From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 23:18:32 MST
> > Is a cloud an "illusion"? Is something that is constantly
> > shifting for that reason "illusion"? If so, then what does it
> > matter? Matter itself is consistently shifting at the
> > fundamental level.
Our forthcoming control of our neural patterning will mean that
we can choose to keep memories or thought types subject only
to the limits of our storage capabilities and control capabilities.
These would seem to be under current understanding about
200 million times the current level, more if augmentation is
greater or biological componentry is replaced. Currently our
neurons and their firing pattern do change and some die, but
generically they do not regrow, nor disappear when we sleep, so
continuity is a principle. Change, then, is interlinked with
continuity currently (there are principles at work, directions).
In the future we will be able to choose these. Those who adopt
stasis scenarios are making a valid choice, although whether this
can be adhered to over scales of over 10-100 billion years is yet to be
determined (even with external memory sources).
The self is informed by the actions of others. We know this from
studies of animals raised without contact. The self exists neurologically,
which we know from the effects of brain defects.
Fused twins who brains are partially fused still do not share much even
at the motor-sensory level, from my readings. Therefore the sense of self
is linked to the map of the brain as it stands. To interlink the sense of
self with another individual will require specially designed interfacing and
rewiring of the brain. Interlinking of the senses is another matter.
However,
our sense of self is lodged somewhere in the architecture of our brains, and
in a lesser sense in some other species. Possibly it is a combination of
generic facillities, some form of "opening" between compartments of the
brain and specialized centres.
Personally emotionally I see the self as informed by the actions of others,
surrounded by an egoshield with a subconscious and superconscious
(altruistic level).
Brain design indicates different levels of evolutionary development present
in the brain. In this sense, an additional "layer" could be nanofilaments of
computronium and also molecular supercomputers/cell repair machines inside
each neuron/dendrite.
Pesonally I see continuous broadcast linkage as an option, but uploading as
a great fallacy equal to that of belief in a soul. Tipler's quantum
splitting is
understandable to me but there seems to be no evidence of a soul. I would
of course create a soul if that were possible. But in the absence of it or
proof of Tipler I would never upload. Atomic level near-duplicates of me
would have to mourn the permanent death of their near-twin or parent.
Uploading is merely childbirth with your parent's memories attached. In this
sense it would be unethical to create a new being without seeking consent to
insert memories of the parent. Similarly, if reinacarnation were possible it
would
be unethical to insert memories into the developing fetus.
This is something I haven't fully appreciated before. New beings, whether
human
or silicon-based or whatever, deserve to have the capacity to self-boost and
free
will present, at least upon reaching maturation within fairly defined
limits, and also
deserve to have the option of accepting or rejecting memories. The issue of
"instincts"
is there of course, and in the world of designer brains this is a debate
(see Greg Egan).
Nonetheless the rights of the child do seem to argue against many versions
of uploading
in fiction.
Avatar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 23:07:34 MST