From: Robin Faichney (robin@mmmi.org)
Date: Wed 19 Apr 2006 - 09:08:49 GMT
Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 7:27:43 PM, Keith wrote:
> At 07:07 PM 4/17/2006 +0100, Robin wrote:
>>Monday, April 17, 2006, 5:51:10 PM, Keith wrote:
> snip
>> > I should have made note that this is based on the best extrapolations of
>> > where technology is going.
>>
>>What exactly does "best" mean there?
> In my not-so-humble-opinion. :-)
> Seriously, looking at you tracks on the net, you have been exposed to at
> least part of this set of memes.
> What would you consider evidence that I know what I am talking
> about? Names? Articles?
You'd be citing people who I don't respect in this context (though I
do in others).
> Didn't look hard enough to figure out your educational training. Mine is a
> BS in electrical engineering.
BA (Hons) philosophy and psychology, MSc information technology. My
p***k's bigger than your's, too. :-)
> I am the hardest of hard core materialists.
Perhaps you're not quite as hard as you think.
>> >>I don't believe it makes sense to consider minds as transferable
>> >>between substrates.
>>
>> > Why not? Unless there is something supernatural about a mind, can you
>> > think of any reason your mind would not run on a good simulation of the
>> > underlying "hardware"?
>>
>>Seems to me it would be MORE likely to haunt a machine if it was
>>supernatural. But back in this world, the problem is that the
>>hardware/software distinction does not apply to anything natural,
>>only to a certain type of machine (programmable computers).
> Researchers *have* simulated the nervous system in some very simple animals
> in computers already. It's just a scale up project to get to a human level.
That's like saying we can fairly reliably predict the weather 24 hours ahead,
it's just a scale up project to get to 10 year predictions. AND, it
doesn't address the hardware/software issue: simulation is not the
real thing.
>> >>As implied by your mention of "spirits", that's a
>> >>basically dualist view. And I know that language was intended for
>> >>those who could not appreciate the technology. But it also illustrates
>> >>where the concepts originated. You just took dualism full circle,
>> >>which is appropriate, because it takes us nowhere.
>>
>> > I really don't see the concept of spirit as dualistic. If a chair has been
>> > painted red your eyes tell you it has the quality of "red." If you can
>> > interact with something, it has the quality of "spirit." Thus live cats
>> > and dogs have spirit. So do computers with operating systems. Dead
>> > humans, cats and dogs plus computers that have been turned off don't have
>> > spirit. Simple as that.
>>
>>If you believe the human spirit can be separated from the body
>>you're a dualist.
> Since spirit is an active quality--you interact with one--the question
> would be if I thought I could interact with an OS with no underlying
> hardware. Obviously, no. I don't believe disembodied spirits are
> possible, information storage and processing requires matter. Now it is a
> different kind of question when you ask about information. The spirit of a
> cryonics patient stored in LN2 is as inactive-gone-as a computer with the
> power off. But if the patient were repaired and warmed up, we have good
> reason to believe their spirit would become active again.
Your use of the term "spirit" is covering some sloppy thinking.
Without a clear definition your assertions both on the immediate
effects of cryonic suspension and on the possibilities of revival are
effectively meaningless.
> Same thing if an atom for atom copy was made.
I don't believe that a sufficiently low-level scan is or ever will be
possible without damaging the subject.
> Same thing if the information from an atom for atom copy were saved and
> later made into a physical copy.
> Same thing if the information from an atom for atom copy was run on a
> simulaton.
>> >>What would make more sense, as well as being more relevant to this
>> >>forum, would be a story about copying the memes from a person into a
>> machine.
>>
>> > That is the main topic for several forums, among them Shock Level Four,
>> > Extropians and Transthumanists. How do we imbue the god-like AIs that we
>> > are on the verge of creating with a set of memes that will permit continued
>> > existence for lesser creatures including us?
>>
>>Isn't the human imagination wonderful!?
> If you can demonstrate a logical flaw in the singularity scenario, please
> do so.
I could spend the time to research it properly, but I'm afraid I'm
just not that interested in it. At present, anyway. Sorry.
-- Best regards, Robin mailto:robin@mmmi.org =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Apr 2006 - 09:31:44 GMT