[ExI] destructive uploading was AI class

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 00:30:58 UTC 2011 

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 04:47:30PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Gene et al,
>>
>> It's my impression that the whole "destructive scan" meme is an
>> artifact of the microtome-sliced sample-preparation method of electron
>> microscopy.  I can't imagine that this anti-diluvian
>
> Not just electron microscopy, there's no way to nondestructively
> image a ~l sized chunk of glass. Fundamental physical limits
> do not care about the technology vogue.

Assuming that the "~l sized chunk of glass" above means "approximately
liter sized chunk of glass", and refers to an "approximately liter
sized chunk of vitrified (the "glass" in question) flesh (in
particular, brain flesh), I respond with either, "Huh?  So what?" or
"C'mon, acknowledge the given parameters."  This assertion fails the
test of relevance on two points:  First, the fact that "there's no
way", really is just a case of there's no way ***NOW***, which in
discussions of future tech -- even near future tech -- is ALWAYS the
case, ...and trivial.  Second, what's with the "liter sized" business?
 Too big to scan as a single unit?  Won't be scanned as a single unit,
and doesn't need to be.  The flesh in question is comprehensively
interpenetrated by a capillary system which reduces the bulk size of
any scanning target to cubic micro- or nanometers, with scanning bots
surrounding the subject scanning volume from all angles.  In this
situation, with multi-spectral transmission microscopy there should be
no limit (sub-atomic if you want to get fussy) to the  resolution or
data completeness/redundancy.

And regarding the gratuitous "fundamental physical limits", true
enough, but then how often have we heard that what was yesterday
considered impossible because of such "limits" is today found to be
"doable" through some unanticipated "new" physics or artful
workaround?

<snip>

>> Please explain why it would be infeasible to clear the lumen of the
>> circulatory system of the vitrified patient, replace it with LN2, and
>
> Clear = removing material. So it is fundamentally destructive,

If you were a hack lawyer, I might say "good work".  By the standards
of good-faith discussion, however, it stinks.  There's nothing the
least bit destructive about clearing the circulatory lumen of
solidified cryoprotectant.

> though one might quibble
> it doesn't remove relevant structural information.

The crux of the matter is hardly a "quibble".  What's with you, Gene?
You're waaaaay better than this.  Just admit that you were wrong and
that intra-luminal, trans-luminal non-destructive scan, with the
subject remaining at vitrification temp, is a straightforward, trivial
solution to the scanning requirement.

<snip>

> You're in the lumen of a cleared vessel, with some 100 um vitrified
> tissue between you and the other one. Which methods will you be
> using to nondestructively scan these 100 um deep volume with
> required 1 nm or better resolution, without degrading intermediate layers?

Choose your method.  Extracellular (the bots remain in the circulatory
lumen) Acoustic, Electromagnetic, or any other interactive
transmission below destructive energy levels;  or perhaps the bots
exit the lumen, clear more intracellular cryoprotectant to provide
intracellular pathways, and scans with contact microscopy (STM).

Even without contact microscopy I don't see resolution as a problem.
Recent advances have shown that wavelength-limited resolution is not
operative at close range.

> How long are you going to take?

Can't really say.  The scanning process will be limited by the rate at
which the evolved heat can be dissipated.  The heat generated by the
scanning process must be dissipated so as to prevent premature
rewarming, but it seems to me that the liquid nitrogen environment and
the circulatory system provide an effective waste heat transport
system.

> And why are you doing such ineffective

Sez you.

> contortions if all you
> have to do is slice up the volume into sufficiently small
> sections, and use known methods like interative ablation of
> surface imaging, which allows you to speedly image at up to
> atomic resolution *without* degrading underlying layers?

Clearly, I am dealing with this in a cryonics patient context.  (If
one were dealing with a living patient, who wanted to be uploaded but
didn't want the biological self to be killed in the process, then the
nanobots would be injected, conduct their information-gathering -- ie
scan -- in the background, and then exit the subject silently,
seamlessly.)  As a cryonics patient living in a pre-upload society,
where uploading is not yet a fact, but the concept is established,
with implementation considered possible, even likely, I have to
anticipate the upload option and provide instructions to those caring
for me in stasis, as to under what circumstances I might wish to be
uploaded.  Currently, those instructions are: "Upload me when
feasible, but the biological self must not be damaged(ie no
destructive scan).

> You could do dental work via anal access in principle, but
> you'll probably agree it is more difficult that way.

If one doesn't have one's head up one's ass.  ;-}
>
>> from the inside, "infiltrating the brain" as Keith describes.
>
> Because latter assumes a living system,
> instrumented with a
> rather large volume of nanoagents, which will cause volume
> inflation and need to be done slowly so the biology can deal
> with it.

By latter, do you mean Keith, or "Infiltrating the brain".  In any
case, you have some assumptions here -- "large volume" and "slowly" --
which may or may not be too large or too slow.  In any event, without
more detail, I can neither agree nor disagree.  That said, I'm working
the cryopatient upload/revivification issue.

>
> Once you're vitrified, you do not want to go above devitrification
> temperature, as it would introduce the damage you worked so hard
> to avoid,

Trivial.  Adjust the stasis temp to accommodate waste heat removal
rate.  Melting point of LN2 is 63.15 deg K.  That gives you 14 degrees
K to work with.



> and you're dealing with a brittle glass object.


> You can
> of course introduce a fractal heat exchange infrastructure and
> flash-devitrify it, but then you've made your job much harder,
> as you will have to remove cryoprotectants *and* keep the
> tissue from unraveling as it no longer has homeostasis working
> for you. In other words, as soon as you no longer process the
> tissue at cryogenic temperatures you a) introduce irreversible
> information destruction *without any need* b) make time critically
> relevant, again *without any need*.

This comment suggests that, perhaps due to some disconnect, we're not
working the same problem.  All my proposed scanning would be done with
the patient fully and continuously vitrified.

>
> This is obviously stupid, and this will not be done as long
> as there are other, much easier ways. See the anal dental.
>
>> Then Gene, you make the comment below:
>>
>> " ...there isn't any medical nantechnology, nor will there be any for
>> anyone reading this message right now."
>>
>> We don't have the nanotech at the moment.  Well duh, but more to the
>
> This means your only option is vitrification, or maybe fixation and
> embedding.

As in cryo-suspended.

>
>> point, so what?  Scanning-for-upload will be the "back end" of the
>> freeze-wait-reanimate process, so the fact that we don't have the
>> reanimation tech -- scanning included -- right now is both well
>> established(in our circles) and trivially irrelevant.  Anyone "reading
>
> If it was trivially irrelevant I wouldn't have to write these
> missives every year, or so. Not that these do any good.

Or, if you accepted that it is in fact trivially irrelevant, then you
could discard these missives and get on with pursuits more
constructive than serial nay-saying.  But I still think you're a
stalwart fellow.

>> this message right now", if vitrified (cryonically preserved) will
>> be,...well... preserved.  They will remain essentially unchanged,
>> essentially indefinitely, and consequently, will be there waiting when
>> the tech arrives.
>
> Anyone who hears uploading implies she will be suspended while alive
> by magical nano, using incremental in vivo scanning/substitution.

Suspended by magical nano?  What does that mean?  Why not suspension
by conventional vitrification.    And how -- or perhaps "why" --
should "in vivo scanning/substitution" be a part of the suspension
process?  "Un-suspended" with nano -- magical(Clarkian) or otherwise
-- I could understand, but suspension?

>
> This ain't going to happen. Unless you've bought into the Singularity
> cult, world without end, amen. At which point you've become a part
> of the problem.

Notions of a "singularity" -- and uploading -- are thoroughly
entertaining and entirely speculative.  I wait with pleasant
anticipation for the next "episode".

>> But I don't have to explain this to you, Gene.  You're fully versed in
>> this business -- theory and practice -- having worked with 21st
>> Century Medicine maybe a decade ago helping to develop ice-blockers
>> for the vitrification process.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> So I'm befuddled.  (Scratches head in befuddlement.)  Why are you,
>> overqualified as you are in this business, making negative,
>> misleading, and coyly irrelevant comments?  Still pissy about the
>
> If you have technical arguments why you think above does not apply,
> I'll be very happy to hear them.
>
>> knuckle-dragging atavism and luddite obstructionism of your fellow
>> humans?  Can't help you there.  Well,...actually...
>
> Don't hint at it, spill the beans!

Offlist and privately, only.   I've hinted at this several times on
the list, to see if anyone would notice. No one has shown any
interest.  I know how to make the future you so fiercely crave, emerge
at a rapidly accelerated pace, and I'm willing to tell you about it,
with a strict promise of confidentiality.  It's been my experience
however, that people generally dismiss ideas that aren't their own.
And of course, I'm a crackpot.

 Best, Jeff Davis

 "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                          Ray Charles


>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, 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
>>
>>
>> > 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 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.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > extropy-chat mailing list
>> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list