One (Hopefully) Last Comment on Uploading

When I first ventured into cryonics, (quite accidentally...I needed a job, SA had an advertisement with the word "perfusion" in it, and their facility just happened to be located near my home), I was acquainted with the notion of "uploading." The idea was presented to me as a method of exending one's life. Being mostly interested in the hypothermic medical techniques that apply to cryonics, and not accepting that one would ever be able to load one's OWN awareness into a machine, (or even another brain, or synthetic version of a brain), I didn't really pay much attention to uploading.

Later, it occurred to me that most of the uploaders were discussing making COPIES of themselves, and some of them thought the copies would actually be the same person as the original, something I found a little too abstract. If I was on my deathbed, and there were a dozen copies of me in the room, I would still be dying. My copies might think they were me, but they never would actually BE me, and once I took my last breath, the real me would still be dead.

These discussions took an even stranger turn, when some of the uploaders discussed existing in some sort of simulation, such as in digital form in a computer. To me, it seemed to be the ultimate in delusional thinking and narcissism. If I was able to upload my personality and memories into a machine, it would still NOT be "me," and the real me would still die at some point not too far in the future, relatively speaking.

I've rarely commented on uploading, until recently, when Cold Filter made the transformation from a cryonics forum, to an uploading forum, and the conversation got really ridiculous, with one CF member insisting a drawing of an hydrogen atom, on a piece of paper, is a REAL hydrogen atom. At that point, it became difficult for me to keep a straight face, and impossible to refrain from commenting.

Though I've read many articles and Internet posts on uploading, I never, NOT EVER, saw even one person describe it as a method to leave memories behind for loved ones...until yesterday. Every word I read, prior to that, seemed, to me, to be nothing more than narcissism. "Fundie" wrote how nice it would be to "...have some remnant copy of the brains of (his) grandparents and other departed loved ones, with which he could interact." I think that's a lovely sentiment, I truly do. I was blessed enough to know my grandparents, and even most of my great-grandparents, very well. In fact, three of my grandparents only recently died, (when I was 48 - 50), so even my youngest child knew them. One of my great-grandparents lived until I was 29, and my daughter, his great-great granddaughter, was six. I wasn't just acquainted with these people; I spent time with them; I knew and loved them. It was one of the great tragedies of my life, when my favorite grandparent, (my mother's mother), died at the age of 69, and I would do anything to have been able to interact with even a copy of her, these last 24 years.

With that said, a copy of her would not be her, any more than her diaries and photos, (things I regularly enjoy), are her. A copy, or simulation, of my grandmother would not be my grandmother, even if it was something I could hug. SHE, (my REAL grandmother), would not be feeling my love for her, and I would know that.

Off and on, for the past decade, or so, I've researched my family tree, and I have a lot of information about relatives who died long before I was born. While there are a few characters I would certainly like to meet, (maybe even if it was just a simulation), just how much time would I be willing to spend with the "dead relatives"? Other than the ones I actually grew up with, probably not much. Of my currently living relatives, I have my parents and step-parents, whom I love as parents. I have three children of my own, a beloved stepson and one grandson, so far. I have five half-siblings, an assortment of step-siblings, and nine nieces and nephews, (a number sure to increase, since some of my half-siblings are much younger than I). I have 11 living aunts and uncles, and 14 first cousins, all who have spouses and children of their own. I love these people and I don't have time to spend with most of them. There are currently 599 people in my family tree, on Ancestry.com. While it's fun to do the research, and to learn the history of some of these people, why would I drag out a simulation of a great-great grandparent I never even met, when I don't have enough time to spread out amongst my living relatives, all of whom I love very much. I probably wouldn't.

Though I found "Fundie's" argument for uploading his personality and memories touching, I think it strayed far from the mainstream uploaders. As I already stated, most uploaders never mention anyone other than themselves, or how they might enjoy living in some virtual world, where they could create simulations of their every desire coming true, ala Edgar Swank. Then, there's Mathew Sullivan, who now seems to want nothing more than a servant, who can anticipate his every need/desire.

I can't imagine that anyone past my grandchildren, will be interested in me, as they will have their own lives and a wealth of LIVING relatives. On a humorous note, I CAN imagine being a computer, sitting around on a desk, getting dusty. and whining about how the great-great-great-grandkids have no interest in me. ;)

Scarlett O'Hara Syndrome and Cryonics

A disproportionate number of cryonicists seem to be suffering from some sort of syndrome that results in them planning to be alive far into the future, without actually accomplishing anything of scientific merit that might provide for that. Like Scarlett O'Hara, they'd rather "think about that tomorrow." Actually, they'd much rather depend on SOMEONE ELSE to think about their problems, tomorrow. (Their "tomorrow" being decades, or hundreds of years, from now.) A significant percentage of these people spend their lives, sitting at their computers, expounding on abstract ideas and patting one another on the back, for accomplishing little more than having vivid imaginations. Interestingly, most of them claim to be atheists, and have dismissed religion as mythological, not realizing they are doling out more faith than most religious zealots.

