On 03 Nov 2015, at 14:13, 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.
Thankfully, Bruno sometimes permits the filming of his lectures and
even though theology is not directly treated here, clarifying the
terms necessary for such theological discussions, assuming comp,
could serve perhaps as an example to Samiya and others that
theological arguments should not be mixed with scientific facts
without careful consideration of compatibility between arguments and
statements, assuming different backgrounds/domains, as errors can be
made rather quickly.
Thanks goes out to Bruno for making the effort to put some lectures
out there in video form. I enjoy Bruno's posts and it is nice to
have them complemented by video material from time to time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATl86jBfwqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76iuXcVOAuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5etar0vQYnI
And not yet shared with this list, the second part of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibedqHdXCKU&feature=youtu.be&t=5
Please tell me if there are any problems with the links and hope you
guys enjoy. PGC
Thanks PGC.
So to sum up, the recursion theorem (for all F there is a e such that
phi_e(x, y) = F(e, x, y)) explain conceptually and constructively that
a machine can reproduce itself, with F the identity function for
example, and this can be used for both the antic self-dividing amoeba,
and classical teleportation. This is asexual. Sex possibility is
justified by a crossed double recursion (phi_a(x,y) = F(b, x, y) and
phi_b(x, y) = G(a, x, y)). Why sex? It seems to me it accelerates
evolution by mixing the characters of parents, leading to some
offspring adding (sometimes) the relative qualities of the parents
(like how we select tomatoes, of hemp ...).
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
