X-Message-Number: 3883 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:10:39 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bruce Zimov" <> Wrote: >Why can't the simplest part of the mind change in N ways? Because then it could be replaced by something that had the integer value of (1 + the logarithm base 2 of N) number of subparts that change in only one way, so it couldn't be the simplest part. By the way, it's only for engineering convenience that modern computers use base 2, you could make machines that uses base N if anybody could find a reason to bother. >Let's say that it were something that only changed in one >way.THAT is a switch, and I agree that we can use switches >to replace brain parts. BUT THAT is not a bit of information. Well it is, but I don't want to be pedantic, I know your using words like "bit" and "information" in non standard ways. >A bit has a cardinal value that is interpreted through an >external key. But not external to the material universe as the religious say. The key you talk about is just information that works on information, in other words a program. You need a lot of layers of processing for perception to occur, from the concert syntactic level to the abstract semantic level and the boundary between levels are often quite blurry. For example one key could find meaning in a string of smudges and squiggles and interpret them as letters, optical character reading programs do this. Another key could find meaning in the letters and interprets them as words, a spelling checker does this. Another program finds some meaning in the sentences by identifying what words modify what, a grammar checker does this. Yes, there's still a long way to go from this level to full understanding of a sentence but progress is being made. I hope I don't sound too glib about this because it is a very deep problem and the core in understanding how intelligence works, but this would really be more relevant in a discussion about artificial intelligence than uploading because you don't need to understand how the mind works in order to upload it. >A water faucet may be a better model for the simplest part of >the mind in this regard than something that only changes in >one way. Neurons are non-linear. A water faucet is linear . You could describe the flow as consisting of N separate streams each either all off or all on. Because something is digital doesn't mean it lacks subtly of expression, Shakespeare communicated deep ideas and emotions using only 26 letters, and DNA describes structures that could be considered interesting (like us) in a language of only 4 letters. Computers can handle non-linearity better than we can. The Mandelbrot Set would never have been discovered without computers and modern cryptography would be impossible and you just don't get more non-linear than that. >Do you really think you could survive on the >pages of a book? Yes. I'm not a religious type so I have no faith in a non material indivisible soul, thus the only things left are matter, energy and information. Science tells us matter and energy are generic so I need only be concerned about information. The method chosen to store the information, computers, DNA, paper, papyrus or whatever, does not change it's content and so is irrelevant. When this information is placed in a machine so it becomes dynamic my consciousness would return. >>Exactly what is it about ion conductance that >>allows it and only it to generate consciousness? >Nothing, other media can generate consciousness. Then what are we arguing about? John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBL0rL3303wfSpid95AQHQAwTsCQ0CW5+DTAWgLC9G1OLg7roa5lmWRkpY GXE4eYr0hQ5yu4/pqPdwlAhB1p3rReFR7hYLuKfzsuuf6PHhifnAQVrz4YbUQeYE qgTOV7ORaeCCf1RkUw0FYJ39kr0Qo4Smw48IC76sPVLmBCnQ9yPveRPsa3ivybnB +AwuEZ53FkqbDhKAsO+rPoQR5hauACThR1qx9hR9beUBP0vgnZs= =ufYj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3883