Want to store 100,000 people in a geodesic dome, at cryogenic temperatures? Just imagine stuffing them in there, with little thought as to how each of them can be maintained, or retrieved without disturbing the others, or what type of cooling system could be used, or how machines could operate in such an extremely cold environment...let the scientists and engineers of tomorrow worry about that. Luke Parrish thinks one can stuff "ten bodies, or 100 heads," in each cubic meter. (This reminds me of stuffing people into phone booths and VW bugs...fun, but not very practical, especially if the goal is to keep all of them at a uniform temperature and to be able to extract one from the middle, without disturbing the others.)

Luke writes: "A cubic meter would hold around 100 heads or 10 bodies. A thousand cubic meters in a cubic shape is just 10x10x10 meters, with 600 square meters. So if the energy cost is $100/month per square meter, 100,000 neuro people could be stored in something costing $60,000/month to run. 60 cents, in other words." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1256711414/Domes+rock%21

(I think Luke's cost analysis was overly simplistic, to say the least.)

Later, Luke writes about storing "millions of people," in his imaginary cryo-domes, because, according to him, "The fact is it is would be unselfish for everyone to choose cryonics because it would bring down the cost for everyone else. It would be less ecologically damaging because the energy usage per person would be reduced. Compared to burial or cremation, it could actually have a significantly reduced environmental impact." http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1254015159/Millions+of+patients

Oh pooh...Why worry about the environment?...I'm sure the nanobot scientists of the future will take care of that, too.

Want to send laymen with no medical education or experience, whatsoever, to perform advanced medical procedures known to be deadly, when performed improperly? Go ahead, send anyone off the street who volunteers to pretend to be a surgeon or a perfusionist, and let them turn someone's brain into scrambled eggs. Who cares? No need to worry about silly things like subjecting the subjects to inappropriate temperatures and intravascular pressures. The scientists of tomorrow are sure to be willing to spend their lives, (and money), trying to reverse the (most likely irreversible) damage. (Sarcasm, for anyone not familiar with my writing, or my opinions of the way cryonics procedures are carried out.)

I thought the goal of "uploading" was to be able to transcend the (mortal) human body, so that one could live longer, but I guess that hasn't really been the goal, for all cryonicists involved in this little "virtual adventure." It seems Mathew Sullivan simply wants a maid/secretary. Mathew writes the word "avatar" a lot, and mentions games like "Second Life," an Internet game, where one can engage in a fantasy life, selecting the avatar's looks, engaging in virtual shopping and work...heck, one's avatar can even fly! (Is it just me, or is "Second Life" something that seems like it should only be appealing to adolescents? I tried to look up the demographics, but there are conflicting reports and most of them seem more like marketing, than anything else.)

Robert Ettinger and Aschwin de Wolf have warned that associating the medical science aspect of cryonics, with these bizarre futuristic fantasies, may be damaging to the cryonics community. I don't think they realize the people engaged in these discussions want attention, more than success. How else could one explain the same handful of people consistently doling out crackpot ideas, (nearly all of which require a great deal of effort on the part of the scientists of the future), while actually doing nothing to prove those ideas? How many of these people are actually engaging in studying related sciences and/or technologies, (and I don't mean the self-directed, self-evaluated "studying" many cryonicists engage in), compared to the number who are just sitting at their computer monitors, every day, fantasizing about topics they barely understand? These people are not engaging in any sort of meaningful scientific endeavors; they're engaging in make-believe. Twenty years from now, most of them will probably still be sitting at their computers, imagining the scientists of the future are going to be carrying out their fantasies, and still doing NOTHING, in actuality. It's their own little version of "Second Life."

Maybe cryonicists should consider addressing problems that CAN be resolved, in the present, like delivering cryonics providers who can competently perform the surgical procedures the cryonics organizations are marketing. When Luke and his friends can back up their fantasies with theories, and proposed methods of implementation that more than a couple of dozen people will embrace, maybe I'll give their theories some thought. Until then, I'll probably just keep laughing.

Too Much Fantasy, Not Enough Reality, in Cryonics

A member of the Cold Filter cryonics forum has spent more than a week, arguing with Mr. Robert Ettinger, (a great mind and the "Father of Cryonics"), about what constitutes a hydrogen atom. Luke Parris seems to be arguing that drawings on paper, or digitalized simulations, can be hydrogen atoms. In some very desperate attempts, he resorts to semantics, arguing that his simulation is "real." He seemed to think Mr. Ettinger would ignore that fact that, while it is a real SIMULATION, it is still NOT a genuine hydrogen atom.

Now, Luke wants to argue that, if he were to visit an alien world, his definition of the word "human" might be different than that of the inhabitants. That's just fantasyland. We're here, on earth, Mr. Ettinger is not an alien, (and neither is Luke, so far as I know), and people attempting to engage in scientific discussion MUST use the accepted definitions of known terms.

