>>16918526
Ok convert your brain into zeroes and ones

>>16918526
>Explain to me why downloading&uploading your mind into a computer isn't possible
Because the mind is not a computation. Any other questions?

>>16918526
Because is just an deus ex machina plot device like time travel, resurrection, teleportation, typical of crappy literature.
You believe your mind is some collection of concepts you can write on a sheet of paper.
But is 10E27 atoms in an uncomputable complex combination that can't be just copied.

>>16918526
brains are too quantum for normal computers, which is why fpbp

The brain is a complex biological system which involves a lot a chemical reactions which are basically physics stuff, so, to replicate just one single brain you would probably need an entire datacenter if not something bigger than that. “Mapping the synapses” is just like drawing a brain on paper, it is useless if you don’t replicate all the chemical-physical processes involved in them, but to do so you need a huge amount of power, very very huge for just one brain.

>>16918526
define mind that is tangible and coherent

>>16918526
what makes you think transistors form a conscious entity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

File: artificial perturbations.jpg (72.3 KB)

72.3 KB JPG

>>16918526
It would be extremely painful.

File: Carbon-and-silicon-atomic-size.png (65 KB)

65 KB PNG

>>16918526
Our minds are based on carbon (neurons). Computers are made of silicon (chips).

Carbon can carry a lot more information. You can pack it more than silicon because it's smaller, and it carries more electrons (so transmits more information). You would need a silicon computer to equal the processing power of the brain (which would need to be about the size of the moon), or a carbon-based computer.

File: UntitledUntitledUntitled.png (98.5 KB)

98.5 KB PNG

>>16918541

>>16918526
God gave us bodies to live in. You don't get to choose to reject God's order and try to become immortal on your own.

>>16918727

In principle it would be possible to create an exact copy ... in all practicality, how the hell would you even accurately measure the reaction a single neuron would show, also considering its plasticity? You would never get it quite right. Now multiply that "not quite right" by the total number of neurons you need to simulate. The result would be wildly different from what you try to copy!

>>16918781
god also gave us brains that are capable of coming up with ways of doing this, so isn't that part of god's order too?

>>16918793
There's no way to do this because it defies God's order. You are delusional.

>>16918796
>There's no way to do this
>You are delusional
I'm not arguing that we should/could do it. I'm asking you, god gave us bodies to live in, which is part of god's order. God also gave us brains that think about how to do this stuff, so are those brains part of god's order too, or not?

>>16918803
Yes, brains were designed by God. When you try to use your brain for the wrong purpose, it fails because it is not in harmony with God's will.

>>16918804
So god made our bodies the way they are, and using them that way is god's purpose

And god made our brains the way they are, and using them that way is not god's purpose?

>>16918807
You have been given the free will to use them for any purpose, but some purposes are wrong because they go against God.

>>16918780
Does your book define "computation" rigorously? How did I know it doesn't? :^)

>>16918727
>to replicate just one single brain you would probably need an entire datacenter
You could have all the data centers in the world and you wouldn't be able to replicate one neuron, let alone one brain. How are normies so ignorant about everything?

>>16918733
>In computer science, the ELIZA effect is a tendency to project human traits—such as experience, semantic comprehension or empathy—onto rudimentary computer programs having a textual interface. ELIZA was a symbolic AI chatbot developed in 1966 by Joseph Weizenbaum that imitated a psychotherapist.
>baum
Lots of steins, baums, weisses and blatts in hard sci-fi, too.

File: dednritic computation.png (220.2 KB)

220.2 KB PNG

>>16918809
It's delineated to some degree, sure. You will never find a rigorous definition of any of these processes in any serious publication about information processing in the brain, because these ideas need to be continuously modified based on new discoveries in the future. Researchers don't want to invest their careers in ideas that might be completely invalidated by new discoveries in the future.

>>16918818
Notice how I correctly predicted that your cult's literature fails to rigorously define computation. :^)

>>16918823
Notice how I correctly predicted that you fail to rigorously define an absence of computation.

File: reddit-seethe.png (143 KB)

143 KB PNG

>you fail to rigorously define an absence of computation.
Holy kek. Why are members of this specific cult always like this?

File: 1632337528527.gif (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB GIF

>>16918828
>wojakposting
Holy kek. Why are members of this specific cult always like this?

>>16918818
if you can't define computation, claiming the brain computes is meaningless, retard-kun

>>16918835
Then claiming that the brain doesn't is equally meaningless.

