From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 10:56:24 MDT
Charles Hixson wrote:
> Yes, there would need to be something that
> performed an equivalent function to that performed by the
> hormones. But it would probably not involve emulating
> the structure of the molecules.
I don't know where you get this idea that I am proposing a need to
"emulate the structure of molecules."
I am saying we need to emulate the *rules* that are currently
implemented by organic molecules under the instructions of other organic
molecules that comprise our genetic material. Those rules are encoded in
our genes -- they are the very substance of them -- and so we cannot
dispense with that genetic information. I see no need for the structure
of the molecules... our genetic instructions might just as well be
encoded digitally into 1's and 0's.
A digitally codified gene would still be a gene, as I define them,
because I define genes by function rather than form. I see them as
packets of instructions. If you happen to know something about
programming then consider that each gene is analogous to a class in C++.
It accepts inputs from its intercellular environment and responds by
generating outputs (proteins and enzymes that control synthesis of more
proteins). In the language of C++, the full person is analogous to a
complete program that contains many classes (genes).
Understand that I am not here arguing against the existence of
free-will, nor am I arguing against the existence of non-genetic
elements that must also be considered a part of who we are. I am arguing
only that we cannot dispense with all of our genetic information and
hope to keep our personalities intact. To some degree or another, our
personalities are very much a function of our genes.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST