Maybe we should ask Slashdot :p
Printable View
Maybe we should ask Slashdot :p
To consider this is a natural consequence of the scientific models in which you view the world. As a machine. But life isn't a machine.
My life, to me, is not abstract at all.
Because it's like saying green is the same thing as tomorrow. They're completely different.
How? If I were an environmentalist and I said "Tomorrow is green!" that would make sense. So "tomorrow" and "green" are not (necessarily) completely different.
It seems to me "Life is a machine!" is a similar kind of statement. The fact that machine (or green) may be metaphorical (or whatever) does not change the fact that "green" and "machine" can be used "metaphorically"(??) to make sense in this way.
To say "life is DEFINITELY not a machine" you would have to pick and chose your own reductive meaning for the word machine. After all, there is no end of sci-fi stuff like "The Matrix" in which life is (literally) a machine. Not to say that is true, but methinks that there is nothing about modern science which demonstrates that is not true, or that it is impossible.
If you are religious, of course, it is easy enough to say "NO" at this point. But IMO believing in God is no more or less wacky than believing we are elements in a giant alien super-computer. Which may or may not be green ;)
Hmm. Well, you're arguing minor semantics of word definitions, which I am not.
If you think that the phrase "Tomorrow is green!" means that "tomorrow" and "green" mean the same thing, you don't know what the word "is" means.
Seriously.
There is a species of flatworm found off the great barrier reef that can be taught to find its way through a maze using food to train it, the amazing thing is it was found that if one of these learned worms was then fed to its untrained companion then the surviving worm would immediately know his way around the maze also.Quote:
I'm not sure exactly where, but I remember in the past learning about such terms as "cell memory"
Reported in 'Life on Earth' an early David Attenborough series.
A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols contained on a strip of tape.
Life (as we know it) is a system that manipulates symbols contained on a strand of nucleic acid.
Aside from the technology used to implement each, I fail to see any significant difference.
You're saying that a part of your body seems to resemble a Turing machine in some way, therefore all life is a Turing machine? Even disregarding the fact that you completely miss what "life" is, that's a pretty weak argument, even just considering the physical mechanical view of it. I might as well say life is a ball, because eyeballs and other parts resemble balls.