On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:40:14 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Say that you have been captured by the [totalitarian fiend of your > choice], > > and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture has begun, and is > has > > become clear that it will continue to get worse until you 'become one of > > them'. > > > > Fortunately you have been supplied by your team with a 'Chalmers' > device, > > which allows you to know exactly what to say and do to convince your > captors > > that you have turned and become 'one of them' in earnest. Using > real-time em > > field sensitivity and quantum computing, the computational states are > not > > only analyzed, but predicted for everyone in the room so that you are > > furnished with the best lines and gestures, sobbing, explaining, etc. > > > > The Chalmers device allows you to be a flawless actor. Is there any > reason > > that this wouldn't work in theory? What law says that acting can only be > so > > good, and beyond that you actually have to 'love Big Brother' in order > to > > seem like you do? If we had a device that would allow us to control our > > bodies, emotions, and minds precisely and absolutely, why couldn't we > use > > that device as a mask? > > The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting > is top-down replacement, not bottom-up replacement. Bottom-up > replacement would involve replacing a part of your brain so that you > didn't notice any difference and no-one else noticed any difference. >
Acting is an augmentation, not a replacement. It's a skill set. It involves a capacity to embody social expectations so that one's audience doesn't notice any difference. It's the same exact result from the third person view. An actor is a zombie being operated by a person. > > Part II > > > > Instead of replacing parts of the brain with perfect functional > replicas, > > what if we used a hot wire to ablate or burn parts of the brain. If I > burn > > one region, you lose the power of speech. If I burn another, you lose > all > > understanding of physics and math. If I burn another, you go into a > coma. I > > can do different combinations of ablation on different subjects, but > would > > there be any case in which someone who was dead could be induced to > speak or > > solve math problems? Why not? I could replace the motherboard of a > burned > > out computer with any other compatible motherboard and expect to pick up > > right where I left off. If I toasted a critical part of any computer, > there > > is no loss of potential functionality to any of the other parts, whether > > that part is implicated in the boot up process or not. Just because a > > computer won't boot doesn't mean that it can't be easily repaired. Not > so > > with a living organism. If you blow out a simple power supply in a > > biological system, it will never run again - not even a little bit. > > > > What say ye? > > Replacing body parts that break down with artificial ones is > well-established in the medical industry, and will become increasingly > so in future as the devices become more sophisticated. > Are you saying that you expect replacing someone's brain would be no more problematic than replacing any other body part? Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SJ71ARZhOjIJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
