X-Message-Number: 5898
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: please define "irreversible"
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:23:58 -0800 (PST)

Ho hum!

More British lawyers. Here is what I would like (I know I may not get it):

Mr. Sharman states that our brains, after 3 minutes (or our brain cells, after
3 minutes) have become "irreversibly damaged". Let us examine this statement.
The first thing we need to know is what HE means by "irreversibly". If he
really wants to discuss the issue, of course, he won't just give us a circular
definition. For that matter, I do not want him to simply refer me to a 
dictionary: I want HIS DEFINITION; after all, it is the "irreversible" that 
all the argument seems to be about. 

We, of course, define "irreversible" to mean that the information which 
characterized that person has been totally destroyed. We do not mean by 
"destroyed" that it is inaccessible to us, but that it has ceased to exist.
Our definition, in practise, also has its fuzzy side: what is some of the 

information is destroyed, but not all? What if some special kinds of 
informationhave been destroyed, while other kinds remain? Just what tests do we 
apply to
decide that information has been destroyed?

So would it be too much to ask Mr. Sharman to define "irreversible"? If he
refuses to do so, of course, he shows first that he is only interested in 
debating rather than learning something, and second makes everything he has
said so far literally meaningless to us. (If someone stands on a pedestal
and announces in a ringing, loud voice that "urgyitimyuor!" I would find it
hard to think of arguments pro and con his statement). 

And with meaningless statements we can play all kinds of games. We get to
rearrange the letters, and change them, and all kinds of things. We can 
make very nice patterns on the computer screen. What we cannot do is argue
about them.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5898