Kevin Kelly whipped up 9 rules for the Century of Neo-Biology (that label thrills me).
I reproduce them here, but you might want to head over to his post (link below) to leave other rules there too.
1) All rules in biology have exceptions.
2) Anything that can be done with organisms (including our own), will be done.
3) Every biological action invokes a biological reaction.
4) All inovations follow a one-way migration from enhancements to normalcy.
5) One person’s biological ideal is another’s horror.
6) Understanding is not necessary for use.
7) The tolerence for uncertainty goes up as death becomes certain.
8) The difference between 99% reliable and 100% reliable is God (or a million years of evolution).
9) Health care is finite resources applied to an infinite appetite.
from: Kevin Kelly — The Technium
I left the following comment
0) Biology is messy
Some folks think biology behaves properly and regularly like electronics (which we all know is a passing fad). Go into any laboratory and you will see the modern-day alchemist repeating experiments that work one day and not the other, joking about the phases of the moon or position of the chairs.
Do I feel this way because it is so early in the neo-biology game? Am I just an old fuddy-duddy who learned biology in the previous century?
I think that’s irrelevant. Digital electronics have distracted us from the analogue world, such that when we turn our attentions to biology, we’ve forgotten how to think in gradients, thresholds, probability, or chaotic flows in regulatory networks. Indeed, the biochemistry I learned and did was all about this and it’s a thrilling way of doing things. I think those with strong digital sensibilities will have a hard time embracing the uncertainty and variability so common in biological systems.
Today’s xkcd comic is somewhat apt:
http://xkcd.com/435/
“Some folks think biology behaves properly and regularly like electronics (which we all know is a passing fad). Go into any laboratory and you will see the modern-day alchemist repeating experiments that work one day and not the other, joking about the phases of the moon or position of the chairs.”
Well, we sometimes say the same about computers and mobile phones 🙂
not sure if you’ve seen this already about ant systems being messy ?
http://thusbeginstheweb.blogspot.com/2008/06/deborah-gordon-how-do-ants-know-what-to.html
(I’ve more than a passing interest in how biological systems relate to the mobile world of communications)
I think you’re spot on.
There’s a lot of mileage in us understanding this difference between digital and analogue. It’s interesting too from the perspective of thinking about consciousness. There are some things that the digital models of cognition just don’t cover. It’s the difference between describing something and experiencing it I think. The former never fully captures the latter.
I especially like your very short list of analogue features – “gradients, thresholds, probability, or chaotic flows in regulatory networks” – could you say more about that? Or point me in the direction to explore these thoughts more?
Thanks for your post