[ExI] destructive uploading was AI class
eugen at leitl.org
Wed Aug 31 08:57:31 UTC 2011
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.
> sample-preparation and scanning method would continue into the future
> as the dominant scanning paradigm. Certainly not for **my** brain,
I hope you're not equally squeamish when it comes to methods of
modern medicine. Because the only other options are kinda dire.
> 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, though
one might quibble it doesn't remove relevant structural information.
> dispatch nanobots in this fluid to conduct the scan, non-destructively
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?
How long are you going to take?
And why are you doing such ineffective 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?
You could do dental work via anal access in principle, but
you'll probably agree it is more difficult that way.
> 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
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, 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 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
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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!
> 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
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
More information about the extropy-chat