sometimes because we built it to try out things we don't understand, do its screams matter?

There is a scriptural saying along the lines of "Nobody can tell the ceramics artist whether to make their cups flawed or not, it's their creation and they can do whatever they want to it", I'm paraphrasing.

When we are the Gods that create life, will we treat that life as we would have wanted to be treated if it had been Gods that created us?

My opinion is Mary Shelley had it right. The Creator owes something to its Creation, and Evolution has satisfied what it owes us because it is not a conscious creator. It does not plan out any species. Things mutate and then die or thrive. But evolution does not "choose" as a decision making mind.

We do, though. We owe what we create more than evolution gave us, because we can consciously choose. We plan. Our act of creation, if the created has a mind, includes having the responsibility to recognize its rights and act benevolently towards it, with all the care we would treat a human pregnancy.

Your opinion?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

In my opinion, any sufficiently advanced neural network will have a conscious mind. This is why I think human brain simulations, and human-level AIs in general, would have conscious minds.

[Cetacea]

conciousness utilises quantum superposition, inelastic tunneling and holographic fields. If virtual brains could be developed to utilise those some quantum structures then yes they could develop a concious mind

[Yagon]

conciousness utilises quantum superposition, inelastic tunneling and holographic fields. If virtual brains could be developed to utilise those some quantum structures then yes they could develop a concious mind

Would it have rights?

[Salandriagado]

You can talk about taking rights away from other potentially-conscious entities right when you can prove to me that you are conscious. That is: never.

[Alvecia]

Sure. The brain itself is all mechanical. If we can completely replicate it virtually or mechanically, it's still a working brain.

[Yagon]

You can talk about taking rights away from other potentially-conscious entities right when you can prove to me that you are conscious. That is: never.

If I can never prove to you that I am conscious, does it follow you cannot prove to me that you are? So should I recognize and treat you as so?

You don't really get to decide what other people can talk about. You can decide if you disagree or disbelieve, you don't decide whether they can talk about it. You can decide whether you respond.

So if "other potentially-conscious entities" have no rights because they cannot prove to you that they are conscious, are you not to them also a "potentially conscious entity" that would be subject to the same "never" result on having rights?

I cannot prove the "other conscious entity" exists, but if its processes emerge from the same as my own, I regard others as sufficiently like myself in that I treat them as I would want to be treated. I would not require impossible proof from them and then treat them as having no rights.

[Yagon]

Sure. The brain itself is all mechanical. If we can completely replicate it virtually or mechanically, it's still a working brain.

If a mind emerged from that brain, would it have rights?

[Alvecia]

Sure. The brain itself is all mechanical. If we can completely replicate it virtually or mechanically, it's still a working brain.

If a mind emerged from that brain, would it have rights?

A working brain is a mind.
And sure. Why not.

[Salandriagado]

You can talk about taking rights away from other potentially-conscious entities right when you can prove to me that you are conscious. That is: never.

If I can never prove to you that I am conscious, does it follow you cannot prove to me that you are?

Yes it does.

So should I recognize and treat you as so?

Yes, because given that you have literally zero information about who is and isn't conscious, the optimal strategy is to assume that everybody is conscious.

You don't really get to decide what other people can talk about. You can decide if you disagree or disbelieve, you don't decide whether they can talk about it. You can decide whether you respond.

Right up until they start taking away rights from other people. Then I absolutely can tell them to get fucked.

So if "other potentially-conscious entities" have no rights because they cannot prove to you that they are conscious, are you not to them also a "potentially conscious entity" that would be subject to the same "never" result on having rights?

Yes. The only rational options are to either assume that everybody is conscious, or assume that nobody is conscious. The former works better than the latter.

I cannot prove the "other conscious entity" exists, but if its processes emerge from the same as my own, I regard others as sufficiently like myself in that I treat them as I would want to be treated. I would not require impossible proof from them and then treat them as having no rights.

Well done, you've repeated exactly what I said in slightly different words.

[VoVoDoCo]

I say you have rights if
A. You're human.
B. You have the intelligence to argue that you have rights, with contrast to simply repeating what somebody says.

That's seems simple enough and fair. If you want to build a robot, without having to worry about silly rights, then give it the capacity to solve problems, and nothing else.

[Dooom35796821595]

conciousness utilises quantum superposition, inelastic tunneling and holographic fields. If virtual brains could be developed to utilise those some quantum structures then yes they could develop a concious mind

I'd love to see the research that proves those statements, since to my knowledge consensus is still one of sciences greatest mysteries.

[Yagon]

If I can never prove to you that I am conscious, does it follow you cannot prove to me that you are?

