X-Message-Number: 33457
From: 
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:16:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Emulation?

My main argument against mind uploading into a digital computer is  

that--with unimportant exceptions--a description of a thing (material object or
system) is not that thing. A map of a city is not a city. A blueprint of a 
house  is not a house, regardless of detail and fidelity. Difficulties and 
confusions  for the reader arise from several causes,  mainly the reader's 
unrecognized  false assumptions.  Let's try to sort this out, at least in part.
 
First, a description can be any statement--verbal, written, or other--that  
calls the referent to mind. If you are intending to describe a woman, just 
the  word "woman" might be enough for some purposes. But if you are trying 
to emulate  a particular woman in a digital computer you clearly need a lot 
more detail. Is  this possible?
 
In principle it might seem that, yes, if you study the woman sufficiently  
you will be able to describe her with perfect fidelity, atom for atom, and  
predict her thoughts and actions over time. But just a little thought will  
reveal that for the foreseeable future this is a hopeless enterprise. One 
reason  is that we don't know, and are unlikely soon to know, the basic laws 
of physics  which must govern the algorithm. For example, some of the 

interpretations  and extensions of quantum physics are the various brands of 
string 
or M or  brane theory, which may involve extra dimensions of space or time. 
Until we  know what's what, any "emulation" can be guaranteed to be a far 
cry from  the original and any predictions a joke. 
 
This does not address the question of whether the attempted emulation would 
 be alive or conscious. It might conceivably be something useful, but it  
wouldn't be an emulation. If you are the original, the"emulation" wouldn't be 
 you.  
 
Robert Ettinger

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33457