On 09/09/2007, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Nathan Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > What if the copy is not exact, but close enough to fool others who
> know
> > > you?
> > > Maybe you won't have a choice. Suppose you die before we have
> developed
> > > the
> > >
On 11/09/2007, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > No, you are thinking in the present, where there can be only one copy of a
> > > brain. When technology for uploading exists, you have a 100% chance of
> > > becoming the original and a 100% chance of becoming the copy.
> >
> > It's the
Thanks for the replies. Excellent arguments, but they are much as I
expected. I'm not sure it's going to be so easy to chuck two billion years
of biological evolution without loosing something important. I suspect that
the human/cyber combination is going to ultimately leverage the best of both
wor
--- Panu Horsmalahti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/9/10, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > - Human belief in consciousness and subjective experience is universal and
> > accepted without question.
>
>
> It isn't.
I am glad you spotted the flaw in these statements.
>
> Any belief
2007/9/10, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Human belief in consciousness and subjective experience is universal and
> accepted without question.
It isn't.
Any belief programmed into the brain through
> natural selection must be true in any logical system that the human mind
> can
> comp
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/09/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is not necessary to destroy the original. If you do destroy the
> > > original you have a 100% chance of ending up as the copy, while if you
> > > don't you have a 50% chance
On 10/09/07, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a final paradoxical example, if implementation Z is nothing, that
> is it comprises no matter and information ar all, there still is a
> correspondence function F(Z)=S which supposedly asserts that Z is X's
> upload. There can even be a f
On 10/09/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, it is not necessary to destroy the original. If you do destroy the
> > original you have a 100% chance of ending up as the copy, while if you
> > don't you have a 50% chance of ending up as the copy. It's like
> > probability if the MWI
Is it just my imagination, or has the quality level of popular-press
treatments of the Singularity improved in the last year or so?
Aside from minor glitches, this one from the AP is pretty good
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070908/superintelligent_machines.html?.v=2
If so, plaudits to the Singularity
Monday, September 10, 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote:
MM> --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intentionally don't want to exactly define what S is as it describes
>> vaguely-defined 'subjective experience generator'. I instead leave it
>> at description level.
MM> If you can't define wh
10 matches
Mail list logo
