X-Message-Number: 15032 From: "Eunice Corbin" <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #15018 - #15026 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:25:09 -0800 In #15020, Robert Ettinger writes >[That discrete sets need "run time"] accords with intuition, but >q.m. [quantum mechanics] is not intuitive. I think most scientists >believe that q.m. does indeed imply discrete states, discrete in >time as well as otherwise. If they are right, it is hard to see >why "run time" has any relevance. It's not entirely clear to me that QM implies discrete states; e.g., the Schroedinger equation uses t as a continuous parameter. But even if it did, the question (in effect) posed, namely, "why should a set of states have to be causally connected---that is, why is it necessary that a set of quantum states be linked together in a conventional process in order to have desireable properties?" might be asked of anything, not just computer simulations. Why indeed should a collection of atoms that make up Professor Ettinger be conscious when (presumably) a set of states not embodied in an active process would not be alive? It's a hard question anyway, but IMO not one that uploaders need consider more than average philosophers must. Practically, we simply must acknowledge that only active processes can feel, think, and have inner lives. Last week Robert Ettinger also asked some extremely fine questions concerning exactly what is a simulation, and I hope to get to them soon; I don't know if anyone has really convincing answers about that, but it will be fun to poke around. Lee Corbin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15032