>>16918840
i didn't claim anything. i'm just pointing out that making claims in terms you can't define is meaningless

>>16918840
>Then claiming that the brain doesn't is equally meaningless.
Yeah, from your position. But just because your cult can't define 'computation' doesn't mean no one can't. Serious fields have well-defined computing models.

>>16918844
>i'm just pointing out that making claims in terms you can't define is meaningless
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

>>16918845
>just because your cult can't define 'computation' doesn't mean no one can't
OK so define it

>>16918840
Based. Retarded people asking for definitions of obvious things shouldn't be entertained.

>>16918526
Acquire a soul gem

>>16918852
>OK so define it
Computation is a process that evaluates a computable function for some input. A function is computable only if it can be evaluated by a finite algorithm on a Turing machine. This is the accepted definition outside of your cult's context.

>>16918852
>>16918869
>if it can be evaluated by a finite algorithm on a Turing machine
To clarify (for retards like you) "can be evaluated" means the algorithm yields the value in a finite number of steps.

File: cute.png (50.2 KB)

50.2 KB PNG

>>16918869
>Computation is a process that evaluates a computable function for some input. A function is computable only if it can be evaluated by a finite algorithm on a Turing machine.
So by your definition, brains compute.

>>16918875
If so, why does your cult reject my definition? And what does the brain "compute"? Be specific. :^)

>>16918526
Psychiatrist here. You are grossly overestimating our current understanding of how the brain functions. You are asking why we can't make a digital model of a physical, chemical structure. We've learned an incredible amount about how the brain functions but we're still pretty clueless when it comes to much of how it works, why it works, what influences how it works, and so on.

As one of many examples, the presence or lack of certain bacteria in your intestines can affect your mood due to the various chemicals they secrete. How would you replicate this digitally?

Serotonin has been thought for many years to be a causal factor in depression, such that there is an entire class of drugs devoted to modulating serotonin levels in the brain. Recent research has called this into question and there is regular debate not only on their effectiveness but even on their mechanism of action. We still don't understand exactly how these drugs are effecting the brain, nor what exactly the various neurotransmitters do. We know a lot about these subjects, and we're constantly learning more, but enough to replicate a brain? Not even close.

Assuming you did find some way to digitally map the physical structure of the brain, something that's already an impossibility, you'd then be left with the much more difficult task of digitally mapping the chemical structure of the brain, something that is far less understood. Your brain is constantly adding or removing various chemicals. Every sensation or emotion you feel has a chemical basis in the brain. How would you replicate this digitally?

File: 1766584008126.png (167.5 KB)

167.5 KB PNG

If there's a single fucking post by an AIcück here I will go apeshit.

>>16918871
>>16918869
> means the algorithm yields the value in a finite number of steps.
Lol, under your retarded definition, a computer running an infinite loop is not computing anything. This is why retarded schizos shouldn't try to define things.

>>16918895
>a computer running an infinite loop
There is no such thing.

>under your retarded definition
It's the standard definition in Computer Science, Software Engineering and Digital Electronics.

>>16918888
>How would you replicate this digitally?
By varying the simulated neurotransmitter levels, presumably. But the brain is an analog system so you literally can't.

>>16918900
>There is no such thing.
While();
>It's the standard definition
It's not but ok retard.

>>16918905
>While();
That will terminate eventually, retarded jeet. Probably as soon as you die from your intestinal parasites and your mother unplugs your computer. Now, if you put a Turing machine in an infinite loop, then indeed, you are not computing anything. This is only controversial in your mentally ill brown mind.

File: brainlet-microwaved-brain.jpg (22 KB)

22 KB JPG

>>While();
>That will terminate eventually

>psychotically ill "computationalist" retards start from denying abstract CS concepts and end at denying the concrete reality of their computer

>>16918875
>>16918879
Notice how he stopped responding when asked to specify what brains compute. :^)

>>16918906
Why would a computer stop just because someone died are you calling the other anon some kind of god that computers worship?

File: schizo_meltdown.jpg (106.9 KB)

106.9 KB JPG

>if you put a Turing machine in an infinite loop, then indeed, you are not computing anything.

>>16918909
Brains input sensory information and calculate bodily behavior in response.

>>16918911
Your mentally ill retardation simply doesn't matter. An infinite loop doesn't compute anything in theory and doesn't even exist in practice. You can perform computations inside a loop with no terminating condition but that doesn't help the computationalist case in any way.

>>16918913
>Brains input sensory information and calculate bodily behavior in response.
This is biobot word salad fails to specify any computable function. Try again.

>>16918914
>An infinite loop doesn't compute anything in theory
While(1)x++ computes the next value of x, though, you just don't want to admit how infinite loops work and just found a way to reword infinite loop as no termination condition loop.

The moldovan schizo cannot comprehend that a finite algorithm need not halt, so it is doubling down on its retardation.

>>16918915
It is the function input=sensory information and output=bodily movement, you just don't know what a function is or don't understand how cells encode electrical signals.

>>16918917
If it never halts, its not finite, the word for something that never halts is infinite, the word for something that halts at a clear value is finite.

>>16918916
Your mentally ill retardation simply doesn't matter. An infinite loop doesn't compute anything in theory and doesn't even exist in practice. You can perform computations inside a loop with no terminating condition but that doesn't help the computationalist case in any way.

>>16918918
>sensory information
You are not specifying any concrete form of input.

>bodily movement
You are not specifying any computable function. Try again.

>>16918919
>If it never halts, its not finite
While();

>>16918919
That's not even the point. Mentally ill retards are simply incapable of basic reading comprehension. An infinite loop is a finite algorithm is finite algorithm but it doesn't evaluate to anything, so it's not computing a computable function.

>>16918922
>You are not specifying any concrete form of input.
Yes I am, you just don't understand what sensory information is and how cells respond to force with concrete signals.
>You are not specifying any computable function.
Yes I am, you just won't accept that body position is a computable matrix of points and positions because it would disprove your claim.

>>16918928
>but it doesn't evaluate to anything
Not the empty one that was used as an example, but put x++ and suddenly the loop evaluates x and computes the next value.

>>16918935
>>16918938
You have a literal mental illness.

>>16918938
>put x++ and suddenly the loop evaluates x and computes the next value
the loop doesn't evaluate anything, it just loops. x+1 is obviously computable, though. you're a turbo brainlet.

>>16918909
>Notice how he stopped responding when asked to specify what brains compute
Yeah playing around with the schizo is fun if he at least tries to come up with interesting shit to play around with. If someone asks you 1+1 and your answer is 2, where does that answer come from? The nether realms? Magical fairy dust? An alternate dimension? A parallel schizo reality?

>what does the brain compute
lmfao

>>16918998
>mentally ill trantrum
Ok, but what does the brain compute? Be specific.

>>16918903
Any analog system can be approximated to any required degree of precision by a digital system. Where do all these braindead objections come from?

>>16919000
>approximated
Fluid dynamics can be approximated. That doesn't make a river into a computer and everyone understands that you can't upload water into a computer.

File: brainlet3.jpg (78.8 KB)

78.8 KB JPG

>Where do all these braindead objections come from?
Gotta love it when mentally ill cretins with IQs 3-4 stdevs below me get filtered by basic points and think it speaks to their superior intelligence.

>>16919005
>That doesn't make a river into a computer
It does.

>>16919011
Ok. What does a river compute? I know I'm not gonna get any coherent answer. I just want to see your mentally ill reaction.

>>16919014
You proved above that you have no idea what a computable function is, schizo. Until you realize why you were wrong, you won't be able to understand my answer.

>>16919015
>mentally ill tantrum
Ok. But what does a river compute?

>>16919016
You'll have to ask your handlers.

>thread bumped
>no new posts
I wonder which mentally ill retard got caught by the filter this time.

>>16919014
>Ok. What does a river compute?
Fluid dynamics, duh

>>16919021
You've already conceded that's not a computable function. If you have a finite number of steps, you can only approximate it.

>>16919022
So? No one (except your handlers, schizo) said a computation has to compute something computable.

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

>No one said a computation has to compute something computable
This is what being in a cult does to your brain...

>>16919022
Continuous fluid dynamics is irrelevant in reality because fluids are made of atoms. Thus, there is an inherent discreteness to them. This means that at some level, the discrete "approximation" becomes exact.

>>16919028
>fluids are made of atoms. Thus, there is an inherent discreteness to them
That doesn't mean there's an "inherent discreteness" to molecular dynamics or the higher-level dynamics that arise out of that.

>>16918526
They aren’t even close to that.
You’ve been brainwashed by marketers if you think this is in the realm of possibility.

