From: B Ziomek (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2008 - 15:34:14 MDT
> True, but again, 5MB of complexity (actually less) is miniscule
> compared to the amount being generated daily by any individual.
> Granted if we were to abstract away the generated complexity of all of
> humanity we may get some redundancy (I dont know, it depends on what
> philosophical framework one draws upon) but certainly it should be
> more than 5MB.
But if one has the necessary tools to create a human population and raise it
in a simulated environment to avoid the uncertainty caused by a possible
different quantum environment, say within a computing core for example, one
would only NEED to store the genome and perhaps enough cultural data to
extrapolate a feasible simulation to stick the beings in. The whole of the
"light internet" won't seem like that much data after a few more storage
doublings, and heck you could probably create a person we would construe as
sane based only on data available in wikipedia (minus talk pages, of
course). Basically, unless, as you say, the AI finds it useful to have a
constantly running society to observe, a society could be ressurected for
specific tests without necessitating any storage of meatspace bodies in a
human-conducive environment. Hence, it seems to me while the survival of
unmodified human minds running constantly, whether in meat or uploaded, is
unable to be known, the probability of the continuance of information about
modern humanity sufficient to ressurect beings we can identify with is as
certain as anything can be in this topic.
> At the very
> > least the uploaded humans would modify themselves to execute more
> > on whatever hardware exists, and once the self-tampering starts, when
> > it stop?
> Yes self modification is fine. But we don't really know how that'll
> turn out yet. Kinda like chimps trying to predict the stock market.
> Well if you were going for irony there, I'd have to say that the Buffet has
shown this is quite possible. If not, this still brings up the million
chimps on a million typewriters point: if we guess enough we'll come up with
something resembling the truth.
And as for your point about the 50s, it's quite apt, and I have another
parallel to point out: back in the 50s visions of the future were far
different from what is actually here. Sometimes when I'm feeling pessimistic
I wonder if our speculation about the singularity is merely a modern
expression of that same optimism. But this is a question for another thread.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT