Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

The Algorithmic Origins of Life

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 8:13

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803

On a computer, self-replicating automata (i.e. self-replicating software programs) execute replication by creating a new copy of their software program and storing the newly generated data in an already established and immutable hardware. In biology, information is copied and algorithmic instructions executed as mutable hardware is manipulated, created, and destroyed through biochemical interactions. In essence, bio-logical systems are unique because the information manipulates the matter it is instantiated in. In biology, there is no real distinction between hardware and software or between program and data; the program is the data and the data is the program.

Lisp, with its homoiconicity, once again confirmed for being ahead of its time.

This leads to a very different causal narrative then that observed in nonliving systems: life is characterized by a situation where almost all causal factors are context-dependent. The efficacy of information therefore permits multidirectional causality with causal influences running both up and down the hierarchy of structure of biological systems (e.g. both from state to dynamics and dynamics to state).

I wonder if this idea might provide future direction in coming up with a language feature that is better able to manage complexity in software systems.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 11:14

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 13:05

>>2
epic le reaction image /b/ro

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 13:32

>>1
Welcome to cybernetics

Name: Le Culver 2012-10-07 13:38

le javascript XD

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 13:43

>>2,3
/polecat kebabs/

Name: GEM 2012-10-07 13:48

I read only a few pages from that article, but an idea keeps following me: the problem of any RANDom algorithm in software programs - which is - any algorithm available today is predictable!

A software programs simply can not generate a unpredictable number from 1 to 10. Any human can do that. I believe even a rat or a plant can do that (randomly chose something) with the SEED being that unknown life force that drive us all and make life so impossible to emulate by software...

Sometimes i think even an cosmic particle coming from a star and reaching our brain is able to to change something in the SEED of our random decisions. Machines are made that way any random behavior is considered a BUG. And this kind of BUG is nothing else but the evolution of life.

You can simply can not take into account every particle in the universe influencing life, life decisions and life evolution...

As a conclusion i believe any theory that does not count the random aspect of life and evolution will fail to explain life.

Name: GEM 2012-10-07 13:51

Or to explain life you must input into the software, as data, every external factor including every particle coming from the stars since life evolution begun...

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 14:11

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:09

>>7
any algorithm available today is predictable!
Nope.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:15

>>7
any algorithm available today is predictable!
Start with a number n.  If n is even, then divide it by two; otherwise, multiply it by three and add one.  Does this sequence eventually reach 1 for every integer n?

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:27

>>11
Shalom!

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:34

>>11
No, not for negative integers.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:36

>>12
Eat shit and die, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:39

>>14
Shalom, Birenbaum!

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 15:42

>>12,15
Peace, my fellow Jews.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-07 18:09

Artificial intelligence should emerge automatically from a sufficiently large system.
The link between single neurons and autonomous behaviour is not some strange voodoo like neurobiologists and biopsychologists would like to believe. It's just that there's a fuckton of neurons. No more, no less!
PROVE ME WRONG

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 10:33

Start with a number n. :)

How do you peak a random n with a computer? You will probably use some PSEUDO random seeds like the current time...

And the article before is talking about simulate life ... based on current millisecond the program run?? :D

As stated before any random computer algorithm is predictable. You are just not taking in account that there is no completely unpredictable (as in human brain) method to peek up a seed. If you know the seed you know the result.

There are of course hardware random generators - made especially to address this problem and based on some really unpredictable  external factors like temperature, power variations, but we are talking about algorithms here not about hardware solutions. I also don't think a life simulator can be based on power variations. Think outside the box.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 10:39

"Artificial intelligence should emerge automatically from a sufficiently large system."

Interesting idea. I will only and that it is necessary for an unpredictable system failure for a super large computer to become unpredictable and evolve to the state of life.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 11:52

>>18
:)
fuck off fagshit

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 12:55

>>1
In biology, there is no real distinction between hardware and software or between program and data; the program is the data and the data is the program.
You know, they made a surprising discovery quite recently, that every living organism contains a sort of long organic molecule, either ribonucleic or deoxyribonucleic acid, that encodes the construction of the organism. The organism thus could be likened to the compiled program including the compiler itself, while these acid molecules correspond to the source code.

Surprisingly, the distinction on "compiled" and "source" code persists and remains pretty clear in every known biological system; even more surprisingly the entire arrangement seems to be done in the same fashion as so-called quines are, with replicators containing two versions of its code, the source and the executable.

While I'm not on the other hand surprised that a person who is fond of a 50s programming language might actually be a bit old-fashioned, but if one wants to talk about biology, they should try to read themselves at least superficially up to date with the modern state of the art.

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 13:19

>>19
you forgot 'sufficiently stable'

Name: Anonymous 2012-10-08 13:19


Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List