X-Message-Number: 3646 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 22:41:43 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading Yourself -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- As usual Robert Ettinger gives us a lot to think about. >a description or an analog of a thing is not the thing. I'm not entirely sure that's true but even if it is , I'm not a thing. The word "I" should not be a pronoun but a adjective, An adjective modifying matter. It's the way matter reacts when it's organized in certain complex ways. That's the reason we remain the same person from one year to the next (or do we ?) even though all our atoms are different , the matter still reacts the same way. This also gives us some reason for hope. To destroy a adjective like "red" you would have to destroy all the red things in the universe, at the very least . To destroy a more complex adjective like "John Clark" would be easier because right now, only one object has this property. My hope is that Nanotechnology will change this. If I'm wrong about this and I really am a noun , when I die I'm sunk. Some think a "simulated" mind would not be a "real" mind, I think there wrong. A simulated flame is certainly not identical to a real flame but to say it has absolutely no reality can lead to problems. Suppose you say that for a fire to be real it must have some immaterial essence of fire, a sort of "burning" soul, thus a simulated flame does not really burn because it just changes the pattern in a computer memory. The trouble is using the same reasoning you could say a real fire doesn't really burn, because it just oxidizes chemicals; but really a flame can't even do that, it just obeys the laws of chemistry. If we continue with this we soon reach a point where nothing is real but elementary particles and the laws of physics, an obvious absurdity. I think a simulated flame is real at one level but care must be taken not to confuse levels. A simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. The more abstract something is the more accurate the simulation can be. A phonograph plays real music not simulated music. A computer does real arithmetic not simulated arithmetic and when computers are big enough they will have real minds not simulated minds. A artificial noun is not the same as a real noun but a artificial adjective is the same as a real adjective. A simulated concrete object is not the same as a real object but a "simulated" mind is identical to a real mind. I can't prove that consciousness would be preserved in a computer, the only consciousness I can prove exists is my own and that proof is available only to me. I think we just have to assume that when something, like other people, act conscious they are conscious. >It is conceivable that "information is everything" in SOME >sense, but it is also possible, even likely, that ONLY a >hydrogen atom can contain ALL the information about itself in >the volume and mass of a hydrogen atom. I don't think this would be a problem. Regardless of how much information is in hydrogen atom as long as it's the same it wouldn't matter which hydrogen atom you specified. We recycle atoms constantly so it's unlikely to be the source of our identity. >Turing's tape is the paradigm general purpose computer, which >can in principle perform any calculation that any >computer--serial or parallel--can. But it can't do >two things at once, which may well be essential for a self As long as the tape was fast enough in switching between one task and another you wouldn't notice it wasn't doing two things at once. I think the difference between a serial and parallel computer is an engineering consideration not a qualitative distinction. I can't prove that parallel computing won't lead to different subjective experiences of some sort but were leaving science now and entering meta physics. Nothing wrong with meta physics really,it's just not my cup of tea. It would probably be much more difficult to build an intelligent serial computer than a parallel one but this is practicality and were talking philosophy here. It is well known that philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with anything practical. >I have repeatedly and emphatically insisted that intelligence >is not the stuff of life or humanity or consciousness: the >central role goes to FEELING, the capacity to >experience pleasure and pain and the like, the subjective >condition. I agree that feelings are what we want to preserve but subjective experience is not science. The only consciousness we have DIRECT experience of is our own. We infer the consciousness in other people by observing behavior and using a theory or model that interprets actions to there assumed internal experience. The theory could be wrong. I'm sure people will come up with plausible sounding theories that say that certain brain architecture's could lead to identical behavior but different subjective experience, I'm sure they'll come up with hundreds of them . Which one is correct? You could only use yourself to test them on and that's not enough, your brain is unique so awareness could be unique to you. >Turing Test is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove humanity. The Turing Test is sufficient but Turing never said it was necessary , after all the subject might just refuse to cooperate with the tester and remain silent resulting in a score of zero. The Turing Test was not really invented by Turing, it is very old and is used by all of us constantly ,I am sure you are using it at this moment and I am sure I am the subject of the test. It is the only way we have ( or should have) of judging people, by their actions . That's why I never had any patience with the anti AI crowd when they tried to find flaws in the test, it may not be perfect but its worked very well for a long time and its all we have. Having said that I must nevertheless admit that strictly speaking The Turing test is for intelligence not consciousness. Personally I am convinced that the two are inseparable but I would have a difficult time disproving the statement "I am the only conscious being in the universe". >Surely you must, then, admit that even if the computer/program >is so bright it fools everybody, it still MIGHT not be >conscious. Logically it's possible but unlikely, as unlikely as you being the only conscious being in the universe. I believe intelligence without consciousness is impossible otherwise genetic drift would have eliminated all consciousness long ago and I am certain that at least one instance of it still exists. That's why the Turing test works. >the mere discussion of these issues may awaken some minds to >wider horizons, a sense of awe and adventure and unbounded >possibilities. Well said, and I couldn't agree with you more. This is one of the few areas of philosophy that has practical and personal consequences. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBLxDWd303wfSpid95AQF0zATveRVw/5sUCy8syLOiQ8Jj6WP1VVxkFnvc A2Qe7+9deSjHP2MPzmcwhNSZNCw7fnFYJQPjKJ+BT4eaytSiyqVuXUbn/C1zqTnI 50+58kq3iAo3aMTziQLqqerW2A31+M7/U4dB14MQ5y2xi50UCmnSfNh5SzcYLPOg CMRGJ5hFL0A9wJLYkJXNDDRLbualyB2gjfIZKynao+4C7NBoRrE= =BskE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3646