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