Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Ruzeil 13 October 2015 09:07:10AM *  0 points [-]

Sort of Library of Babel(https://libraryofbabel.info/About.html) comes in mind when debates about simulations arise. But instead of 3200 characters limit, there is no limit. What You(We, I , every "sentient" being) search(see,hear.....add senses by will and capability) is already there and it's just presented (calculated) in an instant. The Great Imaginarium if You will.....


Comment author: Thomas 07 October 2015 07:46:51AM 1 point [-]

To build a giant lookup table. Google is a small giant lookup table, but we need a much, much bigger one.

Google is too much about interfacing with their table, but that should be put aside for the moment. What I want is to input any blob of data and output should be all possible relations this blob of data has with any other blob of data.

For example, if I input an integral (calculus), its solution (function) would be one of the natural outputs. If I input a picture, all pictures of the same object(s) is the natural answer this GLT should return. Then you can filter them further. It goes on and on. The table itself is constantly updated, of course.

The craziness of this idea is only in that I think it would soon replace Google. Otherwise it's quite basic.

Comment author: Ruzeil 07 October 2015 08:11:47AM *  5 points [-]

Wolphram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/) does more or less what You have described, so I suppose that Stephen has devised/engineered some kind of "table". But still, can You give some more technical insights in Your idea, since sounds interesting (for me at least).


Comment author: gjm 18 September 2015 11:29:46AM *  1 point [-]

The claim isn't that the cells are constantly replaced, but that the atoms are; see e.g. this blog post as an example of the claim being made. [EDITED to add:] More specifically, an example where the claim is made and "new cells" and "new atoms" are explicitly distinguished.

Comment author: Ruzeil 18 September 2015 12:16:19PM *  1 point [-]

I have found this reddit discussion:


and there are some pro and contra comments in there about atoms and molecules of the nerve cells. Probably I need a lot more reading on this subject , txs for the guidance.


Comment author: V_V 17 September 2015 03:24:34PM 1 point [-]

Yudkowsky's counter-argument to the philosophical issue of copies vs. "really you": http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_identity/

Yudkowsky's counter-argument is a counter-argument to a straw man, since I don't think anybody ever argued in modern times that personal identity is linked to a specific set of individual atoms. Everybody knows that atoms in the brain are constantly replaced.

Comment author: Ruzeil 18 September 2015 08:07:45AM 0 points [-]

Everybody knows that atoms in the brain are constantly replaced.

I don't know if this is true.

http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/ http://rebrn.com/re/theseus-body-is-there-any-part-of-a-human-that-is-cellularly-or-873979/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/feb/23/brain-new-cells-adult-neurogenesis All 3 links suggest the opposite.

Can You provide a source for this claim?


Comment author: AndreInfante 16 September 2015 08:43:17AM *  7 points [-]

If we could “upload” or roughly simulate any brain, it should be that of C. elegans. Yet even with the full connectome in hand, a static model of this network of connections lacks most of the information necessary to simulate the mind of the worm. In short, brain activity cannot be inferred from synaptic neuroanatomy.

Straw man. Connectonomics is relevant to trying to explain the concept of uploading to the lay-man. Few cryonics proponents actually believe it's all you need to know to reconstruct the brain.

The features of your neurons (and other cells) and synapses that make you “you” are not generic. The vast array of subtle chemical modifications, states of gene regulation, and subcellular distributions of molecular complexes are all part of the dynamic flux of a living brain. These things are not details that average out in a large nervous system; rather, they are the very things that engrams (the physical constituents of memories) are made of.

The fact that someone can be dead for several hours and then be resuscitated, or have their brain substantially heated or cooled without dying, puts a theoretical limit on how sensitive your long-term brain state can possibly be to these sorts of transient details of brain structure. It seem very likely that long-term identity-related brain state is stored almost entirely in relatively stable neurological structures. I don't think this is particularly controversial, neurobiologically.

While it might be theoretically possible to preserve these features in dead tissue, that certainly is not happening now. The technology to do so, let alone the ability to read this information back out of such a specimen, does not yet exist even in principle. It is this purposeful conflation of what is theoretically conceivable with what is ever practically possible that exploits people’s vulnerability.

This is not, to the best of my knowledge, true, and he offers no evidence for this claim. Cryonics does a very good job of preserving a lot of features of brain tissue. There is some damage done by the cryoprotectants and thermal shearing, but it's specific and well-characterized damage, not total structural disruption. Although I will say that ice crystal formation in the deep brain caused by the no-reflow problem is a serious concern. Whether that's a showstopper depends on how important you think the fine-grained structure of white matter is.

But what is this replica? Is it subjectively “you” or is it a new, separate being? The idea that you can be conscious in two places at the same time defies our intuition. Parsimony suggests that replication will result in two different conscious entities. Simulation, if it were to occur, would result in a new person who is like you but whose conscious experience you don’t have access to.

Bad philosophy on top of bad neuroscience!

Comment author: Ruzeil 16 September 2015 09:11:44AM 1 point [-]

Since I don't have much academic knowledge on this subject, I appreciate Your feedback a lot. Can I just ask what is Your level of competence in this field?


MIT Technology Review - Michael Hendricks opinion on Cryonics

4 Ruzeil 16 September 2015 08:15AM


Michael Hendricks is a neuroscientist and assistant professor of biology at McGill University.

Comment author: Ruzeil 16 July 2015 12:32:51PM 2 points [-]

As I am interpreting this, the whole idea about the rewarding system(s) goes down the drain. The agent ,as humans always do, will find a way to cheat, because in (almost) every problem there is/are a loophole(s), which for sure can't be detected 100% upfront. As i see We can't use the same tools as evolution (the carrot and the stick) and expect to get something different then a creature as Us, with capacity In order of magnitudes bigger, of course.

Best Regards