New Mars Forums

That's Searle's point--not that strong AI is impossible (he leaves that open), but that the Turing test is flawed, and therefore so is functionalism (since the validity of the Turing test follows directly from functionalist ideas).

Hardly, unless there's a conclusive proof that I'm not aware of (if that's the case, please inform me).  This is all very recent philosophy (<25 years), and none of the counter arguments I've seen so far have been convincing (for me at least).  In any case, this isn't directly related to mind uploading, only to the validity of functionalism (from which some methods of immortality through mind uploading are dependant), so here's an argument that's slightly more on topic:

Suppose you build a machine that takes apart your body and records its composition and structure.  You use this device on yourself, and then have a friend load this data into a computer program that simulates the neuron interactions in your brain that form your mind.  The result of course is that you end up with a computer program that responds and behaves just like you would, and has all of your memories.  According to functionalism, this computer program would more than just resemble you, it is you.  The program is not a copy of you, but the same "you" that sat in the transfer device a moment ago.  You would have blacked out when the machine started operation and then woken up moments later in a computer.  This is what all those mind uploading immortalists (and a lot of AI people I've talked to) would have you believe.

But now let's extend the thought experiment:  what would happen if after loading your mind into a computer your friend went on to load it into six more computers?  The result would be that there are now seven separate but identical copies of you, all with the same initial personality, memories, and wants that you had.  They'll all act like you, but which one is you?  Are you one of them?  All of them?  What's more, what if the scanning process wasn't destructive?  What if you still existed in the flesh and blood over in that machine?  Functionalism breaks down here (it would identify each machine individually as you)

The only answer that makes any sense is that consciousness is not defined solely by memories and personality (the basic tenet of functionalism), and is non transferable.  Those computer versions of yourself were not you, but merely copies or cones of you.  You would have ceased to exist (died--reincarnated, gone to heaven, whatever) the moment that machine destroyed your body (and your brain with it).

But therein lies the difficulty...  It's nice to talk about computers 'thinking' (especially when they're slow like mine), but it's really just an expression and nothing more.  Computers are entirely deterministic--they just run program.  People on the other hand are not.  Nerve firings, for example, are known in some cases to be severly influenced or even initiated by physically random events.  Is it even possible to write imagination into a computer program?

That's the million dollar question I guess.

Functionalism is the idea in philosophy that mental states (thoughts, experiances, consciousness) are defined by their effects.  If you could write a computer program that imitated a human being so well that someone talking to it would never be able to tell it apart from a real conscious person, then a functionalist will say that that computer program is a real person, and has all the qualities of thought that we associate with real people (mind, consciousness, soul).  This is also called Strong AI.

Searle debunks this with his Chinese room example.  As usual, wikipedia is much more eloquent than me:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

(although I disagree with the author's conclusion: AI researchers may ignore Searle's Chinese room, with good reason as it would make most research meaningless, but there's really an even 50-50 split between philosophers.  the counter-points he provides are by no means convincing.  but i digress)

I think what you're refering to is called "uploading".  It's something cryonists and other immortalists talk about a lot.  If you type "mind uploading" into google you should get some pages..  If you believe in Functionalism (a la Alan Turing), which I'd be happy to debunk, then mind uploading should follow.  Even if functionalism is incorrect, it should be possible to slowly transition from biological to electronic form, achieving your immortality.

I don't think it's any more humbling than the realization that we're just one planet among billions in a practically infinite universe.  Because we're all space geeks we're used to and accept the latter, but remember how people reacted to Copernicus and Galileo?  In any case, Cobra Commander is correct; removal of the soul only makes life more precious.

You're absolutly right.  The article I was thinking of I read a few years back in discover magazine, but clearly I must be remembering wrong.  You are correct about Hawking radiation.

You are right that we do not know what the internal structure of a black hole is (if it has any).  But we have observed event horizons.

Here's how: Accretion matter falling into a neutron star heats up.  When it strikes the surface it's gained so much momentum that a thermonuclear explosion results.  We see this as a large x-ray burst.  Once neutron stars exceed a certain size we still see the heating, but not the burst.  The conclusion is that the star has become so massive that its gravity traps the light of the explosion.  This cut-off point in size is about what we'd expect for the transition to a black hole.  Therefore what we're observing is the event horizon of a black hole.

There have been other experiments to show the existance of black holes, I'm sure.  This is the one I'm the most familiar with.  My point is that black holes, objects so massive that they possess an event horizon, do exist, and are not a matter of belief or untested theory.  But I think we're really in agreement over this aren't we?

I apologize for hijacking the thread over such a nitpicky point.  I guess given the title of the thread I should have realized you were talking about singularities and not black holes in general.   

Glad I could help!   

I voted #3 because FLT does not exist and will never exist (although you wouldn't need it to colonize the galaxy).

But like Grad Student says, 100k years is a looong time.  I would say 1,000 to 2,000 years is all it'll take to fully colonize the solar system.  Isn't that what Marshall Savage predicted?

Adrian: I just received the same message as an email sent from this board:

Can't something be done about this?

No, it doesn't.  It includes the moon, mars, and asteroids.

For more information:
www.SpaceExplorationAct.org

No.  The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was 100% consentual, and started by Monica Lewinsky (as cindy said).  They had a bad breakup and Monica, in her infinite wisdom, decided to get revenge.  Yes, he did lie about it at first but the actual act wasn't a crime.  As for all the other wannabe scandals, there was never any evidence to make a case (Paula Jones got a settlement because she would not let the story die, even after having the case thrown out of the courts).

Not to mention that hasn't stated his position on any issues.  And what little he has said is undeniably and verifiably wrong.  And I mean in the 2 + 2 = 5 sense.  Jezus, what's wrong with this state? :angry:

-A confused californian.

PS: 50% vote for arnold?  Good lord!  how can that many people be so stupid?

:EDIT: sorry, just had to vent some steam :EDIT:

Moved to the Political Outreach folder.  Click here.

I think most of the facilities they built are still there, but Vandenburg was meant for military flights, not civilian flights (for a higher polar orbit).  Since the Air Force doesn't want the shuttle anymore, there's no need to launch from Vandenburg.

Vandenburg would be useless for anything other than polor orbit launches, for safety reasons.  If there was an accident like Challenger, toxic substances would be sprayed all over California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and I'm sure a few other states.  A polar launch would take it along the coast line and over the ocean, however.  In addition, I remember there being some safty issues with the launch itself (like sound waves bouncing off the near-by hills, and stuff like that).