From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 17:50:04 MDT
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 ankara@baynet.net wrote:
> Uploading, yes. But first need to refine/isolate the essential element
> of the 'stuff' to be uploaded.
Yes, I think "uploading" needs to be explored in much greater detail
as to *what* one uploads -- memories, experiences, strategies, awareness,
etc. How much of oneself is one willing to "give away" vs. how much of
oneself one wants to restrict access to or even destroy.
> Matter transmutation: Not merely changing state: becoming something new.
> For example, Could body be to consciousness->'stuff' as uranium is to
> radium-> helium?
I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but I would definitely
place a strong vote in the probability that many humans are facing
a "transmutation" of sorts. I sum this up as "You must be willing
to give up everything you are for what you might become." Everything
changes significantly when inter-consciousness bandwidth begins to
approach the ability to communicate the information content of a
consciousness in a relatively short period (e.g. seconds-to years --
right now it cannot be done in a current human lifespan).
> Current 'reality'? You mean the life-death encapsulated event
> assumptions: the rigidly narrow 'moment of death,' 'moment of birth'
> memes?
To a large extent that is what I mean. Of course Brett is a better
person to comment on the "moment of birth" (a 32 cell embryo, a
baby delivered prematurely at 6-months, a 9-month natural birth,
a baby who is post the "terrible twos" who can speak and largely
deal with nutrition and waste disposal functions, etc.) Regarding
"moment of death", it obviously a sliding scale. One sees this
nearly every week on "Emergency Room" when they decide how long to
try and "recover" a patient. If and when the first brain transplant
is ever done the "moment of death" is going to become really messy.
So we live in an environment where these "moments" are chainging.
People don't like that. They had best get over it.
> Human gestation takes a minimum of 18 months - 9 inside, 9
> onside and then some. If life-death transitions are on a continuum over
> time, then might uploading be similar?
Quite possibly. It would be a shame (IMO) if uploading turns into an
all-or-nothing situation. It would be much more interesting if one
was able to selectively manage *how* much was uploaded.
> Could uploading be occurring all the time?
Yes. Both Bostrom and Freitas have argued that the odds are we are in
a simulation. I don't know if they are right, but if so, then uploading
and downloading could be taking place all the time.
> Could uploading efficiency and intensity increase between
> those persons who are most alike? As in 'like attracts like'? And the
> 'meeting of minds'?
I don't know. Like-attracts-like probably promotes survival rates.
So you would probably have to setup an non-logical simulation (chaos
or anarchy) for LAL to not be the common pattern.
> Of what 'stuff' dreams are made? Have our ancestors already been
> uploaded into us?
If, and its a big *IF*, complexification is a worthy goal in the universe,
then probably one does not want to replay past scenarios. So uploading
our ancestors makes no sense -- only playing out the game in future time
does. (Now obviously one can start *multiple* games at various positions
of evolution -- so it *may* make sense if one has a highly unusual "spin"
one wants to put on reality.)
> If we can tune into that 'stuff' will we see so far back, we'll
> see Death dancing on the winds of time like an impotent buffoon?
Raises the question of whether we are in a simulation or not? Which
also raises the question of whether or not one can "kill" your copies
if one recognizes one is in a simulation (and can impact the copies)?
I believe those questions are unresolved at this time. If we are in a
simulation, and/or if we are in a Multiverse, making the problem worse
since we are but one of many simulations, then I would tend to view
"death" as a "buffoon".
Though I am not suggesting action based on these perceptions since this
approach to the physics of the universe may be very very wrong.
There is an interesting quote from one of the SETI conferences is something
to the effect of "If you give a physicist long enough they can explain
*anything*." So it seems to me it would pay to be careful in what one
believes.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 18:01:08 MDT