There is no I in Me

In the process of implementing a language that is matter I will consider the fact that if extension of intellect were implemented then the boundary of existentialism is more vague than I already consider it to be. In psychology they might refer to the ID the EGO and SUPER-EGO and then say this is all part of self, and I suppose that in a logical distinction that would be true, but that there is no single part that defines being itself except the open and close curly brackets if it were composed of other parts. ( define I (+ ego id)). It doesn't lend itself to any generalities except {} and so that seems a bit vague as it is true of anything.

In the case of the language of matter it can proceed like any language and be defined without consideration of its implementation. In this particular analysis I will look at a specific hardware implementation.

I will start with a lisp or scheme like representation and determine if this captures the spirit of the process. For example :

(define make-insulin (cons-dna `(a g a c t g a c t g a c))
Or some other syntax sugar. If I define an architecture that takes the input and creates a sequence of DNA that is transcribed to RNA and then transcribed to a poly-amino acid that is insulin, then this would be a model. The DNA could serve as a HASHed list if an initiator were used to facilitate transcription. So insulin could be looked up by specifying a protein which binds to a marker on the DNA and allows transcription. It would seem that the syntax would be better implemented by two or more independent machines. The sequentially nature of common programming would break down very quickly if I were to make insulin and sugar to be a complete loop and thus IO activated and functioning without any semaphore, transaction definition or indicator. It could function as a logical and independent machine within the machine if molecular affinities and other factors are not considered. The machine as a whole would be influenced by all its elements. If a separate process were created that made "almost-insulin" or "very-similar-RNA" or "mirror-RNA" then it would influence the other process whether it was intentional or not. As a result, each new sub-process would have to be interpreted in the context of all other processes. This method would create an upper limit on complexity and also introduce some very unusual and ultimately chaotic behavior. Life can take advantage of these, but it remains subdued chaotic behavior and so is not a good model for a repeatable consistent system. Life needs to make mistakes in order to evolve and so it makes sense in that context, but not in a system designed to be predictable and repeatable.

0 comments:

Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen