4 ms·
I'm partial to bioinformatics as per Pauline Hogeweg's definition; which explicitly has computation as a property of life. This approach actually makes testabl
by Kim_Bruning 6mo ago
I'm partial to bioinformatics as per Pauline Hogeweg's definition; which explicitly has computation as a property of life.
This approach actually makes testable (and tested) scientific predictions.
This makes Searle-derived papers super-weird for me; since from my perspective they seem to disprove the existence of life. (and it makes the name of the philosophy "biological naturalism" very ironic to me :-P )
(for extra irony, Turing actually went into biology late in his life. See: Turing 1952 "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis" )
- kbelder 6mo agoI'm disappointed that Searle's paper is still influential, at least out in the general culture. It's nonsense, and at face value, would disprove consciousness in humans unless you accept some mystic indefinable soul into the mix. Or quantum magic, which is just as mystic.