[extropy-chat] Bainbridg today in Transvision06 on personalitycapture vs info-resurrection

[Keith Henson]

At 01:56 AM 8/20/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>This is an idea that I've already spent a lot of time thinking about.

I venture to guess not as much as I have.  :-)

>It's not just useful in terms of extending the lifespan of your 'empirical
>knowledge's essence', but it's practically useful too.
>
>Humans = mass + lots (and I mean lots) of additional mass to support them in
>space
>
>Space exploration needs high velocities to explore in short lifespans (and
>even if we manage to massively expand our own lifespans, we still won't want
>to spend 1,000,000 getting somewhere because everything will have decayed by
>the time we get back from the visit)
>
>High velocities + high mass = insane amounts of energy 'wasted' during
>transit + immense complexity of craft design

None of these are a problem.  The output of the sun is enough to launch 
1500 tons per second to near light speed.

>It would be far, far easier to explore the universe by sending probes out
>with sensory networks on them that could be connected to our own nervous
>system and used as temporary bodies.

I.e., uploaded.

>Probes that didn't need food / water /
>heat / entertainment / room / positive pressure / etc during transit. That
>would also involve a large amount of communication lag (years using light
>and for just the closest stars) - you'd need to come up with some very funky
>method of experiencing consciousness & massive lifespan expansion to do it
>that way (if the human was still back on Earth in their normal body).

You can't have more than subjective milliseconds between you and the probe 
if you want to use it as an extension of your body.  You *could* slow down 
your perception of time enough to get a real time experience with a probe 
light years away, but in my opinion that's a lot worse than just going there.

>There
>are also problems with even establishing communications over that range
>given signal divergence / distortion / absorption etc. Yes, technology gets
>better all the time, but some things are pushing the boundaries of what can
>actually be done according to physics, like keeping a laser beam converged,
>phased and out of the path of other objects over a few million years of
>travel is more than difficult. It's also an arguably inefficient use of
>time.

Not really.  Laser up to the task of pushing ships between stars have no 
problem sending information back to the ones who stay at home.

>The ultimate would be to condense your consciousness into a form that didn't
>require a high mass to store it and support it.
>
>I believe Arthur C Clarke mentions this idea either in 2001 or 3001, that
>humans eventually explore the universe as crystals of light - crystalised
>consciousness.
>
>Given the developments in storage and holography, this is far from sci-fi!
>
>Condensed matter states (bose einstien condensates etc) mean that we're
>approaching the potential of atomic level storage - slowing light to the
>point that it actually stops in the (none linear) optics. These technologies
>will develop themselves as part of the drive for better 'normal' computer
>storage here on Earth - there's no need for transhumanism to get too
>involved in that to get it moving, the big semi companies will do it
>themselves. Provided a full scale neural interface can be developed (which
>does need transhumanist help), the condensation capacity using this kind of
>medium for our own consciousness would be gigantic. Our entire physical
>presence could probably be reduced down to a few kilograms with it's support
>equipment. The actual 'crystal' of data would be pathetically tiny. Provided
>my back of the hand calculations are roughly right, there's potential for
>condensing an entire brain down to ~0.0000015mg of mass - including all the
>white matter in the core that doesn't do anywhere near as much as the cortex
>& the support tissues, like the blood supply (which won't be included in
>reality).

Extensively discussed by Charles Stross here:  http://www.accelerando.org/book/

>I suspect that by the time we reach that stage, we won't bother sending lots
>of individual crystallised consciousnesses out to a distant planet.

You kind of miss the point.  Exploring is the fun part for some people.

snip

>Another point I've thought about is... it's a very human idea to think that
>we're instantly going to want to run off and explore the rest of the
>universe.

The percentage of the population who would do this is extremely small.  I 
doubt you could find 10,000 in the whole human population.  I have actually 
surveyed groups asking this question.

>We will have just dived into a world where we can manipulate
>everything about it

And that may be the reason we don't see ETs.  Evolution has not equipped us 
to resist this sort of "super dope."

Keith Henson

PS.  Google for "far edge party."