Logic and Reason

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh! Kindly please elaborate whenever is possible regarding your notion "computers do arise in nature without programming".

Living cells are capable of quite sophisticated computation. They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.

Also, "dependency of the computers on a human brain" means to me that the computers are designed and manufactured by human beings, however methinks you say something else that I fail to understand it;
I am not convinced that just because the only known manufacturers of computers at this time is humans that computers are universally dependent on humans. If aliens on some other planet have manufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency if flawed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Living cells are capable of quite sophisticated computation. They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.

[b]Also, "dependency of the computers on a human brain" means to me that the computers are designed and manufactured by human beings, however methinks you say something else that ...[text shortened]... nufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency if flawed.

But the living cells are simply collapsing the wavefunction their way and not our way, and during our efforts to decipher the way they do it we are using as an interface between us and them our own computational methods. A living cell does not use Maths in order to establish its reality -We are using Maths in order to understand how a living cell establishes its reality. This is the reason why Computational Biology takes amongst else as input sequences bound by the same factor and as an output some DNA motifs (motifs to Us!), and then applies several such algorithms simultaneously to improve coverage at the price of redundancy in order to characterize the DNA-binding specificities of transcription factors. This crucial motif comparison of ours takes merely into account the similarity in positional nucleotide distributions of the two motifs along with their dissimilarities to the backround distribution, and of course the process of the computational skills of a living cell is totally irrelevant with the Maths that we have invented although it can be expressed by mathematical terms. We are simply using Maths in order to decipher the specific way a living cell is collapsing the wavefunction, and this means that we cannot claim that the computational skills of a living cell are a product of our invention known as "Maths”, and that Maths as we perceive them are known to the living cell and they are used as we are using them.

Regarding the rest of your post, obviously the computers (machines constructed by other sentient beings) would also lack of inherent existence because they would be products of the mind of other sentient beings.
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully understand what you are talking about and have already tried to take steps to avoid confusion.


[b]what carpet are you referring to? not the persian, "on the floor" type? what abstract carpet can you think of?
Yes the Persian "on the floor" type. And yes, until we specify which Persian "on the floor" type, it remains abstract.

the w ...[text shortened]... t words are tools to name objects. Do you agree that a lot more than objects can be named?

Yes the Persian "on the floor" type. And yes, until we specify which Persian "on the floor" type, it remains abstract.
see what happened there? until you specified what you mean by carpet i had no idea what you where talking about. that is a different abstract than the "love" abstract. that is why i won't believe that words are "abstract": you simply call them so because without the concept they are simply strings of letters: meaningless. while love is abstract but does have meaning.


Oh? You seem to have got quite a lot of meaning from it even though it is not very specific. I notice that none of the meanings you specify are existent objects, yet you claimed that words are tools to name objects. Do you agree that a lot more than objects can be named?
by object i mean concept, meaning. yes, anything can be named.
i do have a lot of meaning from "angel" because you didn't use it in a context. if you did i might have gotten an entirely new meaning that i wouldn't even knew before. it requires human intervention to collapse "angel" to a particular meaning. for that matter i could collapse "gsadgarwtaf" to mean the mixture of 2 parts vodka and 1.5 parts battery acid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Living cells are capable of quite sophisticated computation. They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.

[b]Also, "dependency of the computers on a human brain" means to me that the computers are designed and manufactured by human beings, however methinks you say something else that ...[text shortened]... nufactured computers then the dependency is broken. To claim a universal dependency if flawed.

===================================
They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.
======================================

[/b] That's your "faith" speaking.

Originally posted by black beetle
But the living cells are simply collapsing the wavefunction their way and not our way, and during our efforts to decipher the way they do it we are using as an interface between us and them our own computational methods.

Can we not legitimately call a double helix of DNA molecules a computer?

What is the difference between a computer and a double helix of DNA molecules?

I see that DNA is being combined with computers for greater problem-solving efficacy. One goal is to make nanocomputers that operate at cellular level.

(I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the nature of logic, but it's interesting).

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
They have programs (DNA and RNA amongst others) which were not designed by humans or any designer for that matter.
======================================

[/b] That's your "faith" speaking.[/b]

Yes! Οf course this is twhiteheads' faith speaking; methinks that twhitehead is stranded following his false "just is" belief and so he ends up at the same (false) crossroad along with you. Then, at that point, you take the direction according to which the living cell has "programs" designed by the intelligent supernatural entity known as “god”, whilst twhitehead claims that these "programs" arose according to the theory of the evolution
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
But the living cells are simply collapsing the wavefunction their way and not our way, and during our efforts to decipher the way they do it we are using as an interface between us and them our own computational methods. A living cell does not use Maths in order to establish its reality -We are using Maths in order to understand how a living cell establishes its reality.

Nonsense. Neither I nor the cell is trying to establish reality. The cell is programmed and does computations. It is an example of a computer that is not dependent on your mind.

We are simply using Maths in order to decipher the specific way a living cell is collapsing the wavefunction, and this means that we cannot claim that the computational skills of a living cell are a product of our invention known as "Maths”, and that Maths as we perceive them are known to the living cell and they are used as we are using them.
So it seems that you agree that computers exist that are not dependent on humans.

Regarding the rest of your post, obviously the computers (machines constructed by other sentient beings) would also lack of inherent existence because they would be products of the mind of other sentient beings.
😵
Not so. You are clutching at straws because you know you are wrong. You have not shown any dependency whatsoever, all you have given is examples. Your claim is no less ridiculous than the ID argument ie it looks complicated so someone must have made it. There is no law that states that a computer must have a sentient maker.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
see what happened there? until you specified what you mean by carpet i had no idea what you where talking about.

For someone who had no idea, you made a surprisingly improbable guess that I was talking about Persian on the floor type carpets. Which hat did you pull that out of? Whats the probability that you and I were thinking the same thing yet you had no idea what I was thinking?

that is a different abstract than the "love" abstract. that is why i won't believe that words are "abstract": you simply call them so because without the concept they are simply strings of letters: meaningless. while love is abstract but does have meaning.
You still haven't understood what I mean by 'abstract'. Everyone here except me seems to think that something is not abstract unless it has no meaning. What use would that be? I seem to have missed your post about 'love' abstract. What was it again?

[b]by object i mean concept, meaning. yes, anything can be named.
i do have a lot of meaning from "angel" because you didn't use it in a context. if you did i might have gotten an entirely new meaning that i wouldn't even knew before. it requires human intervention to collapse "angel" to a particular meaning. for that matter i could collapse "gsadgarwtaf" to mean the mixture of 2 parts vodka and 1.5 parts battery acid.
And your point is?
You seem to agree with me that both the word 'angel' and concept 'angel' are abstract - you just don't use the word abstract because you define it differently from me. I have given my definition, now give me yours.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can we not legitimately call a double helix of DNA molecules a computer?

What is the difference between a computer and a double helix of DNA molecules?

I see that DNA is being combined with computers for greater problem-solving efficacy. One goal is to make nanocomputers that operate at cellular level.

(I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the nature of logic, but it's interesting).

I think we cannot, because when the mechanical stability of an overstretched individual double stranded DNA was under investigation, the finds were irrelevant to the Maths and relevant to the conformational transition that was triggered after specific force-loading-rate dependence and a given hysteresis. This is the reason why the DNA double helix is considerably destabilized under low salt buffer conditions whilst the high ionic strength buffers stabilize the double-helical conformation. Methinks that all in all the entity tries to survive, and all we are doing is that we try to attribute to this struggle a mathematical model in order to understand how it does it. We could claim as well that, due to the fact that we can describe with the sharpest details with pure mathematics the whole sequence of the moves of a cheetah that runs after its pray, a cheetah runs after its pray the way it runs because it ‘s a "computer" and/ or specialist in Maths
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
For someone who had no idea, you made a surprisingly improbable guess that I was talking about Persian on the floor type carpets. Which hat did you pull that out of? Whats the probability that you and I were thinking the same thing yet you had no idea what I was thinking?

[b]that is a different abstract than the "love" abstract. that is why i won't bel ...[text shortened]... ne it differently from me. I have given my definition, now give me yours.

You still haven't understood what I mean by 'abstract'. Everyone here except me seems to think that something is not abstract unless it has no meaning. What use would that be? I seem to have missed your post about 'love' abstract. What was it again?

time out and let's start again. i thought that was what you are saying. seems we fell into a bit of lack of communication. i mentioned that you cannot call something without meaning abstract just because of that, it has no meaning, it is useless. that is what i used the love argument for: to show what i understand by abstract.

"You seem to agree with me that both the word 'angel' and concept 'angel' are abstract - you just don't use the word abstract because you define it differently from me. I have given my definition, now give me yours"
i do agree that the concept angel is abstract. the word is not. the word is simply the label you apply to the concept. the concept carpet however is not abstract. it represents a carpet. something you can have. something you don't need to describe using other concepts. something you just point and say "this is a carpet". a person named angel is not abstract. "this is angel, he likes kung fu movies and pizza"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nonsense. Neither I nor the cell is trying to establish reality. The cell is programmed and does computations. It is an example of a computer that is not dependent on your mind.

