subject:"Re\: Could we live forever\?"

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 17 Sep 2015, at 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

 >  Without  a built-in biological life span, people may  
become extremely timid and risk averse.

 If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk  
averse?

Not having a built in biological life span is very different from  
being immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.  Not having a built- 
in life span means you will eventually die from some accident or  
illness.   In that case the more careful you are the longer you live.

 And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just  
have to deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first  
time we experienced social problems. 

 >  "The older you get, the less you have to lose."

 And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite.  
Young healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks,  
but old people are full of aches and pains that constantly remind  
them that they are not immortal and so they become very timid and  
risk adverse.

Maybe.  I recently took second place in the 2-stroke Production  
motorcycle road racing championship at Willow Springs CA - and I'm 76.

Ah, that was the one which impressed me, as I know that there exist at  
least one young people who would not dare to take such risk, maybe  
quite wisely, actually. Like Churchill I believe that the secret of  
health is "no sport", but now I would add, except if you are a  
centenerian and really insist :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRToju1wWw

I like Woody Allen describing an old woman sick in a hospice saying  
that life is like that soup: not only it is disgusting but there is  
not a lot.

In the canonical ethic of the universal machine, doing morale is  
immoral, and people do what they want with their bodies and mind, as  
long as they satisfy the mutual consent when it involves an other or  
others.

I think this favors harm reduction philosophy. The bad is what is at  
the origin of the arrow toward the good. Harm reduction is following  
the path defined by the set of vectors "(good, bad)". Somehow.

Bruno

Thanks for the links to Cubitt and Al.'s paper. It mentions  
interesting work by Kitaev and others. There is a nice  coding of a  
quantum computation by a quantum superposition state, which  
illustrates the Turing universality of the quantum computer, as you  
can code a terminating computations by a number. Not so easy material  
though, and teaching period. In my country, if they knew about old  
centenarian ladies jumping with a parachute, they would put the  
retirement age at 100.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 17 Sep 2015, at 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

 >  Without  a built-in biological life span, people may  
become extremely timid and risk averse.

 If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk  
averse?

Not having a built in biological life span is very different from  
being immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.  Not having a built- 
in life span means you will eventually die from some accident or  
illness.   In that case the more careful you are the longer you live.

 And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just  
have to deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first  
time we experienced social problems. 

 >  "The older you get, the less you have to lose."

 And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite.  
Young healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks,  
but old people are full of aches and pains that constantly remind  
them that they are not immortal and so they become very timid and  
risk adverse.

Maybe.  I recently took second place in the 2-stroke Production  
motorcycle road racing championship at Willow Springs CA - and I'm 76.

Nice!

And indeed, may be.

Other counter-example is that South-African centenarian who goes shark  
diving for her 100th birthday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKwTOfOMTdQ

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-21 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Is it possible that there is a memory capture 'mechanism' naturally, using the 
Planck space level of the universe? The fun part would be that the bit streams 
(or stings)  would be magically restored back to life.Hence, immortality.  

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: Could we live forever?

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

    >>  You need to know how generic atoms should be 
placed in relation to other generic atoms.  

   >    That is a low level,   

  Yes a very low level, probably much lower than necessary; the molecular 
level would be more than enough, maybe even the cellular level with a little 
chemistry at the synapses would probably get the job done.   

> but in principle we cannot be sure,   

   Being sure is not necessary, you only need to be correct.  

 > may be we need the string level.

  If the string level is needed (assuming that strings actually exist) 
then you become a different person 10^43 times a second. Do you think you do? 
Sorry, that was a dumb question, unless a question can be asked in the Planck 
Time (10^-43 seconds) "you" can not be asked anything.  

 > if you chose the atomic level, that is very plausibly a 
good low (and thus expensive) level.   

   Expensive? The very first tiny Nanotechnological Assembler will be 
astronomically expensive, but it will be able to make a second Assebbler in 
about half an hour at virtually no cost, and a half hour after 
that there would be 4   and a half hour after that there would be    
8.And so it goes.

>  >>        Assuming 
computationalism 

>>    And only a fool would not make that assumption.

   >    Why?  

   Because in the history of the world every experiment (in fact every 
observation) is consistent with computationalism and inconsistent with its 
negation.      

   >> If long term memory, or short term memory, or 
anything else is not working well then generic atoms have not been placed in 
the correct orientation relative to other generic atoms. And the exact same 
thing happens when your computer is not working well, or your can opener for 
that matter.   

   >    You can wish that, but you cannot pretend to know that.  

   Every change in the physical brain leads to a change in 
consciousness, and every change of consciousness corresponds to a physical 
change in the brain. So what more do you need to be convinced?     

 > Maybe the brain needs dark matter.

  Maybe computers also need dark matter, maybe they both need Tinker Bell 
too. 

> you can do such assumption and say "yes" to the doctor, but 
you can't impose this to another,

  Hey I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't dream of imposing my beliefs on 
anyone.You say what you want and I'll say what I want.   

  >  and treating him as fool does not ring right to me.

  If somebody behaves like a fool it would illogical of me to treat that 
person as if he were not a fool. 

   John K Clark 

 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more optio

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-20 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> >> 
>> You need to know how generic atoms should be placed in relation to other
>> generic atoms.
>
>

> 
> That is a low level,
>

Yes a very low level, probably much lower than necessary; the molecular
level would be more than enough, maybe even the cellular level with a
little chemistry at the synapses would probably get the job done.

> > 
> but in principle we cannot be sure,
>

Being sure is not necessary, you only need to be correct. 

> > 
> may be we need the string level.
>

If the string level is needed (assuming that strings actually exist) then
you become a different person 10^43 times a second. Do you think you do?
Sorry, that was a dumb question, unless a question can be asked in the
Planck Time (10^-43 seconds) "you" can not be asked anything. 

> > 
> if you chose the atomic level, that is very plausibly a good low (and thus
> expensive) level.
>

Expensive? The very first tiny Nanotechnological Assembler will be
astronomically expensive, but it will be able to make a second Assebbler in
about half an

hour at virtually no cost, and a half hour after that there would be 4
and a half hour after that there would be
 8.
And so it goes.

> >
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Assuming computationalism
>>
>>
> >> 
> And only a fool would not make that assumption.

> 
> Why?
>

Because in the history of the world every experiment (in fact every
observation) is consistent with computationalism and inconsistent with its
negation.   

>> 
>> If long term memory, or short term memory, or anything else is not
>> working well then generic atoms have not been placed in the correct
>> orientation relative to other generic atoms. And the exact same thing
>> happens when your computer is not working well, or your can opener for that
>> matter.
>
>
> > 
> You can wish that, but you cannot pretend to know that.
>

Every change in the physical brain leads to a change in consciousness, and
every change of consciousness corresponds to a physical change in the
brain. So what more do you need to be convinced?  

> > 
> Maybe the brain needs dark matter.
>

Maybe computers also need dark matter, maybe they both need Tinker Bell
too.

> 
> you can do such assumption and say "yes" to the doctor, but you can't
> impose this to another,
>

Hey I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't dream of imposing my beliefs on
anyone.You say what you want and I'll say what I want.  

> 
and treating him as fool does not ring right to me.

If somebody behaves like a fool it would illogical of me to treat that
person as if he were not a fool.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-20 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 19 Sep 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> You need an infinitely expanding brain to live an eternity,  
if not, you will cycle.

To prevent cycling a mind wouldn't need to be infinite just  
unlimited, whenever you start to run low you just add more memory  
banks, but at ANY given time the mind would be of only finite size.

So we agree.

> You might count that as a kind of immortality though

Some might, but I wouldn't.

Oh, we agree on this too. Of course the machine can have no cycling  
extension somewhere in arithmetic.

>>> you will eventually die from some accident.  

>> That's why you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in  
lots of different places, and with nanotechnology that would be  
easy.

> Only if you suffer from some local attachment.

But you don't, otherwise you'd become a different person every  
time you cross the room. And what exactly are your spatial  
coordinates, the place your brain is at or the place you are  
thinking about, that is to say the place you seem to be?  
Consciousness is all about seeming to be so I'd guess the second. 

>> You will never die of illness if you have the ability to  
ensure that the atoms in your body always remain in their correct  
orientation, and with nanotechnology that would be easy.

> You need to bet on some level of description,

You need to know how generic atoms should be placed in relation to  
other generic atoms.

