X-Message-Number: 4358
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 21:38:45 -0700
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In #4339  N E U R O M A N C E R <> Wrote:

                >I think it would be  festive to perform a Turing test 
                >via e-mail. How can any of us prove that CryoNet posts are 
                >written by "fellow" humans, anyway?

Good point. There is no way you could tell if the author was made of meat 
or silicon just by reading his posts.              
                    
In #4340   Michael Riskin <> Wrote:

               >a definition of intelligence is a nearly, if not totally
               >impossible task. Assuming that is true, how is is possible
               >to even discuss the matter  
               
Good definitions are always nice to have but in most cases are
vastly overrated. People are seldom able to produce
definitions, even of familiar  concepts, and it's even rarer that
they need them, unless they're  dealing in a few highly
specialized fields like mathematics. Formal logic is only a
small part of our intelligence so most of our knowledge is not
in the form  of definitions, it's in the form "like this"and "not like this".
That's just what you'd expect if we really are neural nets, 
few  definitions but lots of examples.
       
                >except  for statements as to how it "seems". 
                
But those are the only statements that are meaningful, at least
to science.  Mystics claim to be able to explain what REALLY IS,
but there is no way  to check the accuracy of their claims and
the explanations seem mundane  in the extreme. I certainly hope
the universe isn't that dull.
                
               >The discussions apparantly are dependant upon finding
               >an "absolute" definition of intelligence 
               
Not so, the Turing Test needs no "absolute" definition of intelligence, 
it needs no definitions of any sort and that is  it's strength.
                                                    

              >I now factor in "wit", "sense of humor", and "the ability to
              
              >perceive anothers mood" among other criteria of intelligence.
              
I agree, and I would have grave doubts about the consciousness of a computer  
that did not have these abilities. I would have even graver doubts about 
it's intelligence.
    
             >My favorite definition of an intellectual is someone who
             >can listen to the William Tell Overture and not think about 
             >the Lone Ranger.
              
I love it, I wish I'd thought of that but I intend to do the next best thing, 
steal it.

In  #4343   "Keith F. Lynch" <>  Wrote:
 

           >Cryonics can only take you so far.  Eventually, your brain will
                      >be suddenly and unexpectedly destroyed or lost.  
           >Really long term longevity requires uploading in some form. 
               
I agree, even if you're super careful some accident will obliterate your  
brain beyond hope of repair sooner or later, three pounds of gray Jell-O are  
just too easy to scramble. Besides, it's no fun being super careful 
all the time.


                                    John K Clark         

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBL6r6NX03wfSpid95AQGO2QTvemlcy6QDM7nFEReEAP+6KH1AtcAwvnmm
Q18t8/yoYU2OW+4O31jT0djdpWsbXeTRVugQiTsnzqdzXoVHRvS8tfgulo+u5L5U
Ulp1h9StzXdv3Atkv3uhh6i4hp1qpAuojZ4B4hZ2JgA3MSeiMyvbLoC2UB2wlRsR
llUeUat7s+rYwbfW3VQRLFcujJpokRJBbNKa6wsvez42rUlot2Q=
=NeBV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4358