Judging by his bizarre arguments, it seems Luke probably thinks that if he draws an atom on a piece of paper, and then rips his drawing in half, he has accomplished nuclear fission, which begs the question, "If Luke tears a stack of drawings of atoms in half, will he blow himself up?"

Luke's entire argument has been BEYOND ridiculous and absurd. Not only that, but he has been disrepectful to Mr. Ettinger, throughout the discussions. The only redeeming features of the discussion have been Mr. Ettinger's arguments, and more than anything, Mr. E's hilarious remarks, (such as calling Luke's argument a "simulation of a discussion." )

Mr. Ettinger says "enough," in response to Luke's total nonsense, and wants to know where he has "failed to make things clear." Mr. Ettinger did not fail; his side of the argument was crystal clear. It is Luke who has failed to comprehend the perfectly clear and logical arguments, presented by Mr. Ettinger.

Luke's entire history of posting, on the Cold Filter forum, has been largely comprised of illogical arguments for far-out ideas. That's the problem with cryonics, too many people are engaging in make-believe, and there's a tremendous deficit of common sense and rational logic.

For anyone who has time to waste, and wants a good laugh, here are links to the discussions:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286644929/Melody+vs.+Uploading
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286907435/Language+vs.+logic
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286931141/begging+the+question

Faulty Logic in the "Uploading" Debate

In my opinion, this is the most significant point made, thus far, in the recent "uploading" debates:

Mr. Ettinger: "Luke's remarks about simulations being real, i.e. that the parts and events in a computer are material, is irrelevant."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286700895/confusing+and+misleading

Luke's comment was truly irrelevant. As I understand it, (or thought I understood it), the point of uploading was to transcend the human body, and live forever. Luke's argument that his simulation of a hydrogen atom, (whether on paper, or programmed into a computer), is "real," is lame. Yes, a photo of me would be "real," (a real photo of me), but it would not be me. Luke is going off on a tangent, while Mr. Ettinger is sticking to the debate of whether a copy could ever be the original. (Mr. Ettinger has a lot more patience, than I!)

Cryonics Comic Relief - Uploading

Robert Ettinger has been attempting to make a point-by-point argument, (on Cold Filter and Cryonet), against the probability of uploading being successful. I happen to agree with Mr. Ettinger, that copies can never be the original, but that doesn't seem to matter to many cryonicists / transhumanists. For many years, I thought the goal of uploading was for an individual to live on, but it only recently dawned on me that I've been mistaken. It seems the majority of the transhumanists would be happy if a mere copy of themselves "lived" on, after they were dead. Personally, I think, with extremely rare exceptions, future generations would find copies of the thinking patterns of dead people, programmed into computers unnecessary, and the associated narcissism laughable.

This morning, Mr. Ettinger writes:
"Reason 3. Time intervals in the computer and in life...
Now, assume the original lives on, while his simulation is being run on the computer. The simulation "lives" like a film with frames at non-zero intervals. The original lives in some fashion not presently understood--possibly in a continuous fashion with no gaps, or possibly jumping each time to an appreciably different state with nothing in between. Even in the latter case, however, it is exceedingly unlikely that the intervals between successive states would be the same for the original and for the simulation. Hence, it seems to me, the simulation cannot be faithful to the original. Again, we can't know yet how important the differences may be, but there will surely be differences."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286501818/Reason+3--why+uploading+unlikely

Suspended Animation's Mathew Sullivan, responds with:
"At a basic level, the "simulation" is nothing more than a tool...
My car does not function exactly as me and it does not even have legs, but it can get me to work more efficiently than I can by jogging."
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286507653/At+a+basic+level%2C+the+%26quot%3Bsimulation%26quot%3B+is+nothing+more+than+a+tool

Huh? How is that supposed to be an argument for uploading? The simulation is a "tool" for what? I don't get it.

Luke Parrish responds to one of Mr. Ettinger's arguments with:
"Ultimately, saying that the paper with a complete programmatic description (combined, presumably at some point with a turing machine which simulates it) is not a hydrogen atom is simply begging the question. How do you know it is not a hydrogen atom? What property is essential to our definition of hydrogen atoms which this lacks?"
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1286030862/Marks+on+paper

Huh? again. It lacks being a real hydrogen item, that's what it lacks. A description, or simulation of a hydrogen atom, written in code in a computer, is exactly that...a description or simulation, not the original, or even a hydrogen atom, at all. Later on, in the discussion, Luke admits the computerized simulation of the hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom "in abstract form," but still calls it "the atom," something Mr. Ettinger seems to find as puzzling as I.

To sum up my thinking about these exchanges, my question is:
If Luke programs a perfect copy of a bear and its environment, into his computer, and his virtual bear takes a virtual crap in the virtual woods, does Luke smell it?

As I've always said, if nothing else, the cryonics forums are good for cheap entertainment. (Not referring to Mr. Ettinger's remarks, but to the responses to those remarks.)