That is a low level, but in principle we cannot be sure, may be we  
need the string level. You are just telling me your choice of level,  
but other people can make different choice.

> then it is "easy" is very large sense of the term.

And Nanotechnology is the ability to move individual atoms to  
different positions relative to other individual atoms. Doing this  
is easy scientifically, no new physics is required, but it is not  
easy technologically, at least not yet.

>> Uploading is very well defined

> Once we bet on a description level.

What other sort of bet did you have in mind? If you know the  
relative position of all the generic atoms in something there is no  
scientific reason you can't make a second one with generic atoms,  
although you may encounter technological difficulties.

Quite plausible, but from a logical pov, we cannot claim to be sure.

> I would ask they take into account the glial cells.

What difference does that make?? Glial cells are made of 20  
different types of organelles just like neurons and just like all  
the other 200 different types of cells in the human body; and the  
only difference between one of those 20 different types of  
organelles and another is the relative position that generic atoms  
have with other generic atoms.

Yes, right, if you copy yourself at the atomic level, you will have  
the glial cells right, but some neurophysiologiqte have cmaim (they  
are changing their mind right now on this) that the glial cells have  
no other role that being some stuff to protect the neurons, ans so a  
doctor might, for reason of economy, only copy the neurons. Today,  
evidences accumulate that glial cells do communicate, between each  
others, and with the neurons, and that they might have some rôle in  
(chronical pain.

But we agree, if you chose the atomic level, that is very plausibly a  
good low (and thus expensive) level.

>> it's just not achievable yet for technological not  
scientific or philosophical reasons:  Uploading is the  
functional equivalent of a biological brain in electronic form. 

> Assuming computationalism

And only a fool would not make that assumption.

Why? Mathematically, we can conceive a transfinity of weakening of  
comp. I agree that "omega-computatiionalism" (the usual one) is much  
plausible, and that there are no evidence for a weaker form of it, but  
when we do a theoy, we put *all* the assumption on the table. That  
includes ides like the fact that ((A & B) -> B), that x + 0 = x, and  
of course, computationalism is a much less obvious assumption than the  
preceding one.

To be sure, the G/G* theology remains correct for a vast variety of  
"non-machine", which also live in arithmetic, and I am not sure if  
they can access different "physics" than the omega-machine physics.  
But we can do the math and compare with nature.

> With a bad choice, someone can believe having survived  
"rather well" for some weeks, and then realize that there is a  
problem, the long term memory is not handled well,

If long term memory, or short term memory, or anything else is  
not working well then generic atoms have not been placed in the  
correct orientation relative to other generic atoms. And the exact  
same thing happens when your computer is not working well, or your  
can opener for that matter.

You can wish that, but you cannot pretend to know that. Maybe the  
brain needs dark mat

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-19 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> You need an infinitely expanding brain to live an eternity, if not, you
> will cycle.
>

To prevent cycling a mind wouldn't need to be infinite just unlimited,
whenever you start to run low you just add more memory banks, but at *ANY*
given time the mind would be of only finite size.

> > 
> You might count that as a kind of immortality though
>

Some might, but I wouldn't.

> >
>>> >>
>>> you will eventually die from some
>>> accident.  
>>>
>>
>> 
>> >> 
>> That's why 
>> you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in lots of different places, and
>> with 
>> nanotechnology that would be easy.
>
>
> > 
> Only if you suffer from some local attachment.
>

But you don't, otherwise you'd become a different person every time you
cross the room. And what exactly are your spatial coordinates, the place
your brain is at or the place you are thinking about, that is to say the
place you seem to be? Consciousness is all about seeming to be so I'd guess
the second. 

> 
>> >> 
>> You will never die of illness if you have the ability to ensure that the
>> atoms in your body always remain in their correct orientation, 
>> and with 
>> nanotechnology that would be easy.
>
>
> > 
> You need to bet on some level of description,
>

You need to know how generic atoms should be placed in relation to other
generic atoms.

> > 
> then it is "easy" is very large sense of the term.
>

And Nanotechnology is the ability to move individual atoms to different
positions relative to other individual atoms. Doing this is easy
scientifically, no new physics is required, but it is not easy
technologically, at least not yet.

>> >> 
>> Uploading is very well defined
>
>

> 
> Once we bet on a description level.
>

What other sort of bet did you have in mind? If you know the relative
position of all the generic atoms in something there is no scientific
reason you can't make a second one with generic atoms, although you may
encounter technological difficulties.

> > 
> I would ask they take into account the glial cells.
>

What difference does that make?? Glial cells are made of 20 different
types of organelles just like neurons and just like all the other 200
different types of cells in the human body; and the only difference between
one of those 20 different types of organelles and another is the relative
position that generic atoms have with other generic atoms.

>> 
>> it's just not achievable yet for technological not scientific or
>> philosophical reasons:  Uploading
>>  
>> is the functional equivalent of a biological brain in electronic form. 
>
>
> > 
> Assuming computationalism
>

And only a fool would not make that assumption.

> 
> With a bad choice, someone can believe having survived "rather well" for
> some weeks, and then realize that there is a problem, the long term memory
> is not handled well,
>

If long term memory, or short term memory, or anything else is not
working well then generic atoms have not been placed in the correct
orientation relative to other generic atoms. And the exact same thing
happens when your computer is not working well, or your can opener for that
matter.

> > 
> or a feeling that something is different
>

The cause of that different feeling could only be that something IS indeed
different, the arrangement of generic atoms must be different. Correct
that error and put things where they are supposed to go and that
unpleasant different feeling will go away.

> > 
> but they can't figure it out,
>

Then they're dumb. 

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 17 Sep 2015, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Sep 17, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>The irony is that if you have the cognitive ability to  
conceive that you can survive qua "yes doctor", then you have the  
cognitive ability to understand that you are immortal no matter what.


So if you can conceive of something (although not in any detail)  
non physical making a calculation


I don't need to conceive this, as this can be proved in elementary  
arithmetic. This is really a standard fact. In France I have been  
asked to throw away all the explanations and just give a reference.


By Matiyasevich theorem, all computations can be reduced to a finite  
sequence of addition and multiplication, and it exist a number which  
represent that sequence, and simple theory like PA can prove a lot  
about those computation, and can prove that a computation is a  
particular type of proof of sigma_1 sentences. The reason why  
computations live in arithmetic is similar to the reason why we can  
plunge the constructive part of meta-arithmetic in arithmetic.





then it doesn't matter that nothing non physical can make a  
calculation;


Physical computations does matter for physical manifestation, but with  
computationalism the physical is a projection of an invariant modality  
in the way universal machine can observe themselves.
It does not supplant physics, except for the afterlife question. It  
has a sort of ethic which is that you can't impose yor opinion on  
others about that. You can say "yes" and you can "say "no" to the  
doctor. It is risky, but it is your right.







and thus there is no reason you can't start a successful computer  
hardware company with zero manufacturing costs. Sort of reminds me  
of those silly ontological "proofs" about the existence of God, if  
you can conceive of God (although not in any detail) then God must  
exist.


That type of reasoning is analog to the use of the reflexion principle  
in Set Theory, which I consider as theology right at the start (as an  
axiom of infinity is theology enough form me).


To use mechanism to get immortal is just a way to win some more time  
to understand that actually you were immortal at the start, and that  
you are just prolonging the illusion. Given the time you take to get  
the third step I can understand that an artificial brain might be  
handy some days.


(I tall loosely here, and I might blaspheme (asserting proposition of  
the type G* \ G). I let you add the computationalist assumption, and I  
talk for ideally arithmetically correct machine (of course this cannot  
be defined in arithmetic, but it can in first order set theory or in  
second-order logic).


Bruno F Marchal







 John K Clark





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 17 Sep 2015, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you  
be risk averse?

> Not having a built in biological life span is very different  
from being immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.

Immortality isn't a deep concept, it just means making sure the  
atoms in your biological brain, or its functional equivalent, always  
remained in their correct orientation. Immortality is simply a  
matter of maintaining organization, and with nanotechnology  
that would be easy.

You need an infinitely expanding brain to live an eternity, if not,  
you will cycle. You might count that as a kind of immortality though,  
but then we must introduce distinction and make more precise what we  
mean by that.

> you will eventually die from some accident.  

That's why you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in lots of  
different places, and with nanotechnology that would be easy.

Only if you suffer from some local attachment. If not "you" are  
already distributed in infinitely many "regions" of the tiny sigma_1  
reality.

> or illness.

You will never die of illness if you have the ability to ensure  
that the atoms in your body always remain in their correct  
orientation, and with nanotechnology that would be easy.

You need to bet on some level of description, then it is "easy" is  
very large sense of the term. But that will be done, no doubt, at many  
different levels, and some people will treat higher level people as  
zombies, etc.

> Uploading" isn't some well defined process

Uploading is very well defined,

Once we bet on a description level. I would ask they take into account  
the glial cells. I would ask for a package for the nervous system in  
the belly which is more dense than we thought.

it's just not achievable yet for technological not scientific or  
philosophical reasons:  Uploading is the functional equivalent  
of a biological brain in electronic form. 

Assuming computationalism and, in practice, the correctness of the  
choice of the substitution level.

With a bad choice, someone can believe having survived "rather well"  
for some weeks, and then realize that there is a problem, the long  
term memory is not handled well, or a feeling that something is  
different but they can't figure it out, etc. It can be like an altered  
state of consciousness, and there are infinities of possibilities.

> You could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people  
research your appearance, personality, thinking, preferences,  
speech, etc. and incorporating them into a computer program with  
sensory inputs and some Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max  
Headroom like John Clark who would continue to berate Bruno for his  
use of pronouns and other signs of intelligence.

Intelligent behavior is a much deeper property than consciousness,  
so if it's got John Clark's intelligence (or better) that's good  
enough for me.  

lol

> Would it be conscious?...who knows.

That is nothing new, that is the same sort of uncertainty every  
human being who has ever lived must face. Was the original John  
Clark conscious? Only the original John Clark knows for sure.

> Would it be recognizably John Clark...sure.

That is good enough for me.

Hmm... you betray your attraction for some first person elimination.
At least that is coherent with your belief in primary matter.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> The irony is that if you have the cognitive ability to conceive that you
> can survive qua "yes doctor", then you have the cognitive ability to
> understand that you are immortal no matter what.
>

So if you can conceive of something (although not in any detail) non
physical making a calculation then it doesn't matter that nothing non
physical can make a calculation; and thus there is no reason you can't
start a successful computer hardware company with zero manufacturing costs.
Sort of reminds me of those silly ontological "proofs" about the existence
of God, if you can conceive of God (although not in any detail) then God
must exist.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 17 Sep 2015, at 02:35, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Probably better to ask if immortal uploads would spend their times  
living in underground computer network facilities for ages, or would  
they roam the galaxy, searching for biology?

The irony is that if you have the cognitive ability to conceive that  
you can survive qua "yes doctor", then you have the cognitive ability  
to understand that you are immortal no matter what. The illusion is  
"mortality" and "identity":  you need a complex machine to support  
that illusion.

That should be already clear in QM without collapse (+ reasonable  
"hamiltonian"), but it is unavoidable, if you believe in  
computationalism, and this that prime numbers are infinite, with or  
without your presence here (in that case you have to admit the  
existence of all computations and our indetermination on them).

Technological immortality is only the pursue of evolution, and might  
be just a way to prolongate the Samsara, which is normal if your  
motivation is in seeing the next soccer cup, or the grow of your grand- 
grand...grand children.

Yet, by doing that you avoid the "natural", arithmetical immortality  
which might be a not so easy path given the way numbers can surprise  
themselves, especially in the limit.

People should be able to do what they want to do, as long as it  
doesn't prevent others to do what they want. To die is the most  
religious or spiritual act you can ever do, and the others have not  
much business to interfere, unless you ask for. I am glad that  
California voted recently a law making it possible to die with dignity  
through some medical assistance.

Bruno

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 01:27 PM
Subject: Re: Could we live forever?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

>  Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become  
extremely timid and risk averse.

If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk  
averse?   And if the death of death causes social problems then  
we'll just have to deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be  
the first time we experienced social problems. 

>  "The older you get, the less you have to lose."

And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite.  
Young healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks,  
but old people are full of aches and pains that constantly remind  
them that they are not immortal and so they become very timid and  
risk adverse.   

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 17 Sep 2015, at 00:16, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/16/2015 10:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 , spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:


   >  It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is  
far, far, away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and  
all that, but it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at  
this point.


Yes but exponential processes can do funny things, a week  
before uploading becomes possible it will still seem to be a very  
long way away, and the era where it's possible but very difficult  
and expensive will only last for about 15 minutes.  And if Cryonics  
works (a big if I admit) then it doesn't matter if it happens a  
week after your death or a thousand years after, all the time you  
spent bathing in liquid nitrogen will seem instantaneous to you.


"Uploading" isn't some well defined process (except in SciFi).  You  
could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people research your  
appearance, personality, thinking, preferences, speech, etc. and  
incorporating them into a computer program with sensory inputs and  
some Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max Headroom like John  
Clark who would continue to berate Bruno for his use of pronouns and  
other signs of intelligence.  Would it be conscious?...who knows.
Would it be recognizably John Clark...sure.


Good point.

With computationalism there is no zombies, but infinitely many local  
zombies. In fact if consciousness, which is a first person notion,  
depends entirely on the FPI, and thus on the infinity of computations,  
as it seems to be the case, then the UD generates *only* zombies,  
despite from our personal perspective there is no zombie for the  
entity which is counterfactually correct with respect to "me".
Now I am not sure if consciousness per se relies that much on the FPI,  
as our brain seems classical. That depends also if the filter (Galois  
connection) is correct.
Being conscious more than two instants does rely on the FPI, though,  
making physics into a computation measure calculus.


Note that (comp   +   ~ MW =>  solipsisme), so MW is quite welcome  
with comp, it illustrates the first person plurality. The physical  
bottom is linear, as I hope this will be extracted in the "material"  
machine's pov, but there is a lot of work to do to get at that stage.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 
> Probably better to ask if immortal uploads would spend their times living
> in underground computer network facilities for ages, or would they roam the
> galaxy, searching for biology?


Will humans 
spend their time living in
boxes made of bone perched precariously on their shoulders
 or would they roam the galaxy, searching for
other bone boxes
?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

> 
>> >>
>> If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk averse?
>
>

> 
> Not having a built in biological life span is very different from being
> immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.
>

Immortality isn't a deep concept, it just means making sure the atoms in
your biological brain, or its functional equivalent, always remained in
their correct orientation.
Immortality is simply a matter of
maintaining 
organization,
 and with nanotechnology that would be easy.

> > 
> you will eventually die from some
> accident.  
>

That's why 
you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in lots of different places, and
with 
nanotechnology that would be easy.

> > 
> or illness.
>

You will never die of illness if you have the ability to ensure that the
atoms in your body always remain in their correct orientation, 
and with 
nanotechnology that would be easy.

> 
> Uploading" isn't some well defined process

Uploading is very well defined, it's just not achievable yet for
technological not scientific or philosophical reasons:  Uploading

is the functional equivalent of a biological brain in electronic form. 

> 
> You could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people research your
> appearance, personality, thinking, preferences, speech, etc. and
> incorporating them into a computer program with sensory inputs and some
> Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max Headroom like John Clark who would
> continue to berate Bruno for his use of pronouns and other signs of
> intelligence.

Intelligent behavior is a much deeper property than consciousness, so if
it's got John Clark's intelligence (or better) that's good enough for me.  

> > 
> Would it be conscious?...who knows.

That is nothing new, that is the same sort of uncertainty every human
being who has ever lived must face. Was the original John Clark conscious?
Only the original John Clark knows for sure.

> 
> Would it be recognizably John Clark...sure.

That is good enough for me.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Probably better to ask if immortal uploads would spend their times living in 
underground computer network facilities for ages, or would they roam the 
galaxy, searching for biology?   

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 01:27 PM
Subject: Re: Could we live forever?

   On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent 
Meeker 
   <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net";>meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 
  Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become extremely 
timid and risk averse.

If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk averse?

And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just have to deal 
with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time we experienced social 
problems. 

> 
  "The older you get, the less you have to lose."

And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. Young healthy 
people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but old people are full of 
aches and pains that constantly remind them that they are not immortal and so 
they become very timid and risk adverse.   

  John K Clark

-- 

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to 
   mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com";>everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to 
   mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
   http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

 For more options, visit 
   https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  -- 

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to 
 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com";>everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to 
 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker

On 9/16/2015 10:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 , spudboy100 via Everything List 
>wrote:

 > 
It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is far, far,
away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all that,
but it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at this point. 

Yes but exponential processes can do funny things, a week before 
uploading becomes possible it will still seem to be a very long way 
away, and the era where it's possible but very difficult and expensive 
will only last for about 15 minutes.  And if Cryonics works (a big if 
I admit) then it doesn't matter if it happens a week after your death 
or a thousand years after, all the time you spent bathing in liquid 
nitrogen will seem instantaneous to you.

"Uploading" isn't some well defined process (except in SciFi).  You 
could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people research your 
appearance, personality, thinking, preferences, speech, etc. and 
incorporating them into a computer program with sensory inputs and some 
Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max Headroom like John Clark who 
would continue to berate Bruno for his use of pronouns and other signs 
of intelligence.  Would it be conscious?...who knows. Would it be 
recognizably John Clark...sure.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker

On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker >wrote:

 > 
Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become
extremely timid and risk averse.

 If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk averse?

Not having a built in biological life span is very different from being 
immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.  Not having a built-in life 
span means you will eventually die from some accident or illness.   In 
that case the more careful you are the longer you live.

 And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just 
have to deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time 
we experienced social problems. 

 > 
"The older you get, the less you have to lose."

 And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. 
Young healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but 
old people are full of aches and pains that constantly remind them 
that they are not immortal and so they become very timid and risk adverse.

Maybe.  I recently took second place in the 2-stroke Production 
motorcycle road racing championship at Willow Springs CA - and I'm 76.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 , spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> > 
> It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is far, far, away. It
> could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all that, but it doesn't
> feel like there is anything reliable at this point.

Yes but exponential processes can do funny things, a week before
uploading becomes possible it will still seem to be a very long way away,
and the era where it's possible but very difficult and expensive will only
last for about 15 minutes.  And if Cryonics works (a big if I admit) then
it doesn't matter if it happens a week after your death or a thousand years
after, all the time you spent bathing in liquid nitrogen will seem
instantaneous to you.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

> 
> Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become extremely
> timid and risk averse.
>

If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you be risk averse?

And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just have to
deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time we
experienced social problems. 

> > 
> "The older you get, the less you have to lose."
>

And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. Young
healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but old people
are full of aches and pains that constantly remind them that they are not
immortal and so they become very timid and risk adverse.   

  John K Clark

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 9/15/2015 9:28 AM,:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBU51zQvc2S6SNKI4mYgO_SO&t=1&v=STsTUEOqP-g


Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become extremely 
timid and risk averse.


Brent
"The older you get, the less you have to lose."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-15 Thread John Mikes

What prompts the question in my mind: what is 'forever'?
Time is a relative coordinate we apply under our own universe - based
circumstances together with space (motion?). In human reasoning (!).

*Forever *brings to mind first: in a *timelessly* momentary fashion,
definitely
not the long-long-long timespan which can be measured. Infinites are tricky.
Forget about the religious etc. connotations of 'burning in hell forever.
Once it started it is over - that is "a" forever. With no 'time'-concept
involved.

The other question is more usual: what should we understand as "to live"?
Do we restrict ourselves to the Earthly carbon-based bio churnings (or some
similar ones more than carbon based), or should it be a mentally connected
existence - complying to our 'matter' concept, or not? Does "change" mean
life (in which case all happenings are included)?

It all depends on the deep ends how we follow the literal intelligence
(meaning: understanding more than the straight vocabulary of our words).
And please, do not ask what do I mean by understanding, or words.

With best regards

JM

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:50 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I am kind of deeply interested in this stuff, because it, at least, is
> supposedly, hopeful. It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading
> is far, far, away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all
> that, but it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at this point.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 12:28 pm
> Subject: Could we live forever?
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBU51zQvc2S6SNKI4mYgO_SO&t=1&v=STsTUEOqP-g
>
>
>   John K Clark
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I am kind of deeply interested in this stuff, because it, at least, is 
supposedly, hopeful. It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is 
far, far, away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all that, but 
it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at this point. 
 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 12:28 pm
Subject: Could we live forever?


 
  
   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBU51zQvc2S6SNKI4mYgO_SO&t=1&v=STsTUEOqP-g
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  John K Clark  
 
  
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

Re: Could we live forever?

21 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information