Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

BTW, what did you make of my analysis of somatic cell operation so far? Right, wrong or?

I thought the comparisons between it’s error detection mechanisms and those used in computers were shockingly similar. I mean they even used the same terms in places, like “single bit errors” etc. I wish you knew the computer side of the question as well. I don’t think anyone who knows both could miss the comparison.

Actually, it's my point. Life does not break the laws of physics.

I don't buy your "software defined life forms". There are more accurate metaphors for DNA than software, e.g "a recipe book for proteins".

This is, scientifically stated, bullshit. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what entropy means. There is no reputable Physicist, or even a person who has taken a Thermodynamics class (except for people on the internet who twist science into religious dogma) who says biological life "reverses entropy".

Entropy relates to the transfer of heat from a reservoir to a system, and it says that any loss of entropy in a system always mean a corresponding increase of entropy external to the system.

The reservoir in this case is the Sun, with a temperature of about 9,000 Kelvin. Yes, the heat driving almost all biological life on Earth comes from the Sun. Do you want to show me the math?

Or, alternatively, show me a single reputable Physicist who agrees with you (who doesn't have a religious dogma to prove).

In science there are right answers, and wrong answers. You are unequivocally, factually, and clearly wrong. Anyone who has taken a Thermodynamics course (including some high school students) can see that.

God I hate repeating myself. I didn’t say they did.


Right, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if we agreed, but do you have anything to back up your argument?

Once again you supply a perfect comparison. Proteins are functional blocks of amino acids that perform a specific function. A software system can be described as 'a receipt book of subroutines'. The subroutines are functional blocks of code that perform a specific function. Your metaphor is perfect, but it supports my argument.

If Max were not philosophically opposed to my position he would tell you this himself. I know that he knows I’m telling the truth about this comparison, at least on the software side.

Maybe I misunderstood you. What does "reversing entropy" mean?

If you accept the scientific fact that all biological processes, including transcription in the small sense, and evolution in the grand scale are fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics... then we are OK.

You brought up the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I simply asking that you get it right. Evolution does not, in any way, violate this scientific principle. If you weren't suggesting that it did, then I owe you an apology.

Now we can carry on.

A software "function" is nothing like a biological "function" any more than a computer net is like a fishing net.

You are getting confused by words that have different meanings. If you are going to make this argument, you are going to have to define what you mean by "function".

A software "function" is related to a mathematical function, in that it has inputs and often an output and that it can be applied in multiple different situations. The function of my hammer is to pound nails.... that doesn't fit at all.

First, let’s lay out the definitions of entropy.

en·tro·py
ˈentrəpē
noun

I have touched on the purely physics definition at times but mostly have been referring to the second definition where entropy refers to the natural order of things is to go from order to disorder. Life emerging from the dust of earth to a living organism is about as opposit to that definition of entropy as you can get. As the line I emphasized says, life struggles against entropy (and wins until it eventually loses to death). That in no way diminishes the extraordinary thing that life is. I guess it’s taken for granted because we grew up with it and we are it, so it doesn’t seem like anything special.

We haven’t gotten to the third definition but that would eventually come up if anyone were interested in moving past this side track.

If all you want me to admit is that unless something unpredictable happens, the entire universe will yield to definition 1. above, I concede the point. But what I’m addressing is the interesting thing (biological life) that happened in between the Big Bang and heat death of the universe.

It would, if the computer could chose the sequencing, ie which recipe to read first, which recipe to read second, etc. depending on its fancy, its environment and/or its needs.

What I am trying to get across is that the word 'software' implies something far more predictable, and far less versatile and messy than DNA. So by getting all glued to your fav metaphor, you actually are bent to short-sell and misunderstand DNA.

In other words, you could use your metaphor a bit more productively if you'd be willing to look at where DNA is NOT like computer software, where they differ, where the metaphor breaks down.

For instance, the red blood cells case, which illustrates that the DNA is not an operating system since some cells can operate without it.

Another example: if DNA was equivalent to computer software, and since almost every living organism on earth is diploid, this would mean that our 'body computers' are concurrently running two different versions of their software at all times. That'd be like running two different versions of WINDOWS on the same computer, just in case one version has too many bugs... Whereas if you use my metaphor, it becomes quite clear: most chefs and cooks use more than ONE recipe book; they would naturally try and compare different recipes, and perhaps make their own.

If you are not making the bogus claim that any part of biology (including evolution) breaks the Second Law of thermodynamics... then you can use whatever definition you want.

Although if you are talking about science, then you should use the scientific definition of entropy.

A false analogy since 'fishing net' is not analogous to a biological net. A computer 'net' is the collection of pathways that the various parts of the system communicate through. Biology does have an analogous system.

If you had said “A computer net (slang for network) is like the body's network of nerves” I would say ‘ Bravo!, another great comparison of computers and biology!


I assure you I’m not at all confused about 'function', either software or Bio.

A software function is a segment of code designed to do a specific function. In DNA, it is a segment of code (called a gene) designed to assemble a specific protein that does a specific function.

