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