[MURG] Cortex activity

[Joseph J. Strout]

At 3:22 PM -0400 9/18/03, Thomas Weber wrote:

>Agreeing on that we can copy the music without having
>to worry about affecting the molecular structure of
>the disc. We end up with two discs and to have one
>only we would have to "kill" the first one. Same issue
>will arise in the accepted here vision of MU.
>We either end up with two identical minds, or the
>original will have to be ?killed?.

Yep, one instance of the person will be destroyed but the person will 
survive just fine.  This seems strange to most of us today, because 
today (and in all of human history) there is only one instance of 
each person.  But philosophically, there is no problem with it, and 
pragmatically, people will get used to it pretty quickly.  It's not a 
problem.

>Thomas: As far as I have learned the cortex is made of
>six layers. This suggests to me that the vision input
>is displayed on the top one and what we recall -
>imagine is displayed on the deeper layers - hence the
>weaker activity.

No, that's not how it works.  If I were to hazard a hypothesis, it'd 
be this: the activity is weaker when you imagine as compared to when 
you actually see, because the inputs are coming from other parts of 
the brain rather than (ultimately) from the eyes.  These inputs are 
both less coherent and less strong than those coming up from the 
thalamus.  The thalamocortical inputs overwhelm the internal inputs, 
so to speak.  The exception is when you're dreaming; in this state 
the thalamus doesn't relay information from the senses, but instead 
reflects signals coming down from the cortex right back up.  In that 
case, the internally-generated activity is very similar to 
externally-driven activity in the awake state.

>  > computer now.  But this doesn't have much to do with
>>  uplooading.
>Thomas:
>Yes it does. Your expressed opinions and your
>knowledge is definitely a part of your mind. As you
>have typed them here you have uploaded a tiny bit of
>your mind. OK I agree not enough to brag about, but
>nevertheless.....

One could make a simulacrum based on information inferred about a 
person externally.  But I don't believe that such information could 
ever even begin to scratch the surface of what defines a person. 
Therefore, the simulacrum would not have the same identity as the 
original, and that person would not survive via the simulacrum's 
existence.

>  > Thomas: Coming back to our disc. The contained music
>can re-recorded from the dics to eg. a tape.
>I that case we don't need to bother about the
>ultrastructure of the disc as long as the quality of
>the music is there.

That works only because it's in the nature of a CD player to read out 
the complete contents of the storage media (the disc).  That's 
exactly what it is built to do -- so by playing your CD for an hour, 
you've captured everything relevant there is to know about the 
contents of the disc.

Brains aren't like that; they have no read-out function.  No amount 
of watching what the brain does will give you a significant portion 
of what the brain contains.  It's because of the lack of a read-out 
function that it's necessary to go in and capture the ultrastructure 
of the brain.  This is the only way that information can be obtained.

>I disagree that "nothing else will do". I see your
>vision as one way to go and respect it. As far as the
>research is concerned I think it would be wise if we
>try to organize camps to explore different concepts.
>Mind uploading is a very pioneer undertaking into a
>very virgin teritory. I think it is just to early to
>be certain about what will work and what will not.

It's too early to be certain about the details, but not about the 
general approach.

To reach back a few years for an analogy: the topic of this group is, 
how we can build an airplane.  We know it'll need wings and some 
means of propulsion, but we need to hammer out the details and 
develop a theory of aerodynamics and so on.  But you're coming along 
and saying, that's a fine idea, but I want to build my airplane by 
giving it a watertight hull and some sails and having it move along 
the surface of the ocean instead of through the air.

And I'm saying, if that's what you prefer then go for it, but it's 
not an airplane.

-- 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web Directory:     |
|    joe at strout.net           http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'