Eugen writes > > I am postulating that it *is* the same sequence > > of code bytes, the *same* program. Do you know what I mean when > > I say that program A is the same program as program B? > > An instantiated program is much more than a sequence of > bytes -- it also has state. Most programs do not have much > state, but some (AI, specifically) are completely dominated > by state.
Well, so are people. I am actually in a state of bewilderment at the present moment at how you are using some words :-) > > It is this same, identical program that is running in two different > > places at "the same time" (pace relativity). Program A at location > > one is receiving input X and program A at position two is receiving > > input Y. I can't make it any clearer than that. > > I understood you perfectly. No, it is not the same program. A chess computer > playing two different games are two distinct individuals. Very unusual choice for meanings of words. On your usage, the chess program... oops, there isn't a single chess program! I mean to say that on your usage of terms, after the chess software (if I may) plays 1. e4 it becomes a different program after I reply 2. Nf3. I better avoid using the word "program" if we are to communicate! Hopefully, I can refer to what I want as a Turing Machine, and you won't pull the rug out from under me by saying that each time it goes into a new state, it's a different Turing Machine. > > ...the Eugen program is quite different > > from the Lee program. Now, the Eugen 2004 (March 23, 12:00:00) > > program is also somewhat different from the Eugen 2002 program > > (March 23, 12:00:00), but they are *very* similar in many, > > many ways. So many ways that we are justified in asserting > > that they are for all practical purposes the same person > > (and the same basic program). > > Biology doesn't make a clean distinction between software and hardware. > I agree there is similarity/homology between me-former and me-today, > but that similarity is difficult to measure at a low level. Synchronizing > spatially separate discrete systems and make measurements on bit vectors is > something relatively simple, at least in gedanken. Yes. So what do you think about the possibility of uploading? That is, transferring your entire intelligence and values from its present biological substrate to a silicon-based one. Do you consider it possible that technology from the year 3000 (were it somehow applied to where you are at this moment) could transform you into a robot who didn't know that the transformation had taken place, and yet you would then consist of a system where there was a clean distinction between hardware and software? > > P.S. I had great, great difficulty in understanding anything > > that you had to say. I was not able to make most of it out. > > Perhaps you could add some redundancy to your tight prose? > > Sorry to be so dense, sometimes I have to post under time constraints, in a > distracting environment. Will try to mend in future. Thanks. I often find what you write to be valuable and advanced, in the best sense of the term (i.e. totally up to speed), but often I have to read each sentence twice :-) and sometimes I'm not sure if I've unconsciously added something or not. Appreciate it. Lee