122 replies to this topic

[ocsrazor]

I could go on for days on this subject, but I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

First of all lets eliminate some misconceptions here:
I am absolutely convinced that quantum dynamics does not have anything to do with conciousness (other than what it has to do with the normal properties of matter) Conciousness is not about energy fields, its about information fields After a year of deep consideration I came to the conclusion that Penrose and Hammeroff are dead wrong. (btw information and energy are closely related, but they are NOT the same thing and are often confused for one another)

Neither of the two scenarios presented in the first post are likely portrayals of uploading. As Nefastor mentioned above it is going to be a slow process of integration with neural interface systems, in my opinion even slower than what he is prediciting. I dont see quick replacement or scanning as likely scenarios, there is no reason to destroy existing tissue and scanning all 100 trillion plus synapses is going to be infeasible by any existing methods - BUT "pseudo-organically" integrating with brain tissue using advanced interface systems is a likely possibility. The structures of consciousness would probably move freely from the organic to the nonorganic in this scenario. Eventually the organic tissue would be fully integrated with the nonorganic and then be unnecessary as the nonorganic substrate had redundantly reproduced its processes.

There is no thing such as high resolution (neither spatial or temporal) MRI scanning due to the physical limits of that technology and there are few technologies which look like an attractive solution right now - you would need something that could scan on the micrometer spatial scale and the millisecond time scale to do a physical scan and there are tremendous problems with accessing the tissue in a live subject. It is also unlikely that consciousness could exist on the type of computational systems we have now - they are too linear, too slow, and too static to support the processes required, BUT I fully expect that our computational systems will begin to resemble (and then surpass) biological computational systems in the not too distant future. (It is my opinion that we are going to have a great deal of difficulty separating organic and nonorganic structures within about 50 years as our micro- and nano-engineering begins to resemble biological processes)

In reference to Casanovas comments - any statement saying some technical challenge is impossible is inherently ridiculous, especially for a fairly concrete problem such as this.

Would I upload? I would prefer it to be a slow transitional process of cyborgization rather than an all at once scan and I would certainly prefer to retain some form of a physical body. I see the likely endpoint of neural interfacing, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc. as creatures which are aware and in concious control of the structure of every particle of their bodies and minds.

Best,
Peter

[Lazarus Long]

Very well said Peter and I want to add that more and more as I have tried to think about this problem I tend to agree with this:

I am absolutely convinced that quantum dynamics does not have anything to do with consciousness (other than what it has to do with the normal properties of matter) Consciousness is not about energy fields, its about information fields After a year of deep consideration I came to the conclusion that Penrose and Hammeroff are dead wrong. (BTW information and energy are closely related, but they are NOT the same thing and are often confused for one another)

I understand your disagreement and I concur that we must come to understand and accept that what is undetectable may simply not be there, not simply be beyond our technological ability to perceive.

However to Penrose's credit even as we speak Einstein's Cosmological Constant rises from the dead and who yet understands all the properties of matter and energy such that some relationship may yet be found to describe "energy" that heretofore we never suspected is all around us.

Nevertheless as of writing this it has not happened yet and while I still wax poetic on the "physics of politics" and the "power of ideas" this is certainly not quite the same thing as "quantum conscious states" composing a "mind" assembled on the "matrix of a brain". You and I have beaten this well dead horse together and I just wanted to weigh to mention I am walking more in your direction.

Please when you get the opportunity participate in the discussion I started about looking at DNA in terms of being tangible expressions of Platonic forms. It relates more to what you are describing as Informational Fields I suspect.

DNA and Platonic Forms
http://imminst.org/f...T&f=3&t=2874&s=

I enjoyed your last post very much. Its clarity is exquisitely precise yet simple and comprehensible for all I hope. You do a great justice to this effort by expressing the issues in a manner all benefit from, whether they agree or disagree every time you contribute I sense us all making strides to our goal.

[darren]

BUT "pseudo-organically" integrating with brain tissue using advanced interface systems is a likely possibility.  The structures of consciousness would probably move freely from the organic to the nonorganic in this scenario. Eventually the organic tissue would be fully integrated with the nonorganic and then be unnecessary as the nonorganic substrate had redundantly reproduced its processes.

Crick and Koch suggest that consiousness is a product of specific neurons (about 1000 for the visual pathway) that have the function of converting encoded information into explictit representation that is consciousness.
It would seem likely to me that if they are right then the information that passes say via your visual pathway to be explicitly represented would need the exact physical form of the representational neurons (RN) right down to subatomic level as this detail would be the difference between your and my unique explicit representation, conscious experience. Converting all my information into another substrate would not work because the RN of artificial substrate would not be identical to my own, thus teleportaion of quantum level accuracy would be important.

