[ExI] Zombie glutamate

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sun Feb 22 03:05:30 UTC 2015

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 1:Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> The difficulty in simulating signaling molecules and other biochemicals
> is that the all important shape

The shape is all important in biology but if its function is translated
into another medium such as electronics then the shape of the original
molecule is utterly irrelevant and the only important thing is the bit of
information it carries.

> > of the molecules is determined by the distribution of electron
> densities, and thereby electric charge, over the molecules. The
> distribution of these electrons are a quantum mechanical phenomenon and as
> the Beckenstein bound

Oh no are we really going back to the Beckenstein bound, something that
virtually no biologist thinks is of the slightest importance? Very well if
you want to play that silly game, my iMac has a larger surface area
than your brain brain therefore according to Beckenstein it contains more
information than  more information than your brain. QED

Yes it's a silly game but you're the one who wanted to play.

> > All schematics are, by necessity, simplifications of the real deal.

Yes, a good simplification gets rid of pointless wheels within wheels and
gets to the essentials.

> > Have you ever driven the schematics of a car?

No the schematics alone won't get me to work because a car is a noun, and
brick a noun too so a can't build a house I can live in with the simulation
of a brick, but when you're talking about information things are very
different. My calculator does real arithmetic not simulated arithmetic and
my iPod plays real music not simulated music. So the question you have to
ask yourself is are you more like a symphony or more like a brick?

> >Yeah sure, you probably played a racing video game, but do you think the
> developers programmed your virtual car to have virtual cylinders burning
> virtual fuel?

A simulated flame is certainly not identical to a real flame but to say it
has absolutely no reality can lead to problems. Suppose you say that for a
fire to be real it must have some immaterial essence of fire, a sort of
"burning" soul, thus a simulated flame does not really burn because it just
changes the pattern in a computer memory. The trouble is, using the same
reasoning you could say     that a real fire doesn't really burn, it just
oxidizes chemicals;  but really a flame can't even do that, it just obeys
the laws of chemistry. If we continue with this we soon reach a point where
nothing is real but the fundamental laws of physics, I don't think either
of us want's to embrace that position.

I think a simulated flame is real at one level but care must be taken not
to confuse levels. A simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will
burn a simulated object. A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but
it will burn your finger.

> Would you as an upload even be aware that that component of your mind was
> missing?

If it's important to me I'd notice,  if it's not I don't care if it's

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150221/8adbf555/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list