You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Arran_Stirton comments on Neuroimaging as alternative/supplement to cryonics? - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: Wei_Dai 12 May 2012 11:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Arran_Stirton 15 May 2012 05:14:22PM 2 points [-]

So are you saying that the conditions in the womb doesn't have any effect on brain structure?

By the way, try to aim higher than DH3 because it's hard for me to understand what exactly you're disagreeing with if you don't provide me with a counterargument. Sorry for the bother.

Comment author: Thomas 15 May 2012 06:12:38PM *  0 points [-]

You are welcome to "bother" anytime.

I eat a lot. A half to a kilogram per day. What is the amount of information I've got this way? Very little, if any. Even drinking of a lot of alcohol - what I don't - and which would destroy my livers, would mean a very miniscule data transfer.

Some brain stimulating drugs one might take, and what brings him a significantly higher intelligence, is not a big data flow.

Just isn't. Biologists should respect what "information" and "data stream" and so on - mean.

Comment author: Arran_Stirton 18 May 2012 02:53:21AM 2 points [-]

I agree, yet none of that changes the fact that conditions in the womb have a large impact on brain development. Hence information about the conditions in the womb is required to generate a specific new-born’s brain. Sure when an adult takes a stimulating drug there's not a large data flow, but when the brain is actually forming drugs can fundamentally alter its final structure.