X-Message-Number: 7966 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 13:32:15 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Universal Language, Self Circuit, Survival To Thomas Donaldson (#7962): >While languages have patterns, those patterns have no obvious relation >to how the universe itself works. You are talking about existing languages, presumably. But I propose a language that emphasizes mathematics and from there, physics, where special effort would be made to *relate* to how the universe works. One good possibility would be to use a lot of movies--each movie, of course, would be a finite string of symbols like everything else and thus an expression within the language. (Intersperse many other cues too in case some of your audience is sightless. Ultimately, all I'm assuming for the audience is ability to do mathematics on bit strings. But it would help, from our perspectve, if we could assume they had vision. If somehow they didn't, I would wager that sufficiently smart beings would acquire it anyway. Movies, if you think about it, could go a long way toward making a lot of things clear.) >You propose the existence of one universal language. Why just one, >rather than many? If I ever gave the impression of proposing "just one" language--that isn't what I meant. You could have more than one--no problem. On the other hand, one universal language could contain (and when you think about it, ought to contain) a description of all the others too. >Certainly every human group on the planet has (or had) a language >fully capable of expressing anything its users wanted about the >world. Theoretically, they too could have added the vocabulary >and understanding so that users could discuss relativistic cosmology > and quantum mechanics. That this did not happen is an accident of history. I see no reason why any natural language could not be extended to become universal. (In a sense, you could claim they already are universal, if you allow the ability to introduce new vocabulary as a feature of the existing language. However, they are not presently suited to the sort of application I have in mind.) >You also provide me with some patterns. Fine. First point: if I am to >continue them, I can continue them in many ways. I could have provided a longer string of encoded, consecutive integers or successive primes, to make the intent clearer, but had to deal with space limitations. > Second point: our >brains are adapted to see patterns, and yes, they do that well and >help us by doing so. But if we really want to think about it, we note >that the patterns found in Roman and Greek times aren't quite the same >as those we see now. Mathematics is the same now as then. [snip]> Whatever else, these patterns consist of symbols to >which WE attach meaning. They have no meaning independent of us. For a universal language, I would propose that any two (sufficiently) intelligent beings who had studied it, independently, could converse in a meaningful way about all facets of existence whatever. One could quibble as to whether the "meaning" to one of any particular expression would be "the same, exactly" as to the other. Maybe not, if the two beings are different in any way. But it would be reasonable to argue that the language would have a universal meaning, though the feelings about different constructs might differ. Yes, the two beings would each have to "attach" meaning to make an expression intelligible--but it would be, substantially, the same meaning. That such a language ought to be possible seems a very good bet to me. It could surely be done for mathematics, and from there you could go to other things --and don't forget the movies. >As for Tipler's ideas, given that quantum mechanics turns out to be at >all an accurate perception of the world, our description of it simply >is NOT the world. To believe that is basically to believe that we need >do no more than computation forever into the future, and we have >theories which will never be found false --- even in circumstances >that we have not now experimentally checked because we cannot (say, >the surface of a neutron star). I find that implausible simply from >past history. Any theory is something we set up with our symbols. And >our symbols and the patterns we make of them BY THEIR NATURE cannot >ever fit the world itself. I disagree (particularly) with the last sentence. And I'll conjecture that we already have a Theory of Everything--our mathematics. (Of course it is incomplete--we are adding new things and will continue to add new things.) Our problem, in part, is simply to map the appropriate branches and subbranches of our theory to the reality we see. But if a computer could perfectly emulate a part of reality, it would not substitute for that reality--most likely it would run MUCH more slowly for example. So the dream of uploading would not be to perfectly emulate all that is going on in the brain, even if this is possible theoretically, but to do what is important to the person, only better. The possibility of emulation would constitute a proof of principle that some form of uploading could be done. But we could still have a long way to go to find something we would prefer to our biological wetware. On the other hand, that wetware has its gross shortcomings, as you can see by visiting a nursing home, ICU, or morgue. I'd rather run 10^10 times slower in some emulation than be dead. (It would have to stop being just an emulation, of course, to correct aging, etc.) And computers, potentially, seem very powerful, so I am optimistic that, one way or another, this "slowdown" won't be necessary. On the self-circuit: Bob Ettinger, if I read him correctly, seems to want to separate the seat of feeling or self-circuit from memories. Memories do not seem, to him, to be a necessary part of one's identity. However, all my life I have been struck by how memories (my own at least) can exhibit considerable emotional content. The remembered feelings from one episode or incident in life are not the same as those of some other time. And I value these differing experiences (even the unpleasant ones, which can teach lessons). So for my self-circuit, memories seem essential. Another thought is that, deprived of memories or some growing body of information, the self-circuit must be bounded in state space, hence immortality--as I view it--would be impossible. On criteria for survival: I still see no reason why "identity of pattern" is not sufficient for survival. Also I still think there are substantial disagreements among different people as to what constitutes "survival"--different, vying opinions that cannot be overturned on logical grounds alone. Yet for me there seems a "right" approach--I've covered this in other postings. Mike Perry http://www.alcor.org Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7966