Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Drexler on immortality, source of nano books. Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 90 04:29:44 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 54 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu I'm just in the process of reading Eric Drexler's _Engines of Creation_ and then I remembered that I had seen the word "nanotechnology" somewhere on USENET.... Yet another group to be followed... That sure is a book with powerful visions. I find it difficult to assess how much of it is feasible (I'm not an engineer or technologist, but a biologist (genetics)). (Sorry, I lost the attribution:) >The real problem is the fact that we don't know that a backup of your >mind is still you (even if you are nothing but information and a >system of state transition functions). For instance, if we create >multiple instances of you from a backup, which one is you? Are they >all you? What does the concept of identity mean in this case? Is >identity unique, or not? And if not, then why would each one of the >instances of you all object to being killed? >The confusions and contradictions that seem to sprout like weeds when >one considers this subject suggest to me that at least one of the >fundamental concepts we use to define/express this problem is flawed, >inconsistent, meaningless and/or otherwise ill-defined. We don't know >what we're talking about, at least not fully. I think an understanding of our method(s) for concept-formation is crucial if one is to assess what is possible and not. This is both an epistemological and a scientific issue. For example, even with an accurate understanding of how the mind works, a simulation of it may still have restrictions or limitations that the real mind doesn't have (i e don't equate a model with reality). Is it possible to incorporate volition/free will (internal causation) in an Artificial Intelligence? If yes, there is the contradiction that this programming was externally generated. If the AI is supposed to be immortal, other problems arise: Fundamentally, being alive means that self-generating and self-maintaining action is necessary; otherwise the organism will die. This is the basis for goal-setting. Without the alternative of death, what does being alive mean? How can goals be set, and value prioritizations be made by an entity which is automatically existing? Well, enough rambling for now... There is a book by Gary McGath, _Model and reality_ about epistemological issues wrt the nature of consciousness and concept-formation in relation to AI research, another of the books I'm in the process of reading... I don't have the time to review it (I hardly have the time to read these books!), however you may contact McGath at 72145.1014@compuserve.com for further information about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------