X-Message-Number: 5648
From: Garret Smyth <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Don't talk about neurosuspension
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 16:44:40 GMT
Message-ID: <>

References: <> <> 
<> <>

I've removed a lot of the previous stuff which is repetetive. It was
about whether there is a difference between whole body and neurosuspension
and whether there is anything worthwhile learned by the spinal chord.

The edited stuff is mostly in several previous posts in this thread. If
anyone can't access them I can e-mail them directly.

Marvin Minsky:
> It's the spinal cord, mostly.  It would make a lot of sense to keep
> that, too.  Take it out carefully, and coil it u[ with the brain.
> There's probably a good deal of low level motor learning in it.


If there is learning in the spinal chord I agree that it must be pretty
low level - no one is seriously going to argue that Christopher Reeve is
no longer Christopher Reeve because he has a broken back.

I have to admit that Marvin Minsky does outrank me, but even so, he still

used that little word "probably" about there being learning in the spinal chord.

Do you have any evidence?

The cycling arguement seems weak to me as I said before - the difficult bit is 
the balance, and the spinal chord has no idea which way up it is. Balance is 
in the head.

I'm not being dogmatic about this, it is just that I have never yet heard of
even one experiment showing learning in the spinal chord. I look forward to
enlightenment.

TTFN

Garret

-- 
Garret Smyth

Phone:  0181 789 1045 or +44 181 789 1045


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5648