> “So long as we insist that cells are computers and genes are their code" Dude, it would be a huge improvement already if people DID treat cells as computers

> “So long as we insist that cells are computers and genes are their code" Dude, it would be a huge improvement already if people DID treat cells as computers and genes as their code. Or rather, DNA, including especially also the bits that are not genes. Many people really don't seem to think of DNA like they think about software at all. And those people draw all kinds of weird conclusions that they'd never draw if they realized it was at least like software. Because then they'd realize that of course it's unlikely to be able to find a (single) gene for eg. 'intelligence'. Just like there's no op-code for 'Mario' in 6502 machine code. (Not even if the 6502 is installed in a nintendo entertainment system.) Treating DNA as software is not necessarily sufficient, but it is certainly necessary if you want to make a start at getting anywhere near sufficient. > "It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life" Well, yeah, blueprints are static pictures on a piece of paper, while programs can be dynamic, complex, iterative, recursive, undecidable and/or fundamentally weird. By the time we get to whatever this self-modifying highly evolved pile of spaghetti that is called "DNA" is; sure, we may want a separate word for that kind of phenomenon. 'Alive' might come close. But I hear that that's highly controversial. ;-)