Richard:
> I'm not sure that a "recording" is good analogy for what is proposed.
>Using the word processor analogy, the next computer with the same program
>would be as fully functional as the first. Theorectically,
>indistiguishable from the first. I don't see why it would be *static* at all.
Recording is probably not the right word. I realise that the original
question implies instantaneous replication without any storage
capability but it is intriguing to play with the notion that having
gathered all the data which makes up the 'clone' what status has this
total pattern of values have after it is gathered and before it
'becomes' the clone - assuming that it can be stored somehow. I agree
that once the application is running on the next computer it is no
longer static. To answer my own question - the blueprint would be just
that. It would have only *potential* for 'existence'.
Meanwhile, rising to Bodvar's challenge to stop equivocating I come down
firmly on the side of those who say that 'consciousness' cannot exist
without the support of the lower levels. Furthermore this consciousness
is undergoing continuous transformation even in the most hidebound of
personalities. Static quality patterns are very useful for getting
through day to day humdrum existence but as Pirsig says every now and
then something breaks the spell and gives us a glimpse of DQ.
As Walter Gropius put it "Transformation is the essence of life" and
Heraclites as paraphrased by Plato "You cannot step into the same river
twice".
Regards
Pete
--+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: Peter@psfisher.demon.co.uk | | "Do not adjust your mind - there is a fault in the reality" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT