X-Message-Number: 4342 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph J. Strout" <> Subject: Re: Neural Nets and computers Thomas Donaldson wrote: > receptacles for our Selves) fades away into the mist. The only thing an > advocate of uploading is saying, then, is that someday we can transfer ourselvesto another better object for manipulating information. Biologically based > objects are entirely within the ambit of this definition. In fact, the notion > of uploading itself becomes a bit obscure (recall that neural nets, among > other things, don't have their memory uploaded into them, they are trained). > So just what will happen between us and this other superior creature/thing. > object/set of circuits/whatnot? > ... > so far seem to make the whole issue of uploading sound very strange, saying > no more than that we can someday improve ourselves. Yes, I think we can someday > improve ourselves too, but what happened to uploading? Actually, I think this is exactly the correct view of uploading. In the weak sense (to which I adhere), it means coping our minds to a manufactured device. This device may or may not be a symbolic computer; it may be made of silicon, or glass, or maybe proteins and lipids. The important thing (which makes it an improvement over our current brains) is that it can be repaired and maintained more accurately over the centuries, and that the information which defines the mind is easily read out for backups or transfer to newer hardware. I don't see this as a superhuman panacea (e.g., thinking billions of times faster than we currently do or having vastly improved memory, etc.), but rather a means to cure (almost) all diseases and eliminate involuntary death. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Department of Neuroscience, UCSD | | http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/ | `------------------------------------------------------------------' Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4342