Jamest, I offer you serious discussion

[pErvinalia]

Is the process possible without an underlying code? Because hackenslash denies that there are any codes involved in the reproduction process. According to him, the whole code shebang is an essentially unscientific narrative.

It seems like a semantic point to me. It's not technically a code. It's a dataset upon which a biological algorithm works.

Seems to me that algorithm and code are equally inappropriate concepts to use in terms of producing an entirely physical narrative.

Why?

Are you some sort of scientific expert?

Compared to you, quite possibly..

[jamest]

Is the process possible without an underlying code? Because hackenslash denies that there are any codes involved in the reproduction process. According to him, the whole code shebang is an essentially unscientific narrative.

It seems like a semantic point to me. It's not technically a code. It's a dataset upon which a biological algorithm works.

Seems to me that algorithm and code are equally inappropriate concepts to use in terms of producing an entirely physical narrative.

Why?

Because an algorithm also seems to need intelligent input.

Are you some sort of scientific expert?

Compared to you, quite possibly..

I'm yet to see any evidence of that.

I was thinking that if you're not an expert of sorts, then you have some gall offering to explain anything and everything to me.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not offering to explain "anything and everything" to you. I'm offering you the chance to have some serious discussion. I was a scientist before changing to IT, so I have some experience.

So why does an algorithm seem to need intelligent input? An algorithm is just a recipe for change from one state to another. It could be said that the process of star formation follows an algorithm due to the laws of physics. Are you going to tell me the laws of physics are intelligently designed? (Shit, you probably are going to tell me that... )

[piscator]

You can't transcend the fishbowl.

Nonsense. If such were thus I would never have realised the obvious fact that observed A = A, was false. Not to mention another 101 other truths. The human mind often transcends its experiences. If such were not true then philosophy, maths and art, would not be possible. Indeed, erroneous scientific hypotheses would not be possible.

Your rules and discoveries of other worlds may be full of fishbowl artifacts, but that's just the way it is.

Put your simple mantras about fish away. If you want to talk metaphysics, then get your fucking balls out. Be bold. Speak for yourself.

It's better to talk about metaphysics than to talk metaphysics. In the former, you're always right, and in the latter, who can say, right?

[jamest]

So why does an algorithm seem to need intelligent input? An algorithm is just a recipe for change from one state to another. It could be said that the process of star formation follows an algorithm due to the laws of physics. Are you going to tell me the laws of physics are intelligently designed? (Shit, you probably are going to tell me that... )

I have a problem incorporating processes instigated by physical laws into the definition of an algorithm. From my understanding, an algorithm amounts to a set of instructions with a definite purpose. Thus, the way you are using the concept implies that there's a God pulling the strings.

[piscator]

Arbitrary. That's far from the only conclusion you could draw, jamest. What's more, your "conclusion" is cartoonishly drawn to insert a "purposer" with an end state in mind.

[jamest]

Arbitrary. That's far from the only conclusion you could draw, jamest. What's more, your "conclusion" is cartoonishly drawn to insert a "purposer" with an end state in mind.

Well, I'm just referencing the dictionary, since I didn't invent the concept. As far as I can tell, this prohibits equating the laws of physics (physical processes brought about by them) as algorithms... unless one advocates the input of ID in the emergence of said laws.

[hackenslash]

Look up the concept of a Probabilistic Turing Machine.

[piscator]

Arbitrary. That's far from the only conclusion you could draw, jamest. What's more, your "conclusion" is cartoonishly drawn to insert a "purposer" with an end state in mind.

Well, I'm just referencing the dictionary, since I didn't invent the concept. As far as I can tell, this prohibits equating the laws of physics (physical processes brought about by them) as algorithms... unless one advocates the input of ID in the emergence of said laws.

Yeah, right.
"X & Y need to happen for Z. I'll call that an algo"
"It's not an algo unless you conceived it so, therefore algos require Intelligent Designers"

Forced meme.

[jamest]

Look up the concept of a Probabilistic Turing Machine.

Okay, but what's your point?

[macdoc]

poor Jamest....

[jamest]

How's it hanging, doc?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I agree with jamest on his point about algorithms. An algorithm requires an agent because it is a list of things to do.. Physical laws just happen - you don't have to do them.. You don't need an algorithm to get an apple down from a tree when it's ripe!

[hackenslash]

Look up the concept of a Probabilistic Turing Machine.

Okay, but what's your point?

You seriously can't work it out from 'probabilistic'? In that case, I have to ask, on what basis do you assert your qualification to engage in such a discussion?

[jamest]

I agree with jamest on his point about algorithms. An algorithm requires an agent because it is a list of things to do.. Physical laws just happen - you don't have to do them.. You don't need an algorithm to get an apple down from a tree when it's ripe!

You're only saying that so that I stop calling you a cunt.