Regards,
Darren

Edited by darren, 22 February 2004 - 03:12 PM.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Darren,

I'm trying to follow your logic here, but I don't see an obvious connection between the statement by Crick and Koch and your statement about quantum information being important in representing reality. What I am asking is why do you think that because you need a particular structure of neurons, and/or connections between them, that you would need to reproduce their exact structure down to the quantum state of every atom? Neural systems produce a highly abstracted version of reality and they are extremely robust filters for noise, i.e. they are somewhat insensitive to noisy fluctuations in local electrochemical fields and so are highly unlikely to be sensitive to quantum fluctuations.

From evidence gathered in my lab and a large number of the labs working in plasticity and information storage in neural systems it is looking as if most of the information transfer and processing going on in mammalian neural systems is highly statistical and redundant. So you may even be able to withstand loss of synapses or even a number of neurons and still maintain the fidelity of these processes. Correlation of quantum fluctuations are just not necessary to explain any of these processes.

Best,
Peter

[darren]

Hi Peter,

Ok maybe im wrong about the quantum level.
I guess im trying to establish the relationship between a theoretical neuronal type that is responsible for the explicit representation that is conscious experience and how we could reproduce a fuctionally equivalent version in which to upload to. I noticed you said that "BUT "pseudo-organically" integrating with brain tissue using advanced interface systems is a likely possibility. The structures of consciousness would probably move freely from the organic to the nonorganic in this scenario"
could you please explain what the structures of consciousness are and how they can freely move?

Regards,
Darren

Edited by darren, 22 February 2004 - 08:45 PM.

[ocsrazor]

Ahhhh, now if I knew completely Darren we would already have fully functional AI wouldn't we?

That said, we have a pretty good idea of what consciousness is likely to be, and the short answer is that is intelligent information processing systems that observe their own operation in great detail - information and knowledge that loops back on itself to such a great degree of detail and complexity that it becomes self aware.

The kicker is that we are not yet capable of building information systems which have anywhere near the complexity of the human brain (or even any mammalian brain) yet. What is special about animals that are aware of themselves as apart from any other physical system is the specified complexity that their brains represent. Consciousness cannot reside in single neurons alone, it resides in the extremely complex information networks of billions of them signalling to each other.

By integrating with this system with extremely high resolution interfaces, these information networks will extend into nonorganic substrates. There is a great deal of evidence this is already happening with existing technologies (see Andy Clark's book Natural Born Cyborgs for an excellent review of this phenomenon) but high speed and robust neural interfaces combined with a substrate which has similar dynamics as biological brains will make for seamless passage of information between the organic and nonorganic worlds.

Best,
Peter

[darren]

That said, we have a pretty good idea of what consciousness is likely to be, and the short answer is that is intelligent information processing systems that observe their own operation in great detail - information and knowledge that loops back on itself to such a great degree of detail and complexity that it becomes self aware.

Do you guess a dog is self aware? What about a rat? what about a fruit fly? Isnt it the case that only humans are self aware?
Do you think intelligence (with feedback loops) = consciousness. Where do you guess the information is feeding back to? representational neurons? Do you think that specific nueuronal processes are required?

Regards,
Darren

[ocsrazor]

Hi Darren,

We should probably split this off, because we have drifted way off topic here but...

There is a continuum of self awareness in all biological creatures, their place on the continuum is based on how much of the external world (both spatially and temporally) they represent in their neural system states and how accurate their picture of themselves is within that world view. My personal definition extends at least down to rodents as a creature I would consider self aware, but this really just a semantics game - its all a sliding scale.

There is almost assuredly no such thing as a representational neuron in complex neural systems (representational patterns played across networks of neurons - yes, single represntational neurons - no). A neuron can in certain circumstances act as a place holder for information, such as place cells in the hippocampus which become active when an animal is in a certain location, but it is not wholly representing that information. The full representation requires a large group of neurons playing very complex spatio-temporal patterns. Single neurons can represent only very simple sensory information variables as single entities (i.e. heat, pressure, photon detection, chemosensation, etc.)

The information is feeding back on itself and causing additional processing of that information to occur. My personal one sentence definition of conciousness is that it is a complex information process that becomes aware of itself in great detail. Yes I think that information loops with highly specified complexity will result in consciousness in any substrate you put it in given that the complexity of the dynamics of the system and its environment approaches that of the human brain and environment.

