Storing mind states

TB - typed:


  >> Am re-reading Ex at the mo. Would anyone care to speculate if mind
  >> states can be copied or more accurately, duplicated? Banks rather
  >> suggests that a sentient life-form can have a mind state stored
  >> whilst using their natural one without ant sort of quantum violation
  >> but would the same apply to duplicated copies? I'm thinking from
  >> both the supposed scientific view & the moral implications of
  >> effectively being able to clone the same being. The Culture may find
  >> the idea abhorrent but what about other civilisations who may not be
  >> so fussy? There is probably
  >> more in LtW regarding this.
  >>
 >
 > Interesting. My own personal opinion would be along the lines of
 > stating that a "duplication" process would be impossible, as the
 > result would be a completely new personality ; a seperate being who
 > would consider him/herself as 'one', while considering the original
 > to be 'someone else'.
 >
 > In other words - copying is possible, but it's a waste of time trying
 > for an exact duplicate. Probably!
 >
 > Same with physical cloning. Two different persons would result, albeit
 > sharing the exact-same attributes.
 >
 > Buddhism has some interesting things to say about this sort of thing,
 > and AI. Well; I think so!

Thanks for playing

I need to clarify. Lets ignore many of the moral issues for the moment.
The science in SF usually has some basis in current knowledge & is
extrapolated either into the future or used by another advanced species.
Lets ignore the exceptions to this.

Lets also ignore the implications of any clones being exact (as opposed
to mind states being exact). A mind state is read by some sort of
quantum state machine from the original being that has built-in
redundancy with one or more precise duplicates, one stored locally, the
others, somewhere else in case of destruction of the original (or
duplicate mind states), these states are very similar to backing up
important documents as we do now where the printed copies would be
essentially the same but subtly different - the equivalent of cloning as
you mention). One copy is then used to reproduce the being (clone)
somewhere in the Culture from either the original state or duplicates.
The quantum machine checks the new clone at the moment of creation is
valid then collapses the quantum state of *all* duplicate mind states
using quantum entanglement (so-called ghostly action at a distance)
which effectively destroys all mind states leaving only the original
being if still alive & its clone.

This neatly side steps most if not all the moral issues of having
doppelgangers or someone leaving the machine on producing clones like a
sausage machine. Having the original being as a collapsible quantum
state equivalent to the clone maybe pushing credulity more than I'm
doing already If this part of the theory was "possible", only one
being or its clone but not both could exist simultaneously but still
allow several mind states to exist. If someone then tried to create a
clone of a living being the process would collapse the quantum state &
the clone couldn't be created. In fact, thinking this part through a bit
further, it can't work because the original being would always be older
& therefore different to its clone. Quantum entanglement as understood
today only works on pairs so you could only have one mind state original
& its paired duplicate. That's no big deal & still sidesteps most if not
all of the moral issues. There are a few small holes in all of this
but...

ps my current mind state is completely legal but tired

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

"Paul Busby" wrote:
 > Lets also ignore the implications of any clones being exact (as opposed
 > to mind states being exact). A mind state is read by some sort of
 > quantum state machine from the original being that has built-in

Banks never mentions any quantum state machine. As far as one can tell
from the Culture books, saving someone's mind-state and recreating them from
it is no more complicated than any other act of physical copying. In fact,
a character in _Look To Windward_ was mistakenly copied (in the sense that
two of them existed at the same time) when it was thought that they had died
and they actually had not.

So your ideas don't really have much to do with Banks' books. Banks is
primarily writing about moral problems, not scientific ones, as is only
right since the science in his books is pseudoscience in any case. The
reason that the Culture typically does not makes more than one copy of
someone is because of (undefined, in the books, but probable) moral reasons,
social stability reasons, and possibly a sort of slippery-slope argument;
once you've made two, why not make more -- and you could end up with a sort
of Hegemonizing Swarm that uses up matter that could be devoted to other
unique entities.

The Culture, since it can't forbid things outright for ideological reasons,
forbids these kinds of things indirectly, through its dictum that any
sufficiently complex technological process has to be embedded in an
intelligent machine. So the reason that ordinary humans can't make lots of
copies of themselves (other than socialization) is that they'd have a hard
time finding a machine that they could convince to let them do it. If the
machine did agree, it itself would suffer from peer-group social sanctions
of the sort seen mostly in _Excession_. If those, including ostracism,
didn't work, then some sort of judgment about the hazardousness of the
copying would be made, and force might be used to stop it.

