Why do we need to know?

Sorry to just pop in from time to time - I do keep up on the thread.

Do you think there might be one loose cog in the A.I. issue.

Theories of A.I. start from the outset with a limit placed on the organism which does not exist in life: the irreducible binary unit. As far as we can observe, life is the infinite divisibility of operations into sub-operations that goes way past the DNA level.

What transport system causes the DNA in a cell to form chromosomes before mitosis? What moves it into areas where RNA copies are made? It is certainly not other DNA, or other proteins; it is not identifiable with any molecule. Biologist speak of DNA as if it were a process. Does a foreman's blueprints cause buildings to sprout up out of the ground? To isolate DNA from the metabolic process (as yet unknown at that level) is the same as isolating the idea of "lungs" from "respiration."

I can't see life emerging from binary machine code and the silicon that conveys it. The reason is that the binary system is automatic death in an organism. In MM, scale is infinite; we cannot expect to reach a "smallest unit of matter."

A.I. was an intriguing movie.

Jimiproton, DNA may not be binary, but it is most certainly digital, relying on a base-4 code. There is a direct one-to-one correspondence between base-2 and base-4 arithmetic. So any DNA code can be expressed in binary form. The base-4 system has no advantage that cannot be emulated by a computer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does a foreman's blueprints cause buildings to sprout up out of the ground?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The DNA blueprint is, in fact, self executing. The DNA is bathed in a sea of raw materials which it converts into proteins. The sequence for producing the right proteins at the right time and connecting them to form the right structure is all written in the DNA code. The finished product provides the internal environment, rich with raw materials, to keep the process going. There is no good reason to suppose that anything is required other than DNA and raw materials—except for the complex interrelationships among the various symbiotic partners within each cell.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As far as we can observe, life is the infinite divisibility of operations into sub-operations that goes way past the DNA level.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The brain is less well understood than DNA, relying on complex neuron connections. I am not certain if that isn’t at least partly analog. There may be unobservable goings on in our cells that are unrelated to DNA and neurons; but I doubt if they are relevant to who we are and what we think. Even analog systems have limited sensitivity, repeatability, accuracy, etc. Anything they can do, a digital system can probably do better.

One unresolved question in religious philosophy is whether the mind (AKA “soul”) is contained in the brain, the nervous system or even in the entire body. Those who deny the spiritual realm, life after death, etc., generally agree that the mind is the sum total of neuronal connections in the body. Scientologists insist that the mind occupies the same space as the physical counterparts of its own virtual reality—as big as the individual’s universe—and does not vanish upon death of the body. Hubbard, who founded Scientology, was convinced that no computer, including the human brain, could ever match the complexity of the human mind. The continued exponential advances in computers have shaken my faith in that particular bit of dogma.
[Edited the morning after. Maybe I should let my posts "cure" in my brain for 24 hours before I click "Post Changes"---especially when I'm writing at 2 in the morning. That would prevent some of my more adversarial ideas from being made public; it would, however, tend to take some life out of the discussion. I don't like to sweep my mistakes under the rug, so instead of deleting the offending comment, this time, I'll just make it nearly the same color as the background, for the benefit of anyone wondering what all the fuss was about.]

<font color="blue"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In MM, scale is infinite; we cannot expect to reach a "smallest unit of matter."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM? What’s that? Oh, yea! That’s what this forum is supposed to be about. I wonder how that crept into this thread. Anyway, though I prefer MM to BB and the “standard model”, etc., I do not accept MM theories as proven facts. Whether scale is infinite is one of those unknowable things; we can only know that we have yet to find a limit to scale. I don't think we're required to accept a "creed of faith" in MM principles, here.</font id="blue">

[PhilJ] "I do not accept MM theories as proven facts."

They are not.

[PhilJ] "I don't think we're required to accept a "creed of faith" in MM principles, here."

We are not. Understanding is required (unless you enjoy looking foolish). Agreement is optional.

Regards,
LB

PhilJ, The purpose of this messageboard is two-fold:
1. It is a forum for the discussion of the Meta-Model. Understanding the constraints of the meta-model does not require you to agree with them.
2. A forum for the discussion of meta science.

To fulfill the 1st purpose, perusal of the texts, Dark Matter, Pushing Gravity, etc. are a great starting place for understanding TVF model.

To fulfill the 2nd an open mind and antiadversarial attitude is helpful. Nobody will ever tell you that you have to believe in anything. Hopefully members will win your support through well-constructed replies.

Never raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.

Mark

In addition to the purpose mentioed by Mark, we also tolerate the discussion of other theories here. (Gold is where you find it, after all. Although we have found none so far, you never know when that will change.)

But if someone presents a "fact" in such a post that is in error we do not guarantee to point it out. Frequently I just chuckle and move on. Especially for repeat offenders.

And realistically I guess we can't catch every mistake posted relative to our pet theories, but we do try.

===

Caveat emptor is in order when considering any post about a brand X theory.

Regards,
LB

Please forgive my rudeness, guys. The offending remarks have been changed to blue---not quite the same blue as the background, but close enough to give the impression that I have eaten my own words.