CryoNet #33443 - #33452
CryoNet <[email protected]> 10 Mar 2011 10:00:01 -0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.science.cryogenics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
CryoNet - Thu 10 Mar 2011
#33443: Mike Darwin Reveals Himself [Melody Maxim]
#33444: Darwin comment [Ettinger]
#33445: identifying anonymous emails [John de Rivaz]
#33446: Re: CryoNet #33439 - #33442 [Gerald Monroe]
#33447: Nothing but Delusions from Mr. Darwin [Melody Maxim]
#33448: A little thought experiment... [Vortex Prism]
#33449: Re: CryoNet #33439 - #33442 [Gerald Monroe]
#33450: Some members could use a daily call - online call-list projec... [Brook Norton]
#33451: Re: All About Evil, Part 2 [Chris Manning]
#33452: Thomas Donaldson on How We Are Not Computers [M2darwin]
Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33443%2D33452
Administrivia
To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
[email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
[email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.
Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.
To retrieve past messages, send email to:
[email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
http://www.cryonet.org/
For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
- Kevin Q. Brown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33443
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:42:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Mike Darwin Reveals Himself
------=_Part_2293872_967508446.1299678154011
Early this morning, Mike Darwin posted at least one very intentional and blatant lie, on this forum. If anyone could not see the flaws in his character, prior to this day, they should now be able to see them quite clearly, now.
In Cryonet message 33441, Mr. Darwin wrote that I accused him of lying about having been a "board-eligible perfusionist," (I did), and he goes on to write:
>>"Here is what I actually said: "If all I had was perfusion experience in cryonics; I'd have had essentially no experience at all. At one time I was told I was a Board eligible perfusionist (1970s), but I never sat for the Boards and quite honestly, I did very little clinical perfusion."<<
(Note Mr. Darwin's use of the phrase "I was told.")
That's just another of Mr. Darwin's MANY lies. Here is what Mr. Darwin REALLY wrote, from his own earlier post (Cryonet post 33381):
>>At one time I was a Board eligible perfusionist, but I never sat for the Boards and quite honestly, I did very comparatively little clinical perfusion."<<
(Originally posted on the Cold Filter cryonics filter, and recently copied and pasted, by Mr. Darwin, in his own post, on Cryonet. Note the conspicuous absence of the phrase "I was told," in his original comment. Mr. Darwin clearly, intentionally altered his original false statement, in order to lie to the members of this forum. Mr. Darwin has never even come close to meeting the qualifications of being a "board-eligible perfusionist," and now he wants to compound his lies about having done so .)
In Cryonet message 33442, Mr. Darwin goes on to write:
>>"Maxim did not bother to ask clarifying questions, or even to in any way qualify her remarks - rather she attacked and accused. In the first instance, by incorrectly and unjustly calling me a liar. That indicates pre-judgment, and it also cuts off further communication. This has been her pattern of interaction with virtually everyone in cryonics."<<
I believe I was justified in accusing Mr. Darwin of lying about having been a "board-eligible perfusionist," and again, now he compounds that lie. He also lies about my interactions with people, while working in cryonics. In fact, the exact opposite of what he writes is true, in regard to my "pattern of interaction with virtually everyone in cryonics." I have a passion for perfusion and for hypothermic medicine, and when I saw an ad for a job at a cryonics facility near my home, I went there with an open mind and an open heart. I did my best, for a very long time, to explain why I thought the equipment and protocols were inappropriate, and what was the response I received from the "powers that be" at the LEF-funded cryonics organizations? Nothing but lies and personal attacks. In response
to my criticisms of the projects at SA, Steve Harris MD (Chief Medical Advisor of Alcor, Director of SA, head of CCR, and Advisor to CI) published NUMEROUS grossly-blatant lies about me, on
the Internet. I knew the source of the lies, and when I threatened to sue everyone from Saul Kent, on down, for what I could prove were lies, Charles Platt hired an attorney, who advised him to correct the false statements. There have been plenty of lies told on cryonics forums, but not by me.