>>16919037
>That doesn't mean there's an "inherent discreteness" to molecular dynamics
It does. Why do you think quantum mechanics exists?

File: brainlet-pattern-recognition.png (96.1 KB)

96.1 KB PNG

>>16919045
>hurrrrrrrr molecular dynamics are discrete because QM
I can tell you're the same mentally ill and scientifically illiterate retard. It's remarkable that you mange to be consistently wrong, clueless and retarded about every single subject you touch and every single point you try to make.

>I can tell you're the same mentally ill and scientifically illiterate retard.
What is this moldovan schizo hallucinating now, I wonder.

File: mathematical operations.png (25.1 KB)

25.1 KB PNG

>>16918999
mathematical operations

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/brain-inspired-computing-can-help-us-create-faster-more-energy-efficient

If you disagree, please take up the matter with the United States Government, not me.

>>16919048
>moldovan
wait wait wait, are you just memeing or is this dude actually moldovan?

>>16919055
I see you are not up to date on the board lore. See >>16916249

>>16918999
>Ok, but what does the brain compute? Be specific.

>>16919053
>m-m-m-mathematical operations??
Yeah, that's very specific. I accept your concession.

>>16919061
What do computers compute? Be specific :^)

>>16919098
>What do computers compute? Be specific
Computable functions. Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to mumble something about specificity while asking a question about a whole category of objects with different purposes.

>>16919100
>Computable functions
What's a computable function?

Dare I ask...

What is a function?

>>16919110
See >>16918869, >>16918871

File: retarded-woody.jpg (85.4 KB)

85.4 KB JPG

If I have an actual computer running an algorithm that computes something, I can abstract the algorithm from the hardware. It doesn't have to be a general-purpose computer that runs arbitrary software. Even if the instructions are built into the hardware architecture, they can be reasoned about as steps in an algorithm that I can run on different hardware.

I'm still waiting for the Computationalism cult to tell me what algorithm the brain running and what computable function it's supposed to be computing. If the standard definition of computation (the one used by computer scientists and computing hardware engineers) doesn't suit you, feel free to rigorously specify your cult's favored alternative. :^)

None of that is going to happen, obviously. In the end of the day, such "discussions" boil down to mouth-breathing retards erroneously thinking that if you make a computational model of some brain dynamics, on whatever crude level of abstraction is considered SOTA in the Current Year, it magically turns the brain into a computer that computes their model. Nevermind conflating the map with the territory; these people are too fucking dumb to at least do it in a way that isn't blatantly circular. Pic related.

File: logarithmic mapping.png (64.9 KB)

64.9 KB PNG

>>16919128
>I'm still waiting for the Computationalism cult to tell me what algorithm the brain running and what computable function it's supposed to be computing.
The brain uses multiple algorithms.

Here's a logarithmic one :)

>>16919128
>Nevermind
It's 'never mind', learn English you subhuman gypsy.

>>16919149
>The brain uses multiple algorithms.
Name one and then specify its steps.

>Here's a logarithmic one :)
Either you are having yet another psychotic episode or you don't know what the word "algorithm" means.

File: 111.png (23.4 KB)

23.4 KB PNG

>>16919151
>Name one and then specify its steps.

>>16919154
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to hallucinate that a sentence stating that some mapping can be approximated by some other mapping, talks about the steps of some algorithm.

>>16919156
see >>16919149

File: mental.jpg (46.1 KB)

46.1 KB JPG

>>16919158
See
>>16919151
>>16919156
Guess we've reached the terminal stage of your psychotic event loop, where you respond incoherently and hallucinate statements that don't appear in the texts you quote. Since you've conceded all my points and can't progress, we can call it a day.

Protip: your automatonistic illness will force you to address me some more. No one's gonna read it, but you can try samefagging again. :^)

>>16919175
see >>16919149

image on round organ (retina), sent in tube to brain, brain part is not round, image on round-shaped organ is converted to brain shape coordinates, algorithm for conversion found here >>16919154

Thank you for conceding. Unless you can critique the mathematical peculiarities of the formula and calculating Cartesian coordinates, this is the end point for your "argument".

It's over.

>the psychotic patient continues trying to address me and spamming the thread

>>16919149
by your retarded logic the peephole in your door is an algorithm

>>16919217
please tell me you don't seriously think beams of light are projected into the brain through the optic nerves

>>16918526
Have scientists even fully mapped a human brain yet? Also, how would you even download it? Human organs can't be artificially grown in a cloning vat yet.

