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