X-Message-Number: 8092
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: CRYONICS Re: CryoNet #7998 - #8003
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:57:15 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

A few words before I go to bed.

1. For Mr. Clark: I enjoyed your story. As an understanding of what may happen,
   though, I would expect that there would be ways in which I could verify
   some or all of my foreign state, not introspectively (as when you do some
   calculations) but objectively. Still, it was a nice story.

   As for awareness, consciousness, etc, I doubt that it is selectively
   neutral. I even gave a rough theory of how it may work, and so long as we
   have both senses to tell us what the world is like and other senses which
   tell us such things as what we want, the choice problem will be there. I can
   go on from that to say that it's actually very likely that cats, dogs, and
   many other animals are conscious, too. Their brains must also deal with
   making choices. Insects, however, seem doubtful, since they seem to be
   wired up much more as automatons.

   I therefore find it a bit sterile to argue about how even if consciousness
   were selectively neutral it would persist. The real problem is to work out
   how it is NOT selectively neutral.

   Incidentally, the "brown eyes" issue is very poorly chosen. Most Caucasians
   (note that I did NOT say most Europeans) are darker than we are. Brown eyes,
   just like brown skin, protect against sunlight when it becomes too bright.
   I even see quite strong proof of this in comparing my own responses to those
   of my wife; I am brown-eyed and she has blue eyes. I have much less need
   of sunglasses than she, though of course I use them sometimes.

2. To Perry Metzger: It has seemed to me for some time that Goedel's theorem,
   alone, raises serious questions about just how far we can go with a 
   system small enough so that everything within it is provable or calculable.
   Part of what I'm saying comes directly from thinking about that situation.
   Can you give me a reference to Rose's theorem?

   As for the durability of math, you're quite correct that fields fall in and
   out of favor, too. Sometimes they even come back, or survive in one small
   corner while many other mathematicians ignore them. Devising systems which
   are necessarily true does not mean that they become necessarily permanent,
   NOT AT ALL.

   As for COMMUNICATING mathematical ideas, I'd say that a lot depends on 
   just who it is you're trying to communicate with. The way to do it is to
   work underneath language, not through language, and even 5 + 5 = 10 would
   bewilder someone who may (because they are vastly more intelligent, or
   not so intelligent) try to understand what you mean by + and = and 5 and 10.
   If I were talking to another human being, and both of us were patient (I
   doubt I could do it in an hour unless that other person already understood
   the idea but symbolized it differently) I believe I could explain a 
   definite integral, and how we symbolize it. If that other person is not
   close enough to me mentally it gets harder and harder. But I would not try

   to do it with just more symbols, no matter how close or far the person was.
   
   After all, we didn't learn the idea of 5 from symbols and talk alone.
   We were shown, as kids, lots of instances of 5 things (I remember seeing the
   old workbooks). Then, as human beings, we get the idea of "5". Addition 
   of course would come later, subtraction even later, and (Wow!) then we
   get into multiplication and division --- division isn't quite so easy. But
   the one thing which was NOT done was any attempt to present arithmetic
   symbolically, with axioms etc.

   How do I measure how close someone might be to me mentally? Good question.
   It helps if their senses are close to mine, and their ability (without
   special tools) to manipulate the world is close to mine. Naturally they
   must also for some reason want to communicate with me. Finally, in some
   ways I would want to think about more, they must somehow think in a way
   similar to the way I think --- which may be a consequence of the first
   two conditions or may not.

3. To Tim Freeman: Gee, I'm sorry you don't have any sense that you are present
   and conscious. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that you have some kind of
   problem with your brain. Have you gone to see a neurologist?

   And on a firmer basis, I will point out that we have several senses whose
   special function is to inform us of the state of our bodies and our brains.
   True, my senses of that kind don't inform YOU of the state of MY body and
   brain, but they are there. 

   If we are to get anywhere at all with the problem of consciousness, then
   we'll have to accept that our sense of ourselves won't be felt by others,
   AND that this does not impugn that sense. So long as our brain anatomy
   is close enough, we should get the same information from our internal
   senses. To try to go farther than that is to wander off into sterility.

   Are my own senses accurate? Well, I would test them by seeing how well
   they work, using PET scans or MRI scans. It's even true that because of
   my brain tumor --- or rather, how it has changed my brain --- I am NOT
   structured the same as you are. But the brain areas involved with 
   consciousness remained untouched, by all evidence available.

4. Hi Charles! Fundamentally, this discussion is about just how we might be
   revived and what that revival might mean. If you have a more immediate,
   practical issue please give it to us ASAP. I doubt that you will be
   ignored if so.

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8092