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