This is really almost the same issue as why Culture humans age and die.
They don't have to. The fact that a vast majority of them choose to
indicates that at some level their society has made a value judgment in
favor of change instead of immortal stability.
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

"Paul Busby" wrote in message

 >
-- Snip --
 >

Well, Paul ...... questions like this, by necessity, contain so many "what
if's" and "maybe's" ; and deal with what is highly theoretical scientific
and philosophical concepts ANYWAY, that you can come up with a PLETHORA of
pseudo-answers and neo-explanations. If you're lucky!

You seem to be very concerned about the "moral issues" of all this. I must
say I am NOT, as I simply don't consider the "quantum entanglement" theory
to have any validity in any way.

I must say I like this section :

 > The quantum machine checks the new clone at the moment of creation is
 > valid then collapses the quantum state of *all* duplicate mind states
 > using quantum entanglement (so-called ghostly action at a distance)
 > which effectively destroys all mind states leaving only the original
 > being if still alive & its clone.

Quantum machine as God, Judge, and Jury - collapsing (ie killing!) all
"irrelevant/superfluous" simply in order to keep things tidy! I like it!

But no. Quantum physics and esoteric philosophy notwithstanding, I believe
ALL copies (or duplicates, or clones, or whatever you want to call them) ;
if life were to be breathed into them, would be seperate, self-aware, 'new'
people.

Buddhism would say that they would become physical hosts to those being
reborn via the Great Wheel of Karma.

Can't argue with the fat man!
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

TB - typed:

 > Quantum machine as God, Judge, and Jury - collapsing (ie killing!) all
 > "irrelevant/superfluous" simply in order to keep things tidy! I like
 > it!

LOL I own up! I've plagiarised the quantum entanglement part from
current research on quantum cryptography. That still leaves the
extremely vexing problem of how you read/copy something's mind in the
1st place. Remember the film Tron with Jeff Bridges? I loved it.

 > But no. Quantum physics and esoteric philosophy notwithstanding, I
 > believe ALL copies (or duplicates, or clones, or whatever you want to
 > call them) ; if life were to be breathed into them, would be
 > seperate, self-aware, 'new' people.

Oh, I agree. I do like the what-if scenario where a person's mind state
is read then 2 clones are created who then compare notes at a later
date. They would effectively be 2 "new" different people with common
memories & experiences up to the point when they were copied. This
reminds me of research carried out on identical twins who have lived
separate lives. There is a very strong tendency for them to have similar
tastes & values suggest nature rather than nurture is the key factor, ie
their differing experiences account for far less than expected.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

Richard Puchalsky - typed:

  >> Lets also ignore the implications of any clones being exact (as
  >> opposed to mind states being exact). A mind state is read by some
  >> sort of
  >> quantum state machine from the original being that has built-in
<Snipped>
 > So your ideas don't really have much to do with Banks' books. Banks
 > is primarily writing about moral problems, not scientific ones, as is
 > only right since the science in his books is pseudoscience in any
 > case. The reason that the Culture typically does not makes more than
 > one copy of someone is because of (undefined, in the books, but
 > probable) moral reasons, social stability reasons, and possibly a
 > sort of slippery-slope argument; once you've made two, why not make
 > more -- and you could end up with a sort of Hegemonizing Swarm that
 > uses up matter that could be devoted to other unique entities.

Fear not! I don't intend to flood this NG with my scientific
interpretations too often This would get around the Hegemonizing
Swarm (sausage machine) problem in the context you mention though.

Yes, I agree Banks is writing about the potential moral & political
issues in the context of technology far beyond our own. I wouldn't say
that Banks is writing pseudoscience personally, though you are strictly
correct in using that term. Banks has a good overview of current physics
to make his science fairly plausible to readers who are equally
scientifically savvy.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

"Paul Busby" wrote:
 > Richard Puchalsky - typed:

 > Fear not! I don't intend to flood this NG with my scientific
 > interpretations too often This would get around the Hegemonizing
 > Swarm (sausage machine) problem in the context you mention though.

But using pseudoscience to get around a moral problem isn't very
interesting. The moral problem is strictly speaking hypothetical, of
course, but not in its most basic formulation: should people extend their
lives to the maximum extent that technology allows, potentially crowding out
others or causing society to become static. And your suggestion tries to
get around a problem that Banks, as a writer, explicitly did not want his
readers to get around, at least not in an easily dismissive pseudoscientific
sense.

