It's not so much if a copy is the same as the real thing, but rather how do you define the difference between an all-at-once copy with a simultaneous destruction of the original and a piece by piece replacement of the parts? It seems to me they only differ by the size of the part replaced. BR John Den 23 apr 2013 18:13 skrev "Tristan Slominski" < [email protected]>:
> With great trepidation, I will try to keep this to computing :D > > It may revolve around the meaning of "uploading", but my problem with the > uploading approach, is that it makes a copy. Whether a copy is the same as > the real thing I feel is beyond the scope of a computing discussion in this > particular sense. I assert, that I am not interested in a copy of Me (in > legal style, I will use capitals for defined terms). > > The next thing is the definition of Me. For the purpose of this, Me is > defined as the pattern of interaction of physical processes that happens > within the volume bound by my skin. I will further refine to a concept of > Sensory Me, which I will define as the pattern of interaction of physical > processes that happens within my nervous system. I will further refine to a > concept of the Conscious Me, which I will define as the "pattern of > interaction" from the definition of Sensory Me, and it is separate from the > "physical processes" of the same. > > With the definition of Conscious Me in place, what I am interested in is > preserving the Conscious Me whether in its original form (i.e. implemented > on top of original physical processes, that is embodied in a human body), > or over a different substrate. > > Side note: if you disagree with my definitions, then please don't argue > the conclusions using your own definitions. I consider it axiomatic that > from different definitions we'll likely arrive at something different, so > no argument is to be had really. > > It seems to me to be possible to one by one replace various physical > processes with a different type that would result in supporting the same > pattern of interaction (Conscious Me). The distinction I am making, is > that I am interested in continuing the existing pattern (Conscious Me), > hot-swapping, so to speak, the physical processes implementing it. This is > the best illustration of why I feel "uploading", which to me implies a > copy, would be wrong and horrible. Because the existing pattern would then > be discontinued as the uploaded pattern would be permitted to endure. > > More on computation... > > There is ample evidence, that I will sort of assume and handwave, that our > Conscious Me's are capable of great flexibility and plasticity. For > example, when I drive a car, my concept of "me" incorporates the machine I > am operating. This effect is even more pronounced when piloting an > aircraft. Or our ability to train our brains to see with our > tounges<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=device-lets-blind-see-with-tongues> > > I am very interested in the Hierarchical Temporal > Memory<https://www.numenta.com/technology.html#cla-whitepaper>(the "HTM") > model of how the human neocortex computes and a lot of my views > about Conscious Me are informed by the HTM model. HTM proposes one > algorithm, implemented on a certain physical architecture, that can give a > rise to "Metaphors We Live > By"<http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-By-ebook/dp/B006KYECYA/ref=tmm_kin_title_0>types > of thinking that human beings seem to have. > > The reason I am very interested in dynamic objects all the way down (types > of systems VPRI is building) is because I am looking at them through the > lens of preserving the Conscious Me. Fully dynamic objects running on > hardware seem promising in this regard. The Actor Model also helps to frame > some of the things through a slightly different lens, and hence my interest > in it. Both seem to allow emergent behavior for processes that may in the > future support Conscious Me. > > Admittedly, the interface between the two physical processes remains as a > subject for future research. > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Loup Vaillant-David > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:01:20PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 02:05:07PM -0500, Tristan Slominski wrote: >> > >> > > That alone seems to me to dismiss the concern that mind uploading >> would not >> > > be possible (despite that I think it's a wrong and a horrible idea >> > > personally :D) >> >> Personally, I can think of 2 objections: >> >> 1. It may turn out that mind uploading doesn't actually transfer your >> mind in a new environment, but actually makes a *copy* of you, >> which will behave the same, but isn't actually you. From the >> outside, it would make virtually no difference, but from the >> inside, you wouldn't get to live in the Matrix. >> >> 2. There's those cool things called "privacy", and "free will" that >> can get seriously compromised if anyone but a saint ever get root >> access to the Matrix you live in. And we have plenty of reasons >> to abuse such a system. Like: >> >> - Boost productivity with happy slaves. Just copy your best >> slaves, and kill the rest. Or make them work 24/7 by killing >> them every 8 hours, and restarting a saved state. (I got the >> idea from Robin Hanson.) >> >> Combined with point (1), this is a killer: we will probably get >> to a point where meatbags are not competitive enough to feed >> themselves. So, everyone dies soon, and Earth becomes a giant >> City of Ghosts. >> >> - Make a number of psychological experiments by simulating a giant >> cube of 27*27*27 rooms with lots of traps. >> >> - Indulge your base instincts by inflicting the unspeakable to the >> copy of your chosen victim(s). Nobody will notice anyway. >> >> I still think there's a potential for paradise there, but if we screw >> up, it could be worse than Hell. >> >> Loup. >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