I did not "pre-judge" anyone, in cryonics. In EVERY instance, I initially believed the people I met in cryonics were well-intentioned. I thought their only shortcoming was probably that they simply had little genuine knowledge of the cannulations and perfusion procedures they were trying to perform. When they got upset at my every suggestion for change, even those that would have been relatively simple and cost-effective, I came to believe that a handful of these people were not interested in anything more than padding their own pockets and/or egos, by continuing with their many ill-advised projects, through which they've accomplished virtually nothing of significance . Many people, of great influence in cryonics, have been hanging around for decades, building poor imitations of existing m
edical equipment and trying to teach laymen how to perform procedures even they don't know how to do. There are a handful of people, earning a lot of money in cryonics, for activities, which
I believe to be, not only unproductive, but extremely unethical. If it were just their benefactors and a group of well-informed people buying into their foolishness, I would not be so concerned, but that is not the case. I think certain cryonics organizations have engaged in marketing activities in which the quality of their services have been grossly-misrepresented to the general population, and I think it is a serious matter of public concern.
Mr. Darwin has been involved in a number of activities, which have brought negative attention to the cryonics community, to the point where the organizations, themselves, won't have him as a staff member. Between him, and Steve Harris , it's a toss-up, as to which one contributes most to my feeling that cryonics should be regulated. If Mr. Darwin REALLY cared about avoiding the regulation of cryonics, he would not be antagonizing a medical professional, who only wants to see the cryonics organizations behave in an ethical fashion. I don't think he's going to help the cryonics community avoid regulation, with his lies, name-calling, threats and tirades.
Sincerely,
Melody Maxim
------=_Part_2293872_967508446.1299678154011
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33443
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33444
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:21:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Darwin comment
Darwin's exposition of "evil" had at least one good laugh--his statement
that "Ettinger is a consummate politician." Me and Old Nick.
R.E.
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33444
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33445
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
Subject: identifying anonymous emails
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:25:18 -0000
Concern has been expressed from time to time on CryoNet about anonymous email articles.
A team of researchers from Concordia University has developed an effective new technique to determine the authorship of anonymous emails. Tests showed their method has a high level of accuracy -- and unlike many other methods of ascertaining authorship, it can provide presentable evidence in courts of law.
lots more on
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110308124758.htm
--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and
more
Content-Type: text/html;
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33445
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33446
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:00:05 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33439 - #33442
--90e6ba53ac480509fa049e1081dd
Mike : that was an excellent response. I found it to be relatively concise
and quite convincing. The ironic part is that if Melody did start a new and
improved cryonics organization it sounds like you would show up at her
doorstep and ask to be a part of it.
Gerald Monroe
--90e6ba53ac480509fa049e1081dd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33446
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33447
From: "Melody Maxim" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Nothing but Delusions from Mr. Darwin
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:53:41 -0500
Mr. Darwin has so much difficulty sticking to the facts, I'm no longer sure
he is even capable of recognizing the truth. Most of what he writes about
me, my efforts, and my intentions, seem to be products of his many
delusions. Amongst other untruths, he writes: "One of Maxim's working
partners, who refers to her as "Mel," recently posted this...(blah blah
blah, something from the Rick Ross forum)." I don't know who made that post,
and I can't imagine anyone I work with making such a post. For Mr. Darwin to
try to convince the readers of this forum that some anonymous person is my
"working partner" in some secret cryonics-bashing scheme, is just another
lame attempt, on the part of Mr. Darwin, to discredit me. If you ask me,
he's insulted the intelligence of the readers of this forum, at least a
dozen times, today, alone. MANY people refer to me as "Mel," including some
who only think they know me, from reading my posts on cryonics forums; it's
ridiculous (and probably intentionally deceptive) to imply someone is my
"working partner," because they publicly referred to me by a shortened
version of my name. If, and when, anyone I work with decides to publicly
comment on cryonics activities, I'm sure their comments will come with
genuine signatures, followed by medical credentials.
As for Mr. Darwin's defense of what I believe most people will construe as
"consumer fraud"...his little band of insiders may know Mr. Darwin and
Catherine Baldwin are not really surgeons, but contrary to what Mr. Darwin
states, the incompetence is not "there for all to see," in Alcor's and SA's
case reports. I sincerely believe those case reports are intentionally
designed to deceive potential clients visiting their websites. Laymen who
are new to cryonics won't realize Catherine Baldwin was only pretending to
be a "surgeon," and (like Ms. Baldwin) they won't know the difference
between the "femoral sheath" and the "femoral capsule." Laymen will read Ms.
Baldwin's case report, (in which she refers to herself as a surgeon, and
which she filled with (sometimes misused) medical terminology), and believe
she is a medical professional, who actually knows what she is doing. I think
most people will agree with me, in that the services of these organizations
are being grossly misrepresented to unsuspecting potential clients, who may
visit their websites and/or read their case reports. Mr. Darwin mistakenly
believes cryonics is still just a tiny little anonymous club, where he and
his friends can play doctor with the legally dead, and no one will be
bothered by it.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33447
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33448
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:38:15 -0500
Subject: A little thought experiment...
From: Vortex Prism <[email protected]>
--bcaec51ddef1dffb74049e138bca
A little thought experiment...
Situation #1
Let's say I take a sleeping pill and fall into a deep, dreamless sleep.
While I am out, my fun-loving neighbors pick me up and drive me a mile away
so that I wake up in a park a few hours later.
Situation #2
I take a sleeping pill and fall into a deep, dreamless sleep. While I am out
my fun-loving neighbors scan my brain with sufficient fidelity to record my
every memory, concept, abstraction, etc. and then they kill me. Nice
neighbors, huh?
These same joyful people then drive to the same park and download all my
brain patterns into a biologically identical body. I wake up a few hours
later admiring the same park.
Result:
Relative to the person waking up in the park (me), as far as I can tell
there is absolutely no difference in the outcome of either situation. If you
claim there is a difference, it seems to me that you are attributing
something magical to a particular set of molecules in one flesh & blood body
over another.
In the first case, a set of molecules are physically being moved from one
location to the next. In the second case, the original arrangement of
molecules is destroyed and a identical arrangement of identical molecules is
created.
Comments?
P.S.
Please don't come back and say that if the first person isn't destroyed,
wakes up and seeing that he has been copied should happily puts a gun to his
head. You don't get to change the conditions of the test.
--bcaec51ddef1dffb74049e138bca
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33448
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33449
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:36:42 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33439 - #33442
--20cf307f34141a2eb5049e145e0a
Clarification : what I meant was that Mike cares about cryonics, not
personalities. All the nasty words in the world don't mean anything
compared to the possibility of actually being alive a few hundred years from
now.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>wrote:
> Mike : that was an excellent response. I found it to be relatively concise
> and quite convincing. The ironic part is that if Melody did start a new and
> improved cryonics organization it sounds like you would show up at her
> doorstep and ask to be a part of it.
>
> Gerald Monroe
>
--20cf307f34141a2eb5049e145e0a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33449
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33450
From: Brook Norton <[email protected]>
Subject: Some members could use a daily call - online call-list projec...
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:32:09 -0800
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
When a cryonics member lives alone and deanimates, he/she can go for days
before being discovered and suspended, obviously receiving a much degraded
suspension. My understanding is that there are several members (at different
cryonics organizations) that are at risk. An on-line site has been set up so
that volunteer callers can 1) see who still needs a call that day, 2) see
the info to make a call(s), and 3) log that the call was made.
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO TEST THE SYSTEM. This could be a great way to give
a few minutes to strengthen our cryonics community. Volunteers have no daily
obligations and only call when they have a few spare minutes. The more
volunteers, the more total the coverage, and any calls are better than the
no-calls in the current situation. If you would like to help get this
project off the ground, please visit the site to get a feel for it, and let
me know if you can make a few calls to test the system before we actually
use it for member calls. To provide comments and/or to volunteer, please
email [email protected] or [email protected].
LOGGING IN
Anyone can log in at this point to check it out and offer suggestions.
http://sheet.zoho.com/home.do
username: dailycheck
password: dailycheckPW
in upper left: file, open, dailycheck
Follow instructions.
This site is not affiliated with any cryonics organization, though it would
serve members at any organization.
Please email me if you would like to help in a test run.
-- Brook Norton
Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33450
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33451
From: "Chris Manning" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: All About Evil, Part 2
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:55 +1100
I try to read every cryonet post and I have read all of every recent post
from Mike Darwin.
There is a lot which I as a non-scientist can't claim to understand, but I
try to understand what I can. About his most recent post I would like to
make a few comments as follows:
> This lengthily detour is germane in responding to your (George's) comment,
> because Maxim did not bother to ask clarifying questions, or even to in
> any
> way qualify her remarks - rather she attacked and accused. In the first
> instance, by incorrectly and unjustly calling me a liar. That indicates
> pre-judgment, and it also cuts off further communication.
It need not do that. A person who is accused of lying could respond by
asking their accuser such questions as 'What the true state of affairs (in
your opinion)?', 'How do you know that I know that (i.e. that I am not
simply mistaken)?' or 'What reason/motive would I have for lying?'
These are just general remarks. I am not concerned here with the truth about
any specific instance.
> Attempting to make meaningful technical change at CI is a frustrating,
> micro- incremental, and mostly unrewarding process. Most suggestions are
> met
> with the ripostes that they are "unaffordable, impractical, or
> unnecessary"
Well just as one small example, here is what happened when I made a
suggestion to CI. The Nov-Dec 2009 issue of 'Long Life' magazine had an
article about the annual inspection of the CI premises carried out on behalf
of the American Cryonics Society. The article contained a photo of Andy
Zawacki manually measuring the level of the liquid nitrogen in each
cryostat. I posted the following to the CI group:
'I was surprised by the method of measuring the level of the liquid nitrogen
in the cryostats. I had assumed there was some automated process with gauges
connected to floats (like in a car) and you just go around and read the
gauges. Surely something like this could be done.'
I will take the liberty of quoting Andy's reply:
'The method we use to measure the liquid nitrogen level is simple, accurate,
foolproof and inexpensive. Floats and gauges can and do give false readings.
The more complicated things are, the more chances you will have for a
failure. Why would you want to change our measuring methods and increase the
risk to our patients, even if the risk may be small?'
The response seems perfectly reasonable to me - my suggested change *was*
unnecessary - and I will be happy for CI to continue using the method it
uses now. And I will be happy for the cryostat I eventually occupy to have
its level measured in this way.
> This is also an artifact
> of CI President Ben Best considering himself an expert in just about
> every
> technical area of cryonics, with the added handicap of being unable to "
> weight," scale, or do cos- benefit analyses on various technologies - as
> well as also frequently lacking the necessary experience base to
> understand
> them.
While I can't think offhand of any specific examples, I don't get the
impression that Ben claims expertise that he doesn't have. I don't know what
is meant by 'unable to "weight," scale, or do cost-benefit analyses on
various technologies'.
> It is only necessary to look
> at CryoNet, to look at Cold Filter, and to look at the reams of internal
> criticism of cryonics BY cryonicists TO other cryonicists, to understand
> that the vast majority of people signed up simply don't care. They are
> informed of the screw-ups, the incompetence, and the often grotesque
> errors, and
> THEY SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. One of the really good things about Ben Best's
> nightmarish CI case reports, are that they constitute due diligence
> documentation to CI members, to prospective members,and to the public, of
> just what a
> mess they can expect to have made of their care.
I do read every CI case report, with the same layman's approach as described
above for reading the posts made here. I would not describe them as
'nightmarish', I certainly would care if I thought they were, and I don't
get the impression that they make a 'mess' of members' care.
I am intrigued by the fact that Mr Darwin has the *time* to post these many
long emails. I assume he would say that the time spent composing them is
justified by the importance of setting the record straight (as he would see
it).
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33451
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #33452
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:50:04 EST
Subject: Thomas Donaldson on How We Are Not Computers
How We Are Not Computers, And What That Means
By Thomas K. Donaldson
This article, while not a book review, does depend strongly on two
particular books, "Artificial Life" (ed. CG Langton, 1989) and "Brain
Organization and Memory" (ed. JL McGaugh, NM Weinberger, G Lynch, 1990).
My discussion comes from my own thinking, but one article from each book
has particularly influenced me. From "Artificial LIfe," S. Hameroff and
his colleagues argue (p. 521) that we should not take nerve cells as simple
computational units. Even single cells have complex abilities. Nerve
cells, and even signal transmission between them, has much more complexity
than a stream of single bits. Hameroff reinforces that point. Second, the
article by WJ Freeman and CA Skarda ("Representations: Who Needs Them?",
p. 375, Brain Organization and Memory), helped me clarify my own thoughts
about brain models.
The computer model
The idea of brains as computers has become very popular. It lies
behind the idea that someday we will upload (download?) ourselves into
other computers somehow better than the wetware one we work in now. It
also underlies a lot of mainstream theory about how our brains function:
cryonicists believing a computer analogy have many other scientists to
point to for support. If our Selves are computer programs, uploading
becomes trivial. Before anything else we first need to clarify just what a
computer program and a computer are supposed to be. For the purpose of
this article, I shall consider programmability as the main feature
distinguishing computers from other objects. A program is a combination of
instructions and data which controls the operation of the object. If that
object is a computer, then means exist by which a wide variety of different
programs can (at different times) control its operation.
Clearly devices (and living things) fulfill this criteria to greater or
lesser degrees. Even within the class normally accepted as computers, some
may be unable to perform a set of instructions because memory capacity is
too small. Performance of instructions, in general, requires not just
ability to compute but peripherals such as monitors, printers, and disk
drives. And some devices often thought (perhaps loosely) to be computers
cannot run a wide variety of instructions (ie. embedded devices each with
one single program burned into its ROM). So no object can lie at the
(theoretical) end of the computer side of the rainbow. As for the other
side, for objects totally unable to perform any separate instructions,
rocks or stars fit that description very well. Perhaps some living things
do also.
The analogy of our brains as computers suggests many common ideas.
Behind it lies an image of human brains as objects which are all,
fundamentally, identical. They differ only in the programs they are
running; these programs are Persons, everything that makes you You.
Again, computer programs operate on Data. Data is always a symbolic
representation of some part of the real world. By the computer analogy
when we remember our home town, then, we do so by forming a symbolic
representation of it in our brains. We must distinguish the symbolic
representations we use in talking to one another from those in our brains;
most mammals are quite inarticulate, but somehow find their way around
their environment. A computer analogy for their brains would suggest that
they too have such symbolic representations. If our brains do work as
computers, such representations become essential to their operation.
Furthermore, in principle we might devise ways to transfer specific
memories between one person and another. The language of the symbolism may
differ from person to person; but with the proper translations that becomes
a detail. A computer analogy implies that training of any kind might
someday be compressed into a few hours on a "brain trainer." It also
causes us to spend special attention on these supposed symbolic
representations. The ability to manipulate symbols becomes identified with
intelligence itself. This body of ideas about how our brains work ties in
very well with such efforts as Chomsky's, to explain our spoken language as
a form of translation from a private symbolic representation to a public
one.
It has become, in short, the dominant image of brain operation in the
late 20th Century. Dominance, however, does not make it correct.
Another and different analogy
We can already see signs of another quite different idea. I shall call
this model for memory the Growth Model.
