X-Message-Number: 14730
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:42:03 -0700
From: Lee Corbin <>
Subject: standing waves & self circuit

Robert Ettinger wrote (#14697)

>An important point is that the standing wave does not and cannot exist at a 
>single point or a single moment. It binds space and time, and has no meaning 
>unless you look at a time interval of the magnitude of the period and a
space 
>interval of the magnitude of the wave length.

This fits a plethora of observations and thought experiments.  
A perpetual problem has been that repeats of experience over
very short time (implement them in either meat or machine---it
doesn't matter) seem unmeaningful.  But this "important point"
as you call it, sounds very satisfactory.

>A computer simulation could imply or describe that, but could
>not capture or constitute it--somewhat as a reporter could
>convey evidence of an emotion, but not the emotion itself.

I do not know of any reason why, in principle, extremely complex
computer-driven entities could not also constitute (emulate) it.
How do we know what a million pentiums might or might not be able
to achieve in real-time?  Isn't it so much simpler to suppose
that nature merely found *one* possible way to implement sentient
feeling beings?

>In fact, wave equations written down on paper imply the
>behavior of the string, but cannot substitute for it.

Quite so!  An important point often missed in science fiction.
But this difference is the same at that between letting a
computer program merely be represented in some medium (e.g.,
a disk, or tape), and giving it run time.  It's not really
alive at some particular moment unless it's running, just as
a frozen cryonicist isn't really alive again until he or she

is revived.

>So here is the nub of my suggestion. Feeling is rooted in
>standing waves in the brain. "You" (when not completely
>unconscious) are a particular standing wave, or set of such.

All right.

>The standing wave is your feeling of being. Modulations or
>perturbations of the standing wave(s) represent the CONTENT
>of feeling, or qualia, i.e. subjective experiences of something
>happening. The precise nature of these will of course depend
>on the brain's [or machine's] handling of sensory input, from
>the outside or from different regions of the brain. 

Sounds exactly right to me!  Please excuse the [] insertion :-)

The welcome advance that your post represents to me is a solution
to the paradox of very small intervals.  I've often perplexed
myself (and probably others) with cases where someone re-experiences
the same tenth of a second a billion times.  Is the person conscious
or experiencing anything during those (eleven) days?  But I wish I
had more appreciation or deep understanding of your claim "that
it [the standing wave] has no meaning unless you look at a time
interval of the magnitude of the period".  But it sure sounds good!

Lee Corbin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14730