is DNA stupid?

You are deliberately confusing two entirely different levels of software. In computers, we can easily write software that learns and can write other software. In organic brains, the structures of the neurons' interconnects alter as they learn and the "software" is in the wiring and how it changes. Don't mix the "control and acquisition" program (in hardware) with the "learned behaviors" program (in "software").

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B. Xenotech Research

321-206-1840
Reply to
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Loading thread data ...

I'd suggest you re-read your so-called "works of AI". Emergent behaviour does NOT mean "behavior outside of programming". A system that displays "emergence" displays seemingly novel properties not predictable (or, more accurately, not easily predictable) from its programming.

Such systems often start as a collection of relatively simple initial conditions and a finite set of rules, which are applied iteravely over time. See John Conway's Game of Life, Stephan Wolfram's Big Thick Book, or any of the zillions of software examples out there.

Really -- this is all very basic stuff. Are you sure you're an "information technologist"?

Reply to
The Artist Formerly Known as K

Ah, we're quantifying two different things then. I was soley saying that the actual ammount of info you could encode on a given DNA strand (regardless of species) was a base-4 numeric system. You were quantifying "informational storage" via amino acids at a higher level. We just had different answers for different viewpoints.

Dave

Reply to
David Harper

Ok, yes, DNA has more than 20,000 bits of info. We're on the same page there. But how can you say DNA has 3e9 "bits"? A bit is generally defines as a 1 or 0 in binary, but as I mentioned it before in the other post, DNA is base-4 (4 amino acid possibilities). So using "bits" as a unit in measuring informational storage by DNA isn't accurate unless you're converting the informational storage capacity from base-4 into base-2 "bits".

Reply to
David Harper

4.2 (bits/aminoacid)*400(aminoacids/protein)*1(protein/gene)*20,000(genes/brain) = 33.6 MegaBits/brain = 4.2 MegaBytes/brain = 155 brains/CD

And I think Hans Moravec or someone claimed that the typical human adult's life memories at any one time could be fit on a CD.

Einstein (or any typical smart Jew) might take 2 or 3 CD's.

It is possible to get fractional bits per amino acid when you take into account the fact that each amino acid has a different expectation. (The more rare amino acids are conveying more information ? I think.)

One of my professors at UCLA claimed that the most efficient number of bits/aminoacid would be 2.71828? (e).

Or, if I've got it all confused again, then: Someone? claims some? argument? sounding similar to what I've written above is true.

- karen715j

Reply to
Karen J

Karen J,

I think most of the problem is the statement that knowledge is encoded in our genome.

It is not.

If there are 20,000 genes active in a human brain, that does not mean that there are only 20,000 "Things" in the brain, and that is what's getting you confused I think.

Try this. Think of just a small number of genes: GeneTransistor; GeneWire; GeneSwitch; GeneLightbulb.

Those are 4 genes.

I think you can imagine several ways to build electronic circuits using just these 4 genes right?

You could build a 2-digit adding machine.

You could build a 4-digit multiplying machine.

You could build a 1-cellthreshold-triggered neuron simulator.

Using a small number of extra genes, you could create a simple wiring diagram showing how to connect a hundred billion of your 1-cell neurons

You wouldn't need a hundred billion bits of information to construct a mesh-layout array of neurons.

Then, it would be possible to imagine a learning process whereby inputs are presented to the array, outputs are generated, and some feedback is created that can either strengthen or weaken the connections between these neurons.

That is a very simplified description of how a brain is constructed, and how it learns using only several genes which can be easily encoded in a human genome.

The problem arises from the mistaken assumption that almost all a human's knowledge is pre-wired into the brain at build-time. That would indeed require more information than is contained in the Human genome. Incidentally, that's a pretty big demonstration that human knowledge is NOT pre-wired in in my opinion.

