3 ms·
I think that's stretching the analogy too much. Basically, we might say cows are spherical objects if we want to solve some problems in classical mechanics, bu
by yongjik 8y ago
I think that's stretching the analogy too much. Basically, we might say cows are spherical objects if we want to solve some problems in classical mechanics, but you won't gain much insights about how cows actually work by assuming they are spherical objects. Same thing here, IMHO.
- naasking 8y agoNot so much as you might think. Didn't we invent math and progressively improve it, and then invent computers to automate the math we suck at precisely to extend our problem solving powers? There are a lot of similarities.
- zwkrt 8y agoWe have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA), and if we do we still have to prove that the "re-written" person is more capable of re-writing subsequent people in an even more efficient way.
- monocasa 8y ago> We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Well... other than that one time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy
- visarga 8y agoWe are rewriting our API and OS (language, culture) all the time, though.
- naasking 8y ago> We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Interpreting "code" as "DNA" is too literal. It could apply to thinking processes and mental models, cultural and social norms, and so on. A universal Turing machine (UTM) can mimic any other Turing machine via interpretation, including a Godel machine. So an interpreted Godel machine isn't changing the code of the UTM, the analogue of our DNA, but it's changing the interpreted code, the analogue of higher level processes like those I list above.