X-Message-Number: 3672
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 22:33:39 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading yourself

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 (Joseph J. Strout) makes some excellent points :
	 
	  >I suspect that consciousness (or, as I prefer,
	  >"self-awareness") is  not something you can fake.[...] "self" is
	  >nothing more than the activity of  our wonderfully
	  >complicated nervous system.[...] A simulation of a hydrogen 
	  >atom isn't a hydrogen atom, because  an atom is a
	  >physical thing.   The mind, on the other hand, is immaterial --
	  >it is a process, a function,  and activity.Functions can 
	  >(in theory) be reproduced.
	  
I agree with all you said up to this point.
	  
	  >Early uploads will be crude, slow
	    
The first upload would be crude because it would have the same
inefficient, needlessly  complicated logical structure that
evolution provided; the ultimate in spaghetti code. In spite of
this it would not be slow because the hardware would be
enormously faster. It wouldn't run a million times faster than
we do, a billion would be closer to the mark.
	    
	     >and require large national (or global) budgets to accomplish. 
		       
The first upload could well require a sizable fraction of world
GNP . The second upload would be different because the first one
would have had 10,000 years to think of ways to improve the
process, 10,000 years in his time, a half hour or so in our
time. This is assuming he wants company.   
		       
	   >It's well worth pursuing, but I wouldn't hold my breath (or my
	   >cryonics arrangements) waiting for it.
	
I agree. 

Keith F Lynch wrote:


	   >Anything which can run on a parallel computer can run on a
	   >serial computer.

That, of course, is perfectly true , in principle.
	
	   >The only problem is that the serial computer is likely to be
	   >much slower.
	
"Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play ? "
		   
		>> but this is practicality and were talking philosophy here.
		>>It is well  known that philosophy has absolutely nothing        
		>>to do with anything  practical.
		
	>I can't tell if you're joking here.
		
I am.
		
	>How  long ago it [ consciousness ] would have been eliminated
	>depends on how long ago it started.  For all you know, it            
	>began last Tuesday during lunch (you don't have any proof
	>that you were conscious, or even in existence, before then) and 
	>will end at midnight tonight.
	
Very good point . I can't prove it's not true but I'm not going
to live my life assuming it is true. I don't claim my genetic
drift idea proves anything in a rigorously mathematical sense
but I do think it's pretty good evidence that if something acts
conscious it is conscious.
	

	
				     John K Clark        


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBLxTGpn03wfSpid95AQEadQTvTXkrhdqDZ53egNT6FtqPq2MizOdpLhO3
Yu2N7GMCNkk8qXjBTbbLDiOHsgoA0wsYi+UwIWv3DLMtJnWDQFPsqQwMT0AUjEQU
hji2dYkrg97BqZvZMC5Br/Xf+g1I6di/bKNeL2x0dqLVvx55lax49Cm5qlvh8E5i
sOoI/v3DoHFQn+1Gq3kbtI3UTmpL0w/K8wbV5v189NwmKVD/gPU=
=gYhb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3672