[extropy-chat] A third extropic path

[Robert Bradbury]

Please forgive me if we have discussed this before, currently I just don't
happen to recall exploration of this topic in a way I would consider to be
"complete".

One of the reasons I consider myself to be an "extropian" is because I
consider there to be relatively inherent value in the information which
involved in the exploration of the phase space of reality, existence, life,
etc.  The development of the laws of science, the exploration of the
universe we (in theory) live in, the forms of "life" it may support, etc.
all fall within the exploration of the phase space.  IMO, there is less
value in the rediscovery of phase space which has already been explored and
more value in extending the boundaries of the known phase space or
discovering completely unknown phase space.  This can be viewed as an
information science axiom -- "more bits are good".  This can then be
extended when one gets into subjective analysis to -- "better bits are even
*more* good".  But the question, as recent political discussions suggest is
*who* defines "better?"  I have tended to use survival/preservation of the
bits as an overall priority in my life with the value judgements of the
usefullness of bits to be something to be determined in the future in
specific environmental instances [1].

Personal experiences, the history of the ExI list, bioethics, etc. prompt me
to raise the question for discussion -- "Should extropians (and/or ExI)
support a 'third path'"?

I will try to make this brief but it really involves a complex analysis.
Historically one may view longevity, lifespan extension, etc. as wanting to
preserve "currently active" bits.  There is of course the survival instinct
(genetic program) at work in each individual in this.  In fact the
biochemistry involved seems to suggest that if one does not keep it active
one gradually may lose the bits (e.g. use it or lose it).  Cryonics has
traditionally largely been viewed as a transitory state (i.e. one preserves
the bits until one can return them to an active state).

Over the last decade I have run into two specific situations where I
suggested cryonic suspension as a viable alternative to two individuals who
were very capable of affording it.  One of those individuals is now dead,
another might well be within the next few years.  The first rejected it on
the basis of "I would not want my family to go on living not knowing whether
I was alive or dead."  The second rejected it on the basis of "Who would
want to be alive when all of your friends are dead (presuming they had all
previously died and/or were not suspended)."  I will simply point out that
these were *not* objections to whether or not cryonic suspension and
reanimation *would* work but were more along the lines of *would* you want
it to work?

Now, this raises the question of a third option -- "Would you be willing to
bequeth your bits but retain your 'self'?"

I.e. One would preserve the bits within a brain, allow them to be available
for perusal, etc. but never allow/enable the reactivation of the individual
"consciousness".  With cryonics and nanobot enabled selective information
extraction and/or uploading this should be possible.  This would to some
extent satisfy the wishes of the people outlined above in that they would
never know/experience the perceptions of their love ones and never again
experience the pain of the loss of friends but at the same time preserve
their knowledge (bits) which at this time cannot effectively be "outloaded".

This has interesting bearing on capital punishment perspectives -- i.e. one
preserves the knowledge of an individual but never allows them to "run" off
of it again (i.e. one is "suspended" permanently).

Now, where this tends to get interesting from my perspective involves the
question of the extent to which one can "backtrack".  If I have the DNA of
RJB, and I have the frozen brain contents of RJB, and I have written, audio,
video and individual subjective impressions of RJB *and* I have a lot of CPU
cycles and bit storage at my disposal -- how difficult is it *really*(?) to
resurrect RjB?  Even if one does not "run" the best approximation a cryonic
reanimation can produce it would seem that one could backtrack from the
public information to "me".  (This thought line is in part due to the fact
that they are currently putting Cave Bears, Wooly Mammoths and Neanderthals
back together -- and we are very far from the limits physics and simulations
would seem to allow.)  If one knocks out one or more components of the above
list one simply gets a less accurate resurrection.  But you can consider
this to be kind of an extended Turing Test -- how many components and to
what extent would they have to be removed before one knows it is *not* RjB.

So it begs some questions... Should we bring Sasha back?  And if so, to what
extent?

I know aspects of this must have been discussed in various SciFi contexts
(it comes up to some degree in The Sixth Day) -- what I am interested in is
distilled conclusions regarding the risks/benefits of the preservation of
the information (bits) with the removal of the framework acting out of those
bits.

Robert

1. This is a consequence of the fact that we are not even close to max'ing
out the information storage capacity of our planet, solar system, galaxy,
etc.  It is not until we reach the storage capacity limits that we will need
to begin making tradeoffs.  Think of this iPod terms.  How many years before
all of the music ever composed will fit on your personal iPod?  How many
years before one has the thought (CPU) capacity (time) to listen to and
decide what subset of that information is valuable (and should be retained)
is possible?  And then given that the creation of music presumably takes
longer (more CPU) than evaluating it seems we will be in this situation of
"total information" > "valued information" > "new information" for some
time.  This leads to -- "store it" -> "evaluate it" -> "use it to drive the
creation process".  (Of course this has to be modified as one becomes more
selective with respect to distinguishing "noise" from "information".)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051218/0f3881eb/attachment.html>