X-Message-Number: 15415
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:48:50 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: two more comments

Hi again!

A number of comments:

1. For Bob Ettinger: my current situation is not permanent. At present,
   however, I cannot read a web site but CAN accept and read email,
   and send it out. That is why I have not personally read your Web
   site. I do owe the Cryonics Institute an apology because you do have
   some info on your web site, to judge the responses of others. However
   I think such issues need to be discussed on Cryonet, too, and continue
   to think so.

2. I still have found no response on Cryonet which comes close to answering
   my question about whether or not brains can be imitated by computers.
   I have given my reasons which obscure that answer a good deal, and
   anyone who wishes may ask for references. The basic idea of how brains
   work should raise questions in any thinking person: creation and 
   destruction both of new connections and new neurons will at a minimum 
   obscure the answer to questions about Turing models of brains, and
   may (as I've already said) provide an example of a "thinking machine"
   which does not work like a Turing machine, and cannot be imitated
   by one.

   Recently one author argued that we used only N^2 neuron connections,
   and used this number as an instance showing that imitating a brain
   with a computer would be easier than many thought (though with
   billions of neurons this becomes a nontrivial job ... not to mention
   that it is a doubtful assumption to start with). No one has answered
   my reply to this, pointing out that we must consider the full possible
   sets of connections, which is much larger. If I misunderstand Turing,
   then I stand corrected, but I do not believe this point misunderstands
   Turing.

			Best wishes and long long life for all,

					Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15415