From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 01:23:03 -0500 (EST) Archived: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:55:38 -0500 Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:12:29 -0000 >Subject: Re: "Thought" Definition >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:31:26 -0500 (EST) >>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> >>>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. <snip> >Hi Jason, >Am fairly certain your 'filament growing' operation couldn't >actually determine the state - i.e. 'personality' or 'character' >- of a brain. >In line with quantum theory the state of a particle can only be >determined by 'querying' it (by firing photons of high or low >energy at it). And you'd have to query every particle in the >brain to make a copy of its owner's personality. >Scientist generally seem to agree that, although we can't do it >now, it _might_ be possible, in the distant future to use that >method of copying for teleportation (or for your 'uploading'). >However the big problem is that querying a particle, to find its >spin, charge or momentum, also destroys that information in the >original particle (because even low-energy photons give a 'kick' >to the particle). >Which is why teleportation (or copying) would destroy the >original. >And even your gentler-sounding 'filament growing' procedure >suffers from the same problem, because the filament has to gain >its information by way of photons. >(All the energy and info we get from the physical world is via >photons. That is, King Charles' neck never came into contact >with an atomic nucleus of the axe which chopped his head off - >if it had there would have been a small 'nuclear' explosion. >That beheading was achieved by photons interacting between outer >electrons of both neck and axe.) >So, as your 'filament' worked its way through the brain checking >the state of particles it would be leaving behind a trail of >total wreckage - loss of information. >As for the rest of your argument, I don't see any change. >However, if in the distant future we establish that the 'mind' >is not a physical instantiation (in brain cells or neurons) but >that it exists non-locally in the quantum field of the brain, >which might be indicated by modern visual experiments - see >Duggins et al (incidentally maybe explaining a great many >hitherto inexplicable cases of apparent telepathy etc.), then >that _might_ be cause for suggesting that the complete 'quantum >bundle' of a mind or personality could be transmitted any >(arbitrary) distance instantaneously to a suitable receiver. >Warning - Newtonian-trained physicists (the vast majority) are >convinced that such 'quantum mind transportation' is merely a >form of magic and would violently reject the idea. >However it's an attractive concept, if only for the very large >number of different 'paranormal' phenomena it would explain. >BTW - You can see I've just balanced and opposed your >'materialist' idea of the mind with a non-material concept >(quantum field) - which might be unavailable and unacceptable to >a machine-body. The technology does not require the identification of the state of of a photon anymore than it requires the death of the host. Think of it like a phone tap. In a phone tap a third party is able to receive the information without hindering the information from traveling to the proper party. Likewise, if this technology was placed inside your skull the growing filaments would tap your neurons. When you think about say, moving a leg, the information is now traveling to both the technology and to your leg. If it wasn't for potential side- effects (bloody noses, migraines, possible seizures) then you wouldn't even know it was there. What makes you "you" is the sum of your memories and the patterns of your thought. This technology would grow to become you, assimilating your memories and recording your thought patterns. When you die, your memories and thought patterns are then downloaded into a new body. This copy of you would functionally be you, flaws and all. Everything, good and bad, about your thinking would theoretically survive. The only problems that could occur is if somehow someone decided to edit the information prior to downloading into a new body. Removing or adding to the information would not produce a being that is functionally "you", but rather a distinct being unto itself. In the future it may be possible for fetuses to be implanted with this technology so that when they die as elderly seniors it would have recorded a life time of memories and thought patterns. Ray, think of it like this. The technology is a seed A.I. that if on it's own would develop into a functioning, strong A.I. that is based upon a simulation of the human brain. Instead of becoming a "new being" it is constrained into becoming a copy of a specific human being. As this A.I. grows within it's host's brain it is actually intercepting the actual neuron signals, it is learning the thought patterns of it's host, it is laying down the exact same memories as it's host. With time the A.I. becomes the person. Upon the hosts death the A.I. is then downloaded into a cybernetic body. Theoretically the host will die and simply wake up in a new body. There is bound to be some loss of information which will most likely manifest as a form of amnesia for a specific time frame. For example the host may wake up but their last memories may be weeks, months, or even years prior. So there will need to be a time of adjustment and therapy for the newly reborn. Again, this would just be a small nuisance, a small sacrifice, for the gift of functional immortality. -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