X-Message-Number: 11242
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Mostly for Mike Perry; but funds for brain freezing are VERY important
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:21:32 +1100 (EST)

Hi everyone!

Frankly I believe that the issue of funding more research into
preservation of brains is worth far more than any discussion of whether or
not we are finite-state machines. If we find out how to reversibly 
cryopreserve brains, all these issues will probably have had far more
discussion and possibly even agreement than they have now.

Since 21st Century Medicine is doing such research, we need ways to 
provide more funding for 21st Century Medicine, directed not at the 
preservation of kidneys but at the preservation of brains. I would like
to hear more from Saul Kent on what is possible here.

HOWEVER, for Mike Perry, here goes: first of all, although I may not have
said so clearly, even a finite machine can go through an infinity of
states. Recall my brief example: given the possibility of an infinity of
colors, a finite machine could see each triple of colors.

So the fundamental question here is that of whether the universe is
finite or infinite. At present it looks far more likely to be infinite.
Naturally this is a possibility which we will never settle empirically.

Furthermore, the variety of "finitude" makes a BIG difference. Space (and
therefore location) is not now considered to be digital or quantized. This
means that some paths in space will never encounter themselves. A machine
following such a path (or even more, a machine --- or brain --- containing
something which follows such paths) cannot be considered a finite state
machine. The present likelihood that the universe will expand endlessly
means that these paths may take up larger and larger trajectories, too.
This is just what might happen given the very likely claim that our
brain is nonlinear: it need never return to its original state. (I
referred to this issue at the end of my previous discussion of the fact
that a machine finite at any particular time can still take on an
infinity of states --- even a machine which remains the same size).

You may wish to define a "finite-state machine" as simply a machine which
is finite at any fixed time. It seems to me that this destroys the whole
purpose of such an idea. Clearly such a machine need never return to 
any previous state, nor have any other attributes belonging to a previous
state. But definitions may be arbitrary, even though we must be careful
that we look at the definition closely when we say something about the
things/ideas defined.

And no, I do not believe that brains (even of "lesser mammals") can be
identified with finite-state machines. Growth and change make that
very unlikely, even in cats or monkeys. I presently also believe the
universe is very likely to be infinite in time, even if not infinite in 
spacial extent at any fixed time.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11242