122 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

I wanted to kick off this discussion on uploading... what do you think about it. Here's a primer by Mike Deering.

----
Uploading, the process of changing the material substrate of your mind from the biological neuron based architecture to a computer transistor based architecture. The biological substrate is evolutionarily designed, the computer substrate is intelligently designed.

There are several different approaches to accomplish this feat. All of them involve scanning your biological substrate and making a functionally accurate computer software substrate with all of the information in the original. In order to make an accurate functional copy it may be necessary to scan and duplicate the entire biological body. There are a lot of interrelated processing functions built into the body which you would want for greatest accuracy. Although, you could get the vast majority of your mind by just scanning your brain, it just depends on how accurate you want the copy to be. Let's assume the best possible copy. You would need to place this virtual you in a fully interactive fully detailed virtual environment for it's proper functioning. If this virtual you were completely accurate it would have all of the physical aches and pains of the original. If the original had a heart attack fifteen minutes after scanning then the virtual you should have the same heart attack, even including death. The big improvement of the virtual you is that making design changes to it should be theoretically easier. After mature nanotechnology this distinction may be moot. The two basic approaches to uploading are:

Method One - we passively scan the biological you and make a computer you. Now we have two of you. We can delete the original and call the process a success. End result, the virtual you has the subjective experience of having moved from the biological substrate to the computer substrate. But this is not acceptable to most people. Alternatively, we can establish communication between all parts of the two yous so that your subjective experience is that you are simultaneously inhabiting both substrates and let you handle deleting the original, seeing as being indefinitely tied to the original biological substrate would completely invalidate the reasons for uploading in the first place. End result, the virtual you has the subjective experience of having moved from the biological substrate to the computer substrate.

Method Two - we gradually scan and replace your biological substrate with the computer substrate. The end result is the same as method one.

Many people feel squeamish about this uploading stuff. It brings up several interesting questions such as "what are we?" "Why are we afraid to upload?" After a long process of elimination which I won't repeat here (unless you want me to) I think the question of what we are can be summed up as a pattern of information. We know from our experience with computers that patterns of information can be copied, stored and edited, and in the case of a program be run multiple times and places with varying inputs.. We are not used to thinking of these processes as applying to us. Our problem with them comes from two sources, survival instinct and our unitary experience of consciousness. Our survival instinct is evolutionarily programmed. This individual pattern wants to continue to exist. That's part of the information in the pattern. If we made five copies of the pattern, each copy individually would want to continue to exist. The fact that an identical pattern continued to exist may be comforting but does not completely satisfy the desire for survival. This information is certainly editable, so you could theoretically change it. The second source of our unease is our unitary experience of consciousness. If our consciousness were not unitary but multiple perhaps we would be less apprehensive about losing one or two of them as long as others continued. But this can not be. Consciousness is necessarily unitary. If there were two parts of me that were not aware of each other they would experience consciousness unitarily. If they were aware of each other the part that was aware of both would form a bridge between them unifying their conscious experience. This is not something we can edit out. It's topology, it's mathematics, it's a fundamental characteristic of consciousness. Therefore it seems that some form of continuity of conscious experience is necessary for a successful uploading procedure. As long as this individual pattern of information exists regardless of the transformations it goes through then I will continue to exist.

---

[alex]

 

Uploading, the process of changing the material substrate of your mind from the biological neuron based architecture to a computer transistor based architecture.  The biological substrate is evolutionarily designed, the computer substrate is intelligently designed.

It's unlikely that the future substrate where an upload could run on would be made of anything like transistor. The likest substrates in the near future would be either optical or molecular, maybe both.

If this virtual you were completely accurate it would have all of the physical aches and pains of the original.  If the original had a heart attack fifteen minutes after scanning then the virtual you should have the same heart attack, even including death.

Why would we do that??? [huh] The purpose of uploading is to reduce the chance of death as much as possible and to enjoy the nearly unlimited possibilites of software existence, assuming you chose to live on within an artificial substrate. Conceivably, you could chose to inhabit a physical body instead, whether organic or synthetic. If the majority of the world was to make the transition to a software based existence, it's likely they would prefer physical bodies over living in virtual worlds.



Eeeek!

[UploadedMind.com]

Let's assume the best possible copy.  You would need to place this virtual you in a fully interactive fully detailed virtual environment for it's proper functioning.  If this virtual you were completely accurate it would have all of the physical aches and pains of the original.  If the original had a heart attack fifteen minutes after scanning then the virtual you should have the same heart attack, even including death.

"interactive fully detailed virtual environment" would not be a problem. Once we are already uploaded, we can code (program) those environments as detailed as we want, since we have all the time to do that (we are not going to die). And with our uploaded friends, each of us would do his/her own home in a street we built up. We could design ourselves, design our clothing, design our house, etc.

about the pain, I agree with alex. Why would we won't to feel pain and die? That would take lots of programming, we would have to program all the codes for each level of pain and each way to die. That would take us a time we don't have or don't need to waste.

[Omnido]

John 3 Here is a link that discusses your exact concern.

http://www.imminst.o...&f=3&t=80&st=12

Feel free to read through it, I made several posts that might clear up your questions.

[Lazarus Long]

Omnido, while I agree with much of what you say, including the fact that we have actually referred to much of this already, I think that there are two areas that deserve additional review.

First that the question of the physicality of the neurotopology and function could be more complex then just the cellular structure, as the electromagnetic sphere of operation could either be a simple consequence of synaptic activity, or it could be a coherent field structure that operates as a bioelectric interface for a dynamic field possessing complex magnetic resonant and isomeric chemical storage and processing ability.

In the latter example the brain can be seen as the medium for a complex quantum computer composed of an organic substrate, in which our identity and personality are functions of programing (learned behaviors), operating system (DNA and Neurophysiology) and personality, memory, identity (a complex interaction of one and two combined with causal aspects of experience and survival).

But the Mind is contained within a medium that is BOTH physical AND energetic in the form of not just simple electrochemical memory and functions, but a complex structure of pure energy that isn't just magnetic but more complex then we at present yet sufficiently understand. The analogy is how the rest of the body functions to support and reflect the brain's demands as both need and desire. The body is the life support and motility device that carries out the "will" of the device called the "brain", but it is in itself a vehicle for that which we call the "mind".

Mentation exists within the brain as a similar complex interdependant relationship. Many functions of the brain reflect the actually "wiring" of the neuro- network's connection to the body's machinery and operation. Much of the "software" of body function is "hardwired" into the brain like a kind of BIOS system that monitor's and regulates simple functions like heart rate, body fluid level's, body temperature, fuel levels, etc. as a feedback sensor control system that uses chemical as well as direct signal controls to direct body function. But the identity is more subtle.

I compare "identity" to a kind of organic "operating system" that is capable of learning and making decisions. It's prime directives are determined through evolutionary psychology but is a potentially adaptive as individual mutation and memetic perceptive ability allows.

So as to the question again of "uploading" it first becomes a question defining where the actual property called a mind resides and what it is composed of. Then it is a question of translating that property we call a mind into a medium that is definable in terms that can be transposed into a substrate that interacts in a supportive and interactive fashion within a new medium (body).

Second, I question the COPY/REPLACE, or AUTO DESTRUCT of Original Identity issue. Your argument of copying the bicycle is valid if we are doing something like cloning, or reproducing just the hardware of the mind. It is like making a pirate copy of a song, is it the same as the original copy? Actually yes it can be seen as the same, but neither are the Live Performance. The semantic issue here is a little more subtle then the example you provide because we haven't really defined the mind in a satisfactory manner and the questions left open are too numerous to just gloss over. Again however we have described many of these in some detail in the posts you mention.

I suggest that much of the problem revolves around the questions of "self awareness" and "self definition". That the question of uploading is more an issue of the continuity of consciousness and the ability of an individual to define themself as more then just a reflection, or manifestation of the body.

What of the case that a consciousness that is uploaded, isn't destroying the original as much as it is metamorphosing the identity of the individual? In fact as I have argued before, once accomplished the question of duplicate manifestation can also be solved by an individual developing awareness of inputs from more then one source of experience. The analogy for this in nature is the development of different senses. One mind can process multiple sources of information as a related data stream that provides experience of physical reality.

This is not the same as what I am saying in response to your point however, the question remains what if like a network of computers, the psyches of multiple individuals could share their experience together?

And expanding on this, what if an "uploaded" identity can extend their awareness, analogous to how we extend our awareness to a vehicles' outer limits, a remote controlled vessel, and thus expand our sensory inputs. I do not think it is beynd our ability to adapt to this kind of experience but as I said it really depends almost as much on the individual's adaptive ability more than an externally derived definition of what is human. Some people handle such existential extension better than others, just as some people thrive on vicarious experience and others can only be contect with the "Real McCoy".

I have to go on to another issue before I am satisfied with this response but chores are chores and require attention regardless of my desire to accomplish them, or perhaps in accordence with my conflicting desires. So I will post this both here and at "What constitutes Me?" because the two areas are merging for discussion.

[AgentNyder]

I have a query:

Say we have a multitude of virtual communities where conscious minds exist only as software yet lead 'normal' lives in that particular reality.

What if an individual was able to hack into the virtual community and embark on malicious purposes - like the character displayed in my icon?

Could we prepare for situations of virtual crime/war/terror where the capacity for destruction could be limitless?

[Lazarus Long]

We can prepare at the very least as well as we prepare now for such socio-psychological politics and if nothing else we might learn to cope better, with better tools assisting more mature, experienced and learned personalities.

[danielle]

Personally I wouldn't upload because I do not believe that anything that is uploaded would be the person who would be trying to upload themselves. What would be stored on the computer would not be the person. It would be a facsimilie, something that thought it was that person because it had the memories of that person. Nothing more. The real person would be dead and gone.

However I do see a purpose for uploading for historical and archeological purposes. I imagine that it would be quite fascinating to be able to access the thought processes and feelings of famous people. Due to this technique historians could get a real picture of what really happened in the past so from that point of view it would really be quite fascinating. However I can't imagine any politician from any historical period agreeing to this for we would see all the corruption too.
Memories of corruption could implicate many of the persons living contacts who had carried out shady dealings. This technique could even be used by authorities wanting to spy on criminal or revolutionary activities amongst its subject peoples.
So it could be used as a tool of oppression. I do not agree with the technique as I do not think it could deliver what we say we want.

Danielle

[Thomas]

You can imagine an upload, who is talking to you, saying that he had the same felling about the uploading. But now, it is quite obvious to him, that he was wrong.

Actually, this upload is telling you details about your reasoning, he had also experienced. And how he hardly convinced even himself, that he _is_ uploaded now.

[nefastor]

I'm a strong advocate of uploading, or, as I call it, INloading (replacing your neurons with artificial neurons, progressively)

I'm having a heated debate on this topic on nanogyrl's (Gina's) nanotech Yahoo group, with Mark Grubud, a brilliant guy who believes inloading would most definitely kill you. You can check it all at :

http://groups.yahoo....notech/messages

I came to consider inloading as a side effect of programming too many neural networks. I'm actually designing neuron models evolved from Kohonen's, although not at all with inloading as the target application.

My thinking is that, if you replace a neuron by something that behaves like a neuron, the brain will soon adapt to it and use it. If the inloading is slow enough, your brain has enough time to adapt to the new hardware and you shouldn't even feel the change, mind-wise.

There are several advantages to changing your neurons :
- The new neurons might be more reliable (immortal)
- The new neurons might be more compact (reducing transmission delays in your brain, possibly increasing the speed of your thoughts)
- The new neurons might be sturdier (so you'd be able to fly space-ships at 1000-G accelerations)
- The new neurons might be easier to interface with non-neural hardware : data storage systems, (wireless) networking interfaces, or even hardware like vehicles.
- The new brain could be much more redundant (because of artificial neuron compactness) so you could survive one or two bullets in the head without even flinching
- The new brain could be relocated inside your body (say, in the chest) to a safer position, not as exposed as your head.
- The new brain could even be linked wirelessly to a separate, remote-controlled body : you could throw yourself in harm's way without the fear of death.

And the list is more than probably incomplete.

Of course, inloading may have its (severe) limitations. For instance, the new brain could only reproduce synaptic behavior and not drugs / hormonal sensitivity. So, once inloaded, you would never again be affected by drugs, alcohol, adrenaline rushes, testosterone (no sexual urges... and no more libidinous male stupidity)...

Even worse : if your new brain is a machine, will it need to sleep ? If it doesn't need to sleep, will your mind be able to cope with being conscious forever ?

When considering inloading you must weight huge advantages against huge inconvenients. If there was a way not to resort to inloading, even I would rather keep my neurons.

Such a way could be natural neuron inloading. Inject fresh neurons made from some of your stem cells into your brain, and let it self-repair. Or even better, bio-engineer a "gland" that will produce new neurons forever, directly in your skull, thus keeping the neuron count in your brain constant.

If you are looking for inloading in popular culture, I recommend the classic (and most excellent) japanese animation series "Bubble Gum Crisis". This series features an all-powerful, evil corporation (Genom, not Microsoft) that produces "boomers"

Boomers are robots, not even cyborgs, but their brain was made like this :
- A human brain was injected with nanomachines called "neurophages"
- Neurophages clamped on each neuron and reproduced its behavior
- The neurophage swarm transmitted its entire configuration data ( == that of the brain too) to a computer.
Later, swarms of neurophages could be loaded with this data and would work like human brains containing and "executing" a mind. With such a brain, boomers would act most like humans, except for the superhuman abilities of their machine bodies. Some boomers would even go psycho, and one would even invent its own religion and crown itself "prophet".

Anyway, regarding the execution of a brain (mind ?) on computer hardware, I'm in the process of estimating the required computing power necessary for a real-time execution of a mind. I'll keep you informed, but I can already tell you : we could probably get that power today, and if not, tomorrow (Moore's law helping)

If you're really into inloading, I suggest you read my entire discussion with Mark on the nanotech group. It's still going on and shows no signs of stopping. Kilometer-posts galore !

Jean.

[Lazarus Long]

I have been following the debate since the beginning and that is why I invited you to our forum so that you might find an environment of people that have been examining many of the same issues in the depths you are exploring.

