4 ms·

Indeed. In fact, there is no reason to believe some stochiastic if/then process could ever result in the type of morphogenesis we see in the video. Whence come

Indeed. In fact, there is no reason to believe some stochiastic if/then process could ever result in the type of morphogenesis we see in the video. Whence comes this assumption that life may be reduced to a set of Boolean logic rules? Such people either have no clue how computers work or no clue how biology works. (Or both.) “Some proteins act kinda like if/then statements, so therefore the transformation of a single cell into a salamander is basically just a computer program.” You might as well say “My computer has a water-cooled processor, so it’s basically a salamander.”

mjan22640 3y ago
Understanding something is having a model of how it works. Such a model can always be converted into if/then statements. Your comment only makes sense if you postulate that life cannot be understood.
arghwhat 3y ago
There is no logic in that comment. Your counter to life being machines is just baselessly discrediting those of the opinion. Ad-hominem. Considering a cell to be a single machine does not make it equivalent to another machine (a computer), and certainly doesn't make that other machine equivalent to the millions of cells we just saw divide. "A is a machine, B is a machine, therefore A is B" - a false equivalence. Cells are conclusively machines, by the definition that they execute a fixed purpose dictated in whole by the parts it was made of - parts that we can change to modify the operation of the machine, a well studied subject used extensively in e.g. pharma (reprogrammed bacteria is how people get insulin). That conscious life is poorly understood does not somehow change the fact that the only building block used to make it in nature is a small biomechanical automaton. While we love to glorify our own existence and capabilities, our recent advances in LLMs also show how simple machines - even if significantly flawed due to practical resource limitations and intentional design limitations - can end projecting a convincing mimicry of our conscious behavior, despite having a simple, phrase-completing nature. It might make you wonder what simple initial purpose might dictate our behavior.

mjan22640 3y ago

Understanding something is having a model of how it works. Such a model can always be converted into if/then statements. Your comment only makes sense if you postulate that life cannot be understood.

arghwhat 3y ago

There is no logic in that comment. Your counter to life being machines is just baselessly discrediting those of the opinion. Ad-hominem. Considering a cell to be a single machine does not make it equivalent to another machine (a computer), and certainly doesn't make that other machine equivalent to the millions of cells we just saw divide. "A is a machine, B is a machine, therefore A is B" - a false equivalence. Cells are conclusively machines, by the definition that they execute a fixed purpose dictated in whole by the parts it was made of - parts that we can change to modify the operation of the machine, a well studied subject used extensively in e.g. pharma (reprogrammed bacteria is how people get insulin). That conscious life is poorly understood does not somehow change the fact that the only building block used to make it in nature is a small biomechanical automaton. While we love to glorify our own existence and capabilities, our recent advances in LLMs also show how simple machines - even if significantly flawed due to practical resource limitations and intentional design limitations - can end projecting a convincing mimicry of our conscious behavior, despite having a simple, phrase-completing nature. It might make you wonder what simple initial purpose might dictate our behavior.