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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell > <[email protected]> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > 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 > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
