<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 25/01/2012 14:02, Natasha Vita-More wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:005401ccdb6a$00b65f30$02231d90$@cc"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have to say I
agree Stefano. And I am surprised that Andes does not
include, on some level, chemistry since he is a
neuroscientist. In fact, Margulis + Sandberg AGI model
might be fascinating.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't chemistry obvious? Or maybe not... I hear a lot of people
object to brain emulation because they think it cannot simulate
brain chemistry or that we haven't thought about it.<br>
<br>
The fact that one could replace chemistry or tendon elasticity with
an equivalent digital circuit (at least in my functionalist
philosophy... that not every transhumanist buys!) doesn't mean they
are irrelevant. <br>
<br>
The quirks of my body chemistry affect my mood, my habits and
"style" of health. The causes are simple genetic variations,
receptor levels, physiological feedback states etc. that are fairly
meaningless on their own, but their combination is important for
maintaining my individuality. If I were to change them as part of my
life project, that would change me. Which is OK if I do it
deliberatly and cautiously. But a change that just replaced them
with a standard physiology would likely change me in an inauthentic
direction, removing my contingent uniqueness. Keeping their
functional effects but implementing them effectively would on the
other hand IMHO not change who I am or my life.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University </pre>
</body>
</html>