Substrate-independent minds

[Kim323]

Mike, I know you have no interest in debating me, and that's fine and probably for the best.

However, for the sake of the truth and the sanctity of something called CONTEXT, I must point out that the passages you quote from Douglas Hofstadter's interview, which I linked to, are so, so out of context.

But, that's what you already know and you knew it when you cut it up. Context is everything.

I could point out in great detail every proof of that here in this post, but I won't. I'll just point out one thing, and it isn't even nearly the most egregious, but it's rather humorous, and very indicative of your cut and paste job of a superb interview that casts great doubt indeed on all these predictions of these gurus (whom he describes quite accurately and in a very funny way). Here is the one example:

In the passage you quoted about the car driving itself across the Nevada desert using laser rangefinders (indeed a wonderful accomplishment), you seem to have left out some context which made his TRUE point. Hofstadter added this bit of illuminating context:

He said, "I don't see anything yet that really resembles a human mind whatsoever. The car driving across the Nevada desert still strikes me as being closer to the thermostat or the toilet that regulates itself than to a human mind, and certainly the computer program that plays chess doesn't have any intelligence or anything like human thought."

WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSS!!!!!! Uh, oh.

And I could provide many more examples of how the cut and paste job horribly distorts the interview. And this interview was in the last several years, hardly out of date. And he has held symposia with some of these gurus and directly confronted them with some of their own words from their own books, because they were reluctant to speak about it in front of an actual audience. Hofstadter says in his interview:

"I had to go into their books and read out loud their MOST CRAZY QUOTES in order to say [to them], 'Look, you're not saying in front of this audience of a thousand people what you've said in your books."

WHHHHHHOOOOOPPPPPSSSSS!!!

But I said I'd mention only one. Here's the link for members to read the ACTUAL interview in its ENTIRETY:


An interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter » American Scientist


Kim

 

[mike]

And that article clearly shows Hofstadter admitting he "doesnt know", admitting he got it wrong on many occassions and admitting it might happen

And I don't have any real predictions as to when or if this is going to come about. I think there's some chance that some of what these people are saying is going to come about.

The guy is clearly not a valid source with which to back your claim.
The data quoted above negates your premise in a complete slam dunk.

He admits he doesnt know, but that there is a chance it may come about.

Hardly a solid endorsement of your contrarion premise, actually it makes my point more than it does yours.
Though i would never use him as a source since

In the book you mention losing your wife quite suddenly in 1993, and I was struck by how that affected your thinking and your work. It's a consoling idea that your wife's personality or point of view might persist somehow. Do you still feel that way?
Absolutely. I have to emphasize that the sad truth of the matter is, of course, that whatever persists in me is a very feeble copy of her. Whatever persists of her interiority is not her full self. It's reduced, a sort of low-resolution version, coarse-grained. Otherwise it would be a claim that "it's all fine, she didn't die, she lives on in me just as much as she ever did." And of course I don't believe that. I believe that there is a trace of her "I", her interiority, her inner light, however you want to phrase it, that remains inside me and inside some other people, people who really had internalized her viewpoint, people who really had interacted intimately with her over years, and that trace that remains is a valid trace of her self—her soul

What nonsense, does he remember her ? obviously. does she persist, does some trace of her self ,her soul continue on this most flimsiest and ill defined mechanisms ?

Sorry, the opinion of yet another superstitous idiot doesnt convince me, that it does you is unsurprising.

What i would like to see, is this guy take his hands off the wheel of a car, while a thermostat or automatic toilet did the driving for him, An excellent way to win the Darwin award

 

[mike]

 

[Kim323]

Wow. The man lost his wife, regrets her loss, misses her, feels deeply at her passing, struggles to maintain a memory of her, and you call him (and me) a "superstitious idiot." Unspeakable. Kim

 

[mike]

Well the quicker he gets behind the wheel of a car controlled by an automatic toilet, the quicker they will be together.

I mean seriously, he thinks her personality "persists", that a valid, a valid trace of her self, her soul exists even though she's dead as a door nail........

And thats your expert witness in this case ?

I get that he takes comfort in a fantasy, but thats all it is. a comforting lie.

And i put it to the audience that someone who is so happy to immerse himself in such an obvious delusion, is on no way qualified to discuss science and technology.

When you drown yourself in delusion and fantasy, you are no longer in a position to discuss reality, and yes that applies to you

No one can or should take a child who insists Santa is real seriously, with the obvious exception of other children.
If he cannot demonstrate the "mechanism" by which her personality "persists" as a valid trace of her "self" and "soul" then its superstitous fantasy.
Like so many of your ilk, happy to believe in an obvious delusion, disqualifies you from being able to discuss reality. Clearly you dont have the mental wherewithal to tell the two apart.
Which in turn as per the logic renders your opinions in places like this, just so much mental diarrhoea.

Its serves only to put people off with its rancid stench

 

[mike]

Since you think god is real and UFO's are not perhaps this site would suit you better

UFO's - Christian Discussion Forums - CARM

Reading a few of the posts there, i'm sure your opinions would fit in nicely

Anyway, on a more serious note, the problem I have with this whole alien business stems from a logcial calculation. I don't believe there are aliens in distant galaxies

1) If aliens do exist, why assume they would have fallen into sin?
2) If aliens do exist and have fallen into sin, why assume that God would save them? We already know that there are creatures God does not save, ie, fallen angels, non-elect humans etc..
3) If aliens do exist, have fallen into sin and God has chosen to save them, why assume that God would not send the Son to die for them as he did for humans on Earth?
4) Why assume aliens exist?

Stay on the Word of God. Do not stray from it. When we do people are led astray or even harmed. Like those burned at the stake and imprisoned for saying the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun. The ignorant in power allowed themselves to stray from the word and aLLOWED their misunderstandings of natural things to scare them and seek to throw everyone who disagreed with them not with the Scriptures but with their ignorance of what God created.
I know from the Scriptures mankind is the only creatures created in the very image of God. I know from the Scriptures the human race is God's highest creation.

It's entirely possible that there could be life on other planets in the universe, so long as God as something to do with it. It's equally possible there isn't, by the same God. We don't know what God has done regarding life on other planets.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

Kim,

I enjoyed that interview! I like this part:

This is one of the things that bother me about the current developments that you see in robotics. There's more and more emphasis on humanoid robotics and supposedly robots with either genuine or fake emotions. You get the sense that a lot of people are doing it deliberately to be fake; they say, "Well, it's comforting to people to have a fake, artificial companion, so we'll make it look as human as possible, but we don't make any pretenses about it being real." Other people, you get the sense that they're saying, "No, these robots are going to have genuine emotions, they're going to be human." But the point is, there doesn't seem to be any discussion anywhere of "Is this good?" It's all "Let's go faster! Faster! Faster!" Well, where are you going? What are you trying to do? And I don't see any asking of these questions.

So, back to the bit about transferring to new bodies. I do find it interesting. It reminds me of The Whisperer in Darkness. Do any of transhumanist authors discuss any of the following?

-Having multiple bodies to use. Being able to switch between bodies at will.
-Having non-human or semi-human bodies.
-Having mechanical bodies.

Without knowing much of this theory, what seems off-putting is the possible lack of sensation and vulnerability to imprisonment/confinement by others. I also wonder what the consequences would be for the severance of personality from genetics. Would these entities reproduce in any way, or would the world be stuck with the same personalities hanging around for ever? What would be the consequences of mental illness in such a society? What safeguards would exist to prevent a dominant entity from deleting the others?

Konrad

 

[Qetuoadgjl]

And while i have no intention of debating this matter with kim, for the benefit of the others {snipped Kim related post}

The benefit of others might well be improved if you truly did not debate Kim...either directly or indirectly.

 

[mike]

The benefit of others might well be improved if you truly did not debate Kim...either directly or indirectly.

Quite right,
Sometimes the urge to scratch that itchy polyp overides the knowledge that if you do, you will only come away with smelly fingers........

 

[mike]

But Darpa wants machines to do more than interpret data – ideally, they’ll eventually interpret human brains, too. The agency is hosting a workshop to "pulse the computational cognitive neuroscience community"for the latest and greatest ideas on how to map the human mind.
With a better understanding of cognition, Darpa could teach computers to, essentially, read our minds. This kind of brain-science has already proven efficacious: a preliminary study of humans working with help from machinated neuron tapping showed a six-fold increase in efficiency.

Darpa Wants Brainy Machines to Replace Bored G.I.s | Danger Room | Wired.com

The Defense Department is continuing its push to reduce human thought and human action to a few lines of code. The latest effort comes from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, which is looking to build “mathematical or computational models of human attention, memory, categorization, reasoning, problem solving, learning and motivation, and decision making.” The ultimate goal, according to a recent request for research proposals, is to “elucidate core computational algorithms of the mind and brain.”

 

[mike]

." But the point is, there doesn't seem to be any discussion anywhere of "Is this good?" It's all "Let's go faster! Faster! Faster!" Well, where are you going? What are you trying to do? And I don't see any asking of these questions.

The reason he doesnt see anyone asking these questions is because he isnt looking.......

I don't go to their meetings; I don't read their books or articles very much, so I'm really out of it. I couldn't say.

The reality is

This Working Party will explore the ethical, social and legal issues arising from the development and impact of these 'novel neurotechnologies'.

Neurotechnology | Nuffield Council on Bioethics

When it comes to Hofstadter's relevance in this field i think he himself says it best

You have to understand that I'm not professionally involved in the philosophy of mind in the sense of being in the thick of things.

 

[mike]

Do any of transhumanist authors discuss any of the following?

-Having multiple bodies to use. Being able to switch between bodies at will.
-Having non-human or semi-human bodies.
-Having mechanical bodies.

Yes, they do, we already have made headway in areas like cloning, and even artificial DNA

Scientists in the United States have announced they have developed the world's first synthetic living cell.
Led by Dr Craig Venter, the Maryland-based research team says it is the first time synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell.
"We built the DNA chromosome from scratch from four bottles of chemicals, chromosomes over 1 million letters long.
Venter says this was only a proof-of-concept cell; the next stage is to create synthetic algae.
And he is not shying away from the philosophical debates this also unlocks.
His research team inserted watermarks in the synthetic DNA to be decoded, including a James Joyce quotation: "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."

Scientists create synthetic life › News in Science (ABC Science)
These can be used to "print" organs and eventually the parts to assemble whole bodies

What if the tens of thousands of people waiting for organ transplants in the United States didn't have to wait? What if burn victims could replace their scars with skin that was indistinguishable from their own? What if an amputee could replace an entire limb with one that felt, looked and behaved exactly as the original?
In what could be the first step toward human immortality, scientists say they've found a way to do all of these things and more with the use of a technology found in many American homes: an ink-jet printer.
Researchers around the world say that by using the technology, they can actually "print" living human tissue and one day will be able to print entire organs.
"The promise of tissue engineering and the promise of 'organ printing' is very clear: We want to print living, three-dimensional human organs," Dr. Vladimir Mironov said. "That's our goal, and that's our mission."

Without knowing much of this theory, what seems off-putting is the possible lack of sensation and vulnerability to imprisonment/confinement by others. I also wonder what the consequences would be for the severance of personality from genetics. Would these entities reproduce in any way, or would the world be stuck with the same personalities hanging around for ever? What would be the consequences of mental illness in such a society? What safeguards would exist to prevent a dominant entity from deleting the others?


Sensation is an artifact of the brain, sensory input is fed into it and the resulting neural process is what you call sensation, when the brain dies and the neural matrix loses power.... it stops.
Software could "feed" a post biological mind the same patterns, producing virtual sensation, A brainframe simulation would include sensation. A proper simulation would include all of the sensory input you currently use to "paint" the picture of reality that exists in your head right now.

Did you know for example that your eyes only "input" visual data the equivilent of your thumbnail held at arms length ?
Your brain then takes all these tiny snapshots and creates the widescreen view of the environment you "see", but its an internal compilation, a neural construct

Vulnerability to imprisonment is already there in biological existance, you are no more or less vulnerable to it whether your a biological or post biological.

I dont see post biological entitys "reproducing" in the way biological entitys do, reproduction in this context is a function of biology.
This question is perhaps better looked at from a population pov. right now our population is biological sentience, later it may become both biological and post biological. The possibility exists for it to become completely post biological, but there can be little growth in that scenario. a society that for what ever reason finds itself stagnating in a totally post biological culture, may consider setting up a planet as a biological hatchery seeding it with self replicating bioforms designed to "hatch" new minds. We do this with chickens now........(though its not their minds we harvest)

Mental illness is just neural patterns, curing mental illness would be easier in a post biological scenario, a simple redact or rewrite of the affected patterns.
A Hive Mind Quorum might act as the template for such operations, this is really no different or more invasive than the current system where consensus laws and legislations dictate whats best for the common good.
Indeed it might even be kinder to redact the criminal neural patterns than incarcerate the person for years, the "corrective" aspect of our current penal system endeavours to make just that internal change in the individual.

