Mr. Ferlinghetti at Koinonia, a Church of Christ establishment
There are churches, synagogues, and mosques in Second Life, but has the world itself shaped the community's beliefs on religion? According to a new preliminary study by a New York academic known in-world as Soren Ferlinghetti (university site here), very much so. Soren began compiling poll data last year, and just sent me the early results, and they're striking. He believes a larger sample will be needed, but "some interesting results, though, include the fact that nearly 50% of
survey takers would consider uploading their minds into SL if it were
technologically feasible," he tells me, "and the majority consider earthly religions
relevant to SL." Just as fascinating to me, 62% are open to the possibility that new religions will arise from Second Life itself (38% of those answer "Definite/Probably Yes"), and even more extraordinary, 68% would consider those new creeds as valid as established material religions.
Overall, the survey suggests a profound and pervasive sense of Second Life as a platform for transcendence. In that regard, it's amazing that 17% report attending an SL-based religious service once a month or more. In an unrelated academic survey, only 13.6% reported they regularly had sex in Second Life. Broadly applied, in other words, on average a Second Life Resident is more likely to be praying, than copulating.
Of course, the chief caveat is that this is a small sample, and likely a somewhat self-selected one. Fortunately, Soren says he'll soon compile a larger survey base, and I'll link to that when it's available. In the meantime, you can e-mail him about his research at this address. For now, I've published his current results in full after the break; it's a broad-ranging survey, covering usage hours, religious affiliation, even dreaming about SL. Read on, and offer your insights in Comments.
Survey Statistics |
|
Viewed |
410 |
Started |
158 |
Completed |
134 |
Completion Rate |
84.81% |
Drop Outs (After Starting) |
24 |
- Average time taken to complete survey : 5 minute(s)
|
|
|
|
Do
you think that new religions could arise in Second Life (SL) and
possess as much legitimacy as real life (RL) religions (assume, for the
sake of argument, that at least one RL religion is legitimate)?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
30 |
20.98% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
23 |
16.08% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
36 |
25.17% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
39 |
27.27% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
15 |
10.49% |
|
|
Total |
143 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.902 |
Key Facts
- 52.45% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 10.49% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.689 - 3.115] n = 143 |
Standard Deviation |
1.302 |
Standard Error |
0.109 |
|
|
|
|
Would such religions be valid in RL as well?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
23 |
17.42% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
31 |
23.48% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
37 |
28.03% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
24 |
18.18% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
17 |
12.88% |
|
|
Total |
132 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.856 |
Key Facts
- 51.52% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 12.88% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.639 - 3.073] n = 132 |
Standard Deviation |
1.273 |
Standard Error |
0.111 |
|
|
|
|
Do
you think that human minds could be completely understood by a brain
scan and ?downloaded? into SL if technology advances enough?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
19 |
14.29% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
22 |
16.54% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
23 |
17.29% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
38 |
28.57% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
31 |
23.31% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
3.301 |
Key Facts
- 51.88% chose the following options :
- Probably no
- Definitely no
- Least chosen option 14.29% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[3.068 - 3.534] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.371 |
Standard Error |
0.119 |
|
|
|
|
If this were possible (whether or not you think it is), would you find it an attractive alternative to real life?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
27 |
20.30% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
9 |
6.77% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
32 |
24.06% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
32 |
24.06% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
33 |
24.81% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
3.263 |
Key Facts
- 48.87% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 6.77% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[3.019 - 3.507] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.435 |
Standard Error |
0.124 |
|
|
|
|
How much time do you spend in Second Life (SL)?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
0-2 hours per week |
14 |
10.53% |
|
2. |
3-6 hours per week |
32 |
24.06% |
|
3. |
7-14 hours per week |
39 |
29.32% |
|
4. |
14+ hours per week |
48 |
36.09% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.910 |
Key Facts
- 65.41% chose the following options :
- 14+ hours per week
- 7-14 hours per week
- Least chosen option 10.53% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.738 - 3.082] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.011 |
Standard Error |
0.088 |
|
|
|
|
Are your relationships in SL as important to you as your relationships in real life?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
34 |
25.76% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
29 |
21.97% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
24 |
18.18% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
26 |
19.70% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
19 |
14.39% |
|
|
Total |
132 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.750 |
Key Facts
- 47.73% chose the following options :
- Definitely yes
- Probably yes
