[ExI] Essential Upload Data

Sun May 24 13:05:40 UTC 2020

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 11:25, Re Rose via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Ben, I have explained, repeatedly, and in as much detail as I possibly am
> able to considering the limitations of explanations on a list, exactly why
> I believe a copy of you is not and can not be you.
>
> I also have described why I believe making a copy is not possible, and
> that a "good enough" copy is not "good enough" if your consciousness cannot
> access it.
>
> I've invoked other authors and suggested readings. I also suggested
> general areas I think are helpful to read up in for background, and for
> fun, because the ideas leading up to making and utilizing copies of
> individuals' neural coding patterns and corrrelated neural pathways is flat
> out fascinating.
>
> Magical thinking is NOT involved in my descriptions. I think it is magical
> thinking to imagine that your consciousness will leap over into another,
> separate agent that has a copy of your neural data. No one yet has said
> *how* that will happen, even though I have asked that question a
> grillion, maybe even a brillion times to this list. That's a lot of times.
>

Yet you accept that youR consciousness is transferred from an earlier to a
later version of you, made of different matter configured in only
approximately the same way.

I've also said that while I agree that information is the most
> important thing to preserve, the information in a conscious being is not
> solely stored in the brain but throughout the corpus of the body, and not
> in mere atomic positions but within non-linear systems that have multiple
> possible equilibria but are in a specific equilibria. These become
> de-entrained (exactly as they do during aging process, but farther away
> from equilibria) and without initial boundary conditions it will not be
> possible for them to become re-entrained in the same equilibria. That
> essential  information is not copiable, and cannot be retrieved.
>
> Reading the whole of what I wrote, I can do as I write it. I take time and
> I try to be thoughtful so as to communicate my ideas as clearly as I can in
> this forum. However, making sure you read what I wrote - that, I cannot do.
>
> May I say, throwing up ad-hominem objections, such as positing I have not
> explained my reasons when I have or saying I indulge in magical thinking
> when I do not, is not a studied and thoughtful parry. It is more of a
> drive-by opinioning.
>
> And, ps, I think this is a *very *important consideration for the
> cryonics community. If we throw our trust and research efforts behind
> uploading and copies and do not consider that the reanimated agents are not
> reanimiations of US, which is the goal, but in fact are independant agents
> - well, if we do that, we've thrown away our chance to actually be there in
> the future. It is a dire mistake to make.
>
> That is why I have put so much energy into my posts. But I am starting to
> feel like I have said everything several times now. No one has to agree but
> just consider how in the world you will come to occupy the consciouness of
> another agent who happens to have an upload of your information and maybe
> you will come to see things as I do.
>
> I would like all of us to get to see the future, and not to
> accidently leave it to our "copy-heirs" because we didn't take the time to
> think this through and decided that another being with our memories was
> "us", when it's clearly not.
>
> --Regina
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 22:52:56 +0100
> From: Ben <ben at zaiboc.net>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Essential Upload Data
> Message-ID: <1d99a893-8a52-5257-707e-f69d237e1181 at zaiboc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 22/05/2020 13:34,? Re Rose wrote:
> > I have said the following about a grillion times - a copy thinking it
> > is me doesn't make it me
>
> Well, you've certainly said it a number of times, but the odd thing is
> that you've never really explained why this should be true. I, and
> several others, think that a good-enough 'copy' (I'm becoming less keen
> on that word, because it leads to confused thinking, imo) has to be
> 'you'. The only alternative is if magical thinking is right, and
> supernatural phenomena? are actually real, instead of imaginary. Which I
> severely doubt.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I think that information is the only
> important thing, with respect to individual identity. Not atoms, not any
> mystical unspecified essence, just information. This means, inescapably,
> that if the information that constitutes the mind that is 'me', is
> duplicated or translated into another embodiment, then the mind that is
> me is duplicated or translated. This means that the totally unfamiliar
> and bizarre phenomenon of there being two or more 'you's is actually
> possible, even though it has never occurred before.
>
> The only thing to be determined is, what level of detail is good enough,
> and that's doubtless something that we'll find out in time.
>
> --
> Ben Zaiboc
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200524/a0ce1895/attachment.htm>