[b]We are simply using Maths in order to decipher the specific way a living cell is collapsing the wavefunction, and this means that we cannot claim that the computational ski ...[text shortened]... one must have made it. There is no law that states that a computer must have a sentient maker.

Well, I think the living cell does not proceed according to any given "program". The observer living cell just lives by means of following a specific process that creates and ensures its reality (its life, its existence) within the physical world. This specific process is totally alien to any mathematical product of ours although we are capable to describe it using our invention/ language/ Maths. So it seems to me that we human beings merely decided to use the term "programs" in order to communicate to each other accurately which way a living cell conducts the specific process that enables it to survive -however the living cell has not the slightest clue about "Maths" and “programs” the way we have and therefore it follows neither "programs" nor "Maths" in order to live; it just lives according to its nature.

Therefore I think we do not have to assume that the nature of the living cell is “pure Maths” due to its miscellaneous process properties that are required for its existence and which are recognized by us as “computational abilities” and are named “DNA programs, RNA programs” etc for our convenience. In my opinion it’s obvious that our nature enables us to understand the nature of the living cell by means of using merely the triangle “Maths - Living Cell - Human Mind” and establishing an accurate link between these three aspects -but this means not that the living cell survives thanks to its “mathematical virtue”.

Furthermore, if we had to assume that the case is as you think it is, we would be forced to assume also that the Maths can cover in full the current framework of the physical life of the living cell and that they are able to cover and to explain all the reality that the living cell perceives. But this would be merely metaphysics since a genuine mutual understanding of the interwoven reality of the observers Human and living cell is out of order, whilst on the other hand the reproducibility of the experiments is questioned as known thanks to the quantum mechanics.

So for starters I would ask you to prove that the nature of the living cell is not to survive but to apply accurate mathematic computation the way a Human understands it😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nonsense. Neither I nor the cell is trying to establish reality. The cell is programmed and does computations. It is an example of a computer that is not dependent on your mind.

[b]We are simply using Maths in order to decipher the specific way a living cell is collapsing the wavefunction, and this means that we cannot claim that the computational ski ...[text shortened]... one must have made it. There is no law that states that a computer must have a sentient maker.

edit: "So it seems that you agree that computers exist that are not dependent on humans."

No. I disagree that computers exist the way you pose it. You can name a cell "computer", but I will keep up naming it "cell". "Computer" I call my PC etc.
Should I also call myself and every other sentient being "computers" because it survives thanks to its very nature?
It would be good if you could define "computer" the way you understand it;
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nonsense. Neither I nor the cell is trying to establish reality. The cell is programmed and does computations. It is an example of a computer that is not dependent on your mind.

[b]We are simply using Maths in order to decipher the specific way a living cell is collapsing the wavefunction, and this means that we cannot claim that the computational ski ...[text shortened]... one must have made it. There is no law that states that a computer must have a sentient maker.

edit: "Not so. You are clutching at straws because you know you are wrong. You have not shown any dependency whatsoever, all you have given is examples. Your claim is no less ridiculous than the ID argument ie it looks complicated so someone must have made it. There is no law that states that a computer must have a sentient maker."

A computer is a man-made device and it exists solely because it is a product of the human mind, therefore its existence is dependant upon the Human. Methinks you attribute to the word "computer" a meaning that I fail to understand😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do agree that the concept angel is abstract. the word is not. the word is simply the label you apply to the concept. the concept carpet however is not abstract. it represents a carpet. something you can have. something you don't need to describe using other concepts. something you just point and say "this is a carpet". a person named angel is not abstract. "this is angel, he likes kung fu movies and pizza"

I still don't understand you. How is 'angel' different from 'carpet'? For me, the concept 'carpet' is abstract because until I specify which carpet I am talking about the overall concept that is shared by all carpets. That concept itself is abstract.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't understand you. How is 'angel' different from 'carpet'? For me, the concept 'carpet' is abstract because until I specify which carpet I am talking about the overall concept that is shared by all carpets. That concept itself is abstract.

aha i think i am starting to get you. you are talking about object oriented programing where a class of objects is abstract and the concrete example is the object instance.
this is useful in programming because you deal with problem abstractisation. in lingvistics i don't see the use. why must you view carpet as abstract and only when you mention "Jennifer's carpet from her living room in her house in Paris" do you have a concrete carpet? what level of abstract is "love" concept and "carpet" concept? because they cannot be the same.

if you say "i like a pink carpet" do you believe you are talking about something concrete or something abstract?