From: Joe Jenkins (joe_jenkins@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 21 1998 - 10:59:11 MDT
---Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> wrote:
> >> has this
> >> notion been explored in sci fi? spike
I vaguely remember a non-fiction paper called "Lillitopian
Uploads"(sp?) by, if memory serves me correctly, Robin Hanson.
I may well be the only extropian who never reads sci-fi. I have a
problem with "suspension of disbelief" and I consider the S/N ratio
too low, so I stick with non-fiction. I believe most of the signal
from sci-fi is given to me via this list anyway - thanks for the
filter everyone :-)
Imagine the effect of EOC on a technology enthusiast never exposed to
sci-fi. Its like the ultimate sci-fi without the fiction. Not once
did I feel the need to suspend my disbelief...Nearly 100% signal and
no noise....everything was feasible and sound. Put all of your sci-fi
rushes together and then realize I got most of them from one book
within 24 hours...even though a lot of them had to come from "reading
between the lines"... Drexler is such a conservative fart. I remember
that day well.
---Joe E Dees wrote:
> >awareness. Mighty Mites as mental whizzes are not merely science
> >fiction; they are irrevocably anchored in the realm of fantasy.
Joe
---Emmanuel Charpentier <emmanuel.charpentier@france-mail.com> wrote:
> Unless you manage to also reduce your brain, not in terms of
functional > complexity, but in terms of mass.
>
> Aren't there some nanotechnologists who believe we could change
our > > > neurons with nanoneurons, still keep our same brain volume,
but multiply > the number of neurones by </I>whatever</I> amount?
Go to:
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_5.html
and scroll down about 3/4 of the way.
Side note: Anyone know how I can quickly make a tag from Netscape
Navigator that allows me to save/cut/past a bookmark that points to
that part of the document where you scroll down about 3/4 of the way.
I know how to do this from edit mode but that involves saving the
document first.
> If this amount is big enough, we would actually be able to hold
the > > world in our head, and live it all on ourself... (and as we
make neurons > smaller, they also get faster, just like with
microprocessors: less > > > > distance to travel for the thoughts).
There are a lot of problems with making neurons faster and staying in
the physical world. If your running 100,000 times faster and want to
scratch your nose, your hand will have to move nearly at the speed of
light to complete the task in reasonable subjective time. So, for
every increase in speed there must be a corresponding decrease in
body/brain size. I hope your not too nostalgic about experiencing
nature the way you know it. A wave crashing on the beach will take a
month. Nature, as you currently know it, will be more like a still
picture. There will be some natural phenomena that is interesting at
that speed, like lightning, but all nostalgia will be lost. The only
way to experience nostalgia nature after speedup would be in an
Artificial Reality (AR) emulation of real reality (RR) equally sped up.
Joe Jenkins
joe_jenkins@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:40 MST