One major theme in the study of memory has been the idea that learning
(even in adults) involves the very same processes by which our brains
develop from embryos. That is, remembering
something long-term means that our brains have formed new physical
connections between neurons; these connections persist by the same
processes maintaining our physical form. This idea easily answers one
major question about long-term memories: why are they so durable? No one
knows a way to destroy a memory without physically destroying neurons
involved in it.
Processes of development also include healing. True, neurons in adult
primates may divide only rarely (although some experiments suggest the
contrary). But healing in our brains includes more than simple division:
it can involve massive rearrangement of circuits, as in recent (unplanned)
work with monkeys with severed nerve connections to their hands.
Development involves not only passage of signals between neurons which
already touch one another, but chemical signals causing growth of a
dendrite or axon toward a neuron not within "touching distance."
Any dominant analogy creates an impression that no other possibility
can even exist. Yet, if followed out, the developmental hypothesis just
sketched above suggests very different conclusions about how our brains
work.
First, long-term memory forms when our brains grow a set of new
connections. These connections would contain new synapses. Hence
(contrary to other estimates based on a computer analogy) to estimate our
capacity for new memories we must do more than count nerve connections. A
maximum capacity would still exist, reached when present connections left
no room for more. How that might happen remains an open question: perhaps
simple crowding, or again single neurons might only support a limited
number of connections.
Furthermore, our long-term memories would consist of the connection
patterns that have grown up between our neurons. They would not be "coded"
into our brains, in any sense of "code." On a gross level our brains do
resemble one another; but when we find out how to look at a brain closely
enough to distinguish memories, we would find these memories identical to
the connectivity itself.
This model resembles the neural net computers that computer scientists
now use, successfully, to make machines to solve problems our brains do
easily. Neural net computers don't store their memories in any one
connection, but in the pattern of all their connections. In this way they
resemble our brains. But neural nets start with a fixed set of possible
connections, some of which are turned on, others off. Unlike neural nets,
brains would form memories by growing new connections. Disused connections
would disappear.
Our thinking would also proceed totally without any symbolic relation
to the world. Instead, our nerve cells have grown connections so that
their total response to any outside event deals with it successfully.
(Note that neural net computers, too, do not use any symbolism in their
computation: in this way they follow brains).
Such systems resist any easy transference of "programs" from one to the
other. In that sense they aren't computers. (Although we certainly can
imagine some massive intervention which reconnects an entire brain. As
before, "computerness" is a matter of degree.) Nor could we make learning
easier simply by separating out a set of skills and knowledge and then
reading it into our own brains, for no single memory can be separated from
any other. And even if someone else could follow all the excitations in
your brain for every neuron and synapse, they would need a long prior
period of observation to read off from them just what it was that you were
thinking. . . other than in the very broadest sense. (That is: whether
you are sleeping or awake, you are thinking something about food or sex,
you are afraid, etc.)
Directions for use
If our brains follow the Growth Model, some common ideas about possible
improvements would require rethinking. Simple transference of our Selves
from one body to another ("Uploading") raises far more problems.
Improvements in learning ability, or transference of particular skills or
knowledge, do also. But here are some ways towards the same aim.
Preservation of alternative copies
This technology should interest every cryonicist. By storing
inactivated copies of ourselves we can survive total destruction of our
main, living copy.
Even if we are not computers, our structure might perfectly well be
stored in a computer system. Graphs give the main data structures needed.
We would store each connection with additional information (just what isn't
fully known yet: transmitters used, its age, and possibly other items).
The practical problem to solve for such a system is how to read out
brain connectivity as rapidly as possible. Fast read-out rates let us
frequently update our stored copies. If you have not been updated in the
last 10 years, then any destructive accident would mean a loss of 10
years. One idea would be to add a system of "watchdog molecules" to each
synapse; these shed copies of themselves constantly. They might then be
gathered together to find how your brain has changed.
Increase in memory capacity
No one yet has faced this problem, but at some stage it will arise. I
believe the most likely brain response (by our unmodified brains) would be
to forget all information least used, rather than to simply stop learning
(some neural nets already do this). In the Growth Model, synapses between
neurons would disappear.
