X-Message-Number: 21340 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:40:10 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #21332 - #21339 Yet more on consciousness: First of all Ettinger has a point, though perhaps he did not express it well. We cannot be just information, we must actually take form as a creature acting in the world. Not only that, but we are NOT bits in a computer. The computer is then just executing a program and no matter how complex the program it does not become "human" or even acquire consciousness. The reason is quite simple: all those operations with bits only have meaning when some third party examines them. Mike Perry suggests that such a program could be so well-done that there would be no way to tell the difference between it and a human being. From this he concludes that it must be conscious. The problem with such an idea is that he's assuming one thing he must prove: that there really is no way to tell the difference. If I, a 3rd party, come along with a way to look at the "brain" of Mike's imitation human being and establish that it's only executing a computer program, then his imitation falls down. Symbols came along much later than brains, and its the operation of a BRAIN that makes us conscious. In terms of brain physiology, neuroscientists are actually coming close to being able to describe how brains can be conscious. A computer, operating only with bits, would not actually do those things required for consciousness, it would only be fiddling with symbols. However Ettinger's points do also fall down, but not where those exponents of computer imitation assume. OK, so we need a system which actually does something active in the world, rather than just operate with symbols. There is no reason at all why we could not make such a system. We might even set it up with electrical circuits, not as a computer which operates with symbols but as a set of nanodevices communicating by electric currents of various forms and doing much the same things as our neurons do. In other words, nothing keeps us from making brains rather than computers --- other than our lack of knowledge right now of exactly how to do that. In terms of design, such a device (?) would basically carry out its activities with no symbolic stage between what it does and what it wants to do. Just like our own brains, it may have separate circuits to deal especially with symbols, but those circuits would not themselves work symbolically but really. For cryonics purposes, this might be someone who is revived by separate creation of a human being rather than repairing the suspended body, because damage to the suspended body was too great to make repairing it worthwhile. And yes, in such a case I would say he/she was a continuation of the original, though possibly with the contents of his/her different kinds of memory highly damaged by the incidents which led to his/her suspension. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21340