- Least chosen option 14.39% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.510 - 2.990] n = 132 |
Standard Deviation |
1.405 |
Standard Error |
0.122 |
|
|
|
|
Do you visit religious places (temples, meditation gardens, etc.) in SL?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Never |
14 |
10.53% |
|
2. |
I have once or twice |
59 |
44.36% |
|
3. |
Once or twice per month |
29 |
21.80% |
|
4. |
Once or twice per week |
24 |
18.05% |
|
5. |
Daily |
7 |
5.26% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.632 |
Key Facts
- 66.17% chose the following options :
- I have once or twice
- Once or twice per month
- Least chosen option 5.26% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.451 - 2.812] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.062 |
Standard Error |
0.092 |
|
|
|
|
Do you participate in SL religious rituals?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Never |
84 |
63.16% |
|
2. |
I have once or twice |
26 |
19.55% |
|
3. |
Once or twice per month |
10 |
7.52% |
|
4. |
Once or twice per week |
13 |
9.77% |
|
5. |
Daily |
0 |
0.00% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
1.639 |
Key Facts
- 82.71% chose the following options :
- Never
- I have once or twice
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[1.471 - 1.807] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
0.987 |
Standard Error |
0.086 |
|
|
|
|
Do you think that real life religions have a place in SL?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
70 |
53.03% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
29 |
21.97% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
21 |
15.91% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
7 |
5.30% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
5 |
3.79% |
|
|
Total |
132 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
1.848 |
Key Facts
- 75% chose the following options :
- Definitely yes
- Probably yes
- Least chosen option 3.79% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[1.659 - 2.038] n = 132 |
Standard Deviation |
1.109 |
Standard Error |
0.096 |
|
|
|
|
Do you consider your second life to be as important as your real life?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
19 |
14.39% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
25 |
18.94% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
16 |
12.12% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
27 |
20.45% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
45 |
34.09% |
|
|
Total |
132 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
3.409 |
Key Facts
- 54.55% chose the following options :
- Definitely no
- Probably no
- Least chosen option 12.12% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[3.157 - 3.661] n = 132 |
Standard Deviation |
1.477 |
Standard Error |
0.129 |
|
|
|
|
If you could spend all of your time in SL, would you?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
15 |
11.28% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
10 |
7.52% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
15 |
11.28% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
33 |
24.81% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
60 |
45.11% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
3.850 |
Key Facts
- 69.92% chose the following options :
- Definitely no
- Probably no
- Least chosen option 7.52% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[3.617 - 4.082] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.368 |
Standard Error |
0.119 |
|
|
|
|
What is your real life religious affiliation (you may select up to three)?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Agnostic |
27 |
13.64% |
|
2. |
Atheist |
31 |
15.66% |
|
3. |
Buddhist |
13 |
6.57% |
|
4. |
Christian: Roman Catholic |
19 |
9.60% |
|
5. |
Christian: Mainline Protestant (including Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc.) |
13 |
6.57% |
|
6. |
Christian: Evangelical Protestant (inc. Assemblies of God, Pentacostal, etc.) |
8 |
4.04% |
|
7. |
Christian: Eastern Orthodox (inc. Russian, Greek, Armenian, etc.) |
7 |
3.54% |
|
8. |
Hindu |
1 |
0.51% |
|
9. |
Jewish |
14 |
7.07% |
|
10. |
Muslim |
1 |
0.51% |
|
11. |
Pagan/Wiccan/etc. |
9 |
4.55% |
|
12. |
Shinto |
1 |
0.51% |
|
13. |
Spiritual without affiliation to any religious group |
34 |
17.17% |
|
14. |
Other |
20 |
10.10% |
|
|
Total |
198 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
6.783 |
Key Facts
- 32.83% chose the following options :
- Spiritual without affiliation to any religious group
- Atheist
- Least chosen option 0.51% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[6.109 - 7.457] n = 198 |
Standard Deviation |
4.840 |
Standard Error |
0.344 |
|
|
|
|
If you could spend more time in SL than you currently do, would you?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
36 |
27.07% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
45 |
33.83% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
24 |
18.05% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
21 |
15.79% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
7 |
5.26% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.383 |
Key Facts
- 60.9% chose the following options :
- Probably yes
- Definitely yes
- Least chosen option 5.26% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.181 - 2.586] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.192 |
Standard Error |
0.103 |
|
|
|
|
Does your real life religious affiliation affect your second life?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
40 |
30.08% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
28 |
21.05% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
14 |
10.53% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
15 |
11.28% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
36 |
27.07% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.842 |
Key Facts
- 57.14% chose the following options :
- Definitely yes
- Definitely no
- Least chosen option 10.53% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.568 - 3.116] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.614 |
Standard Error |
0.140 |
|
|
|
|
With
sufficiently advanced technology to resolve the problems you currently
experience in SL, would you consider SL to be ?heaven??
