Re: Uplifting II

Technotranscendence (
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:40:34 -0800

On Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:36 AM Glen Finney wrote:
> Just occurred to me.
> It is likely that in the process of uplifting, the uplifting species is
> to pass on to the uplifted species many of its own traits. If there is
> than one way to do a thing (and there often is) then it is likely that the
> uplifter would redesign the upliftee's mental architecture (where their
> wasn't sufficiently advanced) in the image of their own. The exceptions
> this would be when it is easier to use a different way then how the
> is constructed either due to having discovered a simpler way than what
> evolved initially or due to compatibility problems with the upliftee's
> architecture.

This is why I've narrowed my choice down to the octopus. It's brain is sophisticated, yet very different from the human one. In fact, the divergence in evolution dates back to the Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago. I think it would be easier, at first, just to tweak things like brain size. Of course, if I had a better understanding of which regions of the octopus brain were responsible for what behaviors, etc. (and what strands of DNA for those in the octopus), it would make this a bit easier. E.g., one might merely induce mutations and look for changes in those areas and pray.:)

> Looked at this way, uplifting could be considered a sort of reproduction
> between the uplifted and uplifting species.

Maybe. I wouldn't see much point in making a human mind in an octopus body, though, I assume, such a mind would still be different -- in much the same way people who drow up with some major difference (being very tall or short, blind or deaf, e.g.) would add a distinctive new shade of _human_ being. However, given the paranthetic remarks, there might be moral concerns about this. After all, some might think a human mind in a nonhuman body might be akin to crippling fetuses for the sake of making crippled children.


Daniel Ust