 >
 > Yes, I agree Banks is writing about the potential moral & political
 > issues in the context of technology far beyond our own. I wouldn't say
 > that Banks is writing pseudoscience personally, though you are strictly
 > correct in using that term. Banks has a good overview of current physics
 > to make his science fairly plausible to readers who are equally
 > scientifically savvy.

I disagree strongly that Banks' science is anything but pseudoscience.
There is nothing in current physics to suggest that effectively free energy
is available, for instance. Nor is faster-than-light travel through
hyperspace really suggested by any current theory. Banks' use of copying
mind-states avoids information-theoretical questions. His cosmology only
bears an incidental relationship to real cosmology, mostly in the use of
stock phrases like "multiple dimensions" and the stylistic use of
topological analogies. I have my doubts about his use of projected "fields"
for the kind of detail work described; I think that this would run into
quantum-mechanical problems, etc etc.

The point is not really whether his science is plausible to the general
reader. Science is not a matter of democratic vote. If his science is
implausible to readers who really know something about science, then it is
pseudoscience.

But this is to some extent besides the point. Banks' writing is important
because he's a good writer, not because of his scientific accuracy.
Focusing on the science involved seems pointless, like focusing on the
literary value of a scientific paper.
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

Richard Puchalsky - typed:
 > The Culture, since it can't forbid things outright for ideological
 > reasons, forbids these kinds of things indirectly, through its dictum
 > that any sufficiently complex technological process has to be
 > embedded in an intelligent machine. So the reason that ordinary
 > humans can't make lots of copies of themselves (other than
 > socialization) is that they'd have a hard time finding a machine that
 > they could convince to let them do it. If the machine did agree, it
 > itself would suffer from peer-group social sanctions of the sort seen
 > mostly in _Excession_. If those, including ostracism, didn't work,
 > then some sort of judgment about the hazardousness of the copying
 > would be made, and force might be used to stop it.

Doh, I've just seen the thread entitled "Aghhh, the chair". I must stop
using 2 different news-servers where one only has 7 days retention. I'll
look out for Altered Carbon. Banks is more or less the only SF I've read
under 25yrs old. I find most contemporary SF poorly written drivel.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

"Paul Busby" wrote in message

 >
 > I do like the what-if scenario where a person's mind state
 > is read then 2 clones are created who then compare notes at a later
 > date. They would effectively be 2 "new" different people with common
 > memories & experiences up to the point when they were copied. This
 > reminds me of research carried out on identical twins who have lived
 > separate lives. There is a very strong tendency for them to have similar
 > tastes & values suggest nature rather than nurture is the key factor, ie
 > their differing experiences account for far less than expected.
 >

Have you ever read Frank Herbert's 6-volume 'Dune' series? He tackles the
clone question in those.

One of the protagonist cultures described in the books is a religious
oligarchy which perpetuates its leadership by cloning (actually, Herbert
calls these copies "Ghola's", as the material used is stored DNA, rather
than sampled 'live' stuff). However, they have, of course, no memories of
their 'former lives'.

Anyway, by the later books, a method is finally discovered which enables
these copies to 'remember' every one of their previous incarnations. Problem
solved! Isn't fiction wonderful?!
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

TB - typed:
 > Have you ever read Frank Herbert's 6-volume 'Dune' series? He tackles
 > the clone question in those.

I read the 1st 2 some yrs ago.

 > One of the protagonist cultures described in the books is a religious
 > oligarchy which perpetuates its leadership by cloning (actually,
 > Herbert calls these copies "Ghola's", as the material used is stored
 > DNA, rather than sampled 'live' stuff). However, they have, of
 > course, no memories of their 'former lives'.

Interesting - thanks!

 > Anyway, by the later books, a method is finally discovered which
 > enables these copies to 'remember' every one of their previous
 > incarnations. Problem solved! Isn't fiction wonderful?!

Artist license! Sounds like it was stretched too far on this occasion.
Some authors do it with endless sequels - yawn.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:32:30 +0100, "Paul Busby"
wrote:

 >Oh, I agree. I do like the what-if scenario where a person's mind state
 >is read then 2 clones are created who then compare notes at a later
 >date. They would effectively be 2 "new" different people with common
 >memories & experiences up to the point when they were copied. This
 >reminds me of research carried out on identical twins who have lived
 >separate lives. There is a very strong tendency for them to have similar
 >tastes & values suggest nature rather than nurture is the key factor, ie
 >their differing experiences account for far less than expected.
 >
Have you read Feersum Endjinn? One of the characters in that has a
conversation with another version of himself.
Alastair Reynolds books also deal with the capturing of mind states.