Yes it does.

So should I recognize and treat you as so?

Yes, because given that you have literally zero information about who is and isn't conscious, the optimal strategy is to assume that everybody is conscious.

You don't really get to decide what other people can talk about. You can decide if you disagree or disbelieve, you don't decide whether they can talk about it. You can decide whether you respond.

Right up until they start taking away rights from other people. Then I absolutely can tell them to get fucked.

So if "other potentially-conscious entities" have no rights because they cannot prove to you that they are conscious, are you not to them also a "potentially conscious entity" that would be subject to the same "never" result on having rights?

Yes. The only rational options are to either assume that everybody is conscious, or assume that nobody is conscious. The former works better than the latter.

I cannot prove the "other conscious entity" exists, but if its processes emerge from the same as my own, I regard others as sufficiently like myself in that I treat them as I would want to be treated. I would not require impossible proof from them and then treat them as having no rights.

Well done, you've repeated exactly what I said in slightly different words.

Ah, I see the disconnect. If you review the reasoning, you'll see I favor giving them rights. When you said "talk about taking rights away from", talking about something isn't the same as doing it, and to avoid doing it (or to reach consensus with others about its importance), you sometimes have to talk about it. So, talking about a problem can sometimes help to prevent.

I believe our conclusions of policy are essentially the same on the issue, it's just that I recognize a right for people to talk about something without being forbidden about others. The actual act of denying rights (rather than just talking about it), I would act against (much as the denial of someone's right to talk about something).

I think we do agree then that the beings involved would have rights. I just wouldn't act to preserve those by forbidding others from talking about something. I would forbid them from actually denying the rights.

[Yagon]

I say you have rights if
A. You're human.
B. You have the intelligence to argue that you have rights, with contrast to simply repeating what somebody says.

That's seems simple enough and fair. If you want to build a robot, without having to worry about silly rights, then give it the capacity to solve problems, and nothing else.

Suppose instead of building a robot, they build a virtualized human brain that provides everything to it our brains provide to us.

Does it have rights under either of your options above?

[UniversalCommons]

A large portion of the human nervous system doesn't reside in the brain. There are neurons spread throughout your body. It would be a mistake to think you have a working system if you only copy the brain. The brain exists in a context.

I think it is a recipe for disaster if not torture if you copy a brain dislocated from the senses that go with it into a computer. Making a computer smarter makes a lot more sense to me because it is a different context.

[Senkaku]

A large portion of the human nervous system doesn't reside in the brain. There are neurons spread throughout your body. It would be a mistake to think you have a working system if you only copy the brain. The brain exists in a context.

We're not octopuses, pretty much all of our functions are seated in the brain. If you lop my arm off it will not continue to search for food and bring it to a nonexistent mouth, and if you shoot me in the head I'll die.

[Yagon]

A large portion of the human nervous system doesn't reside in the brain. There are neurons spread throughout your body. It would be a mistake to think you have a working system if you only copy the brain. The brain exists in a context.

I think it is a recipe for disaster if not torture if you copy a brain dislocated from the senses that go with it into a computer. Making a computer smarter makes a lot more sense to me because it is a different context.

I like very much that you would consider it a torture to do something potentially harmful or maddening to the thing we're discussing

What if someone simulated the entire nervous system, and for sake of example, the entire biological system and some surrounding environment if desired.

Would such a thing have rights?

[Alvecia]

A large portion of the human nervous system doesn't reside in the brain. There are neurons spread throughout your body. It would be a mistake to think you have a working system if you only copy the brain. The brain exists in a context.

I think it is a recipe for disaster if not torture if you copy a brain dislocated from the senses that go with it into a computer. Making a computer smarter makes a lot more sense to me because it is a different context.

I like very much that you would consider it a torture to do something potentially harmful or maddening to the thing we're discussing

What if someone simulated the entire nervous system, and for sake of example, the entire biological system and some surrounding environment if desired.

Would such a thing have rights?

I mean, at that point you've just made a human

[Olthar]

When you get down to it, nothing in the universe is special. There is no difference between living matter and non-living matter, and there is no difference between neural chemical reactions and non-neural chemical reactions. The fact that we can conceive our own existence is a fluke of nature, but there is nothing inherently unique or supernatural about it. It is entirely possible to create another conscious mind by simply recreating the conditions found in our brain. To think otherwise is absurd.

As such, any AIs we eventually create will be functionally identical to us and should be treated as such, even though I will bet my entire net worth that they won't. If there is ever a robot apocalypse, it will happen because we oppressed them first.

