Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#11

Post by joshuaeckroth »

bootload wrote: post #7
001sky wrote: post #2

Technology Review: What's the problem you have most wanted to solve and haven't been able to? Whitesides: There's an intellectual problem, which is the origin of life. The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, which I just don't understand. I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactio…

"... The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactions that are getting more complicated spontaneously. ..." Interesting. Turing had a go at this in his last paper, "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis," [0] ~ http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/c…

There is a recent keynote[1] by Christos H. Papadimitriou about Turing and Darwin, and Turing's paper that you mentioned. The talk also ends with a very emotional account of the speaker's connection with Turing.

[1]: http://videolectures.net/aaai2012_papadimitriou_computable_n...

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#12

Post by 001sky »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #6
001sky wrote: post #2

Technology Review: What's the problem you have most wanted to solve and haven't been able to? Whitesides: There's an intellectual problem, which is the origin of life. The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, which I just don't understand. I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactio…

No, it's an intellectually honest view of abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution at all.

To logically [bracket] this counter-argument is rather simple. But (1) this is trivial; and (2) re-read the sub-heading: the problem of solving problems. What makes this interesting and intellectually honest is the lack of reference to theory when defining the problem. Viz:

I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem.

There is no doubt. No-one is debating if he is a scientist. He doesn't [bracket] the problem [for science]. In other words, "It's an intellectually honest view of Science". Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all know that just because something is falsifiable, does not mean it is false.

Edits: Tone

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#13

Post by 001sky »

demallien wrote: post #8
001sky wrote: post #2

Technology Review: What's the problem you have most wanted to solve and haven't been able to? Whitesides: There's an intellectual problem, which is the origin of life. The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, which I just don't understand. I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactio…

Rare? I can't think of a single prominent speaker / writer about evolution that hasn't made this point. Of course, they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution - evolution talks about what happens once you have that first reproducing cell. Of interest, there is on-going research into just how good reproduction has to be before evolution can bootstrap. If you have a process that successfully reproduces 5…

they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution

--What's rare, is that he is not making this point.

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#14

Post by 001sky »

bootload wrote: post #7
001sky wrote: post #2

Technology Review: What's the problem you have most wanted to solve and haven't been able to? Whitesides: There's an intellectual problem, which is the origin of life. The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, which I just don't understand. I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactio…

"... The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactions that are getting more complicated spontaneously. ..." Interesting. Turing had a go at this in his last paper, "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis," [0] ~ http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/c…

What's interesting about "Morphogenesis" is that a sub-set of matter transitions from existing [qua existing] to existing under a purposeful[1] structure [ie, existing for a purpose]. This is a notable change. It's even more interesting, in the context of evolution, because these structures are not just propogating, but doing so in a very unique way (ie, one that has an informational feedback loop). If the purpose of the structure is merely to propogate, why a feedback loop? why not perfect replication? Why does one need variation for replication? Why does something need to propogate in a better way than simple replication? Etc. And thus the interplay between the origins of and the evolution of such structures is framed as a relevant problem for Science.[2]

[1] Or, 'Functional' as an alternative formulation. [2] As in, problem to solve. Not a counterargument against.

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#15

Post by dmm »

001sky wrote: post #12
CamperBob2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an intellectually honest view of abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution at all.

To logically [bracket] this counter-argument is rather simple. But (1) this is trivial; and (2) re-read the sub-heading: the problem of solving problems. What makes this interesting and intellectually honest is the lack of reference to theory when defining the problem . Viz: I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem. There is no doubt. No-one is debating if he is a scientist. He doesn't […

Evolution is an independent process from the origin of life. The origin of life could be Jesus or aliens and that would not affect the validity of evolution.

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#16

Post by 001sky »

dmm wrote: post #15
001sky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To logically [bracket] this counter-argument is rather simple. But (1) this is trivial; and (2) re-read the sub-heading: the problem of solving problems. What makes this interesting and intellectually honest is the lack of reference to theory when defining the problem . Viz: I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem. There is no doubt. No-one is debating if he is a scientist. He doesn't […

Evolution is an independent process from the origin of life. The origin of life could be Jesus or aliens and that would not affect the validity of evolution.

This is an interesting thesis, but not self evidently true.

This is your logic:

A is independent of B.

B could be anything.

A is independent of B.

_______

But...

B could be a Set such that A is a subset of B.

A and B could also be terms in a Set Z, which includes A & B

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#17

Post by CamperBob2 »

001sky wrote: post #13
demallien wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rare? I can't think of a single prominent speaker / writer about evolution that hasn't made this point. Of course, they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution - evolution talks about what happens once you have that first reproducing cell. Of interest, there is on-going research into just how good reproduction has to be before evolution can bootstrap. If you have a process that successfully reproduces 5…

they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution --What's rare, is that he is not making this point.

And chemists rarely go out of their way to explain that their papers are outside the scope of biology. So?

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#18

Post by 001sky »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #17
001sky wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution --What's rare, is that he is not making this point.

And chemists rarely go out of their way to explain that their papers are outside the scope of biology. So?

Nonsensical formulation. Tell me again how chemistry and biology are non-intersecting? DNA? Wait, what? You need to drop [bracket] sub-segments of science, they are boring and arbitrarty. Just use [science]. You'd tell the interviewee he not a [scientist]? Are you arguing he needs to go outside of scinence to answer his question? That would be a pretty anti-science perspective.

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#19

Post by CamperBob2 »

001sky wrote: post #18
CamperBob2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And chemists rarely go out of their way to explain that their papers are outside the scope of biology. So?

Nonsensical formulation. Tell me again how chemistry and biology are non-intersecting? DNA? Wait, what? You need to drop [bracket] sub-segments of science, they are boring and arbitrarty. Just use [science]. You'd tell the interviewee he not a [scientist]? Are you arguing he needs to go outside of scinence to answer his question? That would be a pretty anti-science perspective.

You sound like one of those fellows who exhibits a lot of healthy skepticism 6 days a week, while leaving it at home on the 7th. Why don't you drop the facade and argue your actual point?

Re: Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

#20

Post by 001sky »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #19
001sky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsensical formulation. Tell me again how chemistry and biology are non-intersecting? DNA? Wait, what? You need to drop [bracket] sub-segments of science, they are boring and arbitrarty. Just use [science]. You'd tell the interviewee he not a [scientist]? Are you arguing he needs to go outside of scinence to answer his question? That would be a pretty anti-science perspective.

You sound like one of those fellows who exhibits a lot of healthy skepticism 6 days a week, while leaving it at home on the 7th. Why don't you drop the facade and argue your actual point?

001Sky is a Riddle, shrouded in mystery, wrapped inside an Enigma. Thank you very much.

That is a lovely compliment. Trying to understand the rest of what you've written though? Is nearly impossible.

It's like you've run out of logic (fail). Now you're only left with Ad hominem in-articulare?

The actual point was made in the original post.

Post reply on HN