--
John
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

Richard Puchalsky - typed:
> But using pseudoscience to get around a moral problem isn't very
> interesting. The moral problem is strictly speaking hypothetical, of
> course, but not in its most basic formulation: should people extend
> their lives to the maximum extent that technology allows, potentially
> crowding out others or causing society to become static. And your
> suggestion tries to get around a problem that Banks, as a writer,
> explicitly did not want his readers to get around, at least not in an
> easily dismissive pseudoscientific sense.

Extended life expectancy & the corresponding social/moral implications
is a separate subject even if stored mind states helps facilitate this.

>> Yes, I agree Banks is writing about the potential moral & political
>> issues in the context of technology far beyond our own. I wouldn't
>> say that Banks is writing pseudoscience personally, though you are
>> strictly correct in using that term. Banks has a good overview of
>> current physics to make his science fairly plausible to readers who
>> are equally scientifically savvy.
>
> I disagree strongly that Banks' science is anything but pseudoscience.
> There is nothing in current physics to suggest that effectively free
> energy is available, for instance. Nor is faster-than-light travel
> through hyperspace really suggested by any current theory. Banks'
> use of copying mind-states avoids information-theoretical questions.
> His cosmology only bears an incidental relationship to real
> cosmology, mostly in the use of stock phrases like "multiple
> dimensions" and the stylistic use of topological analogies. I have
> my doubts about his use of projected "fields" for the kind of detail
> work described; I think that this would run into quantum-mechanical
> problems, etc etc.


Plausible pseudoscience would have been a more accurate statement on my
part. I suggest the care & thought writer's put into their pseudoscience
*is* fairly important. Take StarTrek where the science has been tidied
up considerably over the years & has a far wider audience than most
written SF. Attention to detail & consistency make for more satisfying
fiction even if some readers aren't conscious of it. I do, however, take
your point that some of Banks' science is more plausible than other
parts.

> Science is not a matter of democratic vote.

Science may not be a matter of democratic vote in the sense we don't
have referenda but in the last 20yrs or so, far more debate has happened
both by peers & in the public domain. An example is genetic engineering.
This debate has influenced law, opinion & what or who gets funding. We
certainly can't vote to uninvent technology we don't like.

> But this is to some extent besides the point. Banks' writing is
> important because he's a good writer, not because of his scientific
> accuracy. Focusing on the science involved seems pointless, like
> focusing on the literary value of a scientific paper.

I also agree that Banks is an good writer rather than a merely
entertaining one. I do know many who either dismiss him or are
indifferent to his work. Banks is about the only SF I've read that is
under 25yrs old. I just don't see his level of "pseudoscientific"
complexity with stuff written back then. I observe that the science in
SF at least tracks the level of science & physics at the time of
writing.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

John Armstrong - typed:

 > Have you read Feersum Endjinn? One of the characters in that has a
 > conversation with another version of himself.
 > Alastair Reynolds books also deal with the capturing of mind states.

I have read FE but don't recall that bit. I sometimes worry about how
much I remember from novels but then rereading them is probably more
fun. Not familiar with Alastair Reynolds.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states 

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:16:39 +0100, "Paul Busby"
wrote:

 >John Armstrong - typed:
 >
  >> Have you read Feersum Endjinn? One of the characters in that has a
  >> conversation with another version of himself.
  >> Alastair Reynolds books also deal with the capturing of mind states.
 >
 >I have read FE but don't recall that bit. I sometimes worry about how
 >much I remember from novels but then rereading them is probably more
 >fun.

After he was killed several repeatedly, Count Sessine met up with a
copy of himself that he had sent into the crypt years earlier, and
because of the different timeframe in the crypt, he had had a long
time to gather information.

 >Not familiar with Alastair Reynolds.
 >
Just finished rereading Chasm City. The rich have their mind-states
backed up regularly in case of accident. It is stated that if too much
time passes between backup procedures, it isn't possible to integrate
the fresh memories into the backup, because the backup will have
diverged into a different personality.
There is also reference in Revelation Space to concerns about whether
contracts, marriages, etc undertaken are binding on all versions of
that person, who may not even be in the same star system at the time.

The science in his books is usually well thought out (he is an
astrophysicist for the European Space Agency as his day job).


--
John
 >> Stay informed about: Storing mind states