[Spoiler] Brain scan question.

[norwegianboyee]

Ok so when you get scanned you yourself will live on, but you can create copies of yourself... My question is: What decided who you continue to play as? In the game perspective you are scanned in Munchi's room and wake up in Upsilon... So you continue playing as a clone decades later... Later in Omicron you make another copy and you continue living in the NEW deep-diving suit. In Phi you DON'T wake up in the ark but stay on Phi... So what the hell decides if you keep living as the same person or transform into a different body?? Catherine says it's a "coin toss" that decides it... but how would that work? Why can you somehow either "stay" or "change body"??


Game perspective:

Stay in body / transform
Munchi's lab: X / O
Omicron: X / O
Phi: O / X (You see the other perspective after the credits tho)

[Romulator]

First of all, from a game mechanics point of view, there is no coin toss. It is completely scripted to be such.

From a reality point of view, all characters would believe they are the "real" character, despite being scanned as such. Whether it was a coin flip or not, if the perspective of the game remained in Simon-2, nothing would happen. The player would not be able to progress.

Imagine you are copied. Both you and your clone would claim to be the real one because:
- Your perspective mindset in your original body would state "I am the original, I am the first".
- Your self in your other body would state "But I have been carried over in this copy, and I can control myself like normal".

Furthermore, once you are copied over, there's no transferral back into your own body, since you cannot simply as a clone, return to your original body, since the clone has been created and now exists. The closest you probably could do is copy yourself back into your own body and pretend you're the original one once again - but does that make your original body a clone? And would you still believe you're the single character controlling it?

It's an intense dilemma, but essentially, you will always remain in the same body, but you can only control one of them.

Edit: I'm going to just add a spoiler tag to the title. You make references to events and explore themes in the game which others may have yet to experience.

[Chrysler]

Obivously the game can only show one perspective at a time even though multiple Simon's may exist concurrently. Of course the game doesn't show you the Simon that wakes up after Munchi's session in 2015 because that would be pretty boring for the player. Similarly, at Omicron, if they'd show the perspective of the original body the game would either have to end (because you were shut down by your copy) or you'd wake up in the same place again, alone.

[cantremember]

When you get copied there is always the original, and the copy, so you actually have two consciences, just depends which one you view it from.
In the game you play from Simon-3's perspective.

If it were actually possible in reality, and you copied your brain, you would always "lose", because you are the original. But another copy of you would be created who thinks he is you who carried over.

[norwegianboyee]

When you get copied there is always the original, and the copy, so you actually have two consciences, just depends which one you view it from.
In the game you play from Simon-3's perspective.

If it were actually possible in reality, and you copied your brain, you would always "lose", because you are the original. But another copy of you would be created who thinks he is you who carried over.

Hmm yeah.. So basically if we play from the perspective of Simon-3 like you said. You would have all the memories of the "original" Simon's you were before, But at the same time it would feel like you would always be the "winner" in that you were the one that kept going after the scan instead of for example be the one rotting away in Omicron.

So it's kind of like we have all these different Simon's inside ourself, but when the clone is created he goes his own way. The reason i'm saying the clones are not us is because we are our CONSCIENCE, even if they behave exactly the same and think they are us they would have an different conscience seeing as multiple versions of yourself can live at the same time.

Dissimilar to an hive mind the Simon's will go their own path and be a different conscience even if they have exactly the same memories as we did up to that point. It reminds me of psychology classes when we studied twins with exactly the same genes, yet they could turn out completely different based on their environment. If one experienced slightly different stimuli they could change dramatically even if some personality traits and looks were fundamentally alike.

This also makes me think about the topic of conscience itself... It seems like conscience is created as the brain (aka cortex chip) of an person is activated. The brain must be or inherit the conscience somehow... grah this damn Soma game really made me twist my mind.

[Dundle]

Interestingly enough, I think the game plays from a third-person point of view of all the characters. You play as multiple people, but specifically follow the journey of the different Simons and their experiences.

@norwegianboyee

The game makes the assumption that computer hardware actually has the capacity to experience sentience to any degree at all while there is no evidence for that idea. I know its a central part of the game story at this point, but it broke a good deal of the immersion for me TBH.

[Abion47]

It comes back to the creative writing adage. At any given point, ask yourself, as the writer, whether the story you are writing is about the most exiting time in your character's life. And if the answer is no, then the next question to ask yourself is why aren't you writing about that?

Personally, I found the logs that Mark Sarang did to be fascinating. It illuminates the question that the game as a whole asks, which is what exactly is the "individual"? If there were an exact copy of you, then which one is the real "you"? How could anyone, including you, possibly know? The logic behind Sarang's argument that there can only be one "you", so even if a copy was made of you, as long as no instances of you co-exist at the same time, there can be no doubt which one is you. You, you, you, you... Broken record warning. Eh.

