From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Tue Jan 05 1999 - 07:53:01 MST
Billy Brown wrote:
> > Perhaps a complete model of the brain in fine-grained detail will be
> > used simply to reassure potential uploads that no 'essence' will be lost
> > in the translation.
>
> Computers capable of running that fine-grained model won't exist until
> long, long after uploading a higher-level model becomes feasible. A few
> paranoid types might wait, but their experience would hardly be typical.
I'm not sure of the time distances we're talking of here but I doubt the
experience of uploading will be "typical" at all. If we're going to talk
about realistic scenarios we must include social factors. Firstly, will
anyone fund uploading specific research? If not you have to be sure your
technologies have other more mainstream uses. It's possible neurobiology and
artificial intelligence research could reach a point where a "mind
abstraction" algorithm, built to create high-level models for the purpose of
uploading, would become trivial. This would, however, be long after we have
the computer power. Added to this is the lack of willingness of scientists
to treat age-related death as something that needs to be overcome,
especially in such a radical and mind-bending way. Secondly, uploading has
major philosophical ramifications. Although many of us, myself include, have
thought about it enough to see uploading as a reasonable goal it's still the
hottest subject of dispute on this list besides politics. Cloning -
something that's causing massive social upheaval - didn't get much of a look
in on this list; philosophy wise it was a non-issue. Now factor uploading
into the equation. Currently it's at the level "so bizarre I'm not even
going acknowledge the possibility" soon - perhaps when it's done to a
sheep - it will reach the status of "bastard scientists trying to reap our
souls". It is my opinion that these factors will be more likely to shape a
feasible scenario than technology.
> > Since the majority of scenarios are used to explore the
> > philosophical ramifications (although a few members of this list (names
> > withheld to protect the not so innocent) may be considering uploading
> > neighbourhood pets in their dank underground secret laboratories)
> > realism is probably not the most important factor..
>
> If all you care about is the identity question and other philosophical
> issues, then yes. However, the moment you get into practical
> considerations (what will it be like, what will we be able to do, etc),
> good projections become critical. It is very easy to project only one
> technology while ignoring everything else, but if you fall into this trap
> you end up with a scenario that could never happen.
We're fairly ignorant about the possibilities. For instance, I could argue
that intelligence cannot be increased, that there is a "window of
intelligence" that results in creatures more intelligent than us being
increasingly unlikely. You cannot currently refute this claim because we
don't have a good explanation of what exactly intelligence is. Yet such a
claim will crush any dreams of super intelligence. It's possible that much
of the brain’s power comes from social interaction and physical interaction,
making lone 1,000 speed minds impractical. It's possible that the mind is a
very rigid and fragile thing and making it 'see' in four dimensions (and so
on) is impractical. Again, you can't refute these claims and I doubt you
could give much evidence against them.
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:43 MST