i want to be part of the human race

2036-september12-2007
in between random blackjack banter at the borgata on saturday, geoff (whose beakers seem to be off the internet right now) and i talked briefly about the afterlife. the conversation stemmed from this email he sent me a week ago:
so within 50 years this guy thinks that we will have millions of tiny robots implanted in our brains, and that they'll be able to a) enhance our mental capacity during life; and b) map every single cell in our brains, therefore allowing us to store an exact version of ourselves (memories, personality and all) in a computer for later use. there we can continue to interact with all our friends and loved ones (who will also be stored there) for eternity.
we discussed the differences between this and heaven, and how every waking second is a separate consciousness from the previous, so that you are never who you were and never who you will be, and the transition from who you were to who you are at every. waking. second. would be similar to the transition from your mortal self to your eternal self (assuming tiny robots).

and i thought
that my night would have been more interesting
if it was spent discussing consciousness
rather
than drinking vodka red bulls
and being made fun of
in the borgata
in atlantic city

i'm torn between being fed up with this city and realizing that the problems i have with boston are nit-picky where as the problems i'd have with a real city might be much worse.

but i'm leaning towards being fed up.

update: geoff.elscorcho.org lives again, as do geoff's beakers.

comments

re: comment

from: =z (2007-09-12 10:33:38)

i like your definition of consciousness as a fluid state, but when you discuss the transition from your mortal self to your eternal self are you simply stating that the transition itself would be as seamless as it is on a daily basis, or are you saying that this transition would be the last one? that is, while your mortal consciousness is fluid, your eternal consciousness would be fixed?

as you explained the theoretical mechanism of the tiny robots it would seem to be the latter, because the program wouldn't be storing a fluid working consciousness, it would be storing the LAST consciousness recorded before death.

anyway

its easy to lean towards being fed up on a day to day basis
but man
the grass is always greener
you know that

re: tiny robots and software consciousness

from: adrian (2007-09-12 10:49:57)

If you're into sci-fi and haven't read any of his work, check out Greg Egan. In Particular, check out Permutation City.

re: re: =z

from: niv (2007-09-12 11:54:43)

i meant the former. the transition from mortal to eternal would be just like any other transition.

i'm not sure if i agree with your statement - if reality affects you, your consciousness is fluid. if you exist, reality affects you.

right?

re: comment

from: =z (2007-09-12 12:48:04)

i'm not sure i do either

keeping in mind that we're talking about a theoretical process here....

i read the description as saying that the robots record and store the data written in the cells of your brain, and at the time of death the data can then transferred and stored elsewhere. the question i have is: for your consciousness to continue to 'survive' as we know it today, wouldn't the robots also have to have recorded not only the data, but the processes by which your brain interprets that data? in your fluid consciousness theorem its these processes that define who we are going to become from one moment to the next. so unless the robots were able to interpret those process and write them into a computer code, then the version of us that gets stored wouldn't be a fluid consciousness, it would only be a snapshot of who we were before we died.

all that is just sci-fi gobbledegook though
assuming for a moment that its possible, and ignoring how its possible, the real question then becomes; is the version of us in the computer really us, or just a computer interpretation of us?

no matter how fluidly or seemingly accurately the program that we had become continued to behave, could we ever really be sure that it is how the person would behave had they continued to live in the classic sense?

re: comment

from: thad (2007-09-12 14:16:14)

i'm with z on the interpretation of the process... but maybe it's just semantics.

or maybe, it's just the matrix.

re: its not semantics

from: niv (2007-09-13 08:16:41)

i think its essential - if your consciousness ceases to be fluid, then you are unable to react to anything that happens to you, and that is not at all like heaven.

heaven involves conversations with shakespeare and mark twain and abraham lincoln. conversations, not the same conversation over and over again because the first one million times it didn't sink in.

anyway, i think the robots purpose is to implement the brain processes - storing your memories and dreams and hopes is just the icing that is possible because storage is cheap and increasingly massive.

re: comment

from: niv (2007-09-13 08:17:34)

my point is that this is more interesting than being yelled at by jets fans and wondering if the girl behind me is really, really drunk or a prostitute. answer is really really drunk, by the way.

re: comment

from: =z (2007-09-13 13:46:12)

a really, really drunk prostitute perhaps?

 

name

email

website

save info?

comment title

comment

what is four plus five? (in digits, please)
current time
September 7, 2008 12:33:26

please use html when creating links. click here if you do not know how to do this.