Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
sillyness prefix and suffix do not evade symbol grounding problem.
lol, wut?
the "symbol grounding problem" [sic] is only a problem if you make ludicrous assumptions about language in the first place
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
The design of your brain is in the digital dna code that can easily be transformed into binary.
[citation needed]
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, wut?the "symbol grounding problem" [sic] is only a problem if you make ludicrous assumptions about language in the first place
[citation needed]
citation needed, how about the fact that a human embryo develops into a human and not a dog? what do you think is the difference between these? synthetic biology allows for the creation of artificial lifeforms, including humanoid forms eventually.
A cat may have childlike body despite having a cat like brain.
The underlying meaning of a word, it loses its meaning if you repeat it too many times, and it evolves to mean something different through time. All the languages are end products of evolution of more primitive languages.
A word can be assigned to mean thing after thing after thing, even an infinite number of things and it will not lose meaning or be undefined.
And if you believe the geniuses of our time, or common sense, there is such a thing as computational equivalence wherein two processes or simulations may be fundamentally the same in some precise way.
Unless you're a dualist and believe that brain states are detached from conscious experience, you will realize that the finite number of states binds your possibilities. Free will is also not existent in any meaningful way under either randomness or determinism, so it is nothing more than poetic license.
You're a machine with the illusion of control, but no one is in control, it is clockwork, meaningless clockwork, your life no different than the fiction which you may see on tv or read in a book. There is no end purpose, no point, nothing more than the present, and enjoy it cause you're on an express train to oblivion, and your body, your flesh, is your soul and self which will fade into dust(but according to quantum theory information is neither created nor destroyed, so a memory of who you were may remain in some abstract sense for a time).
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
citation needed, how about the fact that a human embryo develops into a human and not a dog?
this has little to do with brain organization...
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
what do you think is the difference between these?
sure, w/e. The more broad point is that the design of your brain isn't contained in your DNA. Your DNA contains directions for how the brain is to organize given certain stimuli input, not the specific organization.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
synthetic biology allows for the creation of artificial lifeforms, including humanoid forms eventually.
this has nothing to do with brain organization
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
A cat may have childlike body despite having a cat like brain.
not unless you are doing some weird surgery...
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
The underlying meaning of a word, it loses its meaning if you repeat it too many times, and it evolves to mean something different through time. All the languages are end products of evolution of more primitive languages.A word can be assigned to mean thing after thing after thing, even an infinite number of things and it will not lose meaning or be undefined.
yes, this is why the symbol grounding problem is useless. It is tautological that an anthropic item (language) would carry anthropic meaning. That words are redefined is not a problem unless you think language is supposed to represent something outside of human experience, which is silly.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
And if you believe the geniuses of our time, or common sense, there is such a thing as computational equivalence wherein two processes or simulations may be fundamentally the same in some precise way.
how is this related to brain organization or language?
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Unless you're a dualist and believe that brain states are detached from conscious experience, you will realize that the finite number of states binds your possibilities. Free will is also not existent in any meaningful way under either randomness or determinism, so it is nothing more than poetic license.You're a machine with the illusion of control, but no one is in control, it is clockwork, meaningless clockwork, your life no different than the fiction which you may see on tv or read in a book. There is no end purpose, no point, nothing more than the present, and enjoy it cause you're on an express train to oblivion, and your body, your flesh, is your soul and self which will fade into dust(but according to quantum theory information is neither created nor destroyed, so a memory of who you were may remain in some abstract sense for a time).
again, totally unrelated to anything I've asked you about
I'd recommend blogging
Originally posted by inimalist
this has little to do with brain organization...sure, w/e. The more broad point is that the design of your brain isn't contained in your DNA. Your DNA contains directions for how the brain is to organize given certain stimuli input, not the specific organization.
this has nothing to do with brain organization
not unless you are doing some weird surgery...
ridiculous surgery? you don't know that body schematics exist within the dna, did you not even see the fractal video regarding bodily structure being contained in fractal code within genes.
When you design an artificial lifeform from genes on up, you design how it looks, how it behaves, how it eats, what are its instincts, your only limits are physics and biochemistry.
There is no reason why a cat's brain cannot be combined with a human's bodily design at the genetic level creating a new lifeform. A new kind of embryo, a new species born of man's own mind.
Genetics define your species, define the difference between one species and another, and even artificial species with arbitrary designs.
Using artificial wombs arbitrary beings can come into being of one's own designs. In principle you could make a lifeform without brain but with a chip in place to be remotely controlled from an everyday pc wirelessly, such that you've a flesh and blood doll of your specified choosing, without any brain or emotion merely run by programs within your computer.
sure, w/e. The more broad point is that the design of your brain isn't contained in your DNA. Your DNA contains directions for how the brain is to organize given certain stimuli input, not the specific organization.
Try again, genetics define the critical development windows, the groundwork connectivity, the rules by which the brain reacts and learns from the environment. These instructions limit and define human instinct, morality, and what may be called as potential environmental input or modification. It also defines regeneration capability and lifespan limits
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
There is no reason why a cat's brain cannot be combined with a human's bodily design at the genetic level creating a new lifeform.
incongruence between sensory apparatus and cortex
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Try again, genetics define the critical development windows, the groundwork connectivity, the rules by which the brain reacts and learns from the environment. These instructions limit and define human instinct, morality, and what may be called as potential environmental input or modification. It also defines regeneration capability and lifespan limits
/sigh
Originally posted by inimalist
incongruence between sensory apparatus and cortex/sigh
incongruence between sensory apparatus and cortex
Sillyness, do you not realize that a brain can be made plastic, and a conscious human may emerge even with half a human brain? Do you honestly believe that the cortex designs and wiring cannot be modified such that a successful design be made?
what posit you limits the design possibilities your incredulity?
It has already been posited in fiction, replicant it is called in blade runner.
You believe it is impossible, but physics and molecular biology say it is perfectly feasible with no known impediment.
Tissue engineering, you believe that man cannot create arms, legs, entire bodies out of mere cells. Even entire flesh and blood dolls controlled by chips instead of brains.
Once child like bodies are detached from a child's brain, and are mere puppets, mere dolls for our amusement, anything is fair game, as there is no one receiving the results of your action merely a simulation or role play from a piece of software.
Nothing stops such dolls be made except. 1.) lack of high speed low cost dna synthesizer 2.) taboos or laws discriminating or persecuting 3.) nice advance genetic design software.
Dna sequencing has already fallen way down from million to thousands and soon under a thousand if it hasn't already.
Dna synthesis may follow a slower curve of improvement(have not looked into it), but eventually we'll move from single cell to multicell designs.
Understanding of genetic organization and information from epigenetics to all the details of the genome is likely to be fairly complete within this century.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
sigh neuroplasticity is defined governed and guided by rules, the underlying algorithms come from the genetic instructions. Believing that it works without rules or algorithms is nonsense, it clearly obeys physical law and biochemical rules specified in the genes
man, you have serious issues with understanding my position...
I said, very specifically, the organization of your brain is not contained in your DNA. You cannot look at someone's DNA and infer what their brain will look like. You have not countered this point.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Sillyness, do you not realize that a brain can be made plastic, and a conscious human may emerge even with half a human brain? Do you honestly believe that the cortex designs and wiring cannot be modified such that a successful design be made?what posit you limits the design possibilities your incredulity?
It has already been posited in fiction, replicant it is called in blade runner.
You believe it is impossible, but physics and molecular biology say it is perfectly feasible with no known impediment.
Tissue engineering, you believe that man cannot create arms, legs, entire bodies out of mere cells. Even entire flesh and blood dolls controlled by chips instead of brains.
1) I never said it wasn't possible
2) sure, if you think science = magic + time. I can't disprove what you are saying, but you really are going to have to try harder to show that it is fundamentally possible... Fictional examples and just assuming that someone, someday, somewhere will just come up with the solution is hardly convincing to me. By that logic, flying cars should have been invented decades ago.
I said, very specifically, the organization of your brain is not contained in your DNA. You cannot look at someone's DNA and infer what their brain will look like. You have not countered this point.
A mutation and you get anencephaly and no baby brain, so you die at birth.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
it will define it to the point that it will be human brain and not a dog's brain or a monkey'sA mutation and you get anencephaly and no baby brain, so you die at birth.
sure, BUT YOUR DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ORGANIZATION OF YOUR BRAIN. I don't really care about much else you have said beyond that point. You said something factually incorrect, I pointed it out. Unless you know which DNA code for future interactions with the environment or for memories you are going to form in 20 years, this is pretty much inarguable.
sure, if you think science = magic + time.
yup going from unicellular to multicellular design requires magic, so the construction of cheap high speed dna synthesizer cannot be realized with our world's physics and molecular machinery... that's a very strong statement to make.
Perhaps what venter did is magic too! maybe he's playing god!
Dna sequencing went from requiring large government investment to soon routine cheap done by every doc in the country.
You say that synthesis cannot progress likewise, for unknown reasons requiring magic and not technological progress?
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, [b]BUT YOUR DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ORGANIZATION OF YOUR BRAIN. I don't really care about much else you have said beyond that point. You said something factually incorrect, I pointed it out. Unless you know which DNA code for future interactions with the environment or for memories you are going to form in 20 years, this is pretty much inarguable. [/B]
it contains its structure up to a point, look up growth cones, and chemical guidance of axon growth, the brain is not wired like spaghetti, it has fractal structure and design, and there are constrains, homeostatic ones on filling fraction, synapse potentiation, long term potentiation or depression of synapses, which groups of neurons wire to which other groups, etc.
There are lots of constraints, but it is flexible structure open to modification and learning within a set bound of algorithmic rules, the specific details of course are individual from human to human, and some are even the result of random eventualities.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
yup going from unicellular to multicellular design requires magic, so the construction of cheap high speed dna synthesizer cannot be realized with our world's physics and molecular machinery... that's a very strong statement to make.Perhaps what venter did is magic too! maybe he's playing god!
Dna sequencing went from requiring large government investment to soon routine cheap done by every doc in the country.
You say that synthesis cannot progress likewise, for unknown reasons requiring magic and not technological progress?
your statement to my point that the sensory apparatuses (which shape the brain through neuroplasticity) would not be congruent between a human body and cat brain was to suggest "they will find out eventually".
you might as well say a wizard did it.
By that logic, flying cars should have been invented decades ago.
Plenty of flying car designs have come and gone it is just not practical, maybe with automation.
But usually people postulate antigravity as means, which may contradict physics. Just like teleportation or warp drives, such lies at a stage where it seems to contradict known physics, and new physics is necessary to tell whether it is truly impossible as it seems.
Tissue engineering, and the creation of artificial organs, and organ printers is going along nicely. Lungs, cartilage, skin, bladders, hearts, etc have been made in labs some transplanted even into humans.
your statement to my point that the sensory apparatuses (which shape the brain through neuroplasticity) would not be congruent between a human body and cat brain was to suggest "they will find out eventually".you might as well say a wizard did it.
one can specify sensory cortex size and rough connection mapping via genetics.
You forget that all creatures are evolved from a common ancestor. you and the dog were merely the results of random mutations generating different forms.
Intelligent man made design can certainly reshape sensory connection rules at the genetic level, just as powerfully as random mutation.
Or do you mean to say you believe random mutation is superior to intelligent designs of 100s of human researchers and bioengineers?
With adequate software and hardware to do so, why would one imagine that synthetic biology will not advance as powerfully as computer tech advanced over the last few decades? There is no fundamental reason for dna synthesis to be expensive, all cells do it quite cheaply and frequently.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
one can specify sensory cortex size and rough connection mapping via genetics.
generally false, though some of this has a genetic component
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
You forget that all creatures are evolved from a common ancestor. you and the dog were merely the results of random mutations generating different forms.
I fail to see the relevance...
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Intelligent man made design can certainly reshape sensory connection rules at the genetic level, just as powerfully as random mutation.Or do you mean to say you believe random mutation is superior to intelligent designs of 100s of human researchers and bioengineers?
With adequate software and hardware to do so, why would one imagine that synthetic biology will not advance as powerfully as computer tech advanced over the last few decades? There is no fundamental reason for dna synthesis to be expensive, all cells do it quite cheaply and frequently.
a wizard done it
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, it was the Buddha. ;-)
feel free to ridicule us alchemist, from newton's dream, an ideal immortality and artiificial minds.
Though the greatest scientist, may not mean much too you, his ideas do mean much to me.
I'll use a line of lies to buy my way into the divine realm, heretical ascension.
Feel the power, as gaia's species face extinction, and i assimilate all lifeforms in databases globally bound, and my existence is reaffirmed, do you take me for a fool? Do you honestly think I would not use a perfect solution, an ideal player in this game you call reality. Your world intoxicated by polluted change, forced change, forced extinction and forced dependence on technological progress or facing extinction of the human race, such a beautiful disaster.
PEep face homunculus, divine shadow. code embodiment of life... look upon the portrait of dorian gr(a|e)y, and understand the nature of my pact for immortality!
npEBmKyxxGA&feature=related
The brain is nothing more than a biological computer, all known physics is believed computable. Embrace the truth, you're using a computer, and we're talking over the internet, likely with a keyboard unless you're using voice recognition or neural implants ala deus ex.
A large portion of the us population has likely been infected by the encrypted cp distribution so they should all face jail time.
Heck movies such as the director's cut of superman 2, the original blue lagoon, feature what could be called cp. But these are legally sold, photorealistic cp cgi has also appeared.
Just a bit of role play
1xf8PYRBUQE&feature=g-vrec&context=G29c90f9RVAAAAAAAAAA
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
feel free to ridicule us alchemist, from newton's dream, an ideal immortality and artiificial minds.
Newton also looked at the sun directly through a telescope. It nearly blinded him. He was wrong, in some cases, but were he was right, he was very right. Alchemy was one of those things he was wrong about. However, he did not approach Alchemy in the way that other alchemists did, in his time. He took a more scientific approach. There is the possibility that he was using alchemy, because chemistry did not exist yet.