A software function might do anything from feed a sheet of paper on a printer, fire an ignition coil or perform a FFT on your speech sample, not necessarily just a math function. Protein functions are just as varied as software functions. They can be called with inputs to modify the output (called gene expression) just as software functions can. For example:

FireCoil (6,187);

Would call the function 'FireCoil' sending it which coil on the engine to fire (6) and how long to wait before firing it, (187 microseconds). Not trying to school you on this, you know this, just showing the similarities to those who know both fields.

I freely admit I don’t know details and syntax of a DNA call for a functional protein like I do for C++ Software but I know enough to know the analogy is valid.

Sure. The answer is clearly "No."

Comparisons between biology and computers are inherently flawed.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-chemistry/201804/brains-and-computers-poor-comparison

You are still being silly.

A wheel is designed to perform a specific function. A wheel is part of a covered wagon.

Therefore, according to your logic, a covered wagon is software.

This is why this is so frustrating to me. If you knew computers/software you would know -

That computers can and do choose the sequencing, which recipe to read first, which to read second, etc. depending on its environments and needs..

It does that under yet a higher level of software, just like it does in biology (epigenetics, etc.) . You were the one pointing out this hierarchical structure of DNA function and feedback earlier. It’s the same with computer software.

Software does not choose.

Software selects, based upon pre-determined criteria.

Maybe you haven’t followed the thread.

The comparison being made is between DNA and computer software, not between the brain and a computer which is what your linked article is about. That is a completely different subject.

I suggested staying at the cellular level to avoid this kind of confusion.

Depends on what you mean by 'choose'.
There are some here who say you, your brain or your body literally has no choice about anything. Of course the same could be said of non sentient biological systems. It is pre determined by its DNA. But let’s not go there.

Software certainly can make choices. At the lowest level it must choose between 1 or 0 with both input and output. If they could not make that choice, there would be no such thing as a digital computer.

All the parameters are not always predetermined. Computer software can react dynamically to changing and unpredictable parameters. just like biological systems. For example, The software systems sent on the Martian explorers had to be semi autonomous and react to unforeseeable things.

Carry on with your delusion, then.

Software does not make choices.

Software follows a pre-defined decision tree.

Feel free to be yet another in a long line of folks chasing their tail arguing whether there is such a thing as free will.

Your language is sloppy. It indicates either an incomplete grasp of the subject matter, or a deliberate attempt to twist the narrative.

Im in a diff location baby sitting a boat and Im stll att the point where youwere comparing DNa 'code of life" to computer algorithms. Since I accept my computereze ignorance as a failure in this discussion, I would also wish that we recognize the fact that "the code of life(At the chemical level) can do certain things that Algorithms cannot.
Evolutionary algorithms are indeed powerful today but they cant operate in the recombination arena.
Standards of the genetic code include like universal energy and a universal genetic code are about life's commonorigins, A machine ,(Like my smart refrigerator, has algorithms a running all the time but one thing its smart card cant do is turn the refrigerator into a toaster.

Like Andreas Wagner wrote"Bench vises of the industrial revolutio took two early machines a lever-handle and a screw. Earliest bicycles took three, the wheel, the lever, and the pulley all these combinatorial innovations took ingenuity"(read a designer)
My buds, the dear little proteins do a whole lotta things by theirselves, they catalyze, support cells, they transport (usually by having an amino acid like porphyrines)hndle things like calcium, sodium or 4 oxygens at a time in haemoglobin. They also do this by emerging through standard building blocks that are chemical wonders that do all this with a standardized chemica; connection, where nitrogen bonds with carbon from neighboring amino acids.
Nature glops all this together pretty much blindly and unknowingly into an (so far) almost unlimited number of genotypes from which lifes"pop-up toasters emerge".

So while were getting dmned close to creating a;gorithms that may (one day) mimic the code of life by standardized hook-ups and limited varieties of chemical species (like 20 amino acids), we are still pretty down far on the list.

I believe Dave Quammen mentioned it as a clip from someone else who marveled at the LEGO BLOCK as being on the right track with the exception that, whileLEGO blocks, using a standardized means of connection, can sorta emulate the various workings of the world, it can only make a model of it and it still requires some kid to push em around.

natures version of a travelling salesman problem is not to make the "perfect solution" but, by any solution that step by step leads to a working one. solution that, over many generations, selects the shrotest (not the best) route.
Natures examples of phenotypic variants are really good examples of "What the hell were they thinking of?"

Yes it does.
IF (button pushed) Then
(Answer Phone)
Else
(Wait for call)
Endif
If computers could not choose a course of action based on differing inputs, they would be useless.

+1 for me.


Yes it does. Just like the defined sequence of DNA genes in biology. (Note your use of the term 'decision' here. You must make a choice in order to make a decision.

+2 for me.


I agree, like I said, let’s dont go there.

Draw, score remains 0 for you, +2 for me.


Ad home attack without supporting arguments.

Final score this round:
-1 for you
+2 for me