X-Message-Number: 302
From att!Venus.YCC.Yale.Edu!LEVY%JANE Mon Apr 15 14:08 EST 1991
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 14:08 EST
From: LEVY%
Subject: Eric Klien's prediction about reanimation possibility
To: 
Message-id: <>
X-Envelope-to: 

[ Re: msg #293 - Eric Klien's prediction about reanimation possibility ]

It's ludicrous.  We could have subatomic sized computers, and unless we knew
how to program them, they'd be of no more use to us than a corkscrew.  The
problem these days is software, not hardware.  Machines don't know anything,
and we still don't know what to tell them.   

[ Simon, good point, but not the last point.  I recall reading (in
  sci.nanotech?) that the availability of greatly increased brute force
  computing power can free us to use algorithms that are both conceptually
  simpler and more robust, although much less efficient.  For example, one
  may use a simple two-dimensional array rather than a complex tree
  structure (for representing a robot's field of view) and base one's
  pattern-matching algorithms on that representation.  Current AI programs
  may thus become simpler and problems currently too complex to easily
  program may become more conceptually tractable.
  Also, when we have moderately sophisticated nanomachines to help us analyze
  a human's brain structure we should quickly get good ideas on how to build
  smart machines ourselves.  (One possibility is to just copy the entire
  brain structure - even though we do not entirely understand what makes its
  organization intelligent - simulate it, based upon our current understanding
  of what aspects of brain operation are important, and see what happens.)
  Thus, while we certainly have a lot of basic science to learn and complex
  design issues to solve to enable reanimation, greatly improved hardware can
  greatly simplify our software problem.  Sometimes technology does simplify
  our lives. - KQB ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=302