It’s extremely difficult to preach and practice the emerging social paradigm. This is because it’s based in scientific study and rational response. This obviously isn’t something that comes naturally to humans. It concerns me how often the internet is used for the purpose of exacting “justice” mainly because of how improbable that outcome actually is.
The drama of society is not only something that can be uplifting and empowering. It can also become a vehicle for the cycle of abuse. This is the likely outcome when dirty laundry is “aired” as opposed to issues being filtered through more appropriate channels. With the new “everyone can be a celebrity” aspect of the world wide web, people can abuse each other interactively with a large following. This is something that Hollywood has been aware of and has made millions from for quite some time now. This is sustained with the “he said she said” hearsay and human tendencies toward judgement. As this occurs, the very real struggles that both parties are facing in their lives goes unattended while the money rolls in. Abuse is being rewarded in such instances. This goes unnoticed, for the most part. This is the real tragedy of “social justice” drama.
It’s all too common for humans to behave impulsively and then justify cognitively. This is one of the most destructive behavior patterns there is. This pattern is present not only in abuse cases but also in the “social justice” paradigm. The diversity of social systems dictates that only a small percentage of the population can have the interest and aptitude to deal with these types of issues in the most appropriate manner and yet they are publicized for the unqualified to tinker with. This doesn’t lead to personalized care from someone that is actually capable of helping these individuals with the issues that they would probably otherwise inflict on others by acting out. “Social justice” is an oxymoron with respect to human psychology and predisposition to behavior.
Resources in Clinical Psychology are underfunded, underpaid, poorly supported, not considered (more often than not) and are overshadowed by a will to choose between a false dichotomy of which individual is right in far too many cases. This fundamental misunderstanding of our behavior is prevalent and not likely an effective model for the betterment of society. For this reason, I implore you to let go of the social drama, tell everyone to mind their own god damned business and seek the help of someone who can actually help you to improve your life… a qualified professional. Suggest this to others. Raise awareness and be a part of this new paradigm shift.
This one question begs several questions.
- What is consciousness?
There are a few definitions; but the relevant one seems to be the self aware state of being that contains the mind.
- What is its relationship to the substrate?
Science is telling us that it is probably introspective information, concerning interaction with the environment, being processed in the brain, in conjunction with chemical mediation in the viscera.
- What is the structure of consciousness?
This is more difficult than it seems on the surface. There are different perspectives on what it is. The structure of consciousness is unknown. It’s thought of in many different ways. Some think of it as a singular instance of self awareness that exists between a very young age and death. Some see it as punctuated in 2/3 of each day. Some see it as an eternal soul created in gestation. The homunculus is another perspective on consciousness.
The truth is, we don’t even know if it’s a singular instance or several cooperative modules giving rise to a perception of an aggregate. We can’t even effectively argue its necessity in our function.
In keeping with what study is suggesting, it would likely correlate with the structure of the neurology and chemistry that it emerges from. More seems to be known about that.
- Wouldn’t it just produce a copy and leave the original behind like a file transfer?
It might if carried out in a similar fashion. This probably isn’t necessarily the case though. With the little that is understood now, the modularity of the nervous system might be leveraged toward a series of incremental transfers. For instance, one might begin with transferring visual processing to the target substrate and interrupting the visual processing in the source. Then move along to another module; and so on. This might give the feeling of transference to the source consciousness. This would probably include some change in the subjective experience, however there probably wouldn’t be a copy and an original resulting. It would just be on instance of a self aware mind going through incremental changes until the transfer is complete. The character of the mind may not be the same when completed, however this isn’t a clear distinction from personal growth. The main difference is in the short span of time that it would occur. What would seem to be the most important point is the experience of mind being transferred. In this case it would appear to be the desired outcome.
- What exactly does uploading consciousness really mean?
No one is certain. We have a long history of thinking of consciousness as a metaphysical entity bound to the biology. There is also the idea that the mind is the processing of environmental information. This might suggest that the mind isn’t centered in the neurology but is culminated from the surroundings. For the most part, the thinking is more akin to wetware as it was probably conceived with our neurology in mind.
In order for self awareness to exist, there must be a self to attend. The homunculous might suggest that identification with the sensory organs and cognitive centers in the brain may be central to the emergence of the self. This might also include the space and time. This being the case, it might distract from the environmental data being processed. This also is probably not limited to the conscious functions. Impulses that serve the sustenance of the anatomy also focus on the self in their own manner. It’s said that, we as humans are the most complex system that we are aware of. It seems a cruel twist of fate when endeavoring to understand ourselves as there may not be a more difficult problem. It may be that the perspective that we are taking has little meaning.
- So can it be done?
To some acceptable degree, I think it can. This nay not be to ubiquitous satisfaction though. What compels me the most is the experience of the mind being transferred. Whether or not it is successful may be just as subjective as the experiences that it entails. Application of the sovereignty of the mind would insist that it is entirely up to the individual to be uploaded. If they feel that it was successful, I wouldn’t be inclined to argue. It does however seem to be more complicated than that. It would be difficult to know if the person being uploaded would still be satisfied with the outcome in their previous state. There could possibly be a virtual superposition of opinion to contend with. If it were possible to upload, reverse the process and then ask the question, the problem might be solved. It’s an extremely interesting question at any rate.