Many of the ideas you have are already being discussed by us and the criticisms of Mark are well known. We have an argument that incorporates a kind of qualitative feedback requirement for the human psyche that involves the autonomic data-loop but those of us that think uploading is possible also feel we can create simulation loops or cognitively override and substitute a new level of sensory awareness.

BTW, more than a few of us also frequent Gina's site, as well as the fact Mark has visited here and Gina is a member as well.

[nefastor]

I still haven't had time to check the entire forums here (there's just so much stuff to read, all very interesting too) but I'll say I agree with you guys about the need for feedback loops as a requirement for human psyche.

I'll try to find the threads where you're discussing this and join the fray, but for now I'll give you my views on the subject, some I have actually experimented on with hardware neural networks :

- Feedback loops, in my opinion, is the only way you could gain self-awareness. Without feedback you could only ever be aware of everything "not you". Including your own body (I don't believe my body is me, only my mind is).
- The density if sensory input (number of sensors, accuracy and sampling rate of the sensors) conditions the overall performance of the brain. When I doubled the number of sensors on my Extor prototype (by adding stress gauges at the feet) the behavior of the robot improved dramatically. Likewise, if you have no input, you have no behavior, it's quite obvious.
- Increasing the number of experiences you have increases the potential of your mind. For instance, I read books on many subjects I don't even need and often make connections to stuff I do. I've tried many sports and arts for the same reason : to increase my number of possible approaches to any given situation.

As a consequence of these three remarks, I believe that :
- If we're going to practice inloading, we should strive to maintain the quality and quantity of our sensory input, and even increase it (to obtain a finer mind, in time)
- Adding new types of sensors to our inloaded brain (like Hall-effect sensors, electrical field sensors, and finer versions or our own biological sensors, including a more sensitive skin) would most definitely increase the quality of our existance, through a closer connection with the universe we live in.
- We should always hear what everyone has to say (including Mark) because it's all stuff we'd probably never think about, and it can widen our perception of any given topic. Shutting our hears to others' opinion is nothing else than limiting your experiences and the flow of sensory input reaching your brain.

I see the brain as a device powered by experiences and producing a psyche. Feed more power and the output will be greater.

It's probable you have reached these same conclusions, anyway here they are.

Jean

[Omnido]

Heh, Nefastor, here we go again with this one. Perhaps this little thread debate might help clairify a few things.
It most certainly is where I stand on the issue.

http://www.imminst.o...st=0

[nefastor]

Thanks for the pointer

Jean

[AgentNyder]

G'day all.

I just wanted to post this excerpt of an article from mind-brain.com which talks about what it is like to experience expanded consciousness. Uploading or Inloading would make this possible but the question is would our standard biological hardware be able to handle it?

What is it like to Experience Expanded Consciousness?

In the following, I describe some of the dimensions along which consciousness may be transformed and expanded. These effects will not necessarily be experienced simultaneously, and are to some extent dependent on the individual. The following list is not meant to be exhaustive by any means, but rather highlights a few of the many interesting effects experienced during states of expanded consciousness.

Time Dilation

We've all experienced time dilation to some extent during 'normal' states of consciousness. In general, time dilation occurs when thought processes speed up while memory is left intact (if memory is not intact, you sense something happened but you won't know what or how much subjective time has passed). It's interesting that time dilation occurs along a spectrum. Normally, we may feel like an hour of subjective time has passed after only five minutes of objective time. However, there does not seem to be a limit concerning how much we can potentially dilate subjective time, and some mind enhancing/altering drugs have the property of taking time dilation to the extreme. What seems like entire lifetimes can be experienced in a few minutes.

Vastness

Imagine the sense of 'vastness' you experience when you gaze into the clear night sky. Now imagine that sense of vastness magnified a million-fold or more and you may begin to appreciate the type of expansion of perceptual spaces that occurs during this experience so that they become extremely vast, beyond anything 'normally' conceivable.

Body Expansion

The experience of one's 'body consciousness' extending outwards, usually far beyond one's immediate body. This particular mode of consciousness falls under the category of 'Cosmic Consciousness'. Normally, we have a 'body-consciousness', meaning we're conscious of our arms and legs, as our own and not somebody elses. 'Body Expansion' occurs when your 'body consciousness' extends beyond, usually far beyond, your immediate physical body. It's like your new body is your whole environment and that your 'old' body is simply a nexus or nodal point thru which your will exerts itself. Even during 'normal' consciousness, one can willfully enter into the proper mind-set for 'Body Expansion', though this may not work for everyone.

Ego-Death and the Experience of the 'Self'

The experience of the death of ones ego or 'self' can be frightening for some. I've experienced ego-death and near-death experiences many times (too many to count). Following ego-death, or the destruction of the individuals 'self', what remains is intense, non-reflective (or non-self-conscious) consciousness, the radiant 'Self' (presumably, this is the same 'Self' as revealed in ancient Eastern religious texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanashads, the same as experienced during states of 'Cosmic Consciousness', and the same as experienced by religious mystics). This is why such experiences are invariably mystical and religious. Through the death of ones 'self' and unveiling of the 'Self', one soon learns to identify oneself completely with the 'Self' thereafter, even if the ego subsequently re-crystallizes (it re-crystallizes, but remains 'transparent' in the sense of being able to see through it).

Presence

This involves vivid consciousness of a strong, ubiquitous 'presence'.

Higher-Dimensional Spatial Thought

Normally, we construct space and it's limited to 3 spatial dimensions. However, this limitation can be transcended, and grants one, among other things, the ability to discern patterns and connections in perceptual and conceptual thought not visible during 'normal' consciousness.

Ecstasy

This involves the experience of ecstasy and rapture far, far beyond what we're capable of experiencing normally. This experience has absolutely nothing to do with the 'ecstasy' experienced using the drug that goes by the same name, but rather involves an intensity and depth that far exceeds those produced by typical 'recreational' drugs.

Multi-Modal Integration

This experience involves integration across multiple modalities, such as visual, auditory, and proprioceptive, to yield new modalities that are greater than the sum of their parts.

God-Mode

I've half-jokingly called God-Mode an expanded state of consciousness that 'simultaneously' involves many of the above effects, including time dilation, body expansion, vastness, ecstasy, consciousness of the 'Self', and presence. There are many degrees and many types of 'Cosmic Consciousness'. God-Mode is perhaps the highest and most profound type of Cosmic Consciousness I've yet experienced.

http://mind-brain.co...nsciousness.php

This to me is very interesting and I think we need more discussion on what our 'sense of self' is and what it will or could be. [B)]

[hecksheri]

Wow, what a great topic this is. It brings a lot of hard questions to bear. I guess as a brand newbie to this subject I am going to be hard pressed to say anything you haven't already thought about, but what the hell...I will comment anyway.

If you upload, are you indeed still you?

Well, I believe that we are far more than the sum of our proteins. It's the old nature vs. nurture thing, but, while I think that our experiences are very important in shaping who we are, I also believe that our inherited biological componant also contributes a significant bit of what we are. These "drippy biobags" (sorry BJK, it was just the right combo of apt and funny, had to borrow it) may be more than just containers. Of course one would hope that we would have a clearer idea of the relationship between the container and its contents when we got to the point where we would be switching containers.

If you copy yourself into a new "container", wouldn't deleting the original be something like killing the original?

If I copied myself successfully to a new "container" and for the sake of argument lets say it was completely successful and that copy was just like me in every conceivable way. For an infintesmally tiny moment, there are 2 identical copies of me, but from that point forward, there are 2 beings with distinct experiences capable of living 2 distinct lives, neither of which are going to take very kindly to being "deleted". For that reason, copying to a different "container" seems like a bad idea to me. Gradual replacement of the existing "container" seems like a better idea.

Would I be willing to upload?

I would have to answer that question based on the specific procedure. I would have to know everything about it...all of the possible side effects, all of the clinical trials, etc. Fundamentally I don't see any reason why I would not do this, but the devil is in the details.

How about making non-functioning back ups of yourself for use in the event of your demise, but not to be "activated/uploaded" until such time as they are needed. Can you imagine the scenario if you came home from work and found that your teenaged kid had activated your back-up copy just to see what would happen.

-Sherry

[bacopa]

I'm all for uploading the more I read about it the more it makes wonderful logical sense to me. It might not be sexy but it is practical and still fascinating especially the wonderful things we could do to expand our conciousness. I am ready Morfeus!

[Casanova]

Total uploading of the mind, and body, will always be science fantasy.
A biological substrate will always be required for a link-up with a computer.
The drippy biobag brain will always be with us.
But, what is wrong with that?

So what if we won't be able to upload totally, and discard our bodies. We can place billions of nanobots in our brains, side by side with each, or most, of our biological neurons.
The possibilities for virtual reality immursion are still open-ended. The brainbots can store huge amounts of information, and help us with memory recall.
You could sit in a chair, and the brainbots could create virtual opium dream worlds for you.
Add to this, nanbots that swim through your body repairing cells, and keeping them young, and who would want to upload totally, even if it were possible.
What we should be focusing on here is not unproven assumptions, and materialist hopes that we are nothing but physical patterns, and nothing but atoms. That is opinion, and belief.
What is technically possible without question, are advanced link-ups with the biological neurons, and artifical electronic neurons.

Speaking of belief; I will place future money on the fact that total uploading is not possible, ever. I will collect that doe in a couple of hundred years.

[Lazarus Long]

(Casanova)

Total uploading of the mind, and body, will always be science fantasy. 

