Hey Mindey, On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mindey I. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Easier said than done might be the understatement of the millennium here :) > 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? I don't know if my curiosity is as strong as yours, I think it's impossible to know. I think you are being reductive about yourself, no matter how amazing curiosity is. Telmo. > 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. -- 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.
