Bruno:

 

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled
by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there 

are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing
or controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome 

is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.

 

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between
classes of molecules - ATP generation for one is rather well understood 

these days.

 

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to
context issues.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

 

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:







On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 

 

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form -
i.e. DNA).

It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes
anything readable to anything?

 

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and
multiplication, ...

 






Sense is irreducible. 

 

>From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.

 





No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the
power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense
within itself as causally efficacious motive.

 

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there,
but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be
frank.

 

Bruno

 

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to