X-Message-Number: 3800
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 19:38:35 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I would be most unhappy if Mr. Ettinger or anybody else thought
I was rude to him in any of my posts. My respect for Robert Ettinger
will never be less than enormous, I just disagree with him
over some philosophical points that won't be of practical
concern for some time. Exactly how much time is unclear and the
subjective time could be much less, time doesn't pass when your
in liquid nitrogen.
>
>the question being discussed was whether any particular KIND
>of atoms might be necessary, silicon might not be good enough
Then pick a different kind of atom, nature has 92 building
blocks, less than 30 are really important in constructing
objects. In dealing with mind and other non material things you
have even more latitude than with objects. Only Hydrogen and
Oxygen can be used to build ice but a lot of things can be cold,
a lot of things can be fast and a lot things can generate you and me.
>How can Mr. Clark or anyone else be sure (just as an example)
>that feeling does not depend on some system incorporating magnetic
>fields?
It's very difficult to prove a negative and since there's not
the slightest reason for thinking magnetic fields have anything
to do with feeling most researchers have better things to do
with their time. Besides even if we could satisfy you on the
magnetic field question you could always bring up cosmic rays or
neutrinos or gravity waves or ...
>Producing in effect his own reductio ad absurdum, Mr. Clark
>says that a computer made of toilet paper and small stones, if
>big enough and running the right program, would effectively be
>Albert Einstein [...] But he doesn't recognize its absurdity.
I recognize the practical absurdity, Joe Weizenbaum invented of
the toilet paper computer to prove a conscious computer was
impossible, but in this he failed because philosophically its'
no more absurd than 3 pounds of gray goo generating consciousness,
yet we know that it does.
If your going to use a reductio ad absurdum proof you better be sure
the conclusion is impossible and not just odd. For years people thought
the stars couldn't be intrinsically as bright as the sun because that
would mean they were ridiculously far away. More recently some
astronomers reasoned that there must be a flaw in general
relativity because it predicted that when they ran out of
thermonuclear fuel large stars would collapse to a single point
and that was just too odd to be true. Today there is (almost) a
consensus that black holes are real.
I might add that a intelligent toilet paper brain, although
wildly impractical is nevertheless astronomically more practical than
Searle's bizarre " Chinese Room" computer so loved by the anti AI crowd.
>Yet again, again,again: HOW DO YOU KNOW that the essence of a
>person is in information processing in a computer algorithm?
I can think of 3 reasons, any one of which I find convincing ,
the fact that they all point in the same direction makes the
case overwhelming ,not beyond a shadow of a doubt but certainly
beyond a reasonable doubt.
1) The Genetic Code, the blueprint for the body, including the
brain, is a DIGITAL code ,the only difference is that life's
digital code uses base 4 and most computers use base 2. The way
ribosome's use this information to assemble the building blocks
of life ( not atoms but a slightly higher level object, amino acids)
is amazingly computer like.
2) Nobody has ever seen even a hint of fundamental new physics
in the matter of the brain and it uses the same building blocks
as non thinking matter. The difference must be at a higher
level, how the matter is organized and there science has found
vast differences. To organize anything you need to know how to
arrange the parts so that you get something that is a
functioning whole and all that takes is information.
3) There is no scientific reason that information processing
can't duplicate the behavior of an intelligent person, Turing
proved that 40 years ago. I will concede he didn't prove that's
the way the brain does it , nor did he prove anything about
consciousness but I think it's entirely reasonable to assume
that information processing, if it's complex enough generates
subjectivity. Since you don't think intelligent behavior implies
consciousness I don't see how I could ever convince you, even
when the world is full of uploads and brilliant machines.
It's interesting that before the computer age the statement
" If something act's intelligent it is intelligent" would not have
been considered controversial ,indeed most would have thought it
unworthy of serious debate, as pointless as discussing " If a
wagon is moving rapidly does that mean it's going fast?".
>a thermostat,[...] You can write a program or description of
>that action: [...] IS THAT PROGRAM A THERMOSTAT?
If it's just written on a piece of paper no, although Moravec
might disagree with me,if it's implemented and running on a computer yes.
>On the one hand, he seems to say that evolution could not have
>produced anything as useless as feeling; on the other hand
>he suggests it could arise as an emergent phenomenon of
>the entire brain.
Feeling isn't useless because subjective states do effect
behavior , that's why the Turing test works and that's why
evolution found it indispensable if it wanted to make
intelligence. The trouble I have with the self circuit is that
it doesn't seem to do anything except produce a feeling of self.
That's very important to us but if that's all it did its no use
to evolution.
Wherever the self circuit is located in the brain it must have
suffered damage in some people from time to time like any other
brain injury. Would such an injury be apparent to other people
observing their behavior? If the answer is yes then the self
circuit is poorly named, the Turing test works and it's easy to
see why nature came up with it. If the answer is no and they
became zombies but act the same as always then it's impossible
to understand why evolution would come up with it.
>we KNOW we have feeling, which must have its basis in some
>portion or aspect of the brain
Aspect yes, portion no. Producing images of David Letterman is
an aspect of my TV not a portion of it. I can't take out a few
transistors and find my set works flawlessly except for being
unable to form a picture of Letterman.
>or its functions
Yes! Not the brain itself but what the brain does. I'm glad I
could end on at least one note of agreement.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBLzWUO303wfSpid95AQHjKgTvYAMrmfWnZcmdl6qM+9K+8jMVFSI4KN8S
VYWL8UPGdTIZfnhCcKFz7ygMoscknG3JHb2oiGAZ7wSpcubl20p+7okUdWuvdPTJ
fDsQbNii0QbiM0lAkWa9jnPM5h+nWpIUbUQT8T8im3cf0xqit7TKt1yqocCVOfLo
LiUHOvBIDr7pBhpA2mRqvex7l74ZkE+M/q7xrhsIsoy5ZhoAGhE=
=Lf/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3800