4 ms·

Oh, but the "organic" solutions do highly deterministic, extremely programmable computational work: 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head, and

Oh, but the "organic" solutions do highly deterministic, extremely programmable computational work: 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head, and they all started development from a single cell [1]. It's just that the "organic" solutions are written in a 4+ billion year-old highly redundant, distributed, resilient, evolved language whereas our CPUs are not on the same phylogenetic tree. The quotation marks around organic are just there to point out that there is something wrong with the dichotomy organic (various pro/eu-karyotes from bacteria to humans)/inorganic (from thermostats to CPUs). [1] Michael Levin: Anatomical decision-making by cellular collectives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-9rLlFgcm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-9rLlFgcm0

moonchrome 4y ago
> extremely programmable computational work: 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head, and they all started development from a single cell [1]. Just on the risks of early miscarriage from wrong number of chromosomes I'd say your numbers are way off. > Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[21] Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage So 30-50% failure rate.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  You are nitpicking, nevertheless, newborn, noun, a baby that was born recently [1], hence the 99.99999+% figure is applied for the full term pregnancies, once the fetus is decoupled from the mother and has been born as a, well, newborn. And furthermore, the point is not that they live or die, but that they have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head after developing from one single cell through deterministic computation in the morphospace. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/newborn#:~:text=communicate%20with%20confidence.-,newborn,noun,-%5B%20C%20%5D https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/newborn#...
  - moonchrome 4y ago
    I'm not nitpicking - I'm saying the reason most babies are born with 2 legs hands and a head is because genetic defects die off before birth (plus the screening we have for early termination nowadays) - and the failure rate starting from a single cell is huge.
    - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
      The genetic defects failure rate is irrelevant, TSMC also throws away bad batches [1], mistakes happen, life is complex and multifaceted, etc. The issue is if biology is a deterministic computational platform, and the argument I was making, using the hyperbolic figure of 99.99999%, I will grant you this, is that not only biology is a deterministic computational platform, but it is better than the one we can achieve currently in our CPUs: no CPU is able to regenerate a melt down core, axolotls can grow back a limb as if it was never gone. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/13905/tsmc-chip-yields-hit-by-bad-chemical-batch https://www.anandtech.com/show/13905/tsmc-chip-yields-hit-by...
      - moonchrome 4y ago
        But at that point your argument is almost tautological - all children born alive are fit to survive ? Being born with such huge asymmetry (missing limbs) and still surviving is low probably (impossible without a head). I'd say a more convincing argument for deterministic machinery is identical twins - I don't know how much variation there is to put in numbers.
        ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
        "But at that point your argument is almost tautological" Yes, that is the point: biodevelopment is deterministic and computational. Watch the Michael Levin video linked above: they cut the head of a planarian worm, it grows back a head; they cut the tail, it grows back a tail; they cut the tail and the head and change the bioelectric gradients, it grows back two heads or two tails.
      - deleted 4y ago
- testtesttesst 4y ago
  Don't forget that the infant mortality rate (post birth) is 0.5%. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infant-health.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infant-health.htm Number of infant deaths: 19,582 Deaths per 100,000 live births: 541.9 Leading causes of infant deaths: – Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities – Disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight: not elsewhere classified – Sudden infant death syndrome
caylus 4y ago
> 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head This number is far too high. The rate of conjoined twins (violating "1 head") is about 1 in 50,000 [1], and the rate of "limb reduction defects" (violating "2 hands and 2 legs") is about 1 in 1,900 [2]. Those correspond to 99.998% and 99.94% respectively. 3-4 nines is still impressive for such a complex system, but let's not claim it's 7+ nines. [1] https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/conjoined-twins https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/conjoined-twins [2] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefects.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefe...
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  "The occurrence of conjoined twins is rare. Its actual prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to range from 1:50,000 to 1:200,000" [1]. 1 in 200,000 would raise it to 99.9995%. But as pointed again and again in the other comments, the pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant. When cutting the planarian worm head, the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients. The argument was about the deterministic computation done by biology in the morphospace. [1] Importance of Angiographic Study in Preoperative Planning of Conjoined Twins Case Report, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S180759322202988X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S180759322...
  - caylus 4y ago
    > pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested? > the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not. Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7. In general, probabilities less than a certain amount stop being meaningful, because it's more likely that the model used generate the probability fails to reflect reality. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-to-use-probabilities https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-t...

