I would think normally the implant should work as well. Being
Bajorean, could the missing essence be the influence of the Prophets?
 Data and the EMH should be able to pass the Turing test.
 Maybe I am missing something. A matter human in a matter universe
should function the same as an antimatter human in an antimatter
universe, AFAIK

On Dec 18, 12:57 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ronald,
> I remember that episode.  I thought it was quite a departure from the
> atheistic slant that was usual to star trek.
> ( For those not familiar with the 
> scene:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihdI8U9eS4c#t=2m30s)
> They seemed to suggest in the episode that the operation failed not because
> of a defect in the artificial brain but because there was something more to
> the mind that the machine didn't capture, some soul or some essence that
> couldn't be copied.  This is contrary to the frequent use of transporters
> throughout the series, unless you accept something like biological
> naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism), the idea
> that only biochemistry has the right stuff or can do the right things to
> create consciousness.  I don't think the writers of that episode were well
> versed in philosophy of mind, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the ideas
> they promote.  For that episode to make sense you either have to accept
> dualism or biological naturalism (which is almost like a form of dualism).
> Do you think that Commander Data, whose entire brain is positronic, lacks
> consciousness?  I like the argument Picard gave for Data's 
> sentience:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWNPeNEvMN4
> You mentioned that you had no problem with the idea of a person made from
> anti-matter particles.  What if scientists invented tiny machines that were
> not atoms but operated all the same, would you accept that you could build a
> person using these?  Taking the idea slightly further, lets say these little
> faux-atoms were expensive, so scientists decided to model the machines in a
> computer rather than make them.  Simulating a small number of them together
> they could predict how  nano-machines behaved.  If the scientists modeled a
> much larger collection of these atoms, organized in the same way as in a
> person, do you think any of the complexity is lost?
> Jason
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:05 AM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bruno and Jason
> >   The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep space
> > 9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
> >                                                             Ronald
> > On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Jason:
> > > >   I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
> > > > to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
> > > > processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
> > > > mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.
> > > If the mechanical replacements have the same repertoire and behavior as
> > the
> > > biological parts I don't see how the complexity would be lessened.  Many
> > > people feel lessened to be thought of as a machine, but they probably
> > don't
> > > fully appreciate just how complex of a machine the brain is.  It has 100
> > > billion neurons (about 1 for each stars in this galaxy) and close to 1
> > > quintillion connections or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (about 1 connection for
> > > every cent of US debt).  People aren't familiar with man-made machines
> > > anywhere near this level of complexity and so it is understandable that
> > one
> > > could doubt a machine acting like a human. However, I think this is
> > mainly a
> > > prejudice instilled by the types of (comparatively simple) machines we
> > deal
> > > with on a daily basis.
> > > Jason
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to