Mormon Transhumanist Association

The Mormon Transhumanist Association promotes practical faith in human exaltation through charitable use of science and technology.
Welcome to Mormon Transhumanist Association Sign In | Join | Donate | Help
in Search

Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon

Thoughts on God's Relationship with Mind Uploading

Today at the "By Common Consent" blog, participants were polled in response to the MTA article in Sunstone magazine. The poll question was:

"If humans developed the technology to download their 'minds' to a computer and live forever as part of a machine, God would intervene to stop it?"

As of the time of this post, an overwhelming 92% of the 165 respondents (mostly Mormons) voted "No". That's an encouraging result, but not surprising. In my experience, Mormons tend to be more open to such ideas than most other religious persons.

I responded to the poll with some additional thoughts on the possible relation between God and mind uploading, and now copy those thoughts for you below. Please let me know what you think.

-----

Consider your eternal future among the gods. Do you suppose you'll make worlds? If so, how? With bulldozers? If there is a God in heaven (as I suppose there to be), it seems that he has come up with a more elegant process for organizing worlds: put matter and energy into a system, mix according to laws, allow some time to bake, and you get all the beauty and complexity of our time and space. But how do you implement this? What tools do you use? And, if you want to interact with your creation, how do you extend your abilities to do that? What are the mechanics?

 

Maybe you use a computer -- a very powerful computer. I'm not talking about a box on a desk. I'm talking about a computer in the most formal (and abstract) sense, which is inclusive of both the box on your desk and the brain in your head. Both compute, yet have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, the box computes much more quickly than does your brain, yet the brain runs many more computations in parallel than does your box. There are other differences, too, but imagine if we are able to combine the strengths of both. Imagine, too, if we are able to amplify the strengths of both.

 

In the 1960s, Gordon Moore of Intel Corporation observed that the ratio of complexity to cost of computing components was doubling every two years. That trend has continued (and accelerated) to this day, and there are reasons to believe it will continue for many years to come. Assuming that's the case, our $1000 box computers (whether or not they're still running in boxes) should be comparable in processing power to our brains in the 2030s. Then, in the 2050s (only 20 years later), our $1000 computers should be comparable in processing power to all human brains combined. Such is the nature of exponential technological change.

 

What will we do with such powerful computers? Well, one of the things we regularly use computers to do (both for entertainment and research) is simulate, and I don't see any reason to suppose that will change, except that we'll have a lot more power for running these simulations. In the past, we used rough black and white line drawings to simulate relatively simple systems. Now, we have three-dimensional photo-realistic simulations of entire virtual worlds. The future will most likely bring full-immersion virtual worlds. But then what? What if the simulations become so powerful and so real that we can no longer distinguish between them and the world we now live in? Indeed, what if we're already living in one?

 

Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom points out that if ever our civilization runs a significant number of detailed world simulations (detailed enough to contain conscious beings like you and me in a world like our own) then we almost certainly are already living in such a world -- you can check out the logic and probability equations on his web site by googling for "Simulation Argument". Basically, however, the argument is that if we prove capable and willing to run a significant number of these simulations then it is highly unlikely that we are the only or first to do so.

 

All of that to say that the question posed in today's poll may already be answered in practice. Not only would God NOT intervene to stop us from creating synthetically computed worlds ("virtual" no longer applies when their reality is indistinguishable from our own), God has already done exactly that, and you're living in it. Now, we've got to learn to be gods ourselves, exactly as all other gods have done before us. At least, that's what Joseph said.

 

I'll add one final thought. It does not appear to be necessary to conclude that our universe was designed intelligently. However, as modern cosmologists suggest, it does appear that the nature of our universe is highly improbable, with a set of cosmological constants that fall within a narrow tolerance of inter-relations necessary for producing a world within which stars may form and intelligent life may evolve. Perhaps we're extraordinarily lucky! Or perhaps there are numerous parallel universes among which all sorts of combinations of cosmological constants are manifest, with the eventual result being our universe. Or perhaps that multiverse has found a way of making our apparently improbable universe MORE probable. Perhaps the interesting universes found a way to replicate and evolve on the grandest of scales. That would require something analogous to genes, with memory to pass on from one intelligent universe to the next. What in our universe is a candidate for such capabilities? How might our universe ever replicate itself, without relying only on chance across eons of time? You and me. We, the children of God, may be the genetics of the universe. We might be what makes interesting and intelligent universes more probable because WE CREATE THEM!

Published Monday, November 19, 2007 9:08 PM by Lincoln Cannon

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

David F said:

Perhaps each universe is nourished with life adapted to those exact set of law and initial parameters for that universe. IF you look at it that way, the only way to create life would have been evolution, because this exact universe would be unique. Generalities could be copied from other universes of course, but the individual challenges of this universe would be unique and ideal solutions would have to be custom.
November 19, 2007 11:35 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

That's interesting. Perhaps, even within the narrow band of life- and intelligence-supporting constants, there are infinite possibilities?
November 20, 2007 8:15 AM
 

efrum said:

Lincoln, have you read Idea [I]Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation[/i] by Joao Magueijo?  If not, I would highly reccomend that you do, as he addresses some of the questions concerning the seemingly small odds that our universe would be created qua our universe.  

