X-Message-Number: 27561 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:57:56 -0500 Subject: Identity & Uploading From: <> A few comments about the recent discussions of identity & uploading. Myth #1: That in the future, our notion of identity will undergo radical revision with the advent of uploading and similar technologies. Identity has a well-defined meaning, which I will put forth now (again): Let P(R, T) be the predicate, 'The volume of matter enclosed in the region of space R at time T belongs to the category X' (by which it is meant that it possesses all properties that a thing must have in order to be grouped into the category X). Then the volume of matter enclosed in a region of space R1 at time T1 has the same identity as the volume of matter enclosed in a region of space R2 at time T2 if the following hold true: 1. P(R1, T1); 2. P(R2, T2); and, 3. There exists an infinitely continuous function R(T) defining a time-dependent region for which R(T1) = R1, R(T2) = R2. This IS the definition of identity in a material world such as ours. Not just identity for things such as 'neural circuits giving rise to subjective experience' but also for 'coffee cups' and 'trees'. What the patternist should instead say, is 'I'm going to have to create a special definition of "identity" if I'm going to successfully convince myself that I will be alive even when the hunk of grey matter in my skull has been obliterated.' That much, would at least be true. Myth #2: That in the future, people will be pressured to 'merge' their selves together to create more powerful entities in order to compete with others doing the same. This one is so common, I am going to give it a name. 'The Myth of the Human Calculator'. It is the idea that entities evolved solely to make copies of themselves (humans) will be spectacularly successful at some other task (ANY other task), when compared to machines that are engineered to do that task, in a future of vast technological advance. A machine designed by an extremely advanced society to develop new mathematical truths is going to be orders of magnitude better at it than an organism that just 'happens' to be able to do a little math by means of its capacity for abstract reasoning (which capacity exists, of course, only to further that organism's reproductive success). The same goes for every other area of production. A special purpose machine will always beat a general purpose machine, and virtually any kind of machine designed by an advanced society for even general purpose tasks is going to be better at those tasks than an organism designed exclusively for self- reproduction. At this point, some people envious of calculators are going to come out and say, 'That may be true today, but with the technology of tomorrow, I'll be able to transform myself into a calculator!!' You can't transform yourself into a calculator and yet retain what makes you human (or, for that matter, what makes you able to feel, subjectively, and to be sentient and self-aware). You stop existing at some point, and a calculator comes into existence. Even if you were to augment (instead of 'replace') your brain with a special purpose machine, you still would not be able to compete with that machine: since that machine serves a single function, while you have both your human side and a huge bulbous device attached to you to perform the function of a calculator. The former is more competitive than the latter. The future has no human calculators. Smarter humans, for sure, but no human calculators. There will be no competitive pressures on humans because humans will not be competitive. In any case, there can be no 'merging' of identity. The whole thing notion nonsensical science fiction (if you disagree, then please define exactly what you mean by this conglomeration of phonemes slapped together). Myth #3: That all of humanity will take a single path. When people discuss the future, they seem to invariably become collectivists. They assume that whatever one does, everyone else will do. I predict that 1000 years from now, there will still exist people who are mostly genetically unmodified, who are almost identical to us---and yet I also predict there will exist 'humans' whose DNA is vastly different than modern humans (and everything in between, and beyond). There is no single future, but a multitude of futures, and, barring any catastrophe, it seems likely that those who live long enough to reach the logical end of technology will be able to choose their own future. Myth #4: That the human brain can be simulated on X number of FPGA. This is insane. Each neuron is a quantum and molecular computer, consisting of quatrillions of atoms (10^11). It may not be ever possible (practical?) to accurately simulate a single neuron, let alone trillions of them. You can't treat neurons as black boxes and expect to get the same result. I personally doubt that any 'model' of a neuron can be used in constructing a virtual brain with human-level intelligence; rather, I expect the greatest strides in the development of AI to come from completely different (non-biological) approaches. Myth #5: That even given the ability to simulate brains, we could escape our physical bodies and live a new life in a virtual world. We are a brain. You can't point to the switching of electrical states on a silicon substrate and say that because it represents a brain in your mind, it somehow IS a brain. It's no more of a brain than the atoms randomly moving around in your toilet. You cannot 'interpret' things into existing. Anything requiring interpretation does not exist in the interpreted form. The only thing that possesses a factual existence is matter and energy. Not virtual brains or virtual anything else. A virtual brain being simulated on a computer is no more self-aware and capable of subjective feeling than the hunk of plastic I'm typing this message on now. This patternist nonsense must be abandoned before it causes real harm. Even if you are a patternist and disagree with me, consider this: if you stop advocating patternism, leading to cryonics organizations taking a stance against patternism, then even if I am wrong, you will survive. On the other hand, if you continue to advocate patternism, leading to the growing lovefest between cryonics and patternism, then if I am right you will likely not survive. What makes more sense, from the point of view of your own survival? I see Jordan Sparks wants to start a new cryonics organization. I urge him to consider the official policy of his cryonics organization with respect to patternism (which includes uploading, Ralph Merkle-style brain reconstruction, etc.). Richard B. R. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27561