moonchrome 4y ago

> extremely programmable computational work: 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head, and they all started development from a single cell [1]. Just on the risks of early miscarriage from wrong number of chromosomes I'd say your numbers are way off. > Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[21] Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage So 30-50% failure rate.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
You are nitpicking, nevertheless, newborn, noun, a baby that was born recently [1], hence the 99.99999+% figure is applied for the full term pregnancies, once the fetus is decoupled from the mother and has been born as a, well, newborn. And furthermore, the point is not that they live or die, but that they have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head after developing from one single cell through deterministic computation in the morphospace. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/newborn#:~:text=communicate%20with%20confidence.-,newborn,noun,-%5B%20C%20%5D https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/newborn#...
- moonchrome 4y ago
  I'm not nitpicking - I'm saying the reason most babies are born with 2 legs hands and a head is because genetic defects die off before birth (plus the screening we have for early termination nowadays) - and the failure rate starting from a single cell is huge.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    The genetic defects failure rate is irrelevant, TSMC also throws away bad batches [1], mistakes happen, life is complex and multifaceted, etc. The issue is if biology is a deterministic computational platform, and the argument I was making, using the hyperbolic figure of 99.99999%, I will grant you this, is that not only biology is a deterministic computational platform, but it is better than the one we can achieve currently in our CPUs: no CPU is able to regenerate a melt down core, axolotls can grow back a limb as if it was never gone. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/13905/tsmc-chip-yields-hit-by-bad-chemical-batch https://www.anandtech.com/show/13905/tsmc-chip-yields-hit-by...
    - moonchrome 4y ago
      But at that point your argument is almost tautological - all children born alive are fit to survive ? Being born with such huge asymmetry (missing limbs) and still surviving is low probably (impossible without a head). I'd say a more convincing argument for deterministic machinery is identical twins - I don't know how much variation there is to put in numbers.
      - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
        "But at that point your argument is almost tautological" Yes, that is the point: biodevelopment is deterministic and computational. Watch the Michael Levin video linked above: they cut the head of a planarian worm, it grows back a head; they cut the tail, it grows back a tail; they cut the tail and the head and change the bioelectric gradients, it grows back two heads or two tails.
    - deleted 4y ago
testtesttesst 4y ago
Don't forget that the infant mortality rate (post birth) is 0.5%. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infant-health.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infant-health.htm Number of infant deaths: 19,582 Deaths per 100,000 live births: 541.9 Leading causes of infant deaths: – Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities – Disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight: not elsewhere classified – Sudden infant death syndrome

caylus 4y ago

> 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head This number is far too high. The rate of conjoined twins (violating "1 head") is about 1 in 50,000 [1], and the rate of "limb reduction defects" (violating "2 hands and 2 legs") is about 1 in 1,900 [2]. Those correspond to 99.998% and 99.94% respectively. 3-4 nines is still impressive for such a complex system, but let's not claim it's 7+ nines. [1] https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/conjoined-twins https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/conjoined-twins [2] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefects.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefe...

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
"The occurrence of conjoined twins is rare. Its actual prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to range from 1:50,000 to 1:200,000" [1]. 1 in 200,000 would raise it to 99.9995%. But as pointed again and again in the other comments, the pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant. When cutting the planarian worm head, the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients. The argument was about the deterministic computation done by biology in the morphospace. [1] Importance of Angiographic Study in Preoperative Planning of Conjoined Twins Case Report, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S180759322202988X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S180759322...
- caylus 4y ago
  > pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested? > the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not. Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7. In general, probabilities less than a certain amount stop being meaningful, because it's more likely that the model used generate the probability fails to reflect reality. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-to-use-probabilities https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-t...