On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 05:13:11AM -0800, PGC wrote: > > > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:14:28 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:22:13AM -0800, PGC wrote: > > > > > > The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it > > > interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context, > > > even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC > > > > > > > Samiya was referring to the well-known phenomena of parthenogenesis, > > which can be understood as a natural form of cloning. Biologists get > > excited about this, because sexual reproduction is still a rather > > mysterious fact of the biological world, and there have been examples > > of quite complex animals doing away with sex altogether (the classic > > example is certain species of shark). > > > > It has nothing to do with comp duplication, which are thought > > experiments about duplicating conscious experiences, not genetic > > cloning, which is as old as the hills - as any twin can attest. > > > > Your statement assumes no relation between what you see as "biology" and > "duplicating conscious experience". But without stating the theoretical > background and placing all terms one would logically or mathematically use > on the table, it remains as unclear as many of your statements. This seems > therefore closer to your personal preference rather than an argument. > Mathematical Self-Reproduction is a fascinating and standard idea, e.g. in > the Kleene sense. This may not interest you or be relevant to your > approach, but some of us enjoy the technical side of clarifying duplication > used in UDA with the appropriate background. >
Sorry Plato (may I call you Plato?), but parthenogenesis really has nothing whatsoever to do with duplication as used in the UDA. Parthenogenetic offspring are genetically identical to their parents, just as identical twins are genetically identical to each other. They are, however, completely different indviduals, unlike the poor sod to have stepped into Bruno's teleporter in Brussels. Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic) reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in bacteria). It does not do so, for yet mysterious reasons. I quite like Ridley's explanation given in his book "Mendel's Daemon", but to date, the jury is still out. Samiya, and Christians, like to make a big thing about virgin birth, even though to biologists it is not a miraculous or interesting thing - apart from the obvious fact that it is not commonplace. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