>>16918526
Technological issue. It's generally intractable, and not worth doing. It's a good philosophical topic though, it's filtering a lot of sci

>>16919234
>but i did eat breakfast
not surprised

>>16918526
Your mind isn't flat all the time like a computer's mind is. Your mind warps and wobbles as needed to take on incoming data. Simple data = stays euclidean. Complex data = goes hyperbolic.
If you want to put people's minds in a computer, you'd need to make a computer chip that can alter its geometry like the brain does.

>>16918785
We don't even know what the self is. Of course, what we call self is a certain neuron system running, and that probably gets updated and replaced as we live, we may never be the same person as we age, for all we know a guy with dementia may already be on spectator mode after certain brain deterioration and his executive functions may continue to be performed by a secondary consciousness, so to us he just seems to be retarded but he's already dead by that point.

For all we know, the self could be a unique reaction, even if you were to copy that and emulate it on a digital system the authentic reaction would just die out. Is a flame the instant flash that reaches our eyes or the continuum of combustion for as long as it lasts?

>>16918804
What about all the evil shit in the world that *does* work then?

>>16919217
>by your retarded logic the peephole in your door is an algorithm
Yep. The retard thinks that if something changes as it propagates through a physical system and there's a mathematical structure to it, the system is an "algorithm". /sci/ is an infinite loop of barely-sentient mouth breathers guessing tokens whose meanings they don't understand.

>>16918526
because the "mind" (soul) is immaterial

>>16918526
have you tried estimating the complexity of the problem?

>>16918818
if it were really this simple animal intelligence would be trivial to emulate
we still can't emulate worms, especially because we still don't know how learning/memory actually works.
the connectome is insufficient, we've known this for decades now.

>>16918840
we actually have a lot of evidence now it's at the very least not a Markov process. LLM architecture, as a unidirectional series of fully connected bipartite graphs, is pretty much the highest scale and complexity of Markov process you can create with finite materials and energy (nearing theoretical maxima for all practical purposes). and it's become clear (at least to anyone not financially dependent on LLMs being AGI) that they don't emulate intelligence.
they don't and can't "think."

the action potential threshold/connectome model that "artificial neural nets" are based on is extremely simplistic and has not really been updated since the 1950s except by modifying backpropagation formulas. modern implementations just use orders of magnitude larger scale.
there are parts of brains that MAY work this way - namely, for example, the motor cortex - but it's clear at this point that "thinking" requires more than an infinitely scaled motor cortex.

but all the money's going to LLMs so when that bubble pops we'll be stuck in another AI winter, probably.

>>16918541
>he says while actively converting the output of his mind's computation into characters and symbols that express his thoughts about OP's question in the english language

File: 1661853378546387.png (131.4 KB)

131.4 KB PNG

>>16919659

>>16919651
That is called sin. The human will, by its very nature, is ordered to one ultimate end: God. Sin is a turning away from God.

>>16918890
Prompt:
"Identify a few archetypes of posters in this thread and evaluate the validity of arguments that they are making."
Response:
1. The Skeptical Scientist / Realist
Examples:

Post #16918888 (Psychiatrist)
Post #16919981 (AI/Neuroscience Critic)
Post #16918727 (Physics/Chemistry Focus)
Arguments:

Highlights the brain’s biological complexity (chemical signaling, plasticity, gut-brain axis).
Notes we lack even basic understanding of neurotransmitter roles or memory mechanisms.
Points out that mapping synapses ≠ replicating function; analog biological systems can’t be perfectly digitized.
Validity:
Highly valid. These posters ground their arguments in current scientific limitations. Neuroscience hasn’t cracked the “hard problem of consciousness” or even fully mapped a worm’s brain. Emulating a human brain requires solving unknowns in neurochemistry, quantum biology, and emergent properties—far beyond today’s tech.

2. The Computationalist / Turing Advocate
Examples:

Post #16918869 (Defines computation via Turing machines)
Post #16918913 (Brains compute sensorymotor output)
Post #16919053 (Cites NIST on “brain-inspired computing”)
Arguments:

Claims brains compute because they process inputs outputs via algorithms.
Insists computation is rigorously defined (Turing machines, finite algorithms).
Suggests digital systems can approximate biological processes.
Validity:
Partially valid, but oversimplified.

Strength: Computation can be defined rigorously (Turing completeness).
Weakness: Equating brain function with “computing a function” ignores context: brains are embodied, analog, and dynamic. A Turing machine doesn’t account for emotion, embodiment, or quantum effects.
Flaw: “Brain-inspired computing” (e.g., neural nets) ≠ brain emulation. LLMs don’t “think”—they pattern-match.

(Cont.)

>>16918890
>>16920137
3. The Anti-Computationalist / Dualist
Examples:

Post #16918541 (“Mind is not computation”)
Post #16918587 (“10E27 atoms = uncomputable”)
Post #16919693 (“Mind = soul, immaterial”)
Arguments:

Mind/consciousness is non-physical or emergent in ways algorithms can’t capture.
Brains involve quantum effects or “uncomputable” complexity.
Rejects reductionism: mapping synapses is like “drawing a brain on paper.”
Validity:
Philosophically coherent, scientifically unproven.

Strength: Correctly notes that consciousness isn’t reducible to current computational models.
Weakness: “Quantum brain” theories (e.g., Penrose-Hameroff) lack evidence. “Soul” arguments are metaphysical, not falsifiable.
Risk: Dismissing computation entirely ignores progress in AI/neuroscience (e.g., brain-computer interfaces).

4. The Troll / Provocateur
Examples:

Post #16918538 (“Convert brain to 0s and 1s”)
Post #16918763 (“It would be extremely painful”)
Post #16918867 (“Acquire a soul gem”)
Arguments:

Absurd or sarcastic takes (e.g., “soul gems,” “painful upload”).
Mocks both sides (“cult” rhetoric, “moldovan schizo” insults).
Validity:
Not valid arguments. Purely disruptive. Adds noise but no substance.

5. The Theological Moralist
Examples:

Post #16918781 (“God gave us bodies”)
Post #16918796–#16918808 (Debate on “God’s order”)
Arguments:

Mind uploading violates divine design.
Free will ≠ permission to defy “God’s will.”
Validity:
Not scientifically valid. Faith-based objections don’t address technical feasibility.

>>16918890
>>16920137
>>16920138
Key Takeaway
The most credible arguments come from Skeptical Scientists and Anti-Computationalists, who emphasize:

Biological complexity (chemical, quantum, emergent).
Current technological gaps (no brain map, no theory of consciousness).
Philosophical limits (can a copy be you?).
Computationalists offer useful frameworks but overextend them. Trolls and theologians derail the discussion.

Bottom line: Mind uploading isn’t possible today due to scientific ignorance, not just engineering limits. We don’t even understand how memory or consciousness work—let alone replicate them.

>>16919465

Probably just a network state of awareness, possibly with some predictive capability of its own but here the question is how much that is even intrinsic to the awareness component and how much is outsourced by it. Now a dementia patient likely still has that unless completely unresponsive already (at that stage likely properly "braindead") but the rest of the brain feeds mostly bullshit into that. I rather see that a possible high fidelity copy of a brain could sure show similar reactions to the original, it would be a properly faithful zombie in a sense. It could even develop its own awareness, but in no sense would that be continuity for the original.

>>16918808
Please explain. This is simply some science taken to its absolute extreme. Nobody is violated by this, by divine right or by law, so how is it bad? Is flight bad? Is curing cancer, aging, disease, and conquering the vast unknown bad? I'd argue it's a blessing, but do as you like. It all comes down to application, and that's for those who have the strength of character to undertake it properly in the future.

>>16918781
>>16918796
>>16918804
>>16918808
God isn't real

>>16918526
>Explain to me why downloading&uploading your mind into a computer isn't possible
Of course it is possible, but no mentally sane person would ever do that.

>what prevents us from scanning a bunch of synapses and map them onto artificial ones?
Mental sanity.

>>16922542
It's obviously impossible. The people who believe otherwise tend to be transhumanists and sci-fi believers, i.e. people who are 100 times more likely to have a mental illness and/or troon out than the rest of the population, so it seems like your belief system in general is at odds with "mental sanity".

>>16920137
>>16920138
>>16920139
>muh ai
kys now

>>16922546
You're not the brightest bulb on the tree are you?

>>16918526
I know how to do it but why do you want to?

>>16918526
There's no such thing as uploading. There is only copy and paste. Meaning you will just create a virtual clone of yourself. You will still die