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