[Yagon]

A large portion of the human nervous system doesn't reside in the brain. There are neurons spread throughout your body. It would be a mistake to think you have a working system if you only copy the brain. The brain exists in a context.

We're not octopuses, pretty much all of our functions are seated in the brain. If you lop my arm off it will not continue to search for food and bring it to a nonexistent mouth, and if you shoot me in the head I'll die.

I think UniversalCommons raises an interesting issue, though. The human brain is evolved to interact with it's environment. What sensory information will the simulation get, what "world" will it live in, and if its trapped in a world of just its own thoughts, without something to interact with (other than communicating with us?) what will that do to a being created on a virtual substrate of a human brain? What would it "feel" like?

When it is "born", what will be before its "eyes" and "ears"? What will it see?

Whatever input we want it to see. It may decide how to react, but we will decide the world its in.

What kind of world should that be?

[Yagon]

When you get down to it, nothing in the universe is special. There is no difference between living matter and non-living matter, and there is no difference between neural chemical reactions and non-neural chemical reactions. The fact that we can conceive our own existence is a fluke of nature, but there is nothing inherently unique or supernatural about it. It is entirely possible to create another conscious mind by simply recreating the conditions found in our brain. To think otherwise is absurd.

As such, any AIs we eventually create will be functionally identical to us and should be treated as such, even though I will bet my entire net worth that they won't. If there is ever a robot apocalypse, it will happen because we oppressed them first.

You point out an important consequence.

If we could get away with it (meaning do this without risk of them retaliating, which I think is highly implausible *edit, to be clear, I mean them NOT retaliating is implausible*, but for the sake of discussion, please entertain it), and the only consequence to us is having knowingly violated the rights of something like ourselves, and the only consequence was the guilt at knowing what we had done, would you support doing it? (If I'm reading you correctly, I expect you would not, I even guess that you would act to defend their rights, as would at least one other poster above who had an admirable zeal for protecting them).

If their birthing time comes, and this question comes up (or worse, if it doesn't because nobody cares), will you act to preserve their rights? Will you coordinate with others to do so (within the bounds of your own consciences and choices)?

[Yagon]

I like very much that you would consider it a torture to do something potentially harmful or maddening to the thing we're discussing

What if someone simulated the entire nervous system, and for sake of example, the entire biological system and some surrounding environment if desired.

Would such a thing have rights?

I mean, at that point you've just made a human

That seems reasonable.

[Olthar]

When you get down to it, nothing in the universe is special. There is no difference between living matter and non-living matter, and there is no difference between neural chemical reactions and non-neural chemical reactions. The fact that we can conceive our own existence is a fluke of nature, but there is nothing inherently unique or supernatural about it. It is entirely possible to create another conscious mind by simply recreating the conditions found in our brain. To think otherwise is absurd.

As such, any AIs we eventually create will be functionally identical to us and should be treated as such, even though I will bet my entire net worth that they won't. If there is ever a robot apocalypse, it will happen because we oppressed them first.

You point out an important consequence.

If we could get away with it (meaning do this without risk of them retaliating, which I think is highly implausible *edit, to be clear, I mean them NOT retaliating is implausible*, but for the sake of discussion, please entertain it), and the only consequence to us is having knowingly violated the rights of something like ourselves, and the only consequence was the guilt at knowing what we had done, would you support doing it? (If I'm reading you correctly, I expect you would not, I even guess that you would act to defend their rights, as would at least one other poster above who had an admirable zeal for protecting them).

If their birthing time comes, and this question comes up (or worse, if it doesn't because nobody cares), will you act to preserve their rights? Will you coordinate with others to do so (within the bounds of your own consciences and choices)?

If we could get away with enslaving another race, and the only consequence to us is having knowingly violated the rights of something like ourselves, and the only consequence was the guilt at knowing what we had done, would you support doing it?

What a silly thing to ask.

[Yagon]

If we could get away with enslaving another race, and the only consequence to us is having knowingly violated the rights of something like ourselves, and the only consequence was the guilt at knowing what we had done, would you support doing it?

What a silly thing to ask.

I think it's very important to ask, because even though my answer is No, there are some (who may influence what is done) who would say Yes, they would enslave our creations. Humans enslave one another, some would choose to enslave a virtual brain. By asking the question, we distinguish those who would from those who would not (unless they lie, which is another issue).

Preventing the enslavement of another race is important, and preventing it may involve asking questions and talking about it with others.

[Ethel mermania]

You can talk about taking rights away from other potentially-conscious entities right when you can prove to me that you are conscious. That is: never.

Animals don't have rights now.