Best,
Peter

[darren]

Ok thanks Peter for sharing your views!


Regards,
Darren

[Omnido]

Peter, that was excellently worded. It goes back to the importance of not only the definition of the information, but also the culmination of the very informations feedback upon itself. which further generates new, altered information.

[zoysite]

Food for thought:
Do not the limitations of the human form allow for growth and thought by the struggle they stir? Without a form, and without struggle or even productivity apart from the self, one would have no purpose. There is a beauty in the feeling of the world, which is nothing but the absorbance of that which is not ourselves ("ourselves" as in that which is unbound by body, that which, in fact, would be uploaded). Fundamentally, an entirely free environment instantaneously lacks the ability of discovery outside of the ego. Why live forever if you live in a contained environment? Immortality is not merely a goal to be reached by any means. It is a way of living, once obtained, and cannot be true immortality if the mind grows so dead within itself that no need for change exists.
The question of uploading therefore reflects upon ones goals in obtaining immortality. Uploading may simply become a means of life extension if accidents are never to occur that expose one to that which one does no desire to experience. Once unchanging, we are dead.

[Omnido]

I would have to agree with Zoy, except on one point:
When an artifical reality becomes so mathematically perfect that all the quanta can be substantiated and represented within the virtual world, it then becomes impossible to seperate or distinguish the difference between the real and the virtual.
If human beings are to be uploaded for the sole purpose of their own existence, then yes. There exist limits to their own progress which could be an issue for those determined to discover "new" things.
However, for those who merely wish to indulge in the best facets of their own humanity with respect to philosophical persuit; duplicating anything and everything that can be quantified in the "real" world, then how is the virtual any less important, or any less valid?
I suppose the issue would be of the "Quality" of life, versus the quantity. In the virtual world, all are gods in their own right, which, without progress, would ultimately stagnate. But in the end, is that not what many humans seek? To enjoy that which is normally passing and fading, only to regret not possessing it for eternity?

The differentiation between progress and ultimate "flourishing" is a thin line, and I would not wish to be uploaded into a virtual world forever. Maybe as a passing interest or entertainment venue, but not until the end of time.
There are always exceptions, and I think that as our definition of what it means to be "human" changes, we will no doubt redefine ourselves with the advancements in our ways of thinking, as well as eventually, "existing".

[zoysite]

I agree with you, Omni, that a virtual world is no less valid than the "real" world. Another experience, then. However, as you mention, god-power is available, but corruptive.
I recall once an instance where I was asked what I would do with unlimited money for a restricted time period. I was young, so I didn't assume inflation or other complications. But, by the imagining of such unrestricted capability, I just started laughing, and could hardly control it for an hour, thinking of all the trouble and possibilities I could create with so much power.
The same phenomenon would likely occur among the uploaded with less personal restraint. They may grow overwhelmed with pleasure to the point of uselessness. Maintenance of pleasure is not a passing phenomenon. Assuming we upload also our more primitive responses, a man in pleasure will kill himself with insistence and indulgence in further pleasure.
I say this so assuredly because of several experiments performed on rats. Researchers gave the animal a button to press that, by connecting to pleasure centers in the brain, activates immense pleasure, designed to be similar to that of physical sexual pleasure. The animals all activated the button until they died of exhaustion.
Perhaps humans are the same?

[Omnido]

I am quite familiar with this experiment, as my own Philosophy Mentor used this argument as a topic for debate as well.
Nearly everyone involved almost agreed unanimously that they would probably continue to press the button forever.

When pressed for realism, I found that I was the only person (in the class) who would refuse the pleasure, even though compulsion would persuade otherwise. Intense physical sexual pleasure is not the same as emotional pleasure, although the two are linked by cognitive (and sometimes unconscious) association.

The event however is akin to conscious tolerance of intense pain, where the pain itself was unavoidable. Im sure many of us have experienced moments within our lives that forced us to endure some degree of intense pain, with our without our consent. If one has the ability to, through force of will, overpower or at least match the effects of severe pain with determination, then the same could hold true of voluntary decision to induce pleasure.

The argument however still presents mental difficulties for even the strongest willed of humans, since intense sexual pleasure is, at its core, nearly completely overwhelming, (not to mention inevitably fleeting) which in turn is partially why we seek to recapture it so often with our prospective partners.
"All good things must come to and end", or so the saying goes. Perhaps to allow us to hold onto the perspective of meaning, and to faciliate looking forward to the reoccurance of the event, especially when involving those whom we trust or greatly respect.
Example: Young children who cant wait to "go play" with their friends at school, dreaming of what mischief they will get into the next day, or prospective lovers who look forward to the candelight dinner and close intimacy whenever their schedules or mutual desires permit.

Sexual desire itself, while very compulsive (because it has to be to propogate the species) is still controlable, and I find that even if I had the choice to press the magic pleasure button, Id rather press the magic "love" button instead, as its association would be more rewarding in terms of aesthetics as well as meaningful operation. Since the "Love" button requires genuine (or at least perfectly engineered and hidden illusion of) reciprocation, then deliberate self-delusion would be the only reason human(s) could indulge in that form of pleasure forever.

As for pure sexual desire, only for oneself on cue? I'll pass, thank you.
I will admit to its being enticing, but to me its just another illusion, albiet one that might keep humans preoccupied for great lengths of time, provided the side effects were not fatal as with the Animal experiments.
I search for mutual joy and happiness as a result of pleasure involving a commited partner whom is ethical, honorable, intelligent, inspirational, and creative. To the best of my understanding, the "Pleasure Button" in my honest opinion, doesnt even begin to measure up.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

A fundamental assumption in uploading of the mind is the true essence of a person can be duplicated or preserved in a transformation if sufficient information about the physical details of the person's brain is provided. The problem I have with this is that I do not believe that the full essence of our being is limited to our physical structure.

[Omnido]

That has been mentioned as one of the main issues for concern regarding human consciousness. I know I am not the first person to say that if indeed there is some metaphysical "stuff" that comprises the human mind, it would surely be fascinating to study as well as discover its function.

Until that time, I will stand behind the principle that the human mind exists only as the culmination of sensory and cognitive cellular information, and that all our predispositions are fundamentally biochemical.

[Richard Leis]

I'm sure this has been stated many times before, but the most frustrating aspect of any discussion is the boiling down of argument into belief. There are a great many things I "believe" but a great many of these beliefs likely have no basis in reality. I "believe" that my uploaded self will not be the original "me" and therefore I am wary of uploading myself. I most certainly do not want the original to be destroyed in the process. The "me" that is me right now wants to survive forever...at this point in time I could care less about other me's.

Uploading appears to me as a path leading us to death, not immortality. It frightens me. Unfortunately, this fear reminds me of Leon Kass' "Wisdom of Repugnance", so I remain in that queasy netherworld of not quite liking something even though my dislike may be completely unfounded. Our discussion, and such discussions that have been going on for thousands of years, are being augmented by our increasing ability to probe with scientific research such fundamental philosophical questions as "Who am I?" and "What is reality?" This, to me, is the single most wonderful aspect of our age.

[Omnido]

Enoosphere:

This is an issue that has always been addressed time and time again.
I had presumed, with some large degree of difficulty, that this issue had been formerly addressed in previous threads. [glasses]

There are 3 types of "uploading" that have been discussed.

The First method is to scan, or otherwise duplicate the brain in a non-destructive manner, reconstruct the data inside an artificial substrate and then terminate the person scanned.
This method, while it will ensure successfull duplication, will indeed destroy the transience of the person, and ultimately leave everyone with a "duplicate" instead of a transferred or actively and cognitively uploaded consciousness. This is not disputable on the grounds of biochemistry.

The Second method is to destructively scan, or otherwise duplicate an individuals mind and then once again, "start up" the "uploaded" mind inside the new substrate. While this solves the aftermath issue of method one; where the patient would then be terminated after the process was completed, all that has been accomplished is still merely a duplication, with no re-integration of the former active, transient consciousness.

The Third method is a solution to the above two, which allows for a harmony of both worlds without the issues of duplication and subsequent termination. If the prospective uploadee is connected to a neural interface system of some sort; for example, using the aforementioned nanomachines as neurological hard-wire that connects the biochemical to the electrical, and the data from their biological mind is transferred piece by piece, allowing for the successful re-integration from one former biological location into another, along with bio-feedback from the new substrate. This allows for the persons mind to be essentially "Moved" from one location to another using similar systems equivalent to neurological biochemistry, albiet in a much more digital and synthetic fashion.
After the process is completed, there would remain no further biological neurons alive (we presume that with each part of the mind successfully tranferred and re-integrated, the original neurons would then become redundant, permitting their deliberate destruction by a synthetic nano-process) and the individuals mind would therefore reside completely inside the new substrate, while still linked to and controlling their original host body.
The last step would then be to simply: "Pull the Plug" as it were, and the former host body would then fall into a coma, devoid of any intellect or cognition other than autonomic.

