From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions of years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life. Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability to reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic code, as I think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't interbreed. Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and that species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and eggs. Now that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the sex drive may be quite common and function in essentially the same way. Pure conjecture on my part of course J Naturally in order for a viable offspring to be produced the species must share most of their DNA, with even relatively closely related species, mostly being unable to reproduce with each other (or producing infertile hybrids) Life on earth has long been exchanging DNA with other life on earth through other means besides sexual reproduction, virus vectors for example. I would argue that life on Earth has exchanged a lot of DNA over the eons and that our own species has probably long ago picked up DNA from very different species by these means and that this DNA becomes incorporated into our hereditary lineage. I suspect that life is not nearly as isolated each within its own silo as we tend to assume; rather it is more like a sponge soaking in the soup of our dynamic living environment… cohabitating and sharing (even our own internal spaces) with a host of other organisms. Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge. That doesn't mean I can mate with one. In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz. Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J On the other hand we became who we are, also through the exchange of DNA cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it than we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means other than sexual reproduction. Chris Brent -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List Tue, 27 May 2014 00:03:26 -0700
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... Telmo Menezes
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... ghibbsa
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... meekerdb
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... Kim Jones
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... Kim Jones
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... ghibbsa
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... Russell Standish
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... meekerdb
- Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,... LizR