According to some fairly recent theories at least some of the rules of our universe are actually inevitable outcomes.  It is possible that as our understanding of the universe grows, we will find that our universe, far from being an aberation, is actually a natural inevitibility.

efrum
November 20, 2007 2:07 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

efrum, I haven't read that book, and will have to take a look at it.

There is a philosophic problem with claiming anything is an inevitibility. Such claims require universal meta-knowledge.

Beyond that, the idea presented in my post does not rely on the improbability of worlds like ours. Whether such worlds are probable or not, if ever we create a significant number of computed worlds, we almost certainly live in such a world ourselves, as do the creators of our world, and so on to potentially infinite regression.

The interesting thing about the cosmological idea is that if a first world turns out to have been extremely improbable, it may no longer be so improbable, thanks to some sort of cosmological replication.
November 20, 2007 7:40 PM
 

DavidF said:

There is a well-known physicist by the name of Lee Smolin who proposed that universes create baby universes via black holes and only those universes which are stable enough to 'reproduce', replicate themselves. Thus, only universes which can form black holes, and thus are likely to have conditions life could exist in, fill superspace with habitable universes. Of course, an idea like that makes string theory look easily verifiable, but it is worth thinking about.

But a question I have not seen posed here - would uploading your mind be a good idea? Brains are already relatively secure against the kind of attacks that compromise computers every day. Further, if we could make a computer that could feel the spirit, could we not just as easily fake revelation? How would you know the Holy Ghost from the neighbor hacker?
November 20, 2007 10:12 PM
 

Jared* said:

Lincoln,

I'm not sure what I think about the simulation argument yet. Do I understand correctly that you view each new generation as a simulation of the last one? (ie. we are God's simulation, he is someone else's simulation, and so on to infinity?)

I don't know if I can articulate this, but I have this gut sense that as the magnitude of the simulations become larger, the difference between simulation and non-simulation breaks down and becomes meaningless. So even though the idea that I am a simulation is not very attractive to me at the moment, I wonder--given a long enough pedigree of gods, if there is any meaningful distinction to make.

I think I have a couple of ideas jumbled together there, but perhaps you see what I mean.
November 21, 2007 7:30 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

DavidF, it appears that our brains are already beginning to become vulnerable to information attacks. We can already wirelessly communicate with the brain by monitoring brain waves, and we can also induce various experiences (including spiritual experiences) by sending electrical charges to the brain. It is, I'm sure, only a matter of time until we understand the brain well enough to interact with it programmatically, as we interact with any programming interface. At that point, the same sorts of defenses used for our desktop computers will become essential for our brains, including firewalls and other anti-malware devices. Given current trends, this is not so far off as common sense would believe.

On the subject of the spirit, and recognizing those that are divine versus those that are not, I'll add that this has always been a problem. Joseph Smith once gave an interesting discourse, now referred to as "Try the Spirits", on that subject. He mentioned that we should never follow a spiritual inclination simply because it feels good. That's a start, but there are other matters that should be considered. I don't agree with everything he said in the discourse, but I do agree with one point in particular: spiritual experiences should be judged relative to the knowledge they produce -- their practical consequence. That which is divine will lead us in wisdom. We should judge, then, both emotionally and rationally.
November 22, 2007 7:08 AM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

Jared*, I consider the simulation hypothesis to be more of a matter of practical faith than a belief, for me. I don't know, of course, whether we're living in a computed world; however, given the sort of future I'm interested in creating with our community, I should recognize that we almost certainly do live in a computed world, otherwise we almost certainly will not achieve the capacity or willingness to create such worlds in any significant number.

In the simulation hypothesis, each new generation of worlds is created based on the understanding and interests of the inhabitants of the previous generation, perhaps in infinite regression. Furthermore, as you point out, once these computed worlds become complex enough, it makes little sense to continue calling them simulations. They are, in their own way, every bit as real as their creators' worlds, which is why I think it is eventually more appropriate to call them "computed worlds" or "synthetic worlds" rather than "simulated worlds".

Does that answer your question?
November 22, 2007 7:15 AM
 

Jared* said:

Yes, I think so---for now.
November 22, 2007 8:41 AM

What do you think?

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Enter the Code You See Below (required)

About Lincoln Cannon

Lincoln is a founding member, director and president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. He has thirteen years of professional experience in information technology, working primarily for companies in the systems management industry, such as Symantec and Novell. He holds a masters degree in business administration and a bachelors degree in philosophy from Brigham Young University. Lincoln served a mission to France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is married with Dorothée Vankrieckenge, a French national, and is father to three bilingual children.

This Blog

Post Calendar

<November 2007>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
2345678

Syndication