X-Message-Number: 33464
From: 
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:04:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: reply to Vortex

Vortex (below) says my argument fails because some experts think the   

brain operates in the realm of classical physics and that even if (say)  string
theory proves correct in one of its versions, that would not affect the  
results of uploading/downloading. 
 
This is only a portion of the argument, but something as fundamental and  
far-reaching as extra dimensions cannot fail, it seems to me, to insert  
desiderata into almost any situation.
 
R.E.
------------------
From: Vortex Prism <_ (mailto:) >

--20cf303bf838d3a451049e36dfb5

For  Robert Ettinger:

>a description of a thing (material object or system)  is not

>that thing. A map of a city is not a city. A blueprint of  a

>house is not a house, regardless of detail and  fidelity.


You are quite right, a description of a thing is just a  description. It
could be one word, or 10,000 terabytes. It's what you do with  that
description that matters. With a blueprint you can build a house. With  a
mind map you can lay down a pattern of neurons and synaptic  connections.


>In principle it might seem that, yes, if you study  the

>woman sufficiently you will be able to describe her  with

>perfect fidelity, atom for atom, and predict her  thoughts

>and actions over time. But just a little thought will  reveal

>that for the foreseeable future this is a hopeless  enterprise.

>One reason is that we don't know, and are unlikely  soon

>to know, the basic laws of physics which must govern  the

>algorithm. For example, some of the interpretations  and

>extensions of quantum physics are the various brands of  string
>or M or brane theory, which may involve extra  dimensions

>of space or time.

Correct me if I am wrong. What  you seem to be saying here is that we will
someday be able to record the  exact map of a woman's brain, down to the
individual atoms - but not  understand or predict the algorithm(s) that
determine how that mind  functions? Your reasons for this conclusion are
references to quantum  physics, string theory, and extra dimensions of space
or time?


I'm  sorry, but this argument seems totally illogical to me. There is a vast
body  of scientific evidence that shows that the essential information is
stored at  a much higher level than the quantum realm. In his comprehensive
work,  'Neurobiology', Gordon M. Shephard, M.D., concludes that: "The 
concept
that  brain functions are mediated by cell assemblies and neuronal circuits
has  become widely accepted, as will be obvious to the reader of this book,
and  most neurobiologists believe that plastic changes at synapses are  the
underlying mechanisms of learning and memory."


The brain does  what it does, because of its structure. It can't do anything
else. In other  words, you supply it with oxygenated blood and it goes to
town.


As  a side note:


I think vigorous debate is a good thing, but I've  noticed that the
discussions on Cryonet occasionally get personal. That is  not my intention.
In particular, I have the utmost respect for you, Dr.  Ettinger.. I just
disagree with you on this  subject.



 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33464