X-Message-Number: 15941
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 08:56:02 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #15913 - #15918

Hi everyone!

It seems that some have noticed what I said.

For Kennita: I think that the problem is more complex than what
you say, but I was discussing only one part of it. Traditional
Turing machines ARE single computers, and using such a machine
to imitate a human brain will get us directly into the problem
I described: it will take millions of years to get 10 minutes.

Although I do not think it would be wise, I see no reason why
we could not build an intelligent creature with its own emotions
and capable to exceeding a human being. Why don't I think it wise?
because we'd be creating a competitor for ourselves. In terms of
what we will someday be able to do in our OWN redesign, we may
well wish to process things faster, and so move to a different
metabolism. However even that is a question which deserves some
care: we are PARALLEL "machines" right now, and the speed of a 
neuron should not be identified with our speed of processing. 
Neurons can be put together to give faster results, if we needed
them. The evolutionary fact that they have NOT been put together
for faster results also raises another question: just how much
speed do we really need NOW? After all, we're much more like
database machines than like a machine capable of rapid computing.

I raise these questions not because I have an answer, but because
I hope to see how these questions really work out in the future.
And those who believe that we'll automatically choose to think
faster should think more about their ideas. Just because we can
modify ourselves to have 4 legs instead of 2, it doesn't follow
that we'll all choose to do that; and the same deserves saying 
about making our thinking faster.

	Best wishes and long long life for all,

		Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15941