From: Joe Jenkins (joe_jenkins@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 21 1998 - 14:49:07 MDT
---CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-10-21 14:11:42 EDT, joe_jenkins@yahoo.com (Joe
> Jenkins)
> writes:
>
> >1. What physical process in nostalgia nature cannot be emulated in a
> > Turing equivalent machine such that Artificial Reality (AR) couldn't
> > emulate Real Reality (RR) with 365 times speedup, thus providing a
> > satisfactory "connection to ordinary physical reality" for
uploaders?
>
> Just about any chemical process. The best computers in the world
can't
> yet fold proteins in any length of time, but you fold a couple
trillion > > per
> second.
Who me? Oh yea, thats right. I almost forgot to fold a few trillion
of them in the last second - I must have been distracted :-) Last
time I went on a nature hike however, I don't recall noticing that
level of detail. If you did, I admire your perception, but I'd have
to stay away from that trail for my version of R&R.
> Likewise the fastest reactions are far too fast for any transistor or
> abacus arm, even nanoscale ones.
Not too fast however, to simulate their macroscopic effects for many
applications. Unless your studying chemistry. Maybe experimental
chemists will be motivated to become Lilliputian Posthumians.
Physical limits to switching speed is a good argument against Von
Neumann architecture capabilities, but those limits are not as
negative for other architectures.
> You may also be able to simulate human experience
> without bothering with complex chemistry, but that remains to be seen.
Very good arguments supporting this are available today. Very good
refutations of those arguments remains to be seen.
Joe Jenkins
joe_jenkins@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:40 MST