Why not to just define yourself, and then try to re-run yourself? If you
have a mathematical definition of your own self, you are already close to
living forever as a running process based on that definition.
Personally, when I try to define myself, I bump into memories of strong
sense of curiosity, making me nearly cry of desire to know Everything.
Maybe most of us here on the "Everything-List" are like that. Maybe we're
equivalent?
On 31 March 2018 at 20:32, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell
> <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You would have to replicate then not only the dynamics of neurons, but
> every
> > biomolecule in the neurons, and don't forget about the oligoastrocytes
> and
> > other glial cells. Many enzymes for instance to multi-state systems, say
> in
> > a simple case where a single amino acid residue of phosphorylated or
> > unphosphorylated, and in effect are binary switching units. To then make
> > this work you now need to have the brain states mapped out down to the
> > molecular level, and further to have their combinatorial relationships
> > mapped. Biomolecules also behave in water, so you have to model all the
> > water molecules. Given the brain has around 10^{25} or a few moles of
> > molecules the number of possible combinations might be on the order of
> > 10^{10^{25}} this is a daunting task. Also your computer has to
> accurately
> > encode the dynamics of molecules -- down to the quantum mechanics of
> their
> > bonds.
> >
> > This is another way of saying that biological systems, even that of a
> basic
> > prokaryote, are beyond our current abilities to simulate. You can't just
> > hand wave away the enormous problems with just simulating a bacillus, let
> > alone something like the brain. Now of course one can do some
> simulations to
> > learn about the brain in a model system, but this is far from mapping a
> > brain and its conscious state into a computer.
>
> Well maybe, but this is just you guessing.
> Nobody knows the necessary level of detail.
>
> Telmo.
>
> > LC
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:31:56 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Lawrence Crowell
> >> <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > Yes, and if you replace the entire brain with technology the peg leg
> is
> >>> > expanded into an entire Pinocchio. Would the really be conscious? It
> is the
> >>> > case as well that so much of our mental processing does involve
> hormone
> >>> > reception and a range of other data inputs from other receptors and
> ligands.
> >>
> >> I see nothing sacred in hormones, I don't see the slightest reason why
> >> they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate
> >> through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of
> >> sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of
> Evolution's
> >> bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways
> of
> >> sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a
> >> bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its
> random
> >> target.
> >>
> >> I'm not interested in chemicals only the information they contain, I
> want
> >> the information to get transmitted from cell to cell by the best method
> and
> >> so I would not send smoke signals if I had a fiber optic cable. The
> >> information content in each molecular message must be tiny, just a few
> bits
> >> because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine,
> >> norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number is 100 times
> >> greater (or a million times for that matter) the information content
> ofeach
> >> signal must be tiny. Also, for the long range stuff, exactly which
> neuron
> >> receives the signal can not be specified because it relies on a random
> >> process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses in February
> does not
> >> add to its charm.
> >>
> >> If your job is delivering packages and all the packages are very small
> and
> >> your boss doesn't care who you give them to as long as it's on the
> correct
> >> continent and you have until the next ice age to get the work done,
> then you
> >> don't have a very difficult profession. I see no reason why simulating
> that
> >> anachronism would present the slightest difficulty. Artificial neurons
> >> could be made to release neurotransmitters as inefficiently as natural
> ones
> >> if anybody really wanted to, but it would be pointless when there are
> much
> >> faster ways.
> >>
> >> Electronics is inherently fast because its electrical signals are sent
> by
> >> fast light electrons. The brain also uses some electrical signals, but
> it
> >> doesn't use electrons, it uses ions to send signals, the most important
> are
> >> chlorine and potassium. A chlorine ion is 65 thousand times as heavy as
> an
> >> electron, a potassium ion is even heavier, if you want to talk about gap
> >> junctions, the ions they use are millions of times more massive than
> >> electrons. There is no way to get around it, according to the
> fundamental
> >> laws of physics, something that has a large mass will be slow, very,
> very,
> >> slow.
> >>
> >> The great strength biology has over present day electronics is in the
> >> ability of one neuron to make thousands of connections of various
> strengths
> >> with other neurons. However, I see absolutely nothing in the fundamental
> >> laws of physics that prevents nano machines from doing the same thing,
> or
> >> better and MUCH faster.
> >>
> >> John K Clark
> >>
> >>>
> > --
> > 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 https://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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/q_DLnngSbPk/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
*Mindey I.*0x5F5CC7AD
https://mindey.com
Scientific Computing
& Web Applications
Phone: tel.mindey.com
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
