Gizmodo on mind uploading, featuring Anders Sandberg

[extherian]

This series of interviews (click HERE) explains many of the reservations people have about mind uploading and whether they would actually be 'transferred' to the computer or not. Of course, our very own Anders Sandberg is included as well.

Note that Sandberg seems to place a great deal of faith in Moore's Law making computer processors fast enough to handle the enormous amount of work required. Given recent slowdowns in the semiconductor industry, this may well not come to pass, since our current transistor technology simply can't be scaled down beyond a certain point.

[Rynn]

I'm given to understand that Moore's law died already. It's not the be all and end all of improvements in computer performance by any means, but the industry standard of doubling transistor count hasn't been true for years.

[stevebowers]

This why I don't think uploading will occur in the lifetime of anyone living today. Unless some kind of life-extension technology is developed first.

[Drashner1]

For a point of reference, here is the Wikipedia article on Moore's Law.

It touches on developments in the field as well as other factors and 'laws' that can impact Moore's Law beyond just technological capability. It also talks a bit about the projected end of Moore's Law and some tech's that may take us past that end.

One thing with Moore's Law is that I've seen it referred to in terms of any and all computing tech as well as just being limited to transistors on silicon chips.

Note also that a slowing of Moore's Law is not the same thing as computer technology ceasing to advance.

Todd

[Drashner1]

Read the interviews - I obviously agree with those who say this will one day be possible.

I found the statements by the people who wanted to inject mostly worthless imaginary concepts like 'morality' and 'humanity' into the discussion annoying though.

Todd

[extherian]

Technically they're not wrong, in that an uploaded copy of your mind would indeed cease to be human, as it's now a sophont computer program rather than a sophont animal. But it's still a person, just not a human person.

I find the implication that you don't believe in the possibility of doing evil rather disturbing. Presumably it's absolute moral standards you don't think exist, not that there's no such thing as wrongdoing? If there's anything I've learned here, it's that we tend to use the same words to mean very different things.

The idea that altering the human condition is inherently some kind of crime against nature is quite laughable, though.

[Drashner1]

Technically they're not wrong, in that an uploaded copy of your mind would indeed cease to be human, as it's now a sophont computer program rather than a sophont animal. But it's still a person, just not a human person.

Agreed that an upload would be a person and that they would no longer be a biological human. However, the definition of 'human' is something of a moving target. Various groups have been deemed 'inhuman' by other groups throughout history. This has led me to generally find the term distasteful, along with other imprecise and often manipulated concepts like 'liberty' and 'freedom'.

I find the implication that you don't believe in the possibility of doing evil rather disturbing. Presumably it's absolute moral standards you don't think exist, not that there's no such thing as wrongdoing? If there's anything I've learned here, it's that we tend to use the same words to mean very different things.

In my view the concepts 'good', 'evil', 'right', and 'wrong' have the same level of imaginary (and mostly worthless) reality as the concept of 'morality'. If by 'absolute moral standards' you mean the idea that there is some cosmic absolute set of rules for how people should live and what is and isn't 'good' or the like, then you're correct - I don't believe in that either.

Out of curiosity - Can you prove that any particular action is objectively 'good' or 'evil'?

As to whether or not 'wrongdoing' is a real thing - When a person is presented with the actions of another person they will often have an opinion about them, either positive or negative. They will tend to characterize the things they feel positive about as 'good' or 'right' and the things they feel negative about as 'wrong' or 'evil'. If a large percentage or the majority of the people in a society agree that particular actions make them feel positive, then they will probably characterize those actions as good and structure their laws accordingly - if they agree that the actions make them feel negative, they will probably characterize those actions as 'bad' and structure their laws accordingly. None of this tells us anything substantive about the nature of the actions themselves or whether or not they have/will have a positive or negative impact on the society in any objective sense. And none of it matters in the slightest to the universe in any objective sense.

The idea that altering the human condition is inherently some kind of crime against nature is quite laughable, though.

Agreed.

Todd

[extherian]

I agree that there are no absolute standards for right and wrong. However...

If a large percentage or the majority of the people in a society agree that particular actions make them feel positive, then they will probably characterize those actions as good and structure their laws accordingly - if they agree that the actions make them feel negative, they will probably characterize those actions as 'bad' and structure their laws accordingly.

