On 11/3/2015 1:57 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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).
But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it give it
more chances of survival?
Brent
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
--
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.