It all branches into a realm of philosophy that might be interesting and thought-provoking to discuss, but actually trying to find serious answers will only lead to headaches.

The game makes the assumption that computer hardware actually has the capacity to experience sentience to any degree at all while there is no evidence for that idea. I know its a central part of the game story at this point, but it broke a good deal of the immersion for me TBH.

First, keep in mind that this story takes place a hundred years in the future. A hundred years ago today the general consensus in the scientific community was that the only things left to learn about nature were minor things, that we had pretty much figured it all out, and then Einstein came along with general relativity which made everyone realize just how little they actually knew. A hundred years ago people didn't even think things were possible that today we take completely for granted.

Second, how do you define "sentience" when discussing artificial intelligences? The major test for intelligence indistinguishable from humans is the Turing Test, but there have been a couple computers in recent history that have passed it with flying colors. Would you consider those computers "sentient"? If and when a new test for intelligence is devised, would you consider computers that pass that test to be sentient? At what point does the argument that states a computer isn't sentient get reduced to "because it's just not"? At some point in the future, we as a species are going to have to address and accept the fact that being human is not a requisite for being sentient.

[cantremember]

Interestingly enough, I think the game plays from a third-person point of view of all the characters. You play as multiple people, but specifically follow the journey of the different Simons and their experiences.

Yes I see it this way too, that or either partly as a flashback.
Because imo, the very fact that you walk around and are able to choose actions as Simon-1, means you are him and would inevitably just live on in Toronto after the scan. So either the game switches "perspective", or Simon-1 and 2 can be considered like flashbacks. Since the things you did as Simon 1 & 2 are things Simon-3 physically never did, they're only mere memories to him once he starts existing.

[Mudbill]

I think of it as the game switching perspectives, not as memories. But rather than switching perspectives, a better explanation would be how Catherine explains it during the Abyss Climber. That she just snaps in and out of existance. It's like sleep, but instantaneously and without dreaming. Therefore I think that, although the game of course could've taken the perspective of Simon 1, it chose not to for the sake of itself. At the time when Simon is first scanned, his story is split. His person is split that very moment, even if Simon 2 doesn't wake up for another 100 years. That's how we experience it as a direction continuation of his previous life. Simon 2 merely slept for 100 years instantaneously.

And for the sake of the infamous "coin toss," although not a real thing in the game, it is a thing in the gameplay. It's a predefined coin toss of which of Simon's consciousnesses we continue as. It's like an alternate universe. The past of Simon scews out into its own path, while ours is chosen by the player.

[Dundle]

The game makes the assumption that computer hardware actually has the capacity to experience sentience to any degree at all while there is no evidence for that idea. I know its a central part of the game story at this point, but it broke a good deal of the immersion for me TBH.

First, keep in mind that this story takes place a hundred years in the future. A hundred years ago today the general consensus in the scientific community was that the only things left to learn about nature were minor things, that we had pretty much figured it all out, and then Einstein came along with general relativity which made everyone realize just how little they actually knew. A hundred years ago people didn't even think things were possible that today we take completely for granted.

I know it takes place in the future, but that can only take my suspended disbelief so far. As far as we understand, consciousness is a result of a biological process. There are no neurons in a computer nor blood or brain tissue that is needed to keep it alive. I'm sure there are things we haven't discovered yet around consciousness or sentience that will be in the future, but attaching it to objects that emit energy or have been programmed by humans to simulate consciousness probably won't be at the forefront.

Second, how do you define "sentience" when discussing artificial intelligences? The major test for intelligence indistinguishable from humans is the Turing Test, but there have been a couple computers in recent history that have passed it with flying colors. Would you consider those computers "sentient"? If and when a new test for intelligence is devised, would you consider computers that pass that test to be sentient? At what point does the argument that states a computer isn't sentient get reduced to "because it's just not"?

Because it still doesn't fit the criteria for even now. There's a reason they call it "artificial" ... The computers in question still have a completely programmed protocol for behavior. Can the computer make arguments? If it can't, it becomes glaringly obvious again that its just a program following what its only been made capable of "thinking" of. You can deceive a person as long as they don't see what's going on in the backstage. So taking a scenario in which the limits aren't tested and a person simply believes something seems conscious on the small amount of anecdotal evidence that they have, I don't see how that would be a proof of computer consciousness (or sentience even) at all.

At some point in the future, we as a species are going to have to address and accept the fact that being human is not a requisite for being sentient.

I never claimed that it was, just that it's, like consciousness, an emergent property of a biological process. You have to get past just simulating and actually emulating where a computer has brain waves, neurons, and synapses like a brain does. I don't know how that'll work, it would be cool to see but it still seems a long ways away. As far the the specific instance of real computer intelligence that's being hypothesized, I think you'd have about the same ease proving that its conscious as you would for a cloud.