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
6 |
4.55% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
6 |
4.55% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
19 |
14.39% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
20 |
15.15% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
81 |
61.36% |
|
|
Total |
132 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
4.242 |
Key Facts
- 76.52% chose the following options :
- Definitely no
- Probably no
- Least chosen option 4.55% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[4.048 - 4.437] n = 132 |
Standard Deviation |
1.140 |
Standard Error |
0.099 |
|
|
|
|
If you could "download" your mind into SL and live there as long as you chose would you consider it heaven?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Definitely yes |
9 |
6.77% |
|
2. |
Probably yes |
12 |
9.02% |
|
3. |
Maybe |
18 |
13.53% |
|
4. |
Probably no |
27 |
20.30% |
|
5. |
Definitely no |
67 |
50.38% |
|
|
Total |
133 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
3.985 |
Key Facts
- 70.68% chose the following options :
- Definitely no
- Probably no
- Least chosen option 6.77% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[3.769 - 4.201] n = 133 |
Standard Deviation |
1.273 |
Standard Error |
0.110 |
|
|
|
|
What sex are you?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Male |
78 |
60.00% |
|
2. |
Female |
44 |
33.85% |
|
3. |
Transgendered |
8 |
6.15% |
|
|
Total |
130 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
1.462 |
Key Facts
- 93.85% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 6.15% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[1.356 - 1.567] n = 130 |
Standard Deviation |
0.612 |
Standard Error |
0.054 |
|
|
|
|
How old are you?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
10-17 years old |
0 |
0.00% |
|
2. |
18-22 years old |
10 |
7.63% |
|
3. |
23-27 years old |
12 |
9.16% |
|
4. |
28-35 years old |
30 |
22.90% |
|
5. |
36-45 years old |
40 |
30.53% |
|
6. |
46-60 years old |
37 |
28.24% |
|
7. |
61+ years old |
2 |
1.53% |
|
|
Total |
131 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
4.672 |
Key Facts
- 58.78% chose the following options :
- 36-45 years old
- 46-60 years old
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[4.460 - 4.884] n = 131 |
Standard Deviation |
1.237 |
Standard Error |
0.108 |
|
|
|
|
Do
you think that the practice of traditional (real life) religions in
Second Life should affect the way those religious traditions are
practiced in real life?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Yes |
12 |
13.79% |
|
2. |
Maybe |
32 |
36.78% |
|
3. |
No |
43 |
49.43% |
|
|
Total |
87 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
2.356 |
Key Facts
- 86.21% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 13.79% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[2.206 - 2.507] n = 87 |
Standard Deviation |
0.715 |
Standard Error |
0.077 |
|
|
|
|
Have you ever had a dream in which either 1) you were in Second Life or 2) you were your SL avatar?
|
Frequency Analysis |
|
Answer |
Count |
Percent |
|
1. |
Never |
35 |
40.23% |
|
2. |
Once or twice |
28 |
32.18% |
|
3. |
Three or more times |
24 |
27.59% |
|
|
Total |
87 |
100% |
|
Key Analytics |
Mean |
1.874 |
Key Facts
- 72.41% chose the following options :
- Least chosen option 27.59% :
|
Confidence Interval @ 95% |
[1.702 - 2.046] n = 87 |
Standard Deviation |
0.818 |
Standard Error |
0.088 |
|
|
|
"mind upload"?
Uh, the mind is not a computer program, and it is not data. It is a bunch of wet, squishy cells tickling each other with drug cocktails.
How do you "upload" that? It's equivalent to "uploading" play-doh.
Posted by: Luce Imaginary | Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 06:27 PM
I'm not easily rendered speechless - but this is just extraordinary, and not easily digested.
Congratulations to Soren for this very valuable work!
Posted by: Sophrosyne Stenvaag | Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 08:41 PM
@Luce:
Some theories abound in science fiction. one way might be to copy the way the neural function of a brain works right down to the cellular level, or recording electrical activity.
However, a lot of these methods tend to result in the destruction of the original brain. So if mind upload is possible, it would be pretty risky. you'd want to get it right first shot, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Patchouli Woollahra | Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Oh gosh.
