From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:31:26 -0500 (EST) Archived: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:56:34 -0400 Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:52:10 -0000 >Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition <snip> >Hi Jason >Further analysis is making that 'immortality' ambition look even >grimmer. >As you've admitted, the 'upload' or 'translation' of a >personality copy into a machine of some sort is just a way of >committing suicide, as far as the human is concerned. You can't >copy neuron patterns and their electron fields without >destroying the original. Not true or quasi-true. Our primitive technology would require the brain to be sliced into thin slices which are then scanned. So this would imply the person is deceased. However, in the scenario I described, where a thin, metallic rod holding a bb- like object at the end which is then inserted into the brain and which 'hatches' and grows filaments which connect to the neurons, does not require the death of the host. There would be minor side-effects, such as nose bleeds, migraines, and possibly seizures, but any death from such would be extremely rare. All in all these side-effects are a very minor price to pay for immortality. What I am describing is not a technology created by humans but more likely to be a technology created by advanced, and I do mean advanced, "god-like" level A.I. >In addition, for now and the foreseeable future, we have to >expect flaws, to a greater or lesser extent, in the copying >process. So the resulting 'personality' in the machine will be >damaged, distorted and possibly even psychotic. >Is society going to allow autonomous and (possibly) psychotic >machines to freely wander around among humans - adults and >children? >Nope. >At the most I could expect that some static (definitely >immobilized) machine-personalities _might_ be stored in a secure >vault, maybe with visits from vetted adults who are known to be >stable (because they have regular checks) and who are _not_ >impressionable in the least. >And that those machine-personalities would be allowed only a >text interface with their visitors. That's because even an >audio-visual interface could be a dangerous weapon if controlled >by a psychotic machine-intelligence with massive memory and >computing power - and unknown motives. >Their motives will be unknown and unknowable because, with no >physical feedbacks - 'rewards' and 'punishments' from a long- >dead physical body - the already damaged personality in the >machine will certainly deteriorate pretty fast, in any number of >ways. >All in all that's not an attractive prospect for an 'immortal' >future. When dealing with humans there will always be the ones that cause problems and well, simply don't play well with others. These people will of course have to be dealt with. Perhaps a 'time out' in a virtual universe may be a solution. Such trouble-makers could be kept in this virtual reality universe for a very long time, even indefinite if needed. Sometimes I even question if this word is but just a holding pen for naughty boys and girls. -Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp