[ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:20:28PM -0400, Heartland wrote:

> > It's hardly a moment, though. "Conscious experience", whatever that means.
> > implies a trajectory segment long enough for higher-order processes to
> > happen, which puts it into some 100 ms country.
> 
> What Eugen points out is, of course, exactly what I've been trying to point out
> to you (Stathis) and others several times before by saying that any process  (and
> minds are undoubtedly processes, not patterns) is undefined across time intervals =

A process is a spatiotemporal pattern. Exhaustively described by the sum
of 3d coordinate changes of atoms across the fourth axis, time. (Classically).
Of course the mental processes occur many storeys upstairs, involving structures
in nm-um range and temporal processes in ms range. 

> 0. This means that there's no such thing as a "snapshot of process." Using your

Of course there is. Both in numerical simulations are snapshots essential
(because hardware dies, and then you roll back to the last snapshot) and
in physiology. Neural processes routinely reassemble themselves after a
disruption (grand mal, concussion, anaesthesia, hypothermia, etc.).

Cryonic suspension of a given personal process is a snapshot.

> terminology, there's no such thing as observer *moment.* If anything, there can
> only be observer *intervals.*

Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length
of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious
processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum
of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time.
 
> First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death occurs,

Death has no meaning at all, especially if you haven't agreed where to
draw that arbitrary, rapidly receding line in the sand. Critical care medicine
routinely keeps pushing the limits back, and by golly, we have some good chances
to see that boundary pushed back indefinitely at least for organ transplant
purposes. And the brain is just an organ.

> not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this point too.) 
> Definition of death should
> follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process (its 
> activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity is death 
> even though I realize this is not immediately obvious.

Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. It's a classic.
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE