4 ms·

"Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) I think there's a noteworthy distinction between science and its ap

by whack 7y ago

"Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) I think there's a noteworthy distinction between science and its applications. In my mind, science is about understanding the world, whereas fields like engineering/medicine are about their practical applications. I do think that there's a tremendous amount of progress that could be made in sciences like Biology, Psychology etc. But I would draw a distinction between the things that fundamentally change the way we understand the world, vs building really cool toys that we would love to have.

dekhn 7y ago
I think the point of the "End of Science" argument is that any discoveries in biology (and physics) will merely be elaborations of basic principles that already exist, rather than elucidations of any as-yet undiscovered principles. For example, CRISPR. Many people think that CRISPR was an amazing discovery, but really, it's just a biological system that has existed for a long, long time, where a collection of smart people realized that with some engineering it could be used for effective genetic modifications with high precision and no need for engineering custom proteins to bind specific sequences. That seems fundamentally different from, for example, the experiments that established that DNA is the molecule of heredity when nobody had an idea how DNA could encode information.
- epistasis 7y ago
  DNA as the molecule of encoding information for heredity is also "merely" a discovery of an ancient biological system. However, it's not as though physics predicts the existence of DNA specifically, or CRISPR, yet these things are important for understanding biology, and in the case of CRISPR it's been turned into a technology that humans can use. Which is why I have a lot of complaints about the commonly held belief such as this one: > merely be elaborations of basic principles that already exist, rather than elucidations of any as-yet undiscovered principles. This is not a meaningful or thoughtful examination of even chemistry. 3D structure of proteins is "merely" an elaboration of physical properties, yet "physics" doesn't have the tools to make much progress on solving the 3D structure of a sequence of amino acids, despite it being a purely physics process. Is the world "physical" in the sense that probably don't have new fundamental forces of nature? Of course. That doesn't mean that physics helps understand much of the physical world, because the "elaboration" in the "merely elaboration" has nothing to do what physicists or other scientists consider "physics."
  - dekhn 7y ago
    No, the elucidation of the structure of the DNA isn't just merely a discovery of an ancient biological system. It was the recognition that the structure was formed by antiparallel strands encoding information in a reversible molecular form, that represents a real level-up in human understanding of the universe. That's the whole point of that throwaway sentence at the end "It has not escaped our notice (12) that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Also, we can simulate protein folding well enough from classical physics and quantum approximations such that "rapid two-state folders" are considered solved. That was a major outcome in the course of my career, to which I contributed significantly :)
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      If we can simulate protein folding well enough, why was the Google announcement last year such a big deal? I worked in protein folding over 30 years ago at EMBL, and have loosely followed it since. I could easily have been led astray, but I was absolutely not under the impression that we can do this even close to "well enough".
      - dekhn 7y ago
        I work at Google and did protein folding before the Deepmind (not Google) announcement. The CASP results weren't really a big deal. It was a modest advancement using techniques that were already spreading throughout the community, coupled with a skilled team that understood the score metric very well. Two state folders can be reversibly folded using empirically determined force fields (two state folders basically go from "any totally unfolded configuration" to "fully folded single structure" in milliseconds); we can just run simulations and let the (quantum-inspired, classically embedded) physics do the folding, or we can use other techniques, like Rosetta (monte carlo plus lots of empirical data from known structures), or evolutionary data-based techniques (like Deepmind and others used).
        PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
charlieflowers 7y ago
> "Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) Well done!
- izzydata 7y ago
  Apparently it was the first thing humankind mastered.
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Obviously, we are discussing immortality of non-human species. However, we more or less understand that morality of larger lifeforms is encoded in our DNA (e.g. telemers). Mortality seems to be a defense against cancer. There is no particular reason that a human needs to grow old, except for the accidents of evolution.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
      Mortality is not a defence against cancer. Mortality is a tool that allows species to more speedily adapt to changing environment. Sexual reproduction is another such tool, which ensures enhanced diversity of future generations, so some of the descendants will adapt better and leave more better adapted descendants. Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it.
      - modo_mario 7y ago
        >"Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it." Not exactly and i believe there are a rare few that are much much more resistant to it and as such have become subject of research (trough TP53 in elephants or P16 and P27 in naked mole rats) At the end of the day this natural incentive depends on when the cancer can appear (generally right away at every step of the cell cycles) and how likely it is which probably depends on the turnover and amount of cells of a particular type or in the being overall which one would assume increases as the being grows and additionally how likely it is to inhibit reproduction as it grows. As it stands i'd say whilst they're not too inhibiting on this front (for example humans are most fertile at relatively young age well before most cancer occurrences become a problem. We've just extended our lifespan quite a bit) they still can be (kids can die of cancer too) and thus an evolutionary incentive against it however minor is present.
baddox 7y ago
> But I would draw a distinction between the things that fundamentally change the way we understand the world, vs building really cool toys that we would love to have. It may very well be that understanding emergent phenomenon at the appropriate level of emergence will turn out to be vitally important, and that reductionism (while undoubtedly useful in many scenarios) is impeding our understanding of emergent phenomena like consciousness and evolution.

