From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 14:57:08 MDT
gts wrote:
>Lee,
>
>I almost missed this new thread, which I see branches from the
>motivation thread. I just a moment ago posted a reply to you in that
>thread and unfortunately I don't have a lot of time right now to respond
>to you here (as is evidenced by my many typos in my other message :-).
>
>...You cannot capture what is truly you at any given moment
>without also capturing the information encoded in your genes.
>
>You are not so much your genes as you are the expressions of them. The
>manner in which your genes are expressed changes through time in
>...
>-gts
>
>
There is, however, another level (referring to the title of the thread).
Some of the information which we are is not and was not ever encoded in
our genes. There may be some RNA which is self-reproducing, and handed
down from mother to daughter/son. There *is* protein folding
information which is handed down in that way. Further, some of our DNA
doesn't seem to be necessary for "who we are". I don't set too much
stock with conscious awareness. I feel that this is vastly overblown.
But the underpinnings are deep. Some of them are dependant on DNA.
Some have other inherited roots. And a lot is development experiences.
There's probably a lot that could be trimmed out without loosing
anything important, but which parts? If the mind is being transplanted
to a computer, I feel that the (is it ?Morovic?) operation for cell
level emulation is a vast amount of overkill. It's like the Turing
Test. It's a way to prove to those who don't want to consider a
possibility that it needs to be considered, but it's not a reasonable
approach. And as we get closer, the correct approach will become more
evident. We don't need to emulate our DNA, or even our cells to
reproduce ourselfs. That's not "who we are" when we aren't living in a
protein body. We are structures of thought, patterns of reaction,
memories of hopes and fears, triumphs and disappointments. We are goals
for the future. We are what we love, and what we hate. But we aren't
molecules of ribose, or of desoxyribose. That's an implementation.
The only thing is... right now we can't say just what parts of the
implementation are essential to emulate. And it really is uncertain,
argument won't solve this one, only experimentation *and* theory *and*
technical advancement.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST