X-Message-Number: 5648 From: Garret Smyth <> Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: Don't talk about neurosuspension Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 16:44:40 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <> <> <> <> I've removed a lot of the previous stuff which is repetetive. It was about whether there is a difference between whole body and neurosuspension and whether there is anything worthwhile learned by the spinal chord. The edited stuff is mostly in several previous posts in this thread. If anyone can't access them I can e-mail them directly. Marvin Minsky: > It's the spinal cord, mostly. It would make a lot of sense to keep > that, too. Take it out carefully, and coil it u[ with the brain. > There's probably a good deal of low level motor learning in it. If there is learning in the spinal chord I agree that it must be pretty low level - no one is seriously going to argue that Christopher Reeve is no longer Christopher Reeve because he has a broken back. I have to admit that Marvin Minsky does outrank me, but even so, he still used that little word "probably" about there being learning in the spinal chord. Do you have any evidence? The cycling arguement seems weak to me as I said before - the difficult bit is the balance, and the spinal chord has no idea which way up it is. Balance is in the head. I'm not being dogmatic about this, it is just that I have never yet heard of even one experiment showing learning in the spinal chord. I look forward to enlightenment. TTFN Garret -- Garret Smyth Phone: 0181 789 1045 or +44 181 789 1045 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5648