[MURG] Re: various replies
James Swayze
swayzej at comcast.net
Wed Oct 20 15:46:12 EST 2004
>
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Thomas Weber <aad1trailmaker at yahoo.ca>
>Subject: Re: [MURG] mind uploading x prize?
>To: murg at minduploading.org
>Reply-To: murg at minduploading.org
>
>
>
<snippage>
>Thomas Weber:
>I am going to volunteer my life.
>I am 43 and have been around MURG since 2000.
>In the past few years I have had a health problem
>which is getting worse despite a surgery that I had
>last spring. Considering the rate of deterioration I
>suspect I may have one to two years left. Just long
>enough to arrange and conduct some experiments.
>I am writing this not to ask for anyone's compassion,
>
Well you have mine regardless. Write me.
<snippage>
>In my past postings I had expressed an idea of
>selective mind uploading which essentially means that
>I believe in letting go of the most of our minds, but
>protecting and uploading those parts which we consider
>worth continuation. For instance if we were uploading
>Mozart it would be his music that we would be after.
>Tonigt I take off for a long hectic road trip and will
>not have access to the internet till Sunday. I will do
>some serious thinking on the way and when back I will
>respond to any questions which may arise.
>Kind Regards,
>Thomas Weber
>
>
Respectfully Thomas I disagree with any attempts to leave behind any
large portions of whatever constitutes an individual's mind. You don't
get Mozart's music with only his musical knowledge or even talent. You
instead get a music textbook. To get him with his ability to make *his*
music you need all his personality, the highs and the lows, and I think
you know what I mean.
However, desirous one is to leave behind certain widely varying aspects
of their personality for the experiment to be judged a success it will
require that the individual be as closely the same as the original as
possible. The individual may do self actualizing subroutine rewrites as
they see fit after their identity is established to have survived the
process. Otherwise all we have *IS* only a *SIMULATION* and not an
*EMULATION* or rather *DUPLICATION*.
Any old sim could be achieved by modeling behavior and not necessarily
reproducing a true copy of every nuance and fine neural pattern.
On a personal note, how are you holding up? It's been a while since we
talked. I am saddened that you are having such difficulties. Is there
nothing that can be done? I didn't think the surgery and cause for it
was of the type to be so life threatening though possible quality of
life lessening. Quality of life is more subjective and more dependent
upon one's attitude and mental state.
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:04 +0100
>From: Sim Bamford <sim at plaything.co.uk>
>To: murg at minduploading.org
>Subject: [MURG] Re: X-Prize
>Reply-To: murg at minduploading.org
>
>
>
<snippage>
>Brief Description of Suggested Challenge (No more than 600 words
>please)
>
>A volunteer is to be scanned or otherwise recorded from. The data
>gained is to be used to create an accurate computer simulation of
>the individual, which can run in real time.
>
>
>Suggested Potential Rules
>
>1) The scanning or recording technique must be safe, and must not
>affect the individual at a behavioural or cognitive level. This
>is to be demonstrated in animal trials.
>
Safe? Are talking soft upload here or a non destructive scan? IOW, I
think again the language is imprecise for describing the process. A
destructive slice and scan would be anything but safe for the uploader
and who knows until dome for the uploadee.
>2) A panel of judges will get to know the individual prior to
>scanning. They will then be able to cross examine the individual
>and the simulation by video link. They will not be able to guess
>which is the simulation.
>
Simeon, pardon my continued impertinence but with all deference and
respect to your preference for the simulation over other
characterizations of what we call an upload I think it is best to use
language that is more widely agreed upon. Perhaps I am wrong and haven't
a clue but I just have the feeling that *emulation* is more widely
understood in the various fields to represent an actual duplicative
upload of a human mind/brain than the word *simulation* denotes or
better yet implies.
>3) The environment in which the simulated individual is placed
>may be modelled by any means. However it must be demonstrated
>that it is data from the scanning or recording procedure alone
>which is used to create the simulation of the individual.
>
Why model any environment? Simulate or devise direct input sensory
information and let *the* environment be the world the upload
experiences. The same one we all do but in this case for the upload as
close to robotic body sensing as we can for what we expect to be
possible one day for remote sensing by robotic bodied uploads.
>4) In all experimental procedures of candidate organisations, the
>simulated individual to be treated ethically and afforded, to the
>greatest degree possible, human rights. All candidate
>organisations to place themselves under the authority of a group
>consisting of all candidate organisations regarding ethical
>procedures, in addition to any authorities which may also be
>deemed applicable.
>
>
Ahem, human rights, are we sure about this? I mean I agree but are we
exploring the complete implication of this? Here is what I wrote about
this subject to another forum but relates back to this one for a few
days ago discussion.
**
Re: Distributive backups
Suppose in some weird 'other universe', people have developed the
practice of making clones of themselves then using some esoteric science
rewiring their neuronal patterns to match that of the original cell
donor and these for them are their backups. They then put them in
suspension and leave many hundreds scattered all over the galaxy for
insurance against their untimely demise. The clones are grown ahead of
time so the time needed to grow them is not critical upon need. Forgive
for sake of argument for the moment the notion that overwriting whatever
pattern that existed would be tantamount to murder. [The Raelian
scenario would be murder]
Question 1. Do these clones, to you, have human rights?
Question 2. If they do is it not a form of slavery to subject them to
such use in the first place?
Question 3. If it is a form of slavery is it not even more unfair to not
allow them, let's call it, *runtime* rather than being forced into some
limbo-esque nether existence?
I think you can get where I'm coming from by my use of "runtime".
Back in our universe do proposed mind backups have rights?
If they do then don't they deserve to be conscious?
Of course that defeats the purpose because I think you'll agree they
would immediately diverge and become different people.
Now let's suppose that they don't have full human rights and we treat
them as intellectual property.
A few questions further come to mind.
Do patent rights then apply with all the baggage allegedly heaped upon
them in some circles?
If they have no rights then couldn't one duplicate ones own mind then
license that software to work for you thereby doubling, trebling,
quadrupling, etc., etc., one's intellectual productive ability?
Now consider if this is possible, what happens if your patent runs out
and big business can duplicate your mind workers (other duplicates) ad
infinitum and put you and a lot of others out of work?
This subject came up on MURG and I got accused of having luddite notions
when I suggested caution needed to be taken not to allow the job loss
worker replacement scenario to run amok. The individual objecting
insisted that duplicating such minds and working them would be against
their human rights.
My accuser, kudos Ed, apparently hadn't yet seen the obvious irony of
creating them in the first place for the express purpose of being one's
property to only lay around unconscious waiting for one's need to
arrive, might be a form of slavery or abuse or violation of their human
rights, supposing laws are created to afford them human rights. I think
when we put flesh on them it changes the dynamic.
Just something to consider. Oh and I'm reminded of older discussions
along these lines surrounding the sysop mind scenario. It was considered
that the sysopAI probably would not allow harm to its charges and this
was considered to include sims as well if they were complete enough to
emote pain and anguish. So would such an entity allow backups to be
created but not afforded runtime? I have to wonder.
>Suggested Prize Amount
>
>Let this be determined by a market mechanism, see below.
>
>
>Suggested Funding Mechanism (ideas for the best way and/or the
>sources to raise the
>money to pay off the winner of the challenge competition)
>
How about many winners. Make it progressive. Give only chunks of the
total for ever more progressive steps toward a finalized goal. This is
sort of how the Mprize works.
<snippage>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Randal A. Koene" <rak at minduploading.org>
>To: murg at minduploading.org
>Subject: Re: [MURG] mind uploading x prize?
>Reply-To: murg at minduploading.org
>
>Hi Thomas,
>
>Your offer is generous, that is sure, and your presence of mind in your
>circumstances is admirable. My question is to all of MURG rather than
>just to you: What, at this point, can we do with such an offer? I am
>tempted to say: Make sure you arrange cryonics and then offer your tissues
>for early uploading attempts.
>
A very prescient thought. We have no capability at this time nor are
likely to in even 5 or maybe 10 years. Cryonics or chemical
preservation, assuming the latter is fine resolution enough, would need
to be employed or anyone considering volunteering now for this. However,
as far as legality goes I think we have precedence. What is that slice
and scan guy's project called, Halo Man? He was a prisoner on death row
and donated his body for slicing in a frozen state and then scanning for
medical school study in computer generated 3D.
> Message: 5 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:50:28 +0800 To:
> murg at minduploading.org Subject: Re: [MURG] Re: X-Prize From: Major
> <murg at audry2.com> Reply-To: murg at minduploading.org
>
<snippage>
>>
>>> I prefer human brain simulation still.
>>
>>
>
>Me too. Individual Simulation could easily describe an AI. The
>description does make it clear, but I thing "human brain simulation"
>is less likely to mislead.
>
>Major
>
<snippage>
>Me too. Individual Simulation could easily describe an AI. The
>description does make it clear, but I thing "human brain simulation"
>is less likely to mislead.
>
>
Well as does any use of the word *simulation* IMHO.
>Major
>
>
<snippage>
Just my 2-1/2 centavos.
James
--
Membership in order of joining - all comments on any subject are solely my opinion only and not reflective of the official positions of the following:
Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org
The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html
The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org
Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org
Methuselah Foundation http://www.methuselahfoundation.org
Methuselah Mouse Prize http://www.methuselahmouse.org
[Give $$$ for life!]
World Transhumanist Assoc. http://www.transhumanism.org/
WTA Portland Chapter http://home.comcast.net/~swayzej/pdxwta.html
MY WEBSITE: http://home.comcast.net/~swayzej/jspage_main.html
More information about the Murg
mailing list