From: Dan Adams (danadams@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 19:09:03 MDT
Perhaps I should have been more careful. No one is
disputing the monumental intellectual effort that went
into the creation of this Omega Point Theory (have ya
read the notes?!). And, I understand your point about
the battle against entropy. Nonetheless, the kind of
omnipotence you're positing could create far more
diversity out of its own resources than it would out
of recreating a *very* primitive algorithm like a 20th
century human mind file.
And, if we grant that such an entity exists, then I
would agree that it follows that this being could very
well already possess all the knowledge it needed to
reproduce a person's mind. But, the wall that we once
again run into is - why do it?
[Hint : I don't think sentimentality is a valid
answer].
So, the argument comes full circle...
:-)
--- Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> What you seem to be suggesting is a kind of
> "platonic" re-calculation of the past. That it would
> all be done via ultra-sophisticated algorhythms, to
> simple review and study the information. I don't
> feel that Tipler really failed, but rather worked on
> a generalized rendition of some inter-connected
> concepts that he was able to point up, rather then
> simply be one of the many brilliant minds who search
> for research funding; and care nothing for a greater
> perspective on anything. That certainly has led to
> the failure of the Super Collider in 1992. The
> primary reason to re-create individuals is quite
> simple. Personalities unbounded by mortality may
> produce new information. New information, I hold, is
> a battle against Entropy. If one is always
> puppet-master then one would merely be
> re-calculating one's own prejudices. Free minds
> (will) is a decided advantage in this--more patterns
> and variables. That's one reason I believe that we
> need more writers doing theories like Moravec and !
> !
> Tipler and Tegmark, to better understand what we and
> our descendents need to do.
>
> In a message dated Sun, 14 May 2000 5:43:06 PM
> Eastern Daylight Time, Dan Adams
> <danadams@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> << Interesting point Spud. In fact, that is
> Tipler's
> whole hypothesis upon which he builds his Omega
> Point
> theory. Leaving aside for a moment that Tipler's
> articulation of this theory is obvioulsy a desperate
> (and unsuccessful) attempt to unify his empirical
> training with some blatant supernaturalist leanings
> (a
> fact which puts him on the same level as Penrose
> after
> publishing "The Emperor's New Mind" - so sad, two
> great scientists that couldn't handle the
> ramifications of their own work...), I would guess
> that "re" creating simulations of past people could,
> in theory, be accomplished by a near omnipotent
> computational mind. Unfortunately, aside from
> positing some sort of bizarre epi-nostalgia, I can't
> see why something like this would be done.
> Any mind capable of realistically simulating (and,
> thus, functionally recreating) past minds could,
> with
> far less energy simply analyze and produce whatever
> aspect of their personalities (read "spirits") it
> wished, and, as such, would have no need of a
> complete
> copy. In order for an "omega-pointesque" simulation
> like that to be possible, mind-files would have had
> to
> have been entirely reduced to their empirical
> programming constituents and would be simply
> analyzable/enjoyable on that level. These software
> components could be used in countless other useful
> and
> (probably) more fulfilling ways. Therefore, that
> hypothesis, while not implauible, seems at the very
> least excessive/overkill.>>
>
> --- Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> > Maybe in the Year Trillion,
> > some MIND will decide to play back a Sasha, or a
> > Robert v 1.0.1.1.1. ? It would make a nice
> reunion.
> > Meanwhile peeps can still work on the more
> practical
> > Life-Extension Medical & UpLoading stuff. Welcome
> to
> > the 'Neuro-Matrix Neo..'
> >
> >
> > In a message dated Sun, 14 May 2000 2:53:01 PM
> > Eastern Daylight Time, "Robert J. Bradbury"
> > <bradbury@aeiveos.com> writes:
> >
> > <<
> > I had discusssed the problem of whether it will be
> > feasible to know
> > the difference between A(recreated)-humans vs. and
> > the decorporealized
> > originals.
> >
> > On Sat, 13 May 2000, Steve wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Melzack's Neuromatrix theory of self seems to
> > adequately explain this point.
> > >>
> > I didn't understand the reference, so I went
> > looking:
> >
> > >> { Melzack's neuromatrix theory of phantom
> limb[1]
> > >>claims that body experience
> > >> is genetic; he says, for example, that 'the
> > neural >>network that underlies the
> > >> experience of one's physical self is
> genetically
> > >>determined'. This assertion
> > >> is based upon two studies carried out 30 years
> > ago[2->>4 ]which claim 'that a
> > >> substantial number of children who are born
> > without >>all or part of a limb
> > >> feel a valid phantom of the missing part'.
> Close
> > >>scrutiny reveals that
> > >> these studies have methodological shortcomings.
> > }<<
> >
> > >[1] Melzack, R. (1990) Trends Neurosci. 13,
> 88-92.
> > >[2] Poeck, K. (1964) Cortex 1, 267-275
> > >[3] Weinstein, S. and Sersen, E. A. (1964) Cortex
> > 1, >276-290
> > >[4] Weinstein, S. and Sersen, E. A. (1951)
> > Neurology >11, 905-911
> > > from:
> >
>
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~skoyles/tinsphan.htm
> >
> > >I must admit I still don't really see the
> > connection. >Perhaps there is
> > >something I'm missing about the neuromatrix
> theory.
> >
> > >If you are suggesting that an A-human cannot
> > >effectively be the original,
> > >because there is no underlying genetic material,
> > then >I'd suggest you are
> > >treading on thin ice. The neural matrix
> (hardware)
> > is >so similar among most
> > >humans that we should understand the basic wiring
> > and >the effects of specific
> > >polymorphisms enough to be able to simulate much
> of
> > it >quite accurately
> > >within 15-20 years. I'll take the Turing
> approach
> > >here that if looks
> > >like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a
> > duck >then from my perceptual
> > >standpoint, it *is* a duck.
> >
> > >In Sasha's case there would seem to be a fighting
> > >chance that there is enough
> > >original material around to provide a plausibly
> > >realistic simulation.
> > >This may be aided by the fact that the
> individuals
> > are >still available
> > >from which much of his personal genetic makeup
> > could >be determined.
> >
> > >In contrast millions of individuals die each year
> > >leaving behind
> > >nothing more than fading memories in the people
> > they >knew.
> > >I feel sad for their loss.
> >
> > >The cloning debates now will pale in comparison
> to
> > the >geno-reconstruction
> > >debates of the future. [I'm not assuming that
> > geno->reconstruction will
> > >be able to reproduce the mind of an individual,
> but
> > >that geno-reconstruction
> > >will allow a computer to produce a more accurate
> > >simulation if sufficient
> > >material regarding the person's life, opinions,
> > >thoughts, etc. is available.]
> >
> > >So, for those individuals who can't quite
> convince
> > >their parents or loved
> > >ones that lifespan extension, cryonics, etc is
> > "real", >you can do an "end-run"
> > >around their lack of foresight. Sit down with
> them
> > >with a video camera
> > >and get them to tell lots of stories about their
> > >life. "Interview" them
> > >for their not-yet-born family so they will be
> able
> > >to "know" who Great-Grandma
> > >or Great-Grandpa was. Get your cells and those
> of
> > >more enlightened family
> > >members frozen someplace (there are several
> > >organizations I believe that now
> > >do this). If you can, request or even covertly
> > >harvest some of their cells
> > >(e.g. offer to vacuum the house then get the
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
-------
Dan Adams
Boston College
617.782.4050
"I cannot articulate enough to express my dislike to people who think that understanding spoils your experience...How would they know?"
- Marvin Minsky
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:37 MST