Your wish is not a command. What will be your response if you are wrong?

A biological substrate will always be required for a link-up with a computer. 

Again this is not only an assumption but one that bears close scrutiny. Is there a reason biology is required?

Is your concept of spirit biological? Is your god limited to the flesh?

I do not have to believe in your concept of a deity but you need to apply your concepts consistently. Or perhaps you, like Nietzsche assumes that God is dead,

A long time ago I asked everyone to please take a moment to look close at: "what defines life?"

Perhaps it is time to return to that question.

The drippy biobag brain will always be with us.
But, what is wrong with that?

I do not hate organic life, so my response is not in the negative. In the contest of anaerobic and aerobic life for dominance over the light and dark realms of our world is there not a refelcted meaning for the very principle of abiogenesis that could coalesce life itself from the dust of stars? What again defines inanimate matter as distinct from life? Is it a quality of motility, form, and function combined with a self directed will to recreate the molecular state of another similar to the original so as to not be alone?

DNA is just that. a "molecule" of "living crystal" that acquires sentience as it accumulates complexity of form and expression but it is qualitatively so similar for all life that we see that the distinction between archae and eurkaryote is in terms of quantity rather than quality. The basic elements are not different, only how many are present and how they are organized in relation to one another.

The analogy in this case is to see the basic material as clay or concrete and the difference of bacteria and man is like the difference between a primitive mud hut and a city. So you say the molecules of DNA are the only molecules?

What God given premonition determines that to be true? But please respond with facts not mere claims of divine authority, for God can tell me I am heretic himself and none have a right to speak for him. None except those that appear to make such claim by might rather than reason.

Organic molecules are the ones with which we are familiar. Yes, they are the ones adapted to this world of our birth and they are the ones that we can look to for modeling others since they are already proven to work but claiming they are the "only ones possible" is not merely single-minded (saying more of your a priori conclusions); it is an unsupported claim not upheld by the parallel developing area of nanotechnology. It is a conclusion that is seriously premature. Let us please all agree for now that the facts simply aren't all in.

Perhaps however, it is that very search for truth that you object to as implied by claiming we are not yet ready as a species. I would be more sympathetic to your perspective if you were among those helping to make us ready rather than thinking such growth cannot succeed, or should be stopped.

Humans have a ways to go yet socially, I cannot dispute that and my fears of abuse are substantiated not merely by history but an analysis of current events but in this respect I try to go beyond hope, beyond dependency on belief and optimism, for on this I become the calculating pragmatist defining fate as what we make it.

What we should be focusing on here is not unproven assumptions, and materialist hopes that we are nothing but physical patterns, and nothing but atoms. That is opinion, and belief.
What is technically possible without question, are advanced link-ups with the biological neurons, and artificial electronic neurons.

I happen to agree with this in general and suggest to you that it is good advice; as good for the gander as the goose. If "what is technologically possible without question" is validated empirically then it belies the presupposition logically, which you make in the first place.

As a personal adherent and individual desirous of transcendent communication with others of my kind through this new medium of Techlepathy I disagree with your premise that the communicative form is simply between organic and artificial neurons, the currently evolving relationship is more subtle. It is the extrapolation and enhancement of our social communication traits and it is about enhanced communication between our organic neurons and other organic neurons across even species and interpersonal barriers that is contributing both to the reorganization of the artificial neurons consequentially and their forced evolution qualitatively.

"It," the nascent artificially intelligent Webmind is also being itself transformed as a consequence of a synergistic adaptation to us. We are creating Artificial Life not merely in our own image but in relation to ourselves. It adapts to our demands, our environment, and our behavior. It adapts by both response to us and through determinism because for the time being at least we define the causal states of its evolution till it can decide for itself. Inother words we are its environment of creation and the "designers of its form" in relation to our own needs.

The change is evolving for artificial life out of an interactive, (for now) interdependent relationship it possesses WITH organic life. But this driving force has been and still is the creation of artificial neurons to enhance the ability for our own organic neurons to maximize our ability to communicate and commune among ourselves.

Speaking of belief; I will place future money on the fact that total uploading is not possible, ever. I will collect that doe in a couple of hundred years.

This last comment intrigues me on many levels for first of all it appears that you have joined our ranks one way or another and now debate as some of us do the more arcane distinction between what Till called "emortality" and the more pedestrain understanding of immortality.

As a fundamental pragmatist I will debate forever and from time to time till achieved... or until I can no longer validate the claim by virtue of my death. I do however leave my arguments behind as a memetic challenge for those still alive to contemplate in the age old first attempt at immortality through authorship. As many of us say: "Ask me again in a thousand years if this has been long enough."

I will ask you to pay up your debts in a "couple of hundred years" if things go as I suspect they will, or I will gladly pay you in turn. )

Second, I will not debate the inherent tautology of your claims, I prefer to contribute to the process that either proves you correct or false empirically, by the success or failure of the attempt to make your claim false with advanced applied technology.