Safeguards ? the same as any offsite data storage systems now in use, multiple copys on independant storage arrays.
You would be harder to "delete" than you are now, a mugger in an ally can do that to you tomorrow, and there is no coming back

Could it still happen ? yes, but another country can also drop a bomb on your village today and kill your children ,parents and grandparents.
In a peaceful scenario you are no more likely to shut down your post biological grandparents, than you would the internet. They have value and contribute to the richness of your experience, its in your interests to preserve them

 

[Voyager]

Not expressing an opinion. I found this:
Morgellons Disease « The Real Agenda

 

[Kim323]

Mike, why do you keep digging yourself in deeper? I'm just funnin' with you some, and you must admit (and by your responses you sound like your hand was in the cookie jar ) you did do a heck of a good butcher job on Douglas Hofstadter's interview, which is colloquial, funny, facetious, touching, etc., and should be read for its entire contents, not cut up and presented as a gotcha thing.

And you must admit, yet again, that he is funny. I mean, I've stressed that since my first post on him a few above this one. And he is pointing out some very serious flaws in this transhumanism stuff. And, really, Mike, man to man, that is funny how he pointed out the confusing state of the whole movement with his good food and dog excrement analogy. He did in a way that was very wry and humorous, and not at all profane or vulgar.

And how he, in symposia he was involved in himself, had to resort to READING OUT LOUD the actual words of these guru-types like Kurzweil (who are in it for the money in my opinion, singularity indeed!) to force them to confront their "own crazy quotes" in their books but who wouldn't say the very same stuff "in front of this audience of a thousand people" where they would really be on the hot seat defending this wild and crazy stuff. I mean, that interview was funny, and how could you butcher it like that, to present isolated quotes purposely devoid of his true points and his context?

That point how the car driving across the Nevada desert on laser rangefinders was really no more sophisticated in terms of mimicking the human mind than a regulator on a toilet or thermostat, come on, Mike, that's not only true but funny. But you presented it out of context, and I don't know how familiar you are actually with the NEVADA desert, but you can bet it wasn't Interstate 80 this driverless car was navigating!

Anyway, have some humor, man. You're taking this too seriously, and your references to smelly fingers, itchy polyps, diarrhea, rancid stench (all as descriptors of ME and MY POSTS) are getting a bit tiresome and went past invective long (long!) ago. At least Douglas Hofstadter could make a dog excrement and toilet allusion sound funny and wry. From you, it's just getting wearying.

There's something suspiciously ANAL going on here, Mike, and I'm worried about you.

And calling Hofstadter a "superstitious idiot" regarding his heartfelt expression about his wife dying suddenly and his missing her and striving to hold onto memories of her, was really going to far, Mike. But you called me one in that post, too.

So, Mike, lighten up. I've tried to write this in a facetious way, and all I've been doing is point out some glaring and grievous flaws in the transhumanism "field" that makes all these claims that are beyond belief.

I have learned from the links and narrative you posted from sources you've found, Mike, and I thank you for that. I just wish you could lay off the religion in my face taunts. But it doesn't bother me, and I can't control that. But it's gotten tired by now.

Here's the link again to Hofstadter's interview so members can read it all.


An interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter » American Scientist


Kim

 

[Kim323]

Konrad, yes, that was a good interview by Hofstadter.

When you mentioned "The Whisperer in Darkness" I felt a chill. Good ol' H.P. Lovecraft. I got my Lovecraft Omnibus 3 out and reread it. What a creepy story, as are all of his. I also reread "The Call of Cthulhu" and "The Colour Out of Space." I don't know whether to thank you or not! Kim

 

[dannytorrance]

A Hive Mind Quorum might act as the template for such operations, this is really no different or more invasive than the current system where consensus laws and legislations dictate whats best for the common good.
Indeed it might even be kinder to redact the criminal neural patterns than incarcerate the person for years, the "corrective" aspect of our current penal system endeavours to make just that internal change in the individual.

Bawahhahaaaa! Ya don't really believe this b.s. do you? You must really, really fear death! Well, it's coming for ya slim. The brain dies and you can't put those patterns back together again. I feel sorry for you. I really do. Now maybe in 50 years or so but I really doubt it. You need to check Michael Shermer and also read some Sam Harris and get away from your delusions. Ray Kurzweil and his loopy predictions here are a few.
Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways. He said by early 2000's Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. Lol!
Look up John Rennie because he absolutely destroys the Kurzweil transhumanism myth. Sorry fella but you are just another religious fanatic.

