From: Joao Pedro (jpnitya@mail.esoterica.pt)
Date: Wed Sep 17 1997 - 01:42:51 MDT
Hi!
Geoff Smith wrote:
> Let us examine a specific case of genetic error, cancer:
>
> Would you say that the reason sharks don't get cancer is because they
> have a simple genome? Firstly, I'd have a hard time calling sharks
> primitive. I would, however, call a number of plants primitive, all of
> which have been known to develop tumors. As human beings, we have a more
> complicated and prone-to-error genome, but we also have more
> sophisticated ways of dealing with these errors-- apparently, so do
> sharks.
>
> I have another quibble in the form of a question: can you think of an
> organism more primitive than a shark that DOES age?
>
> All this said, in principle, I agree with what you're trying to say.
Thanks, obviously I was generalizing and there are many exceptions.
IMHO, what happened was that some species evolved to correct their
genetic errors while others evolved to become more complex and therefore
having more errors (and, of course, some species evolved to become more
complex and more perfect, others hardly evolved, etc). It can be argued
that we correct more errors than sharks but since we are more complex,
we have more errors and we will age while sharks don't.
> IMHO,
> > their evolution lead them to correct the errors in their genome while
> > our evolution made us consecutively more complex
>
> Are you saying their evolution *did not* make them consecutively more
> complex?
Not in the same way as us. Our species appeared about 100 000 years ago
while other species (such as alligators, etc) appeared much before. Of
course that evolution made them more complex but at a lower rate than us
and made them more 'perfect'. BTW, sharks do get cancer, they get it a
much lower rate than us but they naturally get it.
> > Transferring? Transferring what? Your brain? Your 'soul'?
>
> The functioning and abilities of my brain. I would call this
> "consciousness" Some might argue with my use of this word.
I continue not understanding what are you trying to say.
"consciousness", what is that? Is it something physical such as all your
memory proteins (I remember reading somewhere about the existence of
memory proteins but I'm not sure), the positions and connections between
your neurons?
Is it something spiritual?
Is it something like, the design and constitution of your networks of
neurons that can (or will) be duplicated on a computer to make it think
like you?
> > One idea (that I already though about years ago) is to increase the
> > viability of our neurons with metal or whatever but this is a continuos
> > process. Just like now, the atoms that compose my neurons are not the
> > same that were a few hours ago, exception made to some molecules such as
> > DNA, our neuron's atoms change continually and I don't complain.
> > Connecting memory chips to our brain might not be a bad idea but that is
> > a change and not a transfer.
>
> If your brain ends up in the same state after a series of "changes" or one
> single transfer, what, exactly, is the difference?
It has to do with identity, singularity or individuality. I already
discussed that a couple of messages ago.
Say, let's suppose you suffer a terrible accident and lose a part of
brain changing your personality. Are you the same person you were?
> This idea you "thought about years ago"
> is called "nano-replacement" Look it up.
Really, I didn't knew that. For much you come up with weird ideas, there
will always be someone out there thinking the same thing. I used to
think I was the only crazy lunatic trying to fight aging! Well, I'm the
only guy I know in Portugal who does.
> Obviously, before uploading can be achieved, we have to understand all the
> functioning of neurons that contribute to consciousness and then be able
> ot duplicate those functions on another platform.
Let's suppose that someone builds another platform thinking exactly like
you. Say, a computer. Note that you are not dead, you are looking at a
computer who thinks just like you, is this computer you? What if you're
dead? What if your brain is destroyed while the computer is built?
Let's suppose you build another platform, how do you transfer your
"consciousness" to that platform? How would you know the platform would
be you?
> What about when I bang my head on the door, is that aging? I would say
> no, yet my neurons die, never to grow back.
Don't be provocative, you know what I mean. The great majority of
neuronal loss, in normal persons, is aging.
> Hey, if you have "good ideas" to stop aging, I'll be very receptive to
> them.
Give a laboratory so that I can try them out.
As for the ideas, unfortunately my site is not working but there is a
section called "Solutions and Problems" where I place "good ideas" to
stop aging as well as several problems attached to them.
> Even in birds, where the neurons do grow back, the information contained
> within those neurons is lost forever.
What a flaw in my culture, I didn't know neurons in birds grew back. I
read that the axon of the neuron in some reptilians does grow back but
not the neuron itself.
Tell me more about this birds capacity, for example, what happens, does
the neuron itself grow back or is it just the axon? If it is the neuron,
how does it happen, are there any replicating neurological cells, I've
never heard of any but who knows? What about regeneration of whole
members such as a leg, it happens in reptilians, I don't remember
happening in birds, is this true? How do you explain it? Do you have
links for more information?
> If you have no evidence or proofs, what is the source of this "belief" of
> yours. Also, what purpose does this belief serve? Are you afraid of
> being "undecided"?
I guess it's a bit irrational (when you don't have any evidences and
need to draw conclusions, you use your balls right?), I lived with my
brain all my life and so far I had no problems. That's probably why I
feel so reluctant in changing my brain.
> What makes you think the brain is the only platform for consciouness? It
> sounds like a very religious and anthropocentric assumption.
It's my only platform for intelligent (I don't like much the word
"consciousness"), I think there is intelligent life in the universe
besides ours, I think in the future we will built computers much more
intelligent than us. For me, as an individual, my only platform is my
brain.
See ya,
--
Hasta la vista...
"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen
Visit my site at: http://mithlond.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:54 MST