Reply to
Alan Kilian

I am merely quoting the experts:

formatting link
In an earlier post I discussed the strong possibility that the Human Genome Project is using a different definition of "bit" and that the real number might be 6 billion instead of 3 billion, but for the purposes of debunking someone who insuists that the number is twenty thousand, either figure will do.

Reply to
Guy Macon

I think most of the problem is that some posters are writing about personality, some about genetic inclination to personality type, some about general intelligence, some about knowledge, and some are writing one thing and meaning another and some are reading one thing and thinking another.

I disagree. I was confused about other things; not that.

A very simplified, very excellent description.

I don't think that e7 or Noam Chomsky are saying that. Mainly they are saying that the ability to learn languages is prewired SPECIFICALLY and not simply part of general intelligence.

And they are saying a lot of other things are prewired also. I agree with them on genetic inclination towards anger, laughter, depression, elation and on and on.

But when Chomsky claims that the ability to learn numbers is prewired I part company. I suspect that that ability is better described as "genetic inclination to enjoy dealing with the abstract", or something. (Jews, for instance.) Most normal people prefer to deal with race cars, football and bingo.

I believe that some knowledge IS prewired. For instance the knowledge that blue, green and red are all different from each other. Or at least it is MUCH easier for them to pick up the concept than a totally color- blind person. But this is probably one of those stupid semantic quibbles that should be left to the philosophers who enjoy the abstract even more than I do.

At any rate, after reading Hans Moravec about three years ago, I concluded that my cybersoul could be stored on approximately two CD's: one for my genetics, and one for the current state to my memories.

That's all I really care about. Because it makes it very likely that I ACTUALLY AM a cybersoul.

Reply to
Karen J

You seem to inject the word "Jews" into posts where the context seems to have nothing to do with Jews. Most people (Aardvark owners, for instance) don't do that. Why do you do that?

(Note: I am not enquiring about your opinion of Jews or about anything other than injecting unreleted issues into posts. Or Aardvarks. Talking about Aardvarks is OK too.

Reply to
Guy Macon

At least you can see that someone has to write some software. Similar identical software exists in the brain at time of birth. The whole thread's debate is whether DNA stupid and doesn't have this software or whether that software is stored in the DNA and we can't see it.

Reply to
e7

Guy!

I was going to mention this, but you beat me to it, and did a wonderful job of it. Thanks.

Reply to
Alan Kilian

There's no way memories can be stored on one CD (although there's some people I know that probably could get by with just a 3.5" floppy). Memories are not encoded in DNA (your DNA doesn't change when you learn something). Regardless of the method in which memories are recorded (which is still debated and not fully understood), there's far more than just a few hundred megabytes worth of data in memories. The "information" your brain incorporates as memories at a single event like a family reunion is substantial...(visual recollections of people, clothing worn, converstations, enviroment specifics, etc). You may only remember the most important .1% of all the information you are innundated with, but that's still substantial.

Sure, you can design a 500 GB hard drive using a few hundred parts, then make engineering drawings for it, and record those drawings on a single CD. But the information stored on a full hard drive far exceeds the information needed to create it.

Dave

Reply to
David Harper

That may be what is taught in USA by those willing and capable of stretching definitions to get a little funding. We don't do that in the UK. Emergent behavior means behaviour outside of programming - specifically behavior 'emerging' outside of mechanical, predictable or computationally predictable behavior.

Reply to
e7

I'm sure the nice folks at Manchester University, Cambridge, the University of Birmingham, the University of Wales -- to name a few institutions off the top of my head hosting ongoing work in emergent software systems-- would be most interested to know that they are using a definition of 'emergence' that makes their own work impossible.

You appear to be forging ever deeper into the realm of the truly idiotic, despite all best efforts to hold you back.

I give up -- have at it.

Reply to
The Artist Formerly Known as K

And who might this "someone" be? Are you moving down from being someone who can't tell a thousand from a billion to the even lower level of creationism?