The idea of a 'mind upload' isn't that unbelievable, at least partly. It's far outside our technological reach at the moment, yes, but the 'mind' is not a bunch of squishy cells anymore than computer data is the disc it's stored on.
The whole point of 'data' is interpreting the state of the material the data is stored on, not literally inscribing it there like pencil to paper. That's why it's a relatively easy process to duplicate data without needing to use the same kind of storage device.
And since the mind works (roughly) through electrical impulses that fire through neurons, the potential for recording it is absolutely there. It is just not feasible given our current understanding of the brain(and our ability to fully interpret all of those impulses in a meaningful way).
Unfortunately for those of us who would like to be able to do this sort of thing, even if we did make some leap of science in our lifetimes that allowed us to keep a recording of your mind, that hardly means that you would be able to just swap over. No more than cloning yourself would allow you to arbitrarily swap into your clone's body.
All it would be is a 'fingerprint' of your mind. And if you really wanted to go crazy, maybe you could actually run it like an artificial intelligence. But it wouldn't be you. It'd be an artificial intelligence.
To be honest this whole concept is pretty trivial and more than a little silly to actually be discussing in relation to Second Life, but I also kind of like the subject as a whole, so I had to put in my two cents.
Posted by: Harle Armistice | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 03:03 AM
"And on the eight Day, God created virtual worlds" lol
Posted by: Tarton7 | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 07:52 AM
"Harle Armistice": I'm actually quite aware of what the "brain" is. Probably more aware than almost anyone else reading this, actually. However, the mind, as far as I'm concerned, is simply a word for describing what the brain does. One cannot "upload" a verb. One can "upload" (create a copy) of a program that mimics certain aspects of brain function. But if you can show that the concept mind is co-extensive with a simulation of brain function, there is a Nobel prize in it for you down the road.
Posted by: Luce Imaginary | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Well Luce, with all due respect(is any due? Are you a neurologist just being modest? You don't sound like one), that is a pretty arrogant statement to make. Either you think you are pretty damn well educated on the subject, or you don't think that anyone who actually educates themselves on the subjects of psychology, neurology, etcetera, would be interested in Second Life. And the arrogance of making such a blanket statement with so much confidence without any credentials, well, it's not uncommon on the internet.
If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you don't seem to be saying anything different from what I said, despite some argumentative posturing.
Like I said, you can fingerprint what does what, what states exist that affect other states. The fundamental building blocks of the personality; learned behaviour, collected knowledge, predispositions in response to stimuli, various developed pathologies, etcetera. The list goes on and on. And while fingerprinting the mind does not give life to it(the interaction of these facets of personality is a function of chemical and electrical influence), they are the fundamental building blocks of what describes the human mind. And there is certainly no reason why you can not potentially artificially simulate the roles of chemicals(hormonal) and electrical interaction throughout this network.
Which is, in essence, repeating what I said earlier. I am not seeing where we disagree exactly, only that you seem fairly condescending in your rebuttal. I see a potential for interpreting the building blocks of the brain as a series of data, as well as a potential for simulating the interaction which produces the active mind as we know it. Just probably not in my lifetime.
But then, I for one am happy to admit that I am not yet a vetted neurosurgeon, or have a doctorate in psychology hanging on my wall, or what have you. But frankly I am tired of people on the internet claiming extensive expertise in everything they get the urge to argue about.
Posted by: Harle Armistice | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I wonder if you have both missed the point of the survey a little, although its been an interesting debate. Surely it matters little if we can or cant upload our brains, the survey was asking if we would.
If we would be willing to give up all of our RL world, feelings, experiences, sights, sounds etc.. in order to become one with our SL world. The survey was exploring how deeply connected people feel to SL , or how deeply unconnected we might feel to our RL. After all the questionnaire was about religion, which essentially is about how we 'feel' not how we think.
In the questions to do with brain download, people are even asked if they would consider SL as 'heaven'. My own feeling is that the author of the survey is less concerned with the science of the future, but rather the sociology and theology of the future.
Posted by: Wren | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 04:39 PM
you're correct, wren. although my phd is officially in religious studies i consider myself an anthropologist. i'm interested in the politics of religious culture, which are taking one amazing turn after another in virtual worlds. i am, of course, gratified that anyone cares enough about my ideas to have an argument, though! not that i can take proper credit for the concept of mind uploading, only its situation amongst other ideas in my survey. hopefully when my book comes out it'll give plenty of people something to shout about and i'll even get to take proper credit for some of the ideas. :)
thanks for the compliment, soph.
