X-Message-Number: 23937 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:45:45 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Relevance Scott Badger, #23292: >I must be missing something. How is this long, rather >cryptic discussion about Godel relevant to cryonics? To start, here's what I said the other day (#23892, 4/15): >To tie this in to cryonics: we are machines, of a certain sort. Certain >analogies hold. Cryopreservation puts the system, the human, a type of >machine, "on hold" so that skilled "mechanics" of the future, possessing >knowledge and techniques we don't have today, can get it restarted, >provided the preservation itself is adequate. Goedel's results may, if >misunderstood, cast doubt on whether we, creatures with minds, can be >considered machines, open to repair and restarting as with a car or >computer. This need not follow, but we want to give credit where it is >due, and note the profound implications and significance of these results. Restating and going from there: people have used the Godel (I'll spell it that way) results to argue that there is something inherently un-machinelike about the human mind. This is because a machine "always operates within a formal system," and Godel showed there are truths knowable by humans that must baffle any formal system. Or did he? Admittedly this is not relevant to the nuts and bolts of cryonics *today* but may have more relevance in the future when it comes time to consider reanimation and other then-available options. Cryonics is what we hope will be our lifeline to immortality, and that in turn involves us in many things beyond today's basic procedures. Besides the reanimation problem there is the issue of whether robots ("machines") could have minds equal to humans, and whether humans could actually be uploaded into and "inhabit" said robots as software, and continue that way as, for all reasonable intents and purposes, the same individuals they were before. Or whether an artificial construct could replace a significant portion of the human brain (for reasons of durability, say, as a convenience for reanimation or a better life afterward) without sacrificing the individual. The arguments over Godel I think started when Robert Ettinger made an assertion that Godel's results were not very significant, and thus apparently, by implication (though he didn't actually say it) we don't have to worry over some of the problems raised about machines vs. humans. But many of us give more credit to Godel--his results, including the basic undecidability argument that parallels the liar paradox, we feel are *not* simply insignificant. Yet we still find plenty of reasons not to worry about being hampered, in the future, by any inherent limitations of "machines" (however you want to define it) or formal systems. Unfortunately, the possible ties to cryonics--what it is really about--often do not come through as the various arguments run their course. We can also raise the issue of how relevant are other topics such as politics, which admittedly does have some relevance. Yet I don't think most readers want to see endless material, all too easily encountered, in which cryonics is never mentioned or hinted at though other things are most strongly. Sometimes it's really hard to separate what should be considered off-topic and discouraged from what should not. Opinions will vary, and some will be unhappy no matter what is done, including just advising to skip what you don't find interesting, though that is something to consider. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23937