On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a > > whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy > is > > incomplete. The primary sequence of DNA is right, but the tertiary > protein > > folding doesn't work. The cells seem normal but the immune system > attacks > > them. Every level will fail to account for the other completely. > > > > > >> which would indicate a technical problem with the copying process. > >> > > > > Yes, the technical problem is that nothing can be copied literally > except > > in our perception. If we try to make a copy of something based on our > > perception, then we get pieces of what we think we are copying rather > than > > the whole. My view is that the whole can appear to be cut into pieces, > but > > pieces can never be assembled into a whole in the absence of some > conscious > > > > perception. > > > > > >> For example, it may be that its heart does not beat because, on close > >> analysis, there is a structural problem with the myosin in the cardiac > >> cells. To fix this would require an adjustment to the 3D printer. I'm > >> spelling this out but usually in philosophical discussions it's assumed > >> mere technical issues are solved. Or do you think there is some other > >> ingredient that arbitrarily precise molecular assembly can never > capture? > >> > >> If so, how would you explain the mystery of a body with apparently > >> perfectly healthy tissues that is dead? > >> > > > > I think that there is a reason that precise molecular assembly can never > > capture but it has nothing to do with another ingredient. It is that > > molecular assembly itself supervenes on the larger context of awareness. > It > > > > is the molecular appearances which are ingredient-like, not the > totality. > > The appearance of an unknown cause of death is not uncommon. I don't > know > > that it is even possible to get to square one. If you tried to copy even > a > > single living cell by placing molecules adjacent to each other, I don't > > think it will work, any more than duplicating the buildings in Hollywood > > will make movies. > > While the *cause* of death may remain a mystery to a pathologist, > there will be clear evidence of tissue damage indicating that the > person is, in fact, dead. If a body is built using precise molecular > assembly there will be no tissue damage evident to the pathologist, > and yet you claim the body will still not be alive. The pathologist > would conclude that there must be some hitherto unknown and > undetectable process that the body was lacking. Perhaps this would be > because the body does not supervene on the larger context of > awareness, but whatever it is, it would be evidence that biologists > have been wrong and something new and mysterious is at play. >
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield a coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If you put random people in the proper places in a baseball diamond, and give the one in the middle a baseball, they don't necessarily play a baseball game. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
