I don't like hearing the word 'proof' when it comes to science. Proof is only for maths and alcohol.
I am perfectly fine with a sound discussion, and I thought I was clear on how I defined 'perfect duplication'? And, as a software developer, I fail to see how perfect duplication has to do with information theory since they seem to be two separate things. Perfect duplication implies there is no problem with communication between the source and clone, and really doesn't deal with that since it is a separate issue. Besides, it is really theoretical at this point because we lack the technology to do such a thing. Maybe once we can build controlled Nuclear Fusion reactors, we might be on our way... but I will agree that it's not exactly a priority to have 'replicators' right now. Although, it would solve the world food supply problem, but would also put a lot of people out of work. -William -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Canarutto <[email protected]> To: The Horn List <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jul 10, 2011 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [Hornlist] Send in the clones... William, you are purposedly misquoting me. I did not say "it's not possible", I said "there is no proof that it's possible". Logically these are two very different statements, aren't they? But I have noted that in discussions you always assume that the burden of the proof is on the other. You keep making statements about things we don't know and try to pass it as granted that it is acquired knowledge, while it's no more than vague speculation about something, maybe possible, very far in the future and difficult to define exactly. As for the exact duplication of brains it could not even feasible in principle; you know, not everything you may vaguely think of is actually possible; this happens in physics. If we could define exactly what duplication means then there could be some start of a sound discussion, but it seems to me that we are very far even from that. Are you really prepared to discuss the intricacies and subtleties of information theory? Daniel [email protected] wrote: > You've said twice that this cannot be done but not once have > demonstrated any reason why except that you protest against it. As > for my claim, I don't have to actually demonstrate it in reality > because it's only theoretical - plus the technology does not exist > for me to show it. Are you also claiming that Grahams Number doesn't > exist because it cannot be written down completely? If your > statements are correct, then most of modern Math cannot exist > because it cannot be shown in physical reality. > > Why WOULDN'T it be possible? Are you suggesting, again, that there > is some magic emergent property within a Strad that we would be > unable to measure? > > To me that isn't very scientific. and also wrote > It's medical science and it's reality. Memories are not some magical > emergent property. They must physically exist somewhere, and they > are stored in the brain: > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-memory-trace > > Where else would they exist? Some higher dimension that we could > never measure? Some sort of magic? > > It's not fundamentalist at all to say what I've said, since there is > basis for this in medical science. _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