Posted by: robert | Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 06:08 PM
We can't be sure yet if we will be able to upload minds in the future but for an anthropologist POV it's pretty interesting, Thanks a lot to its author.
Luce, here is a short summary of the "Moravec Transfer" hypothesis, you may think it's pure science fiction, but I think you will at least aknowledge that this concept is also pretty interesting:
The Moravec Transfer gradually moves (rather than copies) a human mind into a computer. You need never lose consciousness.
1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory.
2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron.
3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron.
4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron.
5. Repeat, neuron by neuron, until the entire brain is composed of robot neurons.
Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons. In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
6. For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation.
7. The robots are disconnected.
You have now been placed entirely inside a computer, bit by bit, without losing consciousness. In Moravec's words, your metamorphosis is complete.
From:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity.html#upload
Posted by: olivier | Saturday, March 01, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Of course when mind uploading technology is perfected (I would say, minimum 2050 and it could be much much longer), Second Life will not be today's Second Life and probably will not be called Second Life. At that moment there will be fully immersive, 100% realistic interfaces based on direct neural stimulation and a sort of instant telepathy between different users and groups.
The concept of uploading to the metaverse is certainly interesting. Is what we are really doing in Second Life the preparation of a future home?
Posted by: Giulio Prisco | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 04:43 AM
Re: "In the questions to do with brain download, people are even asked if they would consider SL as 'heaven'. My own feeling is that the author of the survey is less concerned with the science of the future, but rather the sociology and theology of the future."
He probably is, given his specialization. The question is how accurately a future SL, able to receive and run a mind file, would match individual conceptions of Heaven. I answer "probably yes" because it would offer some of the most important features (imo) of Heaven: immortality (or more precisely indefinite lifespan), much more control over one's virtual body and environments, and a heavenly sociel network of friends and people who have also uploaded to SL.
To all those who are planning to upload to SL next week: unfortunately this technology is _very_ far in the future: some experts say to years, some experts say hundreds of years, some experts say never.
Posted by: Giulio Prisco | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM
hmm
so every wednesday you need to be "reborn" as the rolling restarts hit?
sleep.
Posted by: larryr | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Heck, I'd settle for getting my friends list to load reliably and not lose half my inventory. Not in a big hurry to risk my soul/mind/whatever until the platform gets a LOT more stable, LOL
"Ooops, so sorry. Half of your personality has poofed. Please file a Jira report, clear cache and check Lost & found to see if you coalesce."
Seriously, though, I AM a psychologist w/ a background in neuroscience, and I can tell you we're nowhere close to neurology-based cloning of the psyche. But again, the point isn't a fantasy (based on spurious assumptions, sorry) of how it would be done, but rather WOULD you do it? Interesting question. Theoretically, if you're trying to reproduce the mind, you'd actually do better to approach it from a battery of personality inventories than neurological replication, and even if the margin of error produced a close approximation of you, (heck, let's dream big--identical), it still wouldn't be a "transfer" of you, but just a replica. You're still you, same as taking a Polaroid doesn't actually transfer your face to a sheet of photo paper, but rather produces a replica image of your face on the paper. You'd still be you; albeit a you with a (most likely imperfect) copy of you that likely would continue to diverge from your actual original self as your life experiences influenced different development. I'd be a LOT more prone to risk-taking in RL if I knew I was essentially immortal (failing massive asset server crashes). Worst that can happen is Crash, Relog (eventually).
Now, here's a fun bit of sophistry--perhaps SL is an unconscious approximation of a real metaphor for us? What if we're avatars of a higher being as is, separate characters being played by one higher being at the same time, unable to understand our interconnections b/c of our relatively limited cognitive capacity as compared to said hypothetical being? God as one Uber-soul simultaneously reincarnating itself in variations across the entirety of the space/time continuum...an entertaining, and equally unprovable hypothesis. But lotsa fun to argue about :D
Posted by: Arcadian Vanalten | Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 01:43 PM
I would like to say that i love your blog nwn.blogs.com a lot
now.. back to business hehe
I cant say that im 100% with what you typed up... care to elaberate?
Posted by: christian | Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Wow nice post! I'm happy that I've found an article like this. Just keep on doing
great.
Posted by: legitimate survey | Monday, September 13, 2010 at 01:34 PM
It's great to hear from you and see what you've been up to. In your blog I feel your enthusiasm for life. thank you.
Posted by: belstaff chaquetas | Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 03:09 AM