From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Reply to Marc Talbot #2
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:27:26 GMT

In article <1hj1qcINN1ak@news.cerf.net> eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>From Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net
>
>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge @ UCLA Cognitive Science Research
>Program) writes:
>>You of course ignore my disappointment when Beter introduced
>>his robotoids, something much more difficult to pull off than
>>hovering particle-beam weapons.  Any explanation for how
>>Russians or Americans could have given robots convincing
>>personalities at the highest strata of American public
>>politics 15 years ago, when even now, natural language
>>understanding and human-like motor control still appear
>>to be problems far surpassing our current expectations
>>for the next 25 years, especially when one considers the
>>state of Integrated Circuitry in 1978?
>
>Simple: the computer brains of these biological robots were not electronic,
>but biological themselves.  They were not tied to the state of IC technology
>then current.
>
>The Russians produced their robotoids at Novosibirsk Science City using
>holographic image acquisition and storage techniques of the applicable neuron
>patterns, discussed in more detail in Audio Letter #47.  They obtained these
>images using a special ultrasonic cerebral hologram method.  The genetic DNA
>coding necessary to reproduce the rest of the person was obtained by other
>methods.  The rest of the robotoid was then generated using a close relative
>of recombinant DNA techniques using bacteria (i.e. breaking up and splicing
>together DNA from different sources).
>
>The Americans (or more accurately, the Rothschild/Bolshevik/Zionist faction)
>were able to produce their synthetic automatons using other means.  They
>obtained genetic samples from the people to be simulated, extracted the DNA,
>then injected it into certain tissues extracted from cattle as the starting
>point in the generation process.  This method, however, produced inferior
>biological computer brains as compared to the actual person or to the Russian
>robotoid holographic simulation of such, and they acted dull-witted compared to
>these.  The background of this is discussed in more detail in Audio Letter #51.

	I was at the cutting edge of recombinant DNA technology in
	1978 so I think I can safely opine that this is gibberish.

	The first question to be asked is, having obtained a complete
	map of the neuron connections of the individual nervous system
	(a challenge still beyond us), what did they transfer it to to
	make a working brain, and how?

	I am curious about how it was possible to run a program the
	size of the Human Genome Program in secret, at least 20 years
	ago with the technology then available.  This program would
	actually be much larger because the technology involved was more
	labour-intensive and a lot slower.  As for hiding it, where did
	all the equipment and reagents come from?  The tooth fairy?
	Where did all the neurobiologists come from to do all the
	clever brain mapping stuff?

	Furthermore, you don't inject naked DNA into a cows ovum, it
	degrades, and the egg ejects anything it can't find a use for.
	How do you suppose a 50 year-old human like John Young was
	created in a few days/months/years?  You would do better by
	injecting an intact nucleus into an enucleated ovum and
	implanting that.  That would give the zygote enough time
	to begin immunosuppression before too many human antigens
	appeared on the surface of the trophoblast.

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,misc.legal,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton