Comment by agumonkey

3 years ago

somehow we only experience the superstitious dream of new

learning programming felt exciting but the more I know the more I realize the underlying principles were older than computers (ordering, algebra, physics)

there was nothing really new in learning java, haskell predated it yet I only got to know about it in 2004, people in the 50s did monoidal modeling of computing

"Nothing really new" - or in other deliberately twisted around but I think still valid as a point words "it's always the same atoms only in a different configuration. This universe is so boring".

Your perception of "new" depends on your accuracy of perception. With a very low-res eye a lot of things look the same and boring that a higher resolution perception sees as very different and interesting.

What's true for eyes and visual perception also is true for brains: If differences in reality always map to the same neurological pathways and create the same wave patterns in the brain it does not mean it actually is the same. More likely is the viewer either lacks the detailed perception and/or the detailed pathways for processing and reacting to it.

Too much abstraction can make things look boring and create a wrong impression of sameness. "History always repeats itself" - only that it never does, unless you filter out everything until what is left matches what your assumptions. Which actually also is what the brain does, once you see a certain pattern the brain steers you towards seeing it. For example, there are pictures where you can see one of two different things, and once you see one pattern you have to make a conscious effort to unsee it and see the other one.

So, a large part of it is that you see what yo expect to see. If you already determined things are the same you will subconsciously filter out that which does not fit your assumption.

.

In any case, I always suggest to programmers interested in something truly new to go into biology and bio-chemistry. All programming we do ends up on similar von Neumann architecture hardware, so it's not wrong that there is not that much difference between programming languages, compared to quantum computing or "biological computing".

Trying to understand - never mind create your own - biological systems is truly something entirely different and should satisfy the bored aging CS and programmer person. Just to clarify: I'm not talking about brains (although that would apply too), but the much more low level biology.

I suggest edx.org for a starting point. Some very good hig-level but introductory and free classes on biochemistry, biology, genetics, statistics (for life sciences with appropriate examples), etc.

  • I was actually digging for chemical computing (which would be a metaphor for massively decouple distributed computing).

    Btw, my point about "nothing is new" wasn't trying to step into nihilism. Just to shed some light on the excitement aspect of it.

  • Have one actually tried programming in “biology”? It is mostly grunt work of moving liquid solutions from one tube to another at different temperature and waiting times…

    • Nicolas Schabanel and his labs do DNA tile programming, see "molecular programming" https://www.dailymotion.com/NicolasSchabanel/videos

      It's a bit mind blowing in the most extreme sense. DNA tiles as combinatorial building blocks to realize game of life like structures that serves as foundations for computation. IIRC they had a turing-capable compiler, but only small programs would complete due to chemical degradation. It's also extremely sensitive to temperature conditions.

      1 reply →