Timeline for Can a biological entity be thought as a simple algorithm? Case-study with the concept of randomness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/ with https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 30, 2013 at 21:33 | comment | added | Keegan Keplinger | Also, an interesting note about multiple realizability. What I call 'degeneracy' in my answer is the observable analog of multiple relizability, but pertaining to function. If you believe mind is a functional result (as is typical of monism and physicalism) then degeneracy is multiple realizability. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 18:12 | comment | added | Keegan Keplinger | I've edited my answer to make my ontology clearer so your first reference to my post is inconsistent now. My issue with life being reduced to just algorithms is more because I favor the dynamical systems view of continuous evolution of states (and that how humans break such processes into algorithmic steps is a more about human ontology than nature). My ontology views life, inevitably, as a very complicated classical physics problem. Algorithms would be an emergent property of living things (and other physical processes) as opposed to what life is reduced to. | |
| Dec 30, 2013 at 0:38 | history | answered | Artem Kaznatcheev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |