X-Message-Number: 417
From att!compuserve.com!73647.1215 Fri Aug 30 02:52:13 EDT 1991
Date: 30 Aug 91 02:47:33 EDT
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
To: <whscad1!>
Subject: Re: cryonics #408 - Re: Nano-neurons?

Dear Miron:
Yes and No. Certainly, if our physics were far more advanced in prediction
we would theoretically derive the whole of chemistry from physics and the
whole of biochemistry from chemistry and the whole of biology from
biochemistry. HOWEVER we see around us that such has not been done, nor
shows even the vaguest hint of being done. 

Even in terms of "simple" mechanics, we have chaos theory, which IN THEORY
involves completely deterministic orbits --- but since even arbitrarily 
small changes to initial conditions leads to dramatic macroscopic 
differences, our derivation of the high level structure of the Solar System
from low level physical principles will (in practice) fail. 

I doubt that there is any PRACTICAL EXPERIMENTAL sense in which the high
level issues to life, or uploading, or any other such thing will ever be
decidable solely from lower level parameters.

Or perhaps did I misunderstand your meaning somehow?
				Thomas

From att!compuserve.com!73647.1215 Fri Aug 30 03:01:54 EDT 1991
Date: 30 Aug 91 02:56:15 EDT
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
To: <whscad1!>
Subject: Re: cryonics #409 - Re: Nano-neurons?

Dear Alan:
I'm not sure we are simply symbolic. A good deal of processing happens
without our being conscious of it; when you speak of experience you're
speaking of a thin layer of oil atop a deep ocean. (No, I'm not discussing
Freud. I'm just pointing out that our conscious brain processing is only
a small subset of that which goes on).

Of course these processes might be _simulated_, once they are sufficiently
understood. But if we want to improve ourselves by becoming simulated 
versions, then simulation alone won't help.
				Best
					Thomas

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=417