[ExI] destructive uploading was AI class (Eugen Leitl)

[Keith Henson]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:25 PM,  Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:16:57AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > ?If the uploading process is destructive and one-way,
>>
>> Can you think of any reason uploading would need to be destructive and one-way?
>
> Anyone reading this will only be uploaded as a nice chunk of
> vitrified tissue

That seems awfully dogmatic to me.  People who are 20 and reading this
list could well be here in 2100, they would only have to make it to
89.

What makes you so certain that nanotechnology will not come into
existence by the end of the century?  (Convince me, I would like to be
convinced.)

> which will be presectioned and destructively
> scanned in a massively parallel fashion, abstracting nonrelevant
> data along the way. It is destructive, but not necessarily
> one-way, though it is effectively one-way as nobody will bother
> fabricating slow and expensive meat puppets.

>> I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a
>> pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept and a serious marketing
>> burden for transhumanism.
>
> Doesn't affect cryonics, as this side of suspension process is
> resurrection-agnostic.

I was not talking about cryonics.

>> I have reasons to think it would be a lot harder than infiltrating the
>> brain with nanotech monitoring posts and learning how to emulate it.
>
> It would be a lot harder since there isn't any medical nantechnology,
> nor will there be any for anyone reading this message right now.

If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we
should quit talking about destructive uploading.  It is a really
distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when
there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible
uploading as slick as boiling a frog.

Keith Henson