On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis
Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake
Make your bet. In such a form this is closer to real science, that
is, to a predictive statement.
That bet is far too vague for me. Define "abnormalities".
I bet that in 2029, they will not been able to judge the case, and
will continue to disagree.
I can bet that full simulation of higher mammals brain, ---glial,
neuronal cells + some bacteries, at the molecular level, close to
the Heisenberg uncertainty level,--- will be done this or the next
And I am not betting that we will be able to simulate the folding of
all proteins, but we will use the shape we already know. Many steps
of the chemical metabolism will be simulated very roughly, in the
It might be an ethical problem, of doing this on animals. They did not
say "yes" to the doctor, but we will do it anyway, and comp will be a
practice before people begin to think on the theological implications,
Most humans will choose the level available in their time. It is a
field where our terrestrial grand-children will never cease to progress.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.