X-Message-Number: 22276
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:04:31 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #22270 - #22274

Hi everyone (and Francois) again:

Bob Ettinger is quite right about simulation, though I would say
that our growing ability to read minds (with fMRIs and other such
devices) means that we ought to be able to work out just what
happens in someone's brain and what they're thinking. (Naturally
I hope that such abilities would only be applied to willing 
subjects!). 

Such an ability would fail to work if were trying to
use the same apparatus to read the mind of a computer which
simulated a brain. It's designed to look at what really goes
on IN BRAINS, not in computer versions of brains.

Moreover, as I discussed before, brains work very differently
from computers. Fully simulating a brain with any present 
system of computers or assembly of computers would obviously
fail: they can't really grow a thing. The closest to that which
I've heard of in computing is the provision of extra parts
(inevitably a finite number) to replace those on the circuit
board which might fail. Those parts are on the circuit board,
themselves; breaking it would make them fail (although human
brains cannot repair themselves from such injuries, brains
of frogs and salamanders CAN). 

It's easy to SAY that we might then try simulating atoms, or
individual neurons, or etc. Actually doing so would be impossible
or tremendously hard if we want to make a brain out of them.
You can say anything you want; the really important question
(if you don't want to just do philosophy) is whether or not
you can DO IT. 

              Best wishes and long long life to all,

                   Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22276