Ray Kurzweil is a well-known futurist and advocate of the transhumanist belief cluster with a truly overwhelming fear of death... Rational Wiki

 

[stonehart]

A Hive Mind Quorum might act as the template for such operations, this is really no different or more invasive than the current system where consensus laws and legislations dictate whats best for the common good.

An internet Hive mind already exists working on consensus laws.. we call it Anonymous and it is very interesting to see how it works as far as decision making is concerned.. in fact it almost works like one single organism.

 

[mike]

A Hive Mind Quorum might act as the template for such operations, this is really no different or more invasive than the current system where consensus laws and legislations dictate whats best for the common good.
Indeed it might even be kinder to redact the criminal neural patterns than incarcerate the person for years, the "corrective" aspect of our current penal system endeavours to make just that internal change in the individual.

Bawahhahaaaa! Ya don't really believe this b.s. do you? You must really, really fear death! Well, it's coming for ya slim. The brain dies and you can't put those patterns back together again. I feel sorry for you. I really do. Now maybe in 50 years or so but I really doubt it. You need to check Michael Shermer and also read some Sam Harris and get away from your delusions. Ray Kurzweil and his loopy predictions here are a few.
Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways. He said by early 2000's Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. Lol!
Look up John Rennie because he absolutely destroys the Kurzweil transhumanism myth. Sorry fella but you are just another religious fanatic.

Ray Kurzweil is a well-known futurist and advocate of the transhumanist belief cluster with a truly overwhelming fear of death... Rational Wiki

Or

Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee

It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.

Kurzweil was referred to by Forbes as "the ultimate thinking machine."[18]
Kurzweil has received many awards and honors, including:

• First place in the 1965 International Science Fair[4]for inventing the classical music synthesizing computer.
• The 1978 Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. The award is given annually to one "outstanding young computer professional" and is accompanied by a $35,000 prize.[19] Kurzweil won it for his invention of the Kurzweil Reading Machine.[20]
• The 1990 "Engineer of the Year" award from Design News.[21]
• The 1994 Dickson Prize in Science. One is awarded every year by Carnegie Mellon University to individuals who have "notably advanced the field of science." Both a medal and a $50,000 prize are presented to winners.[22]
• The 1998 "Inventor of the Year" award from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[23]
• The 1999 National Medal of Technology.[24] This is the highest award the President of the United States can bestow upon individuals and groups for pioneering new technologies, and the President dispenses the award at his discretion.[25]Bill Clinton presented Kurzweil with the National Medal of Technology during a White House ceremony in recognition of Kurzweil's development of computer-based technologies to help the disabled.
• The 2000 Telluride Tech Festival Award of Technology.[26]Two other individuals also received the same honor that year. The award is presented yearly to people who "exemplify the life, times and standard of contribution of Tesla, Westinghouse and Nunn."
• The 2001 Lemelson-MIT Prize for a lifetime of developing technologies to help the disabled and to enrich the arts.[27] Only one is meted out each year to highly successful, mid-career inventors. A $500,000 award accompanies the prize.[28]
• Kurzweil was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002 for inventing the Kurzweil Reading Machine.[29] The organization "honors the women and men responsible for the great technological advances that make human, social and economic progress possible."[30] Fifteen other people were inducted into the Hall of Fame the same year.[31]
• The Arthur C. Clarke Lifetime Achievement Award on April 20, 2009 for lifetime achievement as an inventor and futurist in computer-based technologies.[32]
• Kurzweil has received seventeen honorary doctorates between 1982 and 2010.[citation needed]
• In 2011, Kurzweil was named a Senior Fellow of the Design Futures Council.[33]

So you'll forgive me if i take this loooooooong list of professional accomplishments over your opinion.

Whether you believe this could happen or not. there is a single indisputable fact.

Researchers from all over the world and even the military are working towards making this happen.
Universitys like cambridge, oxford, berkley, institutes like the max planck institute, the list is very long, the credentials of those doing the research impressive.

You dont think it can happen, fine but the "experts" of the day said the same thing about high speed rail, the telephone, the computer, heavier than air flight and heart transplants.

An incredible amount of human brainpower and money is being spent on this research, thats a fact
I dont see it as steming from a fear of death, i see it as the natural expression of sentient evolution

"I think it very likely -in fact inevitable-that biological intelligence is only a transitory phenomenon, a fleeting phase in the evolution of intelligence in the universe."
Paul Davies -acclaimed physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist at Arizona State University."

 

[nameless]

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[stonehart]

"Can't we all just get along?"