A majority of people could decide that seeing homosexual couples in public makes them feel bad and decide to prohibit it. Now you could say that whether we allow people to act in accordance with their sexual orientation or not is an arbitrary decision that has nothing to do with good or evil, but I would argue that prohibiting this is in fact morally unacceptable, as it causes pointless suffering while not serving the public good in any meaningful way. I don't think you can justify abuses of human rights on the grounds that there's no universal standard that applies in every situation.

None of this tells us anything substantive about the nature of the actions themselves or whether or not they have/will have a positive or negative impact on the society in any objective sense. And none of it matters in the slightest to the universe in any objective sense.

True, but this does not mean that evil does not exist, just that what constitues evil varies depending on the circumstances. There are an enormous variety of different harms that can befall a person, whether that constitutes injury, humiliation, financial loss or death, and there's no reason why we should allow people to inflict these harms on each other without good cause. I don't accept that any person can decide that it's fine for them to hurt whoever they want, just because there isn't an absolute standard of evil that you can point to like it's one of the laws of physics.

[Drashner1]

A majority of people could decide that seeing homosexual couples in public makes them feel bad and decide to prohibit it.

Not sure what part of the planet you call home, but this has already happened multiple times in multiple countries (including my own) and continues in many countries to this day. My country has recently taken steps against this prohibition, much to the annoyance of a fair number of people, who continue to complain about it. Their upset and pain...amuses me

Now you could say that whether we allow people to act in accordance with their sexual orientation or not is an arbitrary decision that has nothing to do with good or evil, but I would argue that prohibiting this is in fact morally unacceptable, as it causes pointless suffering while not serving the public good in any meaningful way. I don't think you can justify abuses of human rights on the grounds that there's no universal standard that applies in every situation.

As a gay man I'm happy that you feel this way. However, moving beyond my (admittedly self-interested) emotions on the matter, the fact that you're trying to make an argument for the existence of good, evil, and morality by starting from an assumption that they exist doesn't really convince me (sorry).

Try formulating the argument with no reference to or use of the words and see what you come up with.

On a somewhat different note - would now be a bad time to mention that I classify 'human rights' or 'rights' in general as made up/imaginary concepts as well?

True, but this does not mean that evil does not exist, just that what constitues evil varies depending on the circumstances. There are an enormous variety of different harms that can befall a person, whether that constitutes injury, humiliation, financial loss or death, and there's no reason why we should allow people to inflict these harms on each other without good cause. I don't accept that any person can decide that it's fine for them to hurt whoever they want, just because there isn't an absolute standard of evil that you can point to like it's one of the laws of physics.

So something can be 'evil' in one set of circumstances and 'good' in another? That seems a bit...subjective and imaginary.

I agree there are many different types of harm that can befall a person, but I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether or not good or evil exist.

I would say that there are various reasons why allowing people to harm each other at will would probably result in more negative consequences than positive ones, whether to myself or the society I live in (which would devolve back to negative consequences for me). But I don't see any value in muddying the waters with terms/concepts like 'evil' though. Or why the concept of 'evil' is even really necessary in this case.

More specifically, I suppose that the concept of 'evil' can be used as a memetic tool for manipulating people to get them to behave in a desired manner, but the LOE and potential unanticipated long term side effects generally make me feel it's more work than it's worth.

Todd

[stevebowers]

Way back when Orion's Arm was first created we had a few discussions on the idea of 'evil' in the scenario. We decided that most of the cliche varieties of evil were irrelevant to the sort of stories we wanted to tell. The AIs in OA aren't evil, they are just trying to understand the universe in as much detail as possible, and modify it in accord with goals they devise for themselves. Aliens in OA aren't evil; they have different ways of seeing the universe, which can be understood if examined closely. The megacorps in OA aren't evil; they are just trying to maximise their own interests, using the free market. Group minds are not evil, they are a genuine attempt to understand one another, and so on.

Modified humans, cyborgs, intelligent animals and virtuals are not the products of evil science, they are the results of various attempts to improve the status and capabilities of biological organisms. Even those blights and other psychologically disturbed sophonts which do cause harm intentionally are not evil, but insane or deluded, although evil arises from their actions. In the context of OA, many of these disturbed and pathological entities are the result of failed attempts to improve sophont capabilities. If we, as sophonts, are going to continue down the route of self-modification in the future, there will mistakes and failures, and some of these will have very bad results - but that does not mean that the route of self-modification is an evil one.