Reply to
Guy Macon

"e7" wrote in message news:26wJc.12741$ snipped-for-privacy@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

No, I don't. It can be the result of emergent properties, as others have clearly pointed out to you.

Also the result of emergent properties.

The reason you can't see it is because it is not written anywhere. The DNA specifies a set of proteins and enzymes to be made under specific conditions. Those conditions also include time. The result of those proteins and enzymes interacting chemically are that certain structures will emerge. The results of those structures is that they alter the proteins and enzymes' actions and availabilities. In the end, the structure that is the result of all this activity is complex and interconnected enough to perform logical and symbolic manipulation and to store data. There is no "software written there". There are trillions upon trillions of possible little "tweaks" that had to be made, and it took about 4 billion years for these tweaks, happening at random, to leave structures that we call human beings. It worked because only the successful tweaks resulted in humans that could successfully survive. The environment that any organism lives within will shape that organism- no matter where the chemistry happens, no matter when. All life needs is chemistry and energy and off it goes. Things that live in the water must have specific forms, structures or functions to do so. Things that live on the land must also have specific forms, structures, or functions to do so. If intelligence is the requirement, then you will end up with something very much like a brain. If flight is the requirement, then you will end up with something like wings. Life's best solutions will emerge time and again, regardless of place or time. There are at least 11 different and unique instances of the eye evolving here on Earth. It's easy enough to imagine that the same process works anywhere in the universe. Nowhere, however, do we imply that "software was written by somebody". The results are determined by physics and chemistry and what materials are available to work with- shaped by environment. Brains are emergent structures that work well in getting organisms to be successful. And just as the "structures" that emerge in Conway's "Game of Life" have coherent function but are unpredictable until you run the code, the same applies to our genetics.

Cheers!

Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B. Xenotech Research

321-206-1840
Reply to
Sir Charles W. Shults III

The context "seems" related to Jews to me. For instance, I believe that genetics probably affects the tendency we humans have "to enjoy dealing with the abstract". The smart people who I have known who avoided abstract questions, tended to be non-Jews. For thousands of years, Jews have sorted themselves out according to whether or not they could deal with complex religious issues. So now Jews tend to love that sort of thing. IMO.

Also, I suppose that since Jews and Zionism are two of the most interesting and important topics in my politics, then examples of (whatever) involving Jews quickly come to my mind.

The main issue of the thread was (is there any pre-wired information in the human brain that most of us would probably normally expect to be learned info rather than pre-wired?).

So, apparently you think that "enjoy[ing] dealing with abstract issues" is either: 1 ? An environmentally acquired taste, or 2 ? A simple result of being smart

I claim that it's genetic because some smart people I have known seem to have not much interest in "abstract issues". They would rather fix the lawnmower, or repave the driveway, or something.... go camping maybe.

You would probably say: "That's an environmentally acquired taste." I would say: "What the hell makes you think that, you pompous ass?" You would say: "Anyone with any common sense, would take that as their opening position unless some good evidence could be given to refute the common sense position." I would say: "It's been my experience. I don't make a scientific study of every single interesting question that comes up. I don't have that much time to waste. The singularity is coming." You would say "What's the singularity?" I would say " Search Google, ?vernor vinge' and ?hans moravec'. I'm busy. I have to go now."

- karen715j

Reply to
Karen J

This is amazing. You put words in my mouth setting up a strawman argument (just like Aardvark owners do) when you have no idea (never having asked) of my actual position, then you call me a name, then you asume that I am unaware of the sigularity theory (Arrdvarks are as a rule unaware of the sigularity theory, BTW) all in one post. Now THAT'S entertainment!

Let me know if you ever wish to discuss my actual opinions rather than making up things and putting them in my mouth.

Reply to
Guy Macon

Aahh! Comm'on Guy. You've been had by your own tricks.

Reply to
e7

Doh! This is definitely going nowhere!

Doh! And who wrote the software for the emergent system then?

Reply to
e7

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.