No Moon, no life on Earth, suggests theory

NewScientist.com ^ | 18 March, 2004

[Physicist]

I haven't read it, but it's a topic I've been thinking about for 20 years.

[js1138]

This just in from Seventh Planet Live Action Technews: In a few hundred years we will, at best, be the pampered pets of whatever intelligent entities we create.

Electronic intelligences could design themselves to sleep through extended space flights, keeping just the minimum level of conciousness necessary to handle emergencies.

Just because you can think fast doesn't mean you would be required to suffer from boredom.

[longshadow]

You know ... because they're there.

Not only that, but also "To Serve Man...." (the cookbook!) [Twilight Zone?]

;-)

[js1138]

...there is a segment of humanity, called Edenists, who upload their consciousness into their organic habitats upon death, giving them effective immortality. Interesting concept.

I always wonder what mystical mushroom people have to ingest to think that a physical copy or emulation of our consciousness would automatically be us. Excuse me, but the old body still dies. Living things already have the only kind of immortality avaliable to physical living things, and that would be children.

If you believe in a soul, that's fine with me, but I don't think God is going to be fooled by making physical copies of ourselves.

[Modernman]

haven't read it, but it's a topic I've been thinking about for 20 years.

It's part of a greater question that I have an interest in: what will human beings be like 100, 1000 or a million years from now? We'll probably go through a lot of changes over the long-term, both mentally and (through bioengineering), physically. Humanity is on the cusp of an age that will probably see radical changes to the whole idea of what it means to be human.

[VadeRetro]

I wonder how many insect species go extinct, compared to say, large mammals.

When you look at how many insect species there are, you could hardly have any other result.

[Modernman]

I always wonder what mystical mushroom people have to ingest to think that a physical copy or emulation of our consciousness would automatically be us.

I agree with you. If one could transfer their consciousness, I think that person remains the same. However, a copy isn't the same, at least not in my mind. If someone were to copy me tomorrow then disintergrate the original, the rest of the world might not know the difference, but I (the I that exists right now) would be gone.

[js1138]

When you look at how many insect species there are, you could hardly have any other result.

I was too specific. I should have been more generic.

[VadeRetro]

If someone were to copy me tomorrow then disintergrate the original, the rest of the world might not know the difference, but I (the I that exists right now) would be gone.

If you were a program running in a computer, would you still like cheeseburgers?

[VadeRetro]

Should be lots of genera too.

[js1138]

But this brings up another issue: how would you go about proving, or even arguing, that no new species have evolved during recent centuries? How many species have been classified in the last two hundred years, and how many insects are newly discovered every year?

[VadeRetro]

But this brings up another issue: how would you go about proving, or even arguing, that no new species have evolved during recent centuries?

The obvious trick is to shift the burden of proof the other way, but even that doesn't work.

[jwalsh07]

Well, I knew that the Moon was a harsh mistress but I didn't know that she beat life into the Earth. Live and learn.

[general_re]

I always wonder what mystical mushroom people have to ingest to think that a physical copy or emulation of our consciousness would automatically be us. Excuse me, but the old body still dies.

Suppose that your neurons were gradually replaced by silicon designed to function as neurons, and to emulate the wetware for you. That is, instead of simply doing it in one fell swoop, your neurons are replaced one-by-one with chips, over some extended period of time, until there was eventually nothing left but silicon. Now, if you did such a thing, at no point would there ever be more than one "you" running around, so what happens then? Can you reasonably say that your consciousness has effectively been "transferred"?

[Modernman]

If you were a program running in a computer, would you still like cheeseburgers?

Depends on what the computer environment was like. If it was set up in a way so that the transferred human consciousness perceived it as the "real" world, I would still have a love of (virtual) cheeseburgers.

In fact, I think any such artificial environment would need to be perceived by the transferred consciousness as the "real" world. I don't think a human psyche would survive sane and/or intact if it found itself in a pure computer environment.

[Modernman]

That is, instead of simply doing it in one fell swoop, your neurons are replaced one-by-one with chips, over some extended period of time, until there was eventually nothing left but silicon.

Interesting scenario. If there was no break in the continuity of consciousness, then I think the being left at the end would be the same as the one at the beginning (well, except he'd have a head full of sand).

[js1138]

There is an alternate road to "immortality" and that would be to step up the replacement of dead neurons, so that our brains would be forever healthy. There are, of course, numerous obstacles to the unlimited replication of cells, but perhaps the trick would be to have all cells rotated out and replaced by stem cells.

Getting to your analogy, if neurons were gradually replaced, I would assume that the new troops would be untrained. This rotation would take place over decades, and our memories of our past self would get grainier and grainier, and eventually vanish.

I suspect that attempting to retain our personalities completely intact would be futile. There are too many advantages to starting over with fresh troops. Forgetting is not without benefits, both to individuals and to societies.

[longshadow]

That is, instead of simply doing it in one fell swoop, your neurons are replaced one-by-one with chips, over some extended period of time, until there was eventually nothing left but silicon.

"We are Borg. Prepare for assimilation."

[general_re]

That's more or less my take on it. I always wondered if, on Star Trek, the people that came out of the transporter were really the "same" people that went in :^)

[general_re]

Getting to your analogy, if neurons were gradually replaced, I would assume that the new troops would be untrained.

Why? What if each bit of silicon were designed to emulate the individual neuron it replaced, such that however the neuron behaved, the silicon perfectly replicated it? Not that there are no valid arguments to be made in favor of dying, of course, but one might imagine that silicon memories are much more "forgettable" than biochemical ones, if you should so wish it...