Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of complexity/information
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 216 of 254 (163911)
11-29-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by TheLiteralist
11-29-2004 10:33 AM


Re: Computer Code/Genetic Code Similarities
It seems to me that there is a big difference between computer code and genetic code. There is a huge level of abstractness with computer code, which makes it highly independent of the operating environment. The computer code in no way dictates or creates the operating environment. Computer code does not create motherboards or anything else that would be constituted hardware. Computers do not get created simply from computer code. DNA on the other hand is very much less abstract. The code itself is entirely physical, and more than that the entire organism is created from this code. The organism isn't an environment for the code to run it, it is the result of "running" the code.
Also, since the processes involved in DNA is nothing more than a chemical reaction it is much more dynamic than computer code, and a lot less arbitrary. You can take a series of 0's and 1's but they have absolutely no meaning unless you define what they mean. With DNA, the sequencing produces chemicals, and the chemicals will have set properties and do set things. Changing the DNA code will physically alter the "computer hardware" it runs on, but changing a computer code has no affect on the physical makeup of the computer hardware.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-29-2004 10:33 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 11-29-2004 9:25 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 221 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 5:01 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 223 of 254 (164091)
11-30-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by contracycle
11-30-2004 5:01 AM


Re: Computer Code/Genetic Code Similarities
I admit that I was talking more from opinion than fact, and I should have made myself a bit more clear. I meant to point out that the working of computers are fundamentally different to the working of the human body (maybe I went to deep to point out the difference).
contracycle writes:
I'm afraid that is not as true as it appears at first glance. Take for example variable definition; the code has to carry out discrete actions to establish the appropriate circumstances for other actions. If a programme is invoked in an empty memory register there is literally nothing there to work with - everything HAS to be created by the code there and then.
Sorry, "operating environment" was a very bad choice of phrase. I meant the hardware that the code runs on. I was trying to get at the difference between computers and human bodies. The computer code never creates the physical components of the computer it's running on, and the hardware it runs on generally doesn't spontaneously produce code in it's memory the way DNA can through procreation coupled with M&NS.
contracycle writes:
quote:
Happy_Atheist writes:
Computer code does not create motherboards or anything else that would be constituted hardware. Computers do not get created simply from computer code.
False I'm afraid - we already have code that evolves subsequent code.
Yes, I know of evolutionary computing. I didn't mean code can't alter itself. I meant that the hardware remains the same, a constraint that doesn't apply to the body. You can't alter computer code and have the effect of rewiring the components inside the actual computer. Computers aren't inherantly self-replicating, wheras living things are.
Contracycle writes:
We should not confuise the primitive sophistication of our technology with fundamental constraints. Evolution had billions of years to figure this out - we have had less than 80 of serious computing.
Definately, I didn't mean to imply that computer code was in any way more sophisticated. In fact I got pretty muddled in trying to get my point accross in the post above. I shouldn't have been talking about differences between computer code and DNA, but rather the human body as a whole and computers as a whole. Computers have no way of writing themselves (by computer I mean the physical hardware). The physical parts of computers don't have intrinisic properties that would naturally lead to them creating computer code.
When I said that the DNA code was more dynamic, what I should have said was that the physical structure of DNA is more dynamic than the physical structure of the computer. I guess I talked myself into creating a fundamental difference between the computer code and the DNA code, when what I really meant was that there is a fundamental difference between the human body and computers. Sorry for the confusion :S hehe.
I normally don't post on things that i'm not very sure about, but I guess this is a good learning experience

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 5:01 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 11-30-2004 10:11 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 224 of 254 (164094)
11-30-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by contracycle
11-30-2004 5:11 AM


Re: Computer Code/Genetic Code Similarities
contracylce writes:
Data corruption can produce functional bugs by in a similar way.
I think the key word here is "functional". What is the difference between functional computer code and non-functional computer code? That is something that we have to define ourselves. With living things self-replication is an objective "function", but with computers and computer programs the function is directly related to our intentions. Obviously, because we have "inentions" for computer code, that doesn't mean all code has to have a being with intentions creating it.
This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-30-2004 09:40 AM
This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-30-2004 09:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 5:11 AM contracycle has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 227 of 254 (164106)
11-30-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
11-30-2004 10:11 AM


Re: Computer Code/Genetic Code Similarities
Percy writes:
I think you and Contra may be considering the analogy differently. It all depends on how you draw the analogy. You're drawing an analog between computer hardware and the human body, while I think Contra would draw it between computer hardware and natural physical laws, or perhaps the environment.
I think you're probably right. I certainly don't think that Contra and myself are of differing opinions of the bigger subject (ie that there isn't something special about DNA that means it can't be natural).
I myself was thinking of DNA as being analogous to the storage device in the computer (i'll assume it's a magnetic strip). The order of bases in the DNA would then be analougous to the electronic state of the magnetic strip. This would tie in with computer code being the state or movement of electrons inside the computer, in the same way that the DNA code is the particular arrangement of the bases.
I did actually consider the possibility that the physical computer was intended to be the physical laws, or maybe the universe so as to include the laws and the environment. I stopped short of stating that though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 11-30-2004 10:11 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024