3 ms·

I can only use the models that I have, accurate or otherwise. I hope I'm not confusing others, I'm not pretending to be an expert in DNA. > Both a computer pro

I can only use the models that I have, accurate or otherwise. I hope I'm not confusing others, I'm not pretending to be an expert in DNA. > Both a computer program and a genome encode information, but that's about where the similarities end. FWIW this is a very significant similarity to me.

throwanem 5y ago
One might with equal merit say that, because I know English orthography, I can also read Linear A.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to say, but much of your point seems to be "don't talk about things you don't understand", which I have no interest in abiding. I like talking about things I don't understand, and I've enjoyed the posts from you and others on the topic, even if I'll only ever be a layman.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    Talking about things you don't understand is no problem by me! What I'm trying to point to here is the hazard of making assumptions about something one doesn't understand, and then trying to reason about the thing based on those assumptions.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      Oh sure, yeah I mean it's all in good fun. I wouldn't try to actually establish any serious thought other than "this is wild".
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  I think a working analogy here would be that source code (dna) gets compiled (physics/chemistry) into an executable (living organism with even more dna) which gets executed by the os (phys/chem again) to produce changes on some data (organism interacts with the environment), and on and on.. The details are of course endless and they aren’t interchangeable between the two fields, but the analogy is still there..
  - throwanem 5y ago
    Sure, but is it meaningful? What predictions does it enable that are sufficiently borne out by reality to make it seem likely that less easily testable predictions on the same basis may likewise prove sound? I mean, I can as well say that chalk and cheese are alike in that both have mass, occupy space, and leave a streak behind when you rub them on something. It is a true statement, but what does it help me predict about either?
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      I think the only real takeaways on the coding/biology comparison are applying base-level informatic systems ideas to explain some biological developments, and in reverse looking at biological system mechanics as inspiration for designed systems. I don't think the 'chemistry is an OPERATING SYSTEM' level of handwaving is sufficient to glean insights, but understanding general systems-level interactome patterns of how proteins interact does help provide knowledge about how natural and designed systems can self-regulate, how they fail, how they can be structured, etc.
      - throwanem 5y ago
        Sure, at that level it makes sense. The trouble seems to be that in order to know that that's the level at which it makes sense, you need to know considerably more about informatics than is the default among programmers who like to indulge in this kind of speculation. Kind of a Dunning-Kruger problem, maybe; there certainly was a time when I likewise didn't know what I didn't know.

throwanem 5y ago

One might with equal merit say that, because I know English orthography, I can also read Linear A.

staticassertion 5y ago
I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to say, but much of your point seems to be "don't talk about things you don't understand", which I have no interest in abiding. I like talking about things I don't understand, and I've enjoyed the posts from you and others on the topic, even if I'll only ever be a layman.
- throwanem 5y ago
  Talking about things you don't understand is no problem by me! What I'm trying to point to here is the hazard of making assumptions about something one doesn't understand, and then trying to reason about the thing based on those assumptions.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    Oh sure, yeah I mean it's all in good fun. I wouldn't try to actually establish any serious thought other than "this is wild".
faeyanpiraat 5y ago
I think a working analogy here would be that source code (dna) gets compiled (physics/chemistry) into an executable (living organism with even more dna) which gets executed by the os (phys/chem again) to produce changes on some data (organism interacts with the environment), and on and on.. The details are of course endless and they aren’t interchangeable between the two fields, but the analogy is still there..
- throwanem 5y ago
  Sure, but is it meaningful? What predictions does it enable that are sufficiently borne out by reality to make it seem likely that less easily testable predictions on the same basis may likewise prove sound? I mean, I can as well say that chalk and cheese are alike in that both have mass, occupy space, and leave a streak behind when you rub them on something. It is a true statement, but what does it help me predict about either?
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    I think the only real takeaways on the coding/biology comparison are applying base-level informatic systems ideas to explain some biological developments, and in reverse looking at biological system mechanics as inspiration for designed systems. I don't think the 'chemistry is an OPERATING SYSTEM' level of handwaving is sufficient to glean insights, but understanding general systems-level interactome patterns of how proteins interact does help provide knowledge about how natural and designed systems can self-regulate, how they fail, how they can be structured, etc.
    - throwanem 5y ago
      Sure, at that level it makes sense. The trouble seems to be that in order to know that that's the level at which it makes sense, you need to know considerably more about informatics than is the default among programmers who like to indulge in this kind of speculation. Kind of a Dunning-Kruger problem, maybe; there certainly was a time when I likewise didn't know what I didn't know.