Basically, increased capacity requires unwieldy increased storage
space. Miniaturizing brain circuits (while keeping the same connectivity
system as before) only puts off the problem. True, you might separate your
"extra brain" from your main brain. But even if your "extra brain"
connects with your "main brain" at the speed of light, your memory will
fade significantly if you even go to the Moon.
We can still add off-line storage space, relearning older memories when
needed. Relearning, of course, involves growing new connections.
Note that the same problem arises with neural net computers. One other
point needs stress: despite the limits, by miniaturization and larger
brains we might increase our capacity by at least a factor of 10. That is
still very worthwhile.
(25)
Increase in learning speed
Learning, in this model, involves growth, which takes time, energy, and
materials. Already our brains burn a large share of the calories we eat,
as high as 40%. To cut down energy and materials expense, we might first
use miniaturization. After that, we might add a special cooling system,
perhaps an extension of our present cerebrospinal fluid. Our blood would
bring more materials and also take away excess heat. For temporary periods
of learning at very high rates, we might also imagine special "Learning
Stations" to rearrange our brains, allowing not only increased blood flow
but cooling solutions.
What about increasing "intelligence?" But just what does
"intelligence" consist of? Besides ourselves and other animals, we now
have computers, capable of spectacular feats of processing on some problems
and spectacular stupidity on others. Even other animals can do processing
we cannot (dolphins and sonar, for instance).
The lesson of these examples is that many different kinds of brain
processing exist. In the end, we will want some increase in our learning
ability, but rely on many different systems for other kinds of processing.
These would connect to us in detachable ways, more or less like present
computers. We may even develop special interfaces to attach to them, much
as our hands attach to our machines; but they would still remain apart
from us. Hands were a good idea and remain so. (The problem with making
any kind of ability a permanent part of yourself is that you may not always
use it: one more piece of baggage. With too many additions you grow too
fat, metaphorically and actually).
Why not move ourselves over into computers?
Some would say that by doing this we would become essentially
different, and so lose our Selves and our personality. That may be so,
although I know no logical or experimental means to find an answer.
Instead I will discuss one major practical reason why a growth model may
have prevailed for brain design.
I shall discuss only neural net computers since, so far, they alone can
do some kinds of learning needed. Suppose then a neural net computer with
the same capabilities as our brains in all respects. Neurologists have
classified about 100 or so different processing regions in our brains, each
one a neural (sub)net. The advantage of a neural net computer (with fixed
connections) over a brain would be that all connections had been grown in
advance. (Even at start this "advantage" may mean little: short-term
memory allows a temporary learning until growth has finished. That may
even be its explanation.)
13 13
With 10 neurons in each processing region, each neuron needs 10
synapses to make all possible connections. (Neurons now have a maximum of
about 1000 connections, within a factor of 4.) Let each connection cover
only 1 nm2 of surface. Total area of all connections becomes 10,000
meters2, or 100 meters on a side, for only one neuron. A brain designed
this way carries along one billion (109) times the mass it actually uses.
What about virtual connections? That merely turns one kind of unused
capacity into another (virtual connections use other neurons to transfer
impulses, invisibly to sender and receiver). Virtual connections may not
even work: direct connections between neurons must exist for a reason.
(This is an argument valid for both silicon and protoplasm).
If we try to limit connectivity a priori we find another problem. By
limiting possible connectivity, we limit the kinds of connections our
brains can make. Given that all new connections form on a background of
the old, this means a limitation on connections between responses. Brains
with fixed connectivity, then, will lack adaptability.
These two factors, combined, may tell us why our brains operate by
growing new connections rather than staying solely with the old. Yes,
growth takes longer. But it may also support our mental flexibility, which
is still far more than any computer and may remain so. Perhaps someday we
will modify ourselves to even more flexibility. We can see now how to do
so.
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33452
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************