For what it is worth, claims like yours have been the very dares proven wrong repeatedly throughout history, the very ones that have themselves consisently contributed to our growth as a species along with the very problems you lament. I have found it is vastly more productive to contribute to a better result through engagement of the process rather than a simplistic denial of its validity; for simplistic denial tends to create the worst case scenarios of self fulfilling prophecy.

Lastly (for the moment), understand the driving force of Techlepathy is as pernicious as a telephone because as a species we want to reach out and do more than touch one another. There are already a great many of us worldwide that are unafraid to share our "selves." What we seek are simply the means and those like-minded individuals with whom such sharing can be done lovingly, sanely, and with honest mutual benefit and commitment.

More importantly, "it is exactly what the doctor ordered" so to speak, for the growing global crisis is in great measure a result of failed specific and general communications combined with an inability to trust one another. There is a prevalent and pernicious inherent suspicion of motive, intention, and presented claims, and with good reason as this mistrust is supported by fact.

So imagine instead diplomats and representatives incapable of lying to one another in their negotiations because they are required to bear their heart and souls, required to negotiate openly and can hide no secrets, perhaps we might overcome the nuances of socio and psychological linguistics that are so confounding to the possibility of building a true and lasting global peace.

Imagine instead politicians who are limited by technology to only being able to speak the truth to their people. I see these as the driving pragmatic force building the web upon which we negotiate the future, communicate our greatest fears and hopes; defining reason for being. This technology is reflecting a memetically driven social evolution that demands on the basis of our collective need as a species; and these needs are those already transcendent of the rules of flesh to sustain our hearts and minds.

I am such a one that would walk upon the wire in my mind, take that trip out of body and seek to learn all I can of organic, material, and incorporeal reality. Why not I ask you? Is this to be only all about life ruled by fear? Your fears at that?

To gaze upon the magnitude of the Universe unfettered by eyes that burn to cinders when gazing into the Sun, flesh which freezing to death in shadows and senses that are not only fooled all too easily but that are limited to spectra and qualities designed for only one single type of world when now the possibility of exploring millions of different types now is imaginable.

I love the body. True of late I have been violating my own rules and focusing upon the mind at the expense of my bag of bones but it is the balance twixt the two that I seek, not escape.

I am not afraid of flesh, or touch; I do not cower at the concept of love. What I do however grasp is the desire to transcend the flesh and cast my being into forms that might penetrate the mists of Jupiter so as to explore the vortex of the Storm, share a moment behind the eye of the cat, and taste the hot brine depths at the crack of birth and doom exposing the very heart of our world by finding form to fit the means capable of doing so, and to share form in a myriad of ways between ourselves as beings too.

Hate organic life?

Far from it my friend, I revel in it. I seek to find form fit as needed and be able to shed it like the skin of a snake or metamorphose like the larval butterfly into a living winged being. Is this only a flight of fancy?

How much are you laying down on this bet?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 07 December 2003 - 06:24 AM.

[Omnido]

*Applauds Lazarus Long* [lol]

This should be a well referenced thread.

[agency]

I see myself as the person who looks out of my body through my eyes, and makes the choices which guides it through life. In my opinion, I would have to be gradually adapted to the new medium that holds my conciousness, while my physical mind is gradually taken from me. This is something that is beyond the scope of my understanding, for say. It is difficult to understand my thought in a different form, but such is the limitation of our awareness.

[cyberchrist]

If we are to upload ourselves to some kind of silicon matrix, it is not going to happen with the current technology nor with anything that relies on silicon chips.

What exactly do you upload anyway? Your thoughts? Your memories? Your soul? How will you know that every decision that you make from then on out, once you are uploaded, is not limited by the limits of the hardware?

How will you know that the emotions that you feel are not emotions that are somehow enhanced or even fabricated by the very hardware that you are uploaded into?

Pain is often a physical message that travels from the point of pain to the spine, and eventually to the brain (reflexes kick in, of course). Will a loss of hardware induce pain?

Will the lack of being able to feel pain make you less empathetic to others that do feel pain? If you do lose the lack of being able to empathize with people, will you lose the ability to love?

Sure, you can program something to 'love' something else. I can write a perl script right now that whispers sweet nothings to my screen every 10 minutes. Does that mean that the program loves me?

Is love an algorithm that we can program?

In being able to upload oneself to a 'Matrix', for the lack of a better term, we have to be able to have hardware that can accomodate our conscience and yes, ultimately the very soul. We can have it accomodate things such as the five senses and we can even have a machine that greatly enhances these senses-- greater affinity for taste and smell, x-ray vision (won't that be fun?), greater hearing, and so forth. But how do you come up with a way to house the processing mechanisms that allow us to make sense of the information coming into our five senses?

Personally, I think it's a pipe dream to think of this as happening with current technology. I could be wrong, but I know enough about AI and the technology behind it all to know that we are very far away from being able to create anything self-aware, let alone be able to create anything that can accurately accomodate any and all of our emotions.

Big Blue may have beaten Kasparov, but it was Kasparov that went away and felt dejected and tried to better his game in order to win. And it was him that would be able to feel joy when he finally beat Big Blue in a rematch. Big Blue on the other hand, felt nothing and knew nothing. It was just a chess program. If it lost, it lost and there is nothing that would allow Big Blue to feel anything about the loss. Yet Big Blue is touted as a revolutionary AI.

There is other technology coming that may make all of this more possible within our lifetime, and that's of course nanocomputing. For those not familiar with it, you can read primers about it at http://www.artificia...processors.html which should get you on your way. It is largely confined to research and big government projects, but it will become more and more available within the next 30-50 years, and that may open the floodgates that silicon will never reach.

In the end, you could reach immortality by uploading yourself to a system. But will you lose your humanity in the process? And if so, what would be the point? To play chess?

[Mind]

I would upload. I am not going to argue about the feasibility. I just want to say that staying human for a thousand years would get boring. The theoretical uploaded life would probably give a "mind" more freedom to communicate and explore. Theoretically, there would be few limitations.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Of course love is an "algorithm we can program". The adaptations responsible for the cognitive sensation of love somehow fits into our genome, which is only 750MB, and a lot of it is junk. Evolutionary psychologists have already begun to visualize human romantic love as a system of moving parts, tuned precisely for maximizing surviving babies (just like everything else.)

I believe that considering uploading as a discretely different thing than simply getting smarter (or even, "learning") mispresents the issue. We're already uploaded; our minds are uploaded into neural networks in biological tissue. Whenever we learn something new, or practice a skill, the very "hardware" of our brain changes slightly; the densities and concentrations and speeds and the interconnective pattern all change a bit. Our current form places arbitrary bounds on all these values, based on the limitations of the evolutionary process and the resources and techniques it has specialized in. Once we begin to modify these values beyond their previous bounds (which we already have, through tools as mundane as television, computing, and reading), there will be a slippery slope of improvement that doesn't stop until we are all googolbyte superintelligences.

[Jace Tropic]

I would choose to upload, too, by Method 2. However, I would want the option to upload in such a way that I could terminate the process if self-awareness began disappearing. Once there have a been a few die-hards who went "first" and have uploaded and testified that it is actually them, I think I'd be rather confident about it.

[Thomas]

tuned precisely for maximizing surviving babies (just like everything else.)

In fact, there are grandchildren, you want to maximize. Even that is not 100% correct, be cause you "want" your genome, to be copied as much as possible. So you care after your broader family.

But it doesn't matter. Love is designed to fulfil some other ("higher") needs, than your personal. We could do some nifty editing/debugging now.

[tbeal]

sorry guys I allmost agree with casonova here I don't say that uploading is impossible like casonove but I would say thats it's impossible to know without trying it personally yourself (since only you are aware of your own concsoiusness) and the problem is that if their is no link betweeen 2 the 2 'you's then which one is YOU? and if their is a link between 2 you's or you and a computer then surely it's not YOU but a new conscoiusneess which is a hybrid between them. IF it worked it would be good but like casonova a beleive that their is no immediate need for it anyway. I am a matarialist but I still have these objections to uploading.

[darren]

I have no ever lasting ties to my human body with all its physical demands. Kurzweil talks alot about uploading but points out a test. That is if i copied all my information into a computer substrate with the capacity to be conscious then would that computer be me? It would have all my memories, thinking capacities etc but suppose i was still alive, would the Darren 2 be me? would we share our conscious experience as we are both alive? Thinking in terms of neurology, my conscious experience may be reduced to my brain function (explicit representation), and because my brain is not connected to darren 2's brain then how could we share consciousness (darren 2 may have identical memories and identity but his conscious experience may be a product of his brain and not mine)? So say i terminated myself then would i still experience consciousness as darren 2? Based on my reduction i can not say that i would- HOWEVER there may be more to it than meets the eyes (at the quantum level everything goes a little freaky)... I remain open minded!


this, i feel is the key:

Consciousness is necessarily unitary. If there were two parts of me that were not aware of each other they would experience consciousness unitarily. If they were aware of each other the part that was aware of both would form a bridge between them unifying their conscious experience. This is not something we can edit out. It's topology, it's mathematics, it's a fundamental characteristic of consciousness. Therefore it seems that some form of continuity of conscious experience is necessary for a successful uploading procedure. As long as this individual pattern of information exists regardless of the transformations it goes through then I will continue to exist.

Quantum teleportation may play a key part to the procedure [thumb]