On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:28:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into >>> a >>> > whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy >>> is >>> > incomplete. The primary sequence of DNA is right, but the tertiary >>> protein >>> > folding doesn't work. The cells seem normal but the immune system >>> attacks >>> > them. Every level will fail to account for the other completely. >>> > >>> > >>> >> which would indicate a technical problem with the copying process. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Yes, the technical problem is that nothing can be copied literally >>> except >>> > in our perception. If we try to make a copy of something based on our >>> > perception, then we get pieces of what we think we are copying rather >>> than >>> > the whole. My view is that the whole can appear to be cut into pieces, >>> but >>> > pieces can never be assembled into a whole in the absence of some >>> conscious >>> > >>> > perception. >>> > >>> > >>> >> For example, it may be that its heart does not beat because, on close >>> >> analysis, there is a structural problem with the myosin in the >>> cardiac >>> >> cells. To fix this would require an adjustment to the 3D printer. I'm >>> >> spelling this out but usually in philosophical discussions it's >>> assumed >>> >> mere technical issues are solved. Or do you think there is some other >>> >> ingredient that arbitrarily precise molecular assembly can never >>> capture? >>> >> >>> >> If so, how would you explain the mystery of a body with apparently >>> >> perfectly healthy tissues that is dead? >>> >> >>> > >>> > I think that there is a reason that precise molecular assembly can >>> never >>> > capture but it has nothing to do with another ingredient. It is that >>> > molecular assembly itself supervenes on the larger context of >>> awareness. It >>> > >>> > is the molecular appearances which are ingredient-like, not the >>> totality. >>> > The appearance of an unknown cause of death is not uncommon. I don't >>> know >>> > that it is even possible to get to square one. If you tried to copy >>> even a >>> > single living cell by placing molecules adjacent to each other, I >>> don't >>> > think it will work, any more than duplicating the buildings in >>> Hollywood >>> > will make movies. >>> >>> While the *cause* of death may remain a mystery to a pathologist, >>> there will be clear evidence of tissue damage indicating that the >>> person is, in fact, dead. If a body is built using precise molecular >>> assembly there will be no tissue damage evident to the pathologist, >>> and yet you claim the body will still not be alive. The pathologist >>> would conclude that there must be some hitherto unknown and >>> undetectable process that the body was lacking. Perhaps this would be >>> because the body does not supervene on the larger context of >>> awareness, but whatever it is, it would be evidence that biologists >>> have been wrong and something new and mysterious is at play. >>> >> >> You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield a >> coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If you put >> random people in the proper places in a baseball diamond, and give the one >> in the middle a baseball, they don't necessarily play a baseball game. >> > > If you're right then there would be something missing, something > mysterious, and there would be evidence for it much simpler experiments > than complete assembly of a human body. For example, you might be able to > substitute some chemical on a cell for an equivalent chemical and observe > the cell stop functioning even though everything seems to be biochemically > in order. That would be direct evidence for your theory. It's > scientifically testable. >
What's missing is the entire history of experiences which relate to whatever it is that you think you're copying. We don't exist on the levels of cells or molecules. If there were no human looking down at cells in a microscope, and we had only the microcosmic perspective to go from, there would be nothing that could be done to build a human experience. No configuration of proteins and ion channels is going to taste like strawberries to any of the molecules or cells. All of these structures relate only to a particular level of description. If you copy the sheet music of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" you don't know if it is the Rolling Stones version or the Devo version, and neither could be predicted or generated purely from the notes. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
