Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Why am I going back to this?  I thought I had made my peace with it a long time ago.  Or at least buried it.   It’s too damn disruptive – can’t think with it in my head.  And I have to think now.
Is it the stress of what’s about to happen?  The copying?  The thoughts?  That’s why I went into science in the first place.  It was sure.  One plus one equals two – and it didn’t really matter what Gödel said about proofs.  But now I stand on the edge of an awesome experience and I guess, thinking rationally (which has been my salvation) (can I guess and think rationally?) the strain is taking me to places I haven’t been in forever and thought I had covered up long ago.  Let’s try to get back to where I started this.
Hmmm.  Nano plastic surgery.  But that might be a little tough if we start messing with too much – the law of unintended consequences might rear its ugly head.  And me 1.0 is ok in many ways.  But maybe me 1.0 could be a little better in the non scientific side – like in emotion and caring, and those kind of things that I let slip all too often because of work.  But we can’t engineer for those now anyway.   And since nano me is a copy of a functional organism – me – the law of unintended consequences shouldn’t come into play.
But love created me I think.  What happened later in my house didn’t change that.  My mom told me that more than once, that she was in love and I was a creation of that love.  So maybe it is just an extension of love for me to create another me and/or improve the other me so much that it becomes another person.  But Nature has settled on its method of reproduction – not to mention God, who I am not sure about – to in part I think include two sets of DNA which increases the mixing and matching and the variety of the organisms.  Although I have wondered why Nature stopped at two.  Why not really mix it up with three or four or five sets of DNA?  That and certain other anomalies makes me wonder about evolution as a science.  And of course it is not predictive either.  We can’t predict what changes may occur in the future using evolution – and predictability is supposed to be the hallmark of scientific theory.
And this is where it gets really odd.  If, according to sociobiology, the genes only desire to propagate, and adaptations are precisely to accomplish that desire (but honestly I could never figure out where that desire was supposed to be – it is stored exactly where on the gene?) haven’t my genes reached unimaginable heights, by now being able to reproduce repeatedly, without love.  Which also means without dilution by another’s DNA, so doesn’t that mean that my DNA have “won”!?!  They have reached the ultimate pinnacle?  They have exactly reproduced themselves, or will once we make nano me, without any other DNA getting involved – without watering themselves down?  And once we build the nano mold my genes can reproduce as much as they want because one mold can be used for a theoretically unlimited number of copies as long as you have the nano.  On the other hand, I can’t have the first set of genes that tried to reproduce asexually – don’t planaria or something do it?  Maybe – and I’m assuming I am a higher life form (see modesty above) – maybe no other higher life form got the ability for a reason, it was selected against, and if so why not?  Is there some issue with it, some reason it was selected against?  I know by mixing more variation is achieved and likely more adaptability which is why it is seen as an advantage – but if that’s the case, why not three or four or eight mixing together?  That would introduce even more variety, not to mention legitimizing orgies.
On the other hand, if we just could reproduce asexually life there would just be one of us and that one could, if it had any environmental survival skills at all, take over everything.  After all, the supremacy of the hive or group think has long been touted – such as ants and bees and even the Borg (ok that last was a fictional reference…)  The ultimate group think would be a colony of the exact same person – of course they would all think the same way.  And, on a philosophical note, the whole private language thing kind of gets blown away – each copy would understand his other (or hers!!  What would gender be anyway??) copies implicitly.  (And on that private language thing it’s doubtful anyway – especially because close couples and lovers and friends have a private language – and frankly Wittgenstein and most of philosophers I know don’t have anyone they are especially close to in an emotional way – don’t even recognize the worth of emotion in communication -- so they blew that one I think, but I will be able to scientifically prove they did once we make me 2.0.)
And one more thing too.  Wouldn’t it be an advantage not to go through the whole courtship thing?  Not to waste time chasing after another, and using resources and neurons etc.  to do all that?  What if we didn’t need any of that to attract a mate?  Would love and cooperation and altruism – all the things the sociobiologists think comes from our genes because we need to attract others, go away?  So aside from blowing away Wittgenstein aren’t we proving (or not) all that genetic theory too?
Wow I thought this would calm me down, but not.  I really am nervous.
Back to the problem right in front of me.  Changes to nano me to make me a better me.  I can’t change things too much till I solve the code that will let me change the nano once set.  And that code is proving very tricky.  Another me, another mind like me, might help there.  So maybe nano me can help improve himself.  Which is a fine and calming thought to end this tear out section with.

No comments:

Post a Comment