Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 00:08 (4549 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > " Therefore, a living thing must be at least as complicated as the simplest computer."
> > 
> > The simplest computer--no joke--is a light switch. This also means that the orbit of a planet could be considered a "computation" and fire is also a computer.
> > 
> 
> IMHO A light switch is not a computer. It is a circuit, but it does not compute anything. It can not accept an input, and produce a variable output without the outside interference of a higher form of logic(i.e. someone playing with the dimmer switch). Arguments might be made that based on varying degrees of power input the bulb produces varying quantities of light, but to my mind that does not constitute a calculation. Fire is also not a computer in that it is not performing any form of information management. The idea that life has to be at least as complex as the simplest computer is because life has to take input from its environment and formulate a valid response to that input, contain a programmatic set of instructions that can be carried out in real time repeatedly, and the ability to transmit instructions to its offspring. 
> -This is where our difference in training is a chasm. -A computer IS a circuit. So far, so good.-The simplest computer is 1 bit. It only computes two values, 0, or 1--(On or off.)-In the case of a light switch, if the input is "up" the value is "1" or "on." In the case of "0" the value is "0" or down.-You can argue what a "computer" is, but you'll be arguing with ME--a computer scientist. What I just described is the de facto standard for the simplest computer possible. Pre Von Neumann a "computation" was some poor fellow plugging pegs into holes, or moving beads on an abacus. What the input and output are--is irrelevant. It requires a mind to interpret why the input makes sense in regards to the output. This isn't the same in chemistry or biology at all.-Because we found a way to shift electricity around on silicon doesn't mean we gain some "magical" ability. A computer is a light switch, and little else. Don't mistake the forest for the trees--movie special effects are "on and off" interpreted in a way that makes sense to US. -
> > This section has one "imperative."
> > 
> > "6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture"
> > 
> > This is where I start to see an unnecessary bias towards cellullar life... 
> > 
> 
> > What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> > 
> 
> Yes, there is a bias against Virii because Virii are not 'alive'. The do not do anything at all in the absence of living organisms aside from simply existing. They do not consume, reproduce, die, or ANY of the other biological functions unless, and only unless, they have been introduced into an existing living biological structure.
> -Virii consume energy by virtue of what their reprogramming does. They reproduce by coopting the machinery of something else. They don't NEED to do anything else, because their hosts do that for them. There is no consensus on virii for exactly these reasons.-> > Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.
> 
> Evolve or Devolve?-Evolution has never been an accretion-only process. It means travel in any direction of survival. (There is no goal, save survival.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"