21–30 of 39 posts
its a very poetic interpretation i think i would take it a step further, most organisms alive today operate at the level of a generative model for a generative model (continue umpteen times) until you arrive at the level of physiology that assembles nerves and organs to work at the scale they do and i would also comment on the impeccability of the feedback mechanisms across each layer, that every message eventually g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the analogy itself super interesting and thought-provoking, and might be quite useful in studying biological systems. The idea that we need to move away from understanding the genetic code as static machinery also aligns well with recent understanding of biology, as summarized in the highly appraised book "How Life Works" by Philip Ball [1] But in terms of evolution, I don't see how the proposed analogy/model…
No matter how low the probability of life arising by chance, from the perspective of life the probability that it happened is 100%, because if it didn't happen then we wouldn't be around to observe it. We're operating from a massive selection bias.
Very nice perspective. I used to joke about the missing comment lines in the genetic code: if "God" had been a good, conscientious programmer, he would have left a reasonable amount of comments in the code to make it maintainable for all the next developers - but it seems the task went over his head, and now we have to reverse-engineer all that chaos...
In studies of the "RNA world," a theoretical early stage in the origin of life where RNA molecules played a crucial role, researchers have observed that parasitism is a common phenomenon. This means that some molecules can exploit others for their own benefit, which could lead to the extinction of those being exploited unless certain protective measures are in place, such as separating the molecules into compartments or arranging them in specific patterns.
By thinking of RNA replication as a kind of active process, similar to a computer running a program, researchers can explore various strategies that RNA might use to adapt to challenges in its environment. The study uses computer models to investigate how parasitism emerges and how complexity develops in response.
Initially, the system starts with a designed RNA molecule that can copy itself and occasionally makes small mistakes (mutations) during this process. Very quickly, shorter RNA molecules that act as parasites appear. These parasites are copied more rapidly because of their shorter length, giving them an advantage. In response, the original replicating molecules also become shorter to speed up their own replication. They develop ways to slow down the copying process, which helps reduce the advantage parasites have.
Over time, the replicating molecules also evolve more complex methods to distinguish between their own copies and the parasites. This complexity grows as new parasite species keep arising, not from evolving existing parasites, but from mutations in the replicating molecules themselves.
The process of evolution changes as well, with increases in mutation rates and the emergence of new mutation processes. As a result, parasitism not only drives the evolution of more complex replicators but also leads to the development of complex ecosystems. In summary, the study shows how parasitism can be a powerful force that promotes complexity and diversity in evolving systems.
ChatGPT's response to "can you summarize this in lay terms": In studies of the "RNA world," a theoretical early stage in the origin of life where RNA molecules played a crucial role, researchers have observed that parasitism is a common phenomenon. This means that some molecules can exploit others for their own benefit, which could lead to the extinction of those being exploited unless certain protective measures are…
DNA "generates" the body, which generates behaviour, which affects gene survival, closing the loop. It's a syntactic process with the ability to update syntax based on outcomes in the environment. I think this proves that syntax is sufficient for semantics, given the environment. Wondering why Searle affirmed the opposite. Didn't he know about compilers, functional programming, lambda calculus, homoiconicity - syntax…
Remember they are just symbols. Whereas DNA is chemically highly interactive. We could all change conventions and obsolete the “+” back to nothingness. We can’t do that for a chemical in DNA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the analogy itself super interesting and thought-provoking, and might be quite useful in studying biological systems. The idea that we need to move away from understanding the genetic code as static machinery also aligns well with recent understanding of biology, as summarized in the highly appraised book "How Life Works" by Philip Ball [1] But in terms of evolution, I don't see how the proposed analogy/model…
I think it's more useful to think of natural selection as acting (probabilistically) on populations of genomes, not individuals. The feedback is individual, but the "gradients" are at the population level. It's not a perfect analogy but e.g. there are formal correspondences like this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26568-2
If you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more useful to think of natural selection as acting (probabilistically) on populations of genomes, not individuals. The feedback is individual, but the "gradients" are at the population level. It's not a perfect analogy but e.g. there are formal correspondences like this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26568-2
An interesting fact that I wasn't aware of until I read it recently is that our genes constrain the chance of mutations in critical areas of the body, which shifts the landscape.