by whack 7y ago

dekhn 7y ago

I think the point of the "End of Science" argument is that any discoveries in biology (and physics) will merely be elaborations of basic principles that already exist, rather than elucidations of any as-yet undiscovered principles. For example, CRISPR. Many people think that CRISPR was an amazing discovery, but really, it's just a biological system that has existed for a long, long time, where a collection of smart people realized that with some engineering it could be used for effective genetic modifications with high precision and no need for engineering custom proteins to bind specific sequences. That seems fundamentally different from, for example, the experiments that established that DNA is the molecule of heredity when nobody had an idea how DNA could encode information.

epistasis 7y ago
DNA as the molecule of encoding information for heredity is also "merely" a discovery of an ancient biological system. However, it's not as though physics predicts the existence of DNA specifically, or CRISPR, yet these things are important for understanding biology, and in the case of CRISPR it's been turned into a technology that humans can use. Which is why I have a lot of complaints about the commonly held belief such as this one: > merely be elaborations of basic principles that already exist, rather than elucidations of any as-yet undiscovered principles. This is not a meaningful or thoughtful examination of even chemistry. 3D structure of proteins is "merely" an elaboration of physical properties, yet "physics" doesn't have the tools to make much progress on solving the 3D structure of a sequence of amino acids, despite it being a purely physics process. Is the world "physical" in the sense that probably don't have new fundamental forces of nature? Of course. That doesn't mean that physics helps understand much of the physical world, because the "elaboration" in the "merely elaboration" has nothing to do what physicists or other scientists consider "physics."
- dekhn 7y ago
  No, the elucidation of the structure of the DNA isn't just merely a discovery of an ancient biological system. It was the recognition that the structure was formed by antiparallel strands encoding information in a reversible molecular form, that represents a real level-up in human understanding of the universe. That's the whole point of that throwaway sentence at the end "It has not escaped our notice (12) that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Also, we can simulate protein folding well enough from classical physics and quantum approximations such that "rapid two-state folders" are considered solved. That was a major outcome in the course of my career, to which I contributed significantly :)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    If we can simulate protein folding well enough, why was the Google announcement last year such a big deal? I worked in protein folding over 30 years ago at EMBL, and have loosely followed it since. I could easily have been led astray, but I was absolutely not under the impression that we can do this even close to "well enough".
    - dekhn 7y ago
      I work at Google and did protein folding before the Deepmind (not Google) announcement. The CASP results weren't really a big deal. It was a modest advancement using techniques that were already spreading throughout the community, coupled with a skilled team that understood the score metric very well. Two state folders can be reversibly folded using empirically determined force fields (two state folders basically go from "any totally unfolded configuration" to "fully folded single structure" in milliseconds); we can just run simulations and let the (quantum-inspired, classically embedded) physics do the folding, or we can use other techniques, like Rosetta (monte carlo plus lots of empirical data from known structures), or evolutionary data-based techniques (like Deepmind and others used).
      - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago

charlieflowers 7y ago

> "Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) Well done!

izzydata 7y ago
Apparently it was the first thing humankind mastered.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Obviously, we are discussing immortality of non-human species. However, we more or less understand that morality of larger lifeforms is encoded in our DNA (e.g. telemers). Mortality seems to be a defense against cancer. There is no particular reason that a human needs to grow old, except for the accidents of evolution.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    Mortality is not a defence against cancer. Mortality is a tool that allows species to more speedily adapt to changing environment. Sexual reproduction is another such tool, which ensures enhanced diversity of future generations, so some of the descendants will adapt better and leave more better adapted descendants. Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it.
    - modo_mario 7y ago
      >"Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it." Not exactly and i believe there are a rare few that are much much more resistant to it and as such have become subject of research (trough TP53 in elephants or P16 and P27 in naked mole rats) At the end of the day this natural incentive depends on when the cancer can appear (generally right away at every step of the cell cycles) and how likely it is which probably depends on the turnover and amount of cells of a particular type or in the being overall which one would assume increases as the being grows and additionally how likely it is to inhibit reproduction as it grows. As it stands i'd say whilst they're not too inhibiting on this front (for example humans are most fertile at relatively young age well before most cancer occurrences become a problem. We've just extended our lifespan quite a bit) they still can be (kids can die of cancer too) and thus an evolutionary incentive against it however minor is present.

baddox 7y ago

> But I would draw a distinction between the things that fundamentally change the way we understand the world, vs building really cool toys that we would love to have. It may very well be that understanding emergent phenomenon at the appropriate level of emergence will turn out to be vitally important, and that reductionism (while undoubtedly useful in many scenarios) is impeding our understanding of emergent phenomena like consciousness and evolution.