<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/12/2025 20:46, Keith Henson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPiwVB45KJRC3A5B1G7tau7tb1NnFKF7ERUBwCk8nqdg4YGR=w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">"repeated attempts made to create a functioning upload from it, until
it works properly."
Deleting a partially functioning upload would be equivalent to murder.
I wrote about this decades ago in response to Hans Moravec's assertion
that he could be revived from his writings. How many millions would
you have to create to get one "good enough"?
In the story, a download was done on a body held in status by cold and
nanomachines, and memory was updated from the experience of the
uploaded mind. I gave a lot of thought to the problems in the context
of what we thought about nanotechnology 20 years ago. But read "The
Clinic Seed" and let me know if I missed anything.
Keith
Keith
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
"<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">Deleting a partially functioning upload would be equivalent to murder."
OK, maybe (and maybe not), but I think there are other approaches, if this is seen as unacceptable.
I don't think that 'repeated attempts' necessarily implies deleting anything. Think, for example, along the lines of sketching out a model, testing it, and altering parts of it until they work as expected, then extending it, etc. Creating a model then deleting it if it doesn't work as expected is only one way of doing things, and if that seems morally wrong, or not desirable for other reasons, then other ways of doing things can be devised.
This might be equivalent to guiding a developing child along certain lines, until they develop into an adult where the characteristics of the adult are already known. Or think of it as training, education, conditioning, programming, whatever makes you comfortable with the process. And don't forget that certain individuals might be quite happy with the 'test-then-delete-if-not-satisfactory, until success' process. After all, it's their mind.
Another approach would be to only create partial minds, or mental modules, one at a time, test them, then shelve them until enough have been created to stitch them together into a conscious mind.
I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas too.
"</span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">How many millions would </span><span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">you have to create to get one "good enough"?</span>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">"
I'd guess billions, rather than millions. But even so, that may not be infeasible. So imagine you get billions of variations of one mind, that can be tested against recorded historical facts, or stored scanned data. The variants could then go through a process of filtering, or competition, or merging, gradually refining them down to maybe a single most-feasible version. Nobody has to be 'murdered' in this process, it could be thought of as more like becoming more and more coherent.
Again there will be other possible approaches, this is just something off the top of my head.
Finally, I have a feeling that we tend to hand off too many things to a hand-wavey possible future technology that we put great store in. but seem to have great difficulty making real progress in: Nanotechnology. It might be useful to think of alternatives that might achieve some of the same ends. Will nanotech. really be essential for achieving uploading? I'm not so certain. I certainly think this is something worth considering. Don't misunderstand me, I'm as big a fan of the wonderful possibilites that nanotech. could make possible as anybody, I just think we shouldn't be blinded by this promise, and stop considering other possibilities, or put all our eggs in one basket.</span>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">-- </pre>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Ben</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>