From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Tue Nov 05 1996 - 18:23:47 MST
John K Clark wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 Michael Lorrey <retroman@tpk.net> Wrote:
>
> >I would agree to the assertion that the uploaded mind would
> >have a continuous stream of awareness from bio to electro,
> >but any perfect copy should by definition do so.
>
>
> What you say above and what you say below can't both be right. I think what
> you say above is correct.
But the key word is COPY. COPY COPY COPY COPY. as opposed to ORIGINAL.
I think what you are trying to say is that a copy is as good as the real
thing, bit it isnt in the view of the original, as the original is STILL
stuck in the body, if it is a nondestructive flash copy job, or dead if
it is a destructive copy.
>
> >You have not presented any evidence that if I were to do a
> >flash upload, that my "stream of consciousness" that I
> >consider to be "me" would not cease, even though there would
> >be a perfectly operating electronic copy of me insisting that
> >it feels fine.
>
>
> Not so, I presented excellent evidence that I am still alive after I am fast
> uploaded, namely I produced something that has my memories, acts just like me,
> and insists that he is indeed me. As good as this evidence is, I admit it
> falls short of a proof. You will NEVER be able to prove that my upload,
> fast or slow, has my consciousness, but then, you can't even prove I had
> consciousness before the upload, just as I can NEVER prove you are conscious.
> Nobody worries about being the only conscious being in the universe because in
> our hart every human being on this planet takes it as an axiom of existence
> that when something act's intelligent it is conscious. For the same reason,
> I don't worry about an upload who act's just like me not being me.
>
> >I believe that the technology for slow gradual uploads will
> >develop much sooner than a flash upload capability.
>
> It seems to me that a destructive upload would probably be easier to do than
> a non destructive one.
A flash upload will basically need to scan our entire brains down to the
quantum level in an instant, while a slow upload would consist of slowly
adding more and more capacity and augmentation to the existing brain,
until the mind has grown to the point where it would not notice if that
old slow bioware suddenly developed some bad sectors (Alzheimers) and
got corrupted and erased (dead). Many individuals and companies are
working on the technologies now to accomplish this in various ways,
while the flash upload is more of a science fantasy concept that belongs
with Star Trek teleporters.
>
>
> >Frankly, you sound more like a religious dogmatic, willing
> >to take a leap of faith, than I.
>
> I honestly don't know what more I can do. I examine 2 physical systems, I can
> find absolutely no difference in them, I conclude there is no difference.
> Where is the faith? If There is no physical difference, and you say you don't
> believe in superstitious mumbo jumbo, then the question remains, what exactly
> is the difference?
I just described the big difference between the two. The leap of faith
is trusting that even though your brain is gonna get fried in the
process, the copy of you is still YOU and not a copy that thinks its
you. There IS a difference. Frankly I couln't care if it was you or a
copy of you, but I'm sure that the original you would be quite perturbed
to get halfway through having his brain fried to figure out its not such
a good idea.
>
>
> >Tell me: Are you so positive that you would flash upload
> >this instant, given the chance?
>
> YES! In a heartbeat.
Will the real John Clark please stand up?
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:49 MST