From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 19 Apr 2006 - 14:50:16 GMT
At 10:08 AM 4/19/2006 +0100, Robin wrote:
>Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 7:27:43 PM, Keith wrote:
> > At 07:07 PM 4/17/2006 +0100, Robin wrote:
> >>Monday, April 17, 2006, 5:51:10 PM, Keith wrote:
> >> >>As implied by your mention of "spirits", that's a
> >> >>basically dualist view. And I know that language was intended for
> >> >>those who could not appreciate the technology. But it also illustrates
> >> >>where the concepts originated. You just took dualism full circle,
> >> >>which is appropriate, because it takes us nowhere.
> >> > I really don't see the concept of spirit as dualistic. If a chair
> has been
> >> > painted red your eyes tell you it has the quality of "red." If you can
> >> > interact with something, it has the quality of "spirit." Thus live cats
> >> > and dogs have spirit. So do computers with operating systems. Dead
> >> > humans, cats and dogs plus computers that have been turned off don't
> >> > spirit. Simple as that.
> >>If you believe the human spirit can be separated from the body
> >>you're a dualist.
> > Since spirit is an active quality--you interact with one--the question
> > would be if I thought I could interact with an OS with no underlying
> > hardware. Obviously, no. I don't believe disembodied spirits are
> > possible, information storage and processing requires matter. Now it is a
> > different kind of question when you ask about information. The spirit of a
> > cryonics patient stored in LN2 is as inactive-gone-as a computer with the
> > power off. But if the patient were repaired and warmed up, we have good
> > reason to believe their spirit would become active again.
>Your use of the term "spirit" is covering some sloppy thinking.
>Without a clear definition
Do you see "sloppy thinking" in the way I defined the word above and
Or is it "sloppy thinking" to use the word at all? (Because of other
If the latter, I don't mind using a new term for "the quality in animals
and machines we interact with."
>your assertions both on the immediate
>effects of cryonic suspension and on the possibilities of revival are
> > Same thing if an atom for atom copy was made.
>I don't believe that a sufficiently low-level scan is or ever will be
>possible without damaging the subject.
Dr. Ralph Merkle--who you probably don't respect--has done the math on this
in _The Molecular Repair of the Brain_
Dr. Merkle's wikipedia page (much more impressive than mine) is here:
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Apr 2006 - 15:15:07 GMT