[layer8]

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

[rottc0dd]

I meant to say in the way that there is well defined set of alphabets (A, T, G, C) and each triplet of these alphabet is responsible for specific protein to be created and combination of such protein make each cell what it is. (There are 20 different proteins for humans and we have four alphabets coming in triplets. So, if it was pair or quadreplets responsible for proteins, it would have too much or too little. They are not perfect but given the condition, there is some balance)

A single alphabet change in specific places can cause genetic defects like sickle cell anemia. And activation of which one has to generate protein (execute) is dependent on presence of certain things encoded as proteins again.

And viruses when enter a cell, the cell starts to execute viral genetic material. Even if these are not exactly Turing compatible, do they not mimic many aspects of computation?

[layer8]

There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not. If your aim is “aren’t we really just computers”, that doesn’t actually work.

That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions, but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

[rottc0dd]

I did try to ask are we not computers. I tried to imply, in the fundamental level there are striking similarities to computation.

> That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions,

Yes. Fundamental building blocks are simple and physical in nature and follow the computational aspect good enough to serve as nice approximations

> but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

Hmm... transistors are not neural networks so? I am sorry, I am a non native speaker and maybe I am not communicating things properly. I am trying to say, the organic or human is different manifestation of order - one is chemical and other is electronic. We have emotions and consciousness, but we can agree we are made of cells that send electric pulses to each other and primitive in nature. And even emotions and beliefs are physical in nature (Capgras syndrome for example).

[rottc0dd]

> I did try to ask are we not computers.

I meant to say "I did not try to ask are we not computers."

[rottc0dd]

> There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not.

What I have explained is the exact way a chromosome works, it's raison d'etre. I think this cannot be dismissed as some aspect of it. It is its essence.

[rottc0dd]

> (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

How should we describe or approximate the things happening in cell?

[layer8]

I don’t know about “should”, but fundamentally we can describe them by the laws of physics.