Born to do Math 155 - Fidelity
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
February 1, 2020
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, what is percent fidelity in this regard for the future of brain replication?
Rosner: The ultimate objective for extended human life is replicable consciousness. It renders everything else moot. The various strategies for living long and making your own body not age. Freezing your body, until they can come and fix whatever is wrong with it, all this stuff becomes much less of a desperate gambit or mott. You don't need it if you can move your consciousness around.
Your memories, way of thinking. Your brain, basically, or a duplicate of your brain. A brain that is sufficiently duplicated that it has as much fidelity as your own biological brain does from day to day and month to month. I think that when this technology becomes available.
People will sell it on the basis of what percent it duplicates your thinking and experience with minimal discontinuity. The earliest products probably won't even use this term because the numbers will be so terrible. The earliest products might not even reach 10% fidelity.
We already have something that has some non-zero fidelity, a technology, or a bunch of related technologies. Those are hanging out and talking with people. If you live with someone for 50 years, once you die, your way of thinking, memories, and attitudes are, to some extent, carried on by your close survivors.
In fact, Reformed Judaism have this as the only afterlife. We live on in the memories of others. It is a really terrible afterlife.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: It is not zero, the fidelity. It is way less than 1%. You're, as a dead person, not getting any conscious experience. Your thoughts and attitudes are carried on while not getting the benefits of being alive anymore.
You are getting very minimal benefits from those who knew you have a picture of your mental landscape. It is a shitty picture. It is not your consciousness. However, people are already doing stuff with direct brain communications.
They are developing certain technologies for thinking certain thoughts and a reader will react. You can think stuff and manipulate stuff with your thoughts. It is very imprecise and shitty. Eventually, you will have technology that will allow increasingly direct brain-to-brain communication.
It will super shitty at first. One measure of how shitty is how ridiculous it is to talk about it.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: If two people decided to have direct brain-to-brain communication without needing speech or other forms of communicating and could, basically, think together, maybe not as a single entity but, as a linked pair of entities, and if you did this long enough with somebody else with sufficient technology, to some extent, some of your thinking would live on. Some of your consciousness would live on, after the person dies.
The percent fidelity would go from 0.0001% to, with this technology, 10% or 12%. Something that is much better than the near-zero that we have right now. Eventually, as we decipher consciousness and bran processes, the fidelity will go to 40% and, eventually, into the 80s.
As we understand how our brains will work better, there will be two indices to consider: the natural fidelity of our brains over time to ourselves, which isn't perfect. I don't even know how to calculate how much less than perfect it is because we lose most of what we experience.
We don't remember most things in our lives. It is unrecallable. An unremarkable lunch from 2006 will not be something to remember. An afternoon spent clipping your toenails for ten minutes. Most daily stuff is not recallable.
Is that a huge ding against our fidelity score? We don't experience it as a ding. We're at home in our brains. We're at home with the incompleteness of or deficiencies of our brains and our thinking. It doesn't bug us that we are losing so much.
Jacobsen: Is that a bug or a feature?
Rosner: It is both. There are people with eidetic memories who can remember everything.
Jacobsen: Curse more than blessing, or blessing more than curse?
Rosner: I think it is just a thing that you have, which is kind of cool. Marilu Henner, the actress on Taxi a million years ago, claims to have an eidetic memory. I think the claim holds up. Because when she is quizzed on stuff, she is good at remembering things. She is good as an actress and adult in the world, and still able to live a normal life as a person. It hasn't made her crazy.
So, people will like to make the claim that it's good that we don't remember everything. But I don't know. I don't think that that claim holds up. At the very least, we want to be better at remembering than we are.
We will be, as technology improves. As we deal with improved technology, we will have a lot of dumb, stupidly complete, remembering, that will be, "Meh." It will need some more-than-fine-tuning. It may not be ideal an ideal adjunct to our brains.
We'll have to learn to live in conjunction with brain add-ons and brain replication. It is not like things will not get figured out. Things won't ever be settled because technology will keep coming along. We will keep discovering memory schemes.
When it becomes possible to remember with what fidelity that you want, whatever we become, they will determine what are the optimal levels and strategies of memory, for memory, given the software and the hardware that we will be working with.
[End of recorded material]Rosner: The ultimate objective for extended human life is replicable consciousness. It renders everything else moot. The various strategies for living long and making your own body not age. Freezing your body, until they can come and fix whatever is wrong with it, all this stuff becomes much less of a desperate gambit or mott. You don't need it if you can move your consciousness around.
Your memories, way of thinking. Your brain, basically, or a duplicate of your brain. A brain that is sufficiently duplicated that it has as much fidelity as your own biological brain does from day to day and month to month. I think that when this technology becomes available.
People will sell it on the basis of what percent it duplicates your thinking and experience with minimal discontinuity. The earliest products probably won't even use this term because the numbers will be so terrible. The earliest products might not even reach 10% fidelity.
We already have something that has some non-zero fidelity, a technology, or a bunch of related technologies. Those are hanging out and talking with people. If you live with someone for 50 years, once you die, your way of thinking, memories, and attitudes are, to some extent, carried on by your close survivors.
In fact, Reformed Judaism have this as the only afterlife. We live on in the memories of others. It is a really terrible afterlife.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: It is not zero, the fidelity. It is way less than 1%. You're, as a dead person, not getting any conscious experience. Your thoughts and attitudes are carried on while not getting the benefits of being alive anymore.
You are getting very minimal benefits from those who knew you have a picture of your mental landscape. It is a shitty picture. It is not your consciousness. However, people are already doing stuff with direct brain communications.
They are developing certain technologies for thinking certain thoughts and a reader will react. You can think stuff and manipulate stuff with your thoughts. It is very imprecise and shitty. Eventually, you will have technology that will allow increasingly direct brain-to-brain communication.
It will super shitty at first. One measure of how shitty is how ridiculous it is to talk about it.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Rosner: If two people decided to have direct brain-to-brain communication without needing speech or other forms of communicating and could, basically, think together, maybe not as a single entity but, as a linked pair of entities, and if you did this long enough with somebody else with sufficient technology, to some extent, some of your thinking would live on. Some of your consciousness would live on, after the person dies.
The percent fidelity would go from 0.0001% to, with this technology, 10% or 12%. Something that is much better than the near-zero that we have right now. Eventually, as we decipher consciousness and bran processes, the fidelity will go to 40% and, eventually, into the 80s.
As we understand how our brains will work better, there will be two indices to consider: the natural fidelity of our brains over time to ourselves, which isn't perfect. I don't even know how to calculate how much less than perfect it is because we lose most of what we experience.
We don't remember most things in our lives. It is unrecallable. An unremarkable lunch from 2006 will not be something to remember. An afternoon spent clipping your toenails for ten minutes. Most daily stuff is not recallable.
Is that a huge ding against our fidelity score? We don't experience it as a ding. We're at home in our brains. We're at home with the incompleteness of or deficiencies of our brains and our thinking. It doesn't bug us that we are losing so much.
Jacobsen: Is that a bug or a feature?
Rosner: It is both. There are people with eidetic memories who can remember everything.
Jacobsen: Curse more than blessing, or blessing more than curse?
Rosner: I think it is just a thing that you have, which is kind of cool. Marilu Henner, the actress on Taxi a million years ago, claims to have an eidetic memory. I think the claim holds up. Because when she is quizzed on stuff, she is good at remembering things. She is good as an actress and adult in the world, and still able to live a normal life as a person. It hasn't made her crazy.
So, people will like to make the claim that it's good that we don't remember everything. But I don't know. I don't think that that claim holds up. At the very least, we want to be better at remembering than we are.
We will be, as technology improves. As we deal with improved technology, we will have a lot of dumb, stupidly complete, remembering, that will be, "Meh." It will need some more-than-fine-tuning. It may not be ideal an ideal adjunct to our brains.
We'll have to learn to live in conjunction with brain add-ons and brain replication. It is not like things will not get figured out. Things won't ever be settled because technology will keep coming along. We will keep discovering memory schemes.
When it becomes possible to remember with what fidelity that you want, whatever we become, they will determine what are the optimal levels and strategies of memory, for memory, given the software and the hardware that we will be working with.
Authors[1]
American Television Writer
(Updated July 25, 2019)
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America's, North America's, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main "Genius" listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the "World’s Smartest Man." The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named "Best Bouncer" in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
(Updated January 1, 2020)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com.
Endnotes
[1] Four format points for the session article:
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
No comments:
Post a Comment