X-Message-Number: 3849
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:17:45 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading

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

 (Thomas Donaldson) Wrote:
	
	   >intelligence is what distinguishes us from animals, 
	   
I agree.
	   
	  >but that does not imply that we wish to upload or preserve
	  >only the  information- processing (those responsible for our    
	  >intelligence) parts of  our brain. 
	  
Your implying that the information processing is not the essence
of feeling, I see no evidence of that. Like a human or other
animal a machine, especially a complex machine can have a goal,
if it moves toward the goal it acts like it's experiencing
pleasure and is happy, if it is moved away from that goal it
acts like it is experiencing pain and is sad. Yes, I said "acts
like" not "is" because the only emotions we have direct
experience of is our own.
	  
Let's examen this mysterious ,whatever you want to call it,
feeling generator, or self circuit, or subjective circuit or
just the non information processing parts of the mind. Since you
found my previous post opaque perhaps you'll understand a flow chart .

1) Is what the feeling generator does complex ? If yes go to 2
if no explain how to reconcile that with experience, both
objective and  subjective.

2) Is the feeling generator itself complex? If yes go to 3 if no
then religious people are right, the soul exists, science can't
explain it and were wasting our time with cryonics and trying to
learn how the brain operates.

3) Is the feeling generator made of parts? If yes go to 4 if no
explain how something can be complex yet have no structure.

4) Does the feeling generator operate in an un coordinated,
incoherent manner? If no go to 5 if yes explain how to reconcile
that with experience, both objective and  subjective.

5) Do the parts communicate among themselves? If yes go to 6 if
no explain how coordination is possible without communication.

6) Is a part that changes in only one way( a bit) the simplest
part of the mind? If yes go to 7 if no then something that does
not change at all is the essence of the mind and religious
people are right, the soul exists, science can't explain it and
were wasting our time with cryonics and trying to learn how the
brain operates.

7) Does the feeling generator work by information processing ?
If yes then I'm right if no then explain what the difference is.
		  

	   >WE are animals, and our feelings have great value for us.
		 
A keen grasp of the obvious ,and I defy anybody to find one word
in any of my posts expressing a contrary opinion. 
		 
	  >The discussion of intelligence also begs many questions, the
	  >first of which is a definition. 
	  
Intelligence is a complicated thing, probably the most
complicated thing in the universe so it shouldn't be too
surprising that none of the definitions of intelligence is
entirely satisfactory. That doesn't mean the word is meaningless
however, certainly people have no trouble using it in daily
usage and meaning is conveyed. Definitions are not the only, or
even the most important way we learn new words or concepts we
also learn by example. The great thing about The Turing Test is
that we don't need to come up with a definition of intelligence,
whatever quality it is that we call "intelligence" when we see
it in other people it's the same quality when we see it in machines. 
	  
	  >It would be nice to specify the abilities which make up
	  >"intelligence" in a  noncircular way ie. by referring to our
	  >brain  structure.
		 
Yes, it would be very nice indeed if we knew more about what
some particular brain structures did and didn't do but I don't
see how it would help one iota in coming up with a good
definition of intelligence.  
		 
	   >It does us no good, for instance, to be uploaded into a 
	   >computer which (theoretically) reproduces our reactions
	   >perfectly, but 10  times more slowly.
	   
In an upload the information signals would be many millions of
times faster than a biological brain, the components would be
far smaller and the logical architecture would be identical, so
why on earth would it run 10 times slower?
	   
	  >WE DON'T YET KNOW  AT ALL THAT ANY OTHER COMPUTER STRUCTURE
	  >THAN THAT OF  OUR BRAIN WILL REALLY PERFORM
	  >OPTIMALLY in running us. 
	  
The probability that evolution just happened to stumble upon the
optimal solution is astronomically small, but for the sake of
argument let's assume it did. In that case use exactly the same
computer structure the brain uses , just replace the parts with
ones that work a billion times faster.
	  
	>I personally, in considering our biology, suspect (but would
	>not hold to it as an axiom) that our present processing speed is
	>the result of an  optimization rather than a result
	>of the fact that we are made of biological materials.
	
A slow response speed by itself never confers a survival
advantage. Turtles survive because the disadvantage of their
slowness is outweighed by the advantages of armor and very low
fuel requirements. If  slow response speed really had  a great
survival benefit, after a few billion more years of natures
"optimization" the processing speed of life would  be as slow as rocks.
	     
	>If electrical circuits were so good for all the  purposes we
	>need them for in our own design, why then do we also have       
	>these  OTHER means of transmitting signals?
	 

Because once a standard is set, with all its interlocking
mechanisms it's very difficult to abandon it completely, even
when much better methods are found. That's why we still have
inches and yards even though the metric system is clearly
superior. Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new
things but it doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate
stages must also work. That's also why we have all the old brain
structures that lizards have as well as new ones.

	>One would think that they would have  become obsolete  (ie.
	>evolved  away) long ago. 
	
That would be true only if evolution was a perfect designer,
it's not, it's a lousy engineer. The only reason its come up
with some interesting structures is that it had 4 billion years
to fool around with.

A few of reasons for natures poor design.

1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to
conditions that no longer exist. that's why moths have an
instinct to fly into candle flames.

2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is
backwards. The connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong
side so light must pass through it before it hits the light
sensitive cells. There's no doubt this degrades vision and we'd
be better off if the retina was reversed as it is in squids
whose eye evolved independently. It's too late for that to
happen now because the intermediate forms would not be viable.

3) Lack of Genetic Variation : Mutation are random and you might
not get the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work
better for flight than the skin flaps bats use but bats never
produced the right mutations for feathers and skin flaps are
good enough.

4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade
offs and compromises.

5) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One
gene can give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene
will give you sickle cell anemia.

The idea that nature is a perfect designer is just a holdover from
old religious ideas.
	

				    John K Clark         

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

iQCzAgUBL0GkmX03wfSpid95AQEydwTwx+BRmddtHuyUYOcEU7sdqVyK4DLHoTOw
Hkq3+uHr3ibJcJASWKqLb6Tj8o1DkSAtOjNektpsJSiR2MmAROfNipSpYCZ+8myY
6cLDtdw9TANKO0UW7OyPEyIOgdQtbreklau+EmjiH2BIUHkI6O6naSR5HtDrjkGj
VYy5aaFgpJiAXlmdXn/dkM/oEuiMWyKNgfFECukZd58aTdCSfmQ=
=j7au
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3849