X-Message-Number: 8049
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Olaf Henny <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8042 - #8047

>Do you think that an ant decides all on its own that life is worth living 
>and then determines what actions he can take that have the best chance of
>preserving it?

I have no idea, what the philosophic capabilities of an ant are, but 
I would conjecture, that it does not quite reach the contemplation
of 'the meaning of life'.  I would however submit, that the ant
perceived 'threat' and strategized 'run' as defense. This is at 
least on a very primitive level a creative/constructive response,
which you will not find in even to day's most sophisticated digital 
computer/robot, and which in my opinion defines conciousness.
The discussion of definition of consciouness is after all, what 
started this particular thread.


>        >cryonics is simply a life extending procedure, similar to-, but more 

>        >extensive than CPR. It neither proves, nor disproves the existence of
>        >a soul, or the validity of religion for that matter.


>Yes I know, that's the standard line to tell people when you want to get them 
>interested in Cryonics, and I wouldn't dream of saying this anyplace except 
>Cryonet, but it's nonsense. If we have soul then Cryonics is pointless, and 
>so is CPR, and so are doctors, and so are seat belts, and so are ...

I can only believe you meant that 'tongue in cheek', but I will 
nevertheless respond as if it was a serious assertion:

By the criterion 'If we have soul then Cryonics is pointless, and 
so is CPR, and so are doctors, and so are seat belts, and so are ...'
you have proven, that there is no soul.  While I indeed believe,
that there is no soul, I cannot accept the disproving of it in form 
of that wild claim, that CPR is pointless.  It has after all extended 
life as we define it at this time and thereby delayed the departure 
of the soul, if there indeed is one.
                           
   >     >Olaf:
   >     >I would think, that the conflict would start long before they are 
   >     >*that* superior to us.

>Things would happen fast in a world that contained a mind a billion times 
>faster than ours, one second to us would be like 30 years to it.
>
>Even today some electronic switches work 100 million times faster than neural 
>synapses, and nanoelectronic switches would be far faster. The fastest 
>signals in the brain move at 100 meters per second, and many are much, much, 
>slower. Light moves at 300,000,000  meters per second, and Nano computers 
>would be far smaller than neurons, further increasing the speed advantage.
>
>At breakfast a researcher makes the first very primitive, stone age, 
>Nanotechnology based AI, by lunch it's master of the Universe. The moral, 
>if you can't beat them join them.

Ralph Merkle has estimated, that with nanotechnology you 
could fit a complete computer  with 1000 kb (1MB) into a
cubic micron.  That would fit about 10^6 GB into a mm^3,
roughly the size of a sugar grain or 200,000 times the 
capacity of the presently largest PC with a 5GB HD.

I am sure, that a competent neurosurgeon could find 
accommodation for a few of these even in the cramped quarters 
of my cranial cavity and if you can find a way of  effectively 
interfacing them with my brain, then I promise, that I will 
defend you against that computer menace of yours. ;-)

Olaf Henny

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8049