Glial cells? Or am I thinking of the wrong thing?
1 Like
Hey, I was marginally right. In the same sense as calling HeLA cells cervical epithelium.
1 Like
Probably, Iâm no doctor.
According to @MarkDow youâre probably referring to Myelinating Schwann cells. Which are a type of glial cell. But very specialized compared with the glial cells Iâm familiar with in the brain.
1 Like
I donât see any unassailable problems. Thought experiment (lol): Gradually transfer the function of a cell to itâs prosthetic equivalent, which is linked to the original cellâs connected cells through a connection that allows comparable connectivity. Are you any less yourself at 5% transfer of connective functionality?
50%?
51% transfer of the functionality of a single cell to its prosthetic equivalent?
Then how about 100%? 100% of two cells?
Etc. Etc.
This concept, of course, hinges on the functionality of the prosthetic cell and itâs interlink connectivity but there isnât anything magical about tissue.
If the process was done slowly enough you would still be using your original body to inform the prosthesis of when it should react to the vehicleâs conditions in the exact same way that the original neural cells would have. In fact, one can imagine better functionality, the abatement of seizures or damaged cells giving erroneous outputs to their surrounding neighbours, but, for the sake of argument you can even allow these same degenerative issues to occur if it total coherence means that much to you.
My religious friends are adamant that the soul somehow lives inside some cells in your CNS because God put it there and if you could somehow replace the functionality of those cells with prostheses then your soul would float off into purgatory (or whatever) and a kind of zombie of functionality would live on.
Well. So be it!
As a a practitioner of zazen Iâve been trying to get rid of the damn thing for years.
An extra thought concerning the apparent possibility of non locality of consciousness. If your prosthetic cells are designed well enough and encompass enough of the functionality of neural cells, wonât âthe signalâ adhere to the prosthesis in the same way? What is it about CNS cells that are so awesome that any other kind of matter couldnât be used to replicate their function? Itâs the same bloody exploded star stuff whatever way you cut it.
Unlessss, you start capturing dark matter particles and construct a giant, floaty neural prosthesis that isnât even made of baryonic matter!
Mwuahahahahaha!
2 Likes
I lose track of it for several hours every day as it is. Get your own!
2 Likes
[CITATION NEEDED]
Care to elaborate on the evidence for your assertions?
3 Likes
Reincarnation is rejected as hearsay, your honor. Furthermore, it is a dangerous assertion, just like âJesus/Mohammed will forgive all your sinsâ for belief, not action in this lifetime. How many lazy fools are willing to literally bet their lives on those completely unfounded ideas? Too many. In my experience, it is truly âas you sow so shall you reapâ, i.e. create happiness and receive happiness, tho not always in the dimension you wish.
1 Like
As @thedarkbackward said. Some sort of citation?
And welcome to the BBS please stick around and check out some of our many fine topics.
2 Likes
All I have is my life and the direct knowledge of my experiences. Only a fool would argue that the experience of human life is anything more than information processing, regardless of how new the concept may be. What decisions do you make based upon what information? How many people choose to deceive others or themselves with information of their own choosing?
Something is keeping track of the fundamental properties of all matter and energy in this world, each of which is information, no? Just as reality is built upon layers of abstraction, with (perhaps) the bottom being the level of quantum physics, particle physics and chemistry built upon it and so on through biological systems and on up to us where we exist not outside it but within it and yet enough removed to have an information-based existence.
Why quibble with citations when it is the ideas that are debate-worthy, no? Is this world not in need of new ideas, or, at least, people who will evaluate them as such and not with respect to who said it?
1 Like
One fatal flaw with your argument is that, irrespective of any beyond-the-body understanding of the human being, the body is not just the cells but the subtle electromagnetic interactions of the entire system that is, by definition of life, constantly in flux. Via Heisenberg, the totality of the system could in no near approximation be duplicated because, by definition, the momentum or position could not be measured precisely enough to form a suitable basis for a copy. Of course, then thereâs the absurdity of then duplicating that intensely complex system, of which we still know precious little.
1 Like
The prosthetic cell has matching electromagnetic properties to the original cell.
Whatâs so magical about the meat that itâs properties cannot be replicated?
2 Likes
Thanks, you can check out my response to @thedarkbackward.
That said, I feel that we should be evaluating ideas on their own merits and not based upon what this tainted (in that they only support works that reinforce the current worldview) world information society publishes. As an example, the fight against medical marijuana is largely based upon there ânot being studies that demonstrate safety and efficacyâ but it is those same people who have, by categorizing it Schedule I, prevented research institutions from performing the necessary studies.
Really you have evidence of this?
3 Likes
Iâm not referring to the EM properties within the cell, but to the EM properties within the system of cells and even the molecules within the cell. One example would be the EM properties of the process that the ribosomes use to convert RNA to proteins. The codons are being used to modify the amino acids in preparation for adding them to the existing chain, whose essential fold topology is completely EMly-based.
Again, whatâs so magical about the meat that a prosthetic equivalent canât be developed?
1 Like
Well, first off, Iâve not seen the law of gravity disobeyed, even as described by Newton. That is an information-theoretic algorithm, is it not?
Einstein, using his vast intellect and imagination, extended Newtonâs algorithms to include deviations based upon proximity to large gravitational fields. His finer-grained algorithms correctly predicted the deviation of Mercuryâs orbit due to the Sunâs gravitational field. Information fed into an algorithm yields predictive, verifiable information, does it not? As such, is it not obvious that some as-yet-unknown mechanism of creation is implementing/maintaining all the variables whose complex interactions have been discovered (to some degree) and set out in somewhat straightforward algorithmic processes?
Now, Iâm no physicist, but Iâd be curious to see someone give reasonable doubt to John Archibald Wheelerâs statement âit from bitâ. Until then, Iâll go with the guy who worked with both Einstein and Feynman.
But could it be enough of the self? Enough to convince both the âcopyâ him/herself and the originalâs friends and family that the copy was, in some sense, the original?