The third option, while complicated and lengthy, is the only successful way to "transfer" a persons mind, which is consequently the only way I would ever want to be "uploaded".

[Richard Leis]

And this is definitely an issue that will be addressed again and again

In Robert Ettinger's upcoming book "Youniverse" he apparently comes out against uploading, which will likely reignite the debate for some time. For uploading advocates, nothing is lost during transfer, because the mind is simple software and data. Those against wonder if something in fact is lost, and suggest that the mind and body are much more delicately intertwined than uploadists think.

Anyway, I think we need more information.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

For uploading advocates, nothing is lost during transfer, because the mind is simple software and data

I would think that even materialists would require more than software and data to reproduce a mind. They would require hardware that preserves certain essential properties of the mind. Software and data could be nothing more than symbols written on a piece of paper. Would a sting of numbers written on quadrillions of pieces of paper constitute a conscious mind?

[ocsrazor]

Most upload advocates do not know what they are talking about - most of them still think a synapse is a bit, which any good neuroscientist will tell you is ridiculous. I would strongly suggest we find a new word other than upload that is not so heavily loaded with the von Neumann hardware/software paradigm. The movement of human intellgence to artificial systems will be a slow process of integration and blending with artificial systems, not scanning and replacement.

The computational processes of the human mind are very different in structure than anything we currently think of as software. The "hardware" and the "software" are so intimately entwined that they dynamically redesign each other. Any system that attempts to fully interface with it will have to be as physically and dynamically complex as the human brain - this will be no small feat given that the human brain is THE most complex known physical object in the universe - not impossible to do, but much harder than most CS people are currently thinking it is.

[transhumanity]

I have been following the concept of "uploading" recently, but I am troubled by one aspect. People are intrigued by uploading due to it's ability to preserve our memory - in essence, immortality. Yet after hearing of the recent breakthrough in Canada in which a snail brain was cultured on a silicon chip that "recorded" the communication between the neurons, I began to think; nothing is destroyed in this process. Technically, one could have multiple copies of their mind produced. However, consciousness as we know it only would only exist in our original biological body. I hear many romanticist notions that the process may resemble something like falling asleep and awaking to find yourself in a machine. But this wouldn't be true. One could interact with a machine that has been "uploaded" with your mind - both entities being completely independent of one another from that point onward. Point being that your conscience exists exclusively in you…kinda takes the fun out of it, eh?

But this is just my humble opinion.

[Kalepha]

Transhumanity, there’s also the notion of having multiple streams of consciousness agglomerated into a meta-mind from which point(s) all your other mind children (your other selves) are clients. Course, this conjecture is probably easier to self-demonstrate if you think about your mind already assimilating many pieces of information at once when, for example, you view a familiar face.

[transhumanity]

I would like to take this poll a step further. Last night, as I attempted to fall asleep, my mind was bombarded by thoughts left and right and I had a horrible time trying to get to sleep – I am sure many of you have the same problem time and again in which your brain just won’t shut up, for lack of better words. Anyways, I began thinking of the potential of “uploading” and what drew my attention to the subject. The concept of prolonging one’s mind is desirable…but why? 2 major points immediately come to mind: 1) to experience the future first hand. 2) To continue learning. What if uploading was not just limited to what was contained in one mind, but could draw from several sources? - A merging of information from multiple minds and other databases to elevate the capacity of knowledge per individual. What are peoples’ thoughts on this?

[ocsrazor]

Transhumanity- Just wanted to let you know the Calgary University snail paper was not a breakthrough, it was just two neurons forming a single synapse, not a brain, and it made claims for advances that happened long ago. The press release that accompanied it was probably one of the worst cases of unethical overhype by a researcher in neuroscience ever seen in our field.

On multi-mind networking, the handwriting is on the wall. I think it is inevitable that we and our technology we will become inextricably linked to each other in an ever denser web. This is also why I think uploading is not necessary, because linking the physical and informational worlds is much more likely for the near term.

[Lazarus Long]

On multi-mind networking, the handwriting is on the wall. I think it is inevitable that we and our technology we will become inextricably linked to each other in an ever denser web. This is also why I think uploading is not necessary, because linking the physical and informational worlds is much more likely for the near term.

Peter I couldn't agree with you more.

But I am pondering the distinction of uploading when we create a communication model that unites human memory in a manner that builds on that complex webmind communication skill to "harbor or shelter" an individual being's consciousness in the shared consciousness of multiple individuals?

I am just throwing this out to ponder, not to propose because it extends the entire meme of "building history" as a means of confronting mortality that we have as a species been employing since we learned to shape matter as etched stone and pigment painted walls. It allows a person to share their full memory, their total being with many individuals and in this manner continue beyond the physical death of the body as a fully shared memory that mimics the model of racial memory.

While this isn't yet possible it becomes a possibility when we can start linking our minds in the manner cybernetics offers. By this model we do not have to invent the software necessary to encompass human consciousness, we only have to provide the means of communicating it from one person to many, and from many to one.

[Lazarus Long]

Consider this lending a whole new dimension to the long standing concept of "being in living memory".

[quadclops]

Enoosphere wrote:

[quote]Uploading appears to me as a path leading us to death, not immortality.

But if we could replicate several copies of ourselves, and communicate and share conciousness with each other through radio telepathy (cerebral cellphones), we could substantially reduce the risks inherent in keeping our minds isolated in one, all to vulnerable, body. An escape from the "having all your eggs in one basket" syndrome.

Personally, I don't think I would have a problem with having several "me's" existing at the same time. I don't think my sense of self would suffer. If anything it would increase! Much like Agent Smith in the Matrix sequels, but hopefully without the deplorable ego problems. [lol]

My other "me's" would be like my brothers. The best of all buddy systems. We would be individuals, yet share a group mind for greater defense against accidental death.

I don't know, maybe I'm just delusional. [tung]

[Omnido]

The "Multiple me" idea is indeed fascinating, but its an idea that this transhumanist will avoid, for reasons of individuality. I have no interest in creating multiple versions of myself; I have enough trouble with one of me, let alone dozens or hundreds.
However, while the idea does indeed have appeal, it would be difficult to envision what I would do with myself. Im sure both of me would be cynical and philosophical, but we would have little need to speak at all. The only advantage I could gain from it is the ability to see myself from the outside, and learn to make appropriate adjustments and desirable alterations to my character, as well as doubling the effective amount of work I could do, as I would now have literally twice my effort and capability available.

The idea is a bit extreme for me though, as I would find it difficult to justify any kind of meaning for myself in the wake of my duplicate, and at this point, I could only see it as useful if my doppleganger served the same purpose(s) as myself, in a combined effort to produce the desired result for the two of us.
If I were to add more, then the many more me's would also have to be in it for the same purpose. Otherwise, whats the point? Im one for sharing information, but I would prefer to maintain the individuality of identity. Merging of minds and experiences is to create a "mesh" of personality, in which all the humans become alike, at least in theory. Id rather not have that for myself.
Id rather learn why someone is the way they are, by experiencing first hand similar circumstances to them, not merely re-experiencing their own experiences, and integrating them as my own.
For the purpose of successful communication, that is one thing. However, a mergence of that type is not my idea of individuality.
Call me one-dimensional, thats fine. I'll learn my own lessons from my own perspective, thank you. While advice is welcome, and even example, Id not want to have someone elses perspective on the matter and call it my own merely after it had been "copied" into my consciousness.

There are indeed many aspects to personality, and many different variables that determine who a person is, and more importantly, why they are whom they are.
I'd rather decipher the fundaments of human communication, than download someone elses experiences.
As for raw skills, then yes. The downloading aspect would be quite useful. But as for personal and interpersonal interactive experience, I think that ones unique perspectives on such events are what make us individuals. If we merely copy eachothers experiences and merge them into one mesh of data, we destroy their individual value.
Thats merely my opinion though, and Im sure there are as many positive arguments that support the idea as there are negative. As of this point, I will stick with my own opinion.

Edited by Omnido, 04 April 2004 - 02:11 AM.

[tessler]

Uploading -method three- (the less than perfect method what you can do right now). 1. write down all your memories, backdate/keep a diary. 2. make a list of your friends/enemies/people and desribe them. 3. enlose as many photos and videos you can put in on DVD. 4. write down everything about yourself (you may use a "nick" for privacy. 5. Complete a number of psychological/personality tests. 6. Put everything on high quality CD/DVD. 7. Place it in a jar/and seal it with tar. 8. Hide it near historical sites like an old church yard where it is unlikely to be discovered within the next five hundred years. 9. Do not be surprised if someone "wakes you up" in five-hundred years time.