X-Message-Number: 12695 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #12685 - #12693 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:29:45 +1100 (EST) Still more on emotions, computers, intelligence, etc To Kennita: I myself do not believe in the notion that we'll find ourselves obsolete due to computers. I hope that was clear from my posting. However we still need answers to those who DO believe that. And even if you agree with me here, you may be interested in what you can say to someone who does. To Daniel Crevier: I will emphasize again that I am NOT arguing for the impossibility of a machine with emotions. I AM, however, pointing out that they are separate from intelligence, and that we might indeed make a machine which is more intelligent than us but totally lacks any emotions. Minsky's comment on these issues has little to do with what I was saying. It is just a statement of how WE work (perhaps with the implication that this is how we'd make a computer with feelings and goals). Possibly we have a different definition of feelings here. You may note, if you read what I've said on other matters, that I do not count the ability of a computer to act out a program as any sign of feelings or goals. It's just a more elaborate version of the ability of a car to turn when you move the steering wheel and it is in motion. To be goals or feelings OF THE MACHINE, they must come from the machine, not from us or some separate entity. As for constructing such a machine, I think that would be unwise, but conceivably someone may someday try it. To explicate what I've just said, I think it would be unwise because I see no reason why it would ever be NECESSARY... no matter how powerful and percipient we made our computers. And finally, a bit about nanotechnology, for John Clark: Yes, I too have noticed (and even discussed in PERIASTRON) such things as the invention of nanosized switches. I will also point out something uncomfortable: it's fine that various people are now using these ideas to make better computers. But they do nothing at all to solve our problems as cryonicists, and show no desire to do so. The problem of reviving a badly damaged brain, and the problem of making much better computers, both depend on fundamental understanding of nanophenomena. But solution of one such problem will do little to solve the other, even though both may involve some form of nanotechnology. I will add, as someone who has paid close attention to cryobiology for all the years I've been a member of a cryonics society (and then some) that we have a good chance of finding out how to suspend brains which ARE NOT badly damaged, and if anything that deserves our first priority until we've got it working. It won't solve our problems completely, far from that, but it's a good start. Later on we ARE likely to need some kind of nanotechnology (in the broad sense) for repair, given that repair is possible at all. We're not going to easily escape the possibility that some brains (OURS???) may end up badly damaged and need such technologies. Best and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12695