is DNA stupid?



He pulled it out of his arse, just like his other numbers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com wrote in message says...

I can accept that the number's probably random, but what's the actual message he's trying to convey in that crime against the English language which follows the number? "Active" how? Given that chromosomes are present in every cell, how can some only be "active" in the brain? You couldn't be more vague and ambiguous if you tried.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom McEwan wrote:

Well, that part is actually pretty clear. All of the genes are present in every cell, but they aren't all turned on producing proteins in each of those cells. That's what the "active" part means. I don't know where he got that number, although I think I've seen something like it elsewhere (i.e., someplace reputable that I can't remember a citation for), but that makes sense. You don't want genes responsible for generating your feet to be active in your brain, unless they have a separate use in brain tissues.
Even if the 20,000 number is in the right ballpark, it isn't clear whether that means 20,000 _exclusively_ active in the brain, or if that includes genes necessary for normal cell functions. Nor does it address the sequence in which those genes are activated and deactivated, or which cell types express which genes, etc. etc.
--
Carl Burke
snipped-for-privacy@mitre.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

got
active
sequence
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

--------------- That's all silly, you don't even know the most basic molecular biology or genetics, just get a couple books and begin at the beginning. While there may be 50K genes in each cell, the number of things encoded in them are much larger than you think, and there are trillions of brain cells, in other words, the machine these 50K genes create has a very much unbelievably larger number of propositional possibilities than you understand that it has.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course.
It's all about combination. Some genes indeed create single "features", but most of them have a deep impact on a lot of levels. Combinations are nearly infinite.
As for the humain brain, it contains billions of neurons, and a whole lot of other cells, some of which we don't even know what exactly they are for.
But the connections between them (synapses) are so numerous and complicated that the human brain is believed to be the most complicated known object in the universe. No machine would be able to model such an object - not for a long, long time. All the computers on Earth added together would probably still not be enough to store all the information actually contained in our brain. Yes, even the brain of the most stupid of us. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

-------------------- Where Noam Chomsky says:
"True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example."
Now go shut the fuck up someplace!!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

Do a Google search for "poverty of the stimulus". You will find several papers which do just that.

That article doesn't mention that 95% figure you spoke of, nor is it one of Chomsky's own refereed journal publications. It isn't even one of Chomsky's unreviewed books. I'm ready to believe that Chomsky made that claim, but you haven't shown us where he made it.
--
Carl Burke
snipped-for-privacy@mitre.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Carl Burke wrote:

Well on the whole they don't knock down Chomsky. There is war between the philospher's camp and the linguists camp. The philosophers simply don't like the idea that our minds are mechanical and who is to argue? The problem is the translation of this epic battle to the AI world where unfortunately Chomsky's resulty apply with deadly precision and philosphers have nothing to offer in battling with computational logic, software algorithms and reams of printouts.

Its in some encyclopedia (Britannica?) that I don't have to hand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

...
It seemed on my reading that they did, by showing that the arguments to date in favor of "poverty of the stimulus" were incomplete and/or incorrect. I haven't seen anybody prove that hypothesis to be false, just that the attempts to prove it true have so far failed.

Many of us take issue with that, or at least with the assumption that that is true. If you assume that it's the case you can get all kinds of spurious results, like the Chinese Room. It may very well be the case that our minds can't be matched by non-metaphysical means, but that has not been proven.
Philosophers can get away with a lot of things that scientists can't, in the reasoning department. They can make broad statements supported by rhetoric without ever having to test them against the world. That's fine as far as philosophy goes, but science demands a higher standard of proof.

I'm not sure how to unpack this. It seems as though you're saying both that philosophers can't compete with scientists in the area of logic, algorithms, and printouts, and that Chomsky's "results" apply with precision. I don't see how to reconcile those statements with each other.
--
Carl Burke
snipped-for-privacy@mitre.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Carl Burke wrote:

Well they didn't. The first person to do so will be formally recognised by everyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

Find the reference. Until you do that there is no reason to think that you haven't misinterpreted things. -- D. Jay Newman http://enerd.ws/robots /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D. Jay Newman wrote:

I'm afraid none of us are your encyclopedia service. I wouldn't post it even if it were sitting right next to me. You find it if you want as any lecturer will tell you. Even better know your subject.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a more plausable explanation. You made it up. You fabricated it. You told a fib. You pulled it out of your hat. You lied. You imagined it. You got the idea from the voices in your head. This explains why nobody can find the "facts" that you claim are true and explains why you refuse to say where you got them. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

------------------- If THAT'S all you're talking about you're not so crazy, so quit acting like it.
Both camps can exist in each of us with impunity. The real problem in the pure "philosopher's" view is that we wouldn't be able to analyze and reproduce so many lower, and progressively higher mental functions if they were NOT mechanical in origin, and therefore analyzable, and the worst case is that we will quite likely soon build an aware being!
At some point the philosopher's argument is that even something that appears to entirely replicate human behavior may not of necessity be, within itself, actually self-aware, as even that function MAY, and I repeat MAY be entirely emulatable with or without TOTAL sufficiency.
Of course that is debatable, because anything that does what we do with our own mental personality in being self-aware seems as though it must, itself, truly also be self-aware!!
But of course this boils down to the same old Manichaean Heresy of souls in machines. Can a machine exist which has no "soul", no real inner being? Or is that a religious superstition born of the medieval terror of hubris, the "sin of pride before God"!!
Now unless one is superstitious, and without real cause, given the history of Science, (Afterall, God hasn't come down all pissed off by Science YET!), one actually has NO reason to believe this "soul" business, except that we have not yet achieved it, which proves nothing of importance unless we discover absolutely that we CAN'T do so for some actual theoretical reason!! Until or unless such is found, we have NO reason to give credence to medieval superstitions.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

Talk about a broken record. Are you even reading the responses to your posts? All of your questions have been answered.
Although, this sure makes a good drinking game.
Every time you mention Chomsky, take a shot. Every time you say "95% of the personality is built in", take a shot. Every time you mention the "human genome project", take a shot. Every time you mention the 1% difference between the human and chimp genome, take a shot. Every time you say "20,000 bits of information", take a shot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WARNING: the above procedure will result in alcohol poisoning!
"e7" is ineducable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I see that you (e7) are capable of *quoting* me question, but you are not willing to *anwer* it....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

encode
only
computer
157680
It is negated. His assumption has several basic errors. The errors are that all the data for a personality must either come from the DNA or from perception.
First, form follows function and vice-versa. The vary process of building of the brian includes a curtian level of programming. The ROM and basic processors for an analagy. There in lies a curtain level of data transmition to the brain so some data is by the default nature of the structure provided to the brain. That default data and basic organisation is in effect "compressed", or perhaps pre-organised would be a better term , to perform curtain functions such as in the case of the parts of the brain that deal with vission and hearing.
There is a third place that the mind recieves data, itself. The mind creates it's own data by deriving data from the logical enferences of data already recieved and this is very likely the source for most if not all the 'missing' data that is required for personality. The brain does a tremendious amount of self organisation in the first years of life. Again, form follows function. Intellect, personallity, and all the other characteristic of a mind are very likely the senergetic effect of the DNA based starting point of the brain plus all the changes cause by both external data and internal derivations.
If Chomsky's assurtions were all there was to it then identical twin raised together or in identical inviroments would always make the same choices to the same stimuli. They do not so some other factor is at work.
That said there is also the likely hood that there is a "random number generator" built into the developement of the human mind/personality as a survial mechanism. In effect a mental anti-Darwanism system. It would NOT be in an animals best interest to always react to a given situation in the same way as this predicability would be an exploitable weakness. So for the greater good of the species some members will run and some will fight. The ones that act correctly survive and as humans can learn and comminicate that learning they will tell their offspring what worked and what did not. This was the original form of education (storytelling). This adds an additional level of adaptability to thinking creatures above and beyond DNA encoded instict. And a furture advantage to creatures that can communicate their experience by some other means than DNA to their offspring.

while
it
judge
Well, there in lies the riddle. The brain can contain far more information than DNA can. DNA can supply the basic structure which can infuence HOW perceptions effect the brain. In effect the DNA and the 'code key' to deciphering the data obtained from the perceptions or perhaps it the the other way arround. It does not really matter to anyone except a few theoretical scientists which is the key and which is the code. In either case over time each will influence the other and the synergy of the two plus many other things blend to make a personality.

And there in lies another complexity. Some of the part of DNA are only use to create the original structure of the animal and then stop doing anything. Perhaps the encoding is conditionally based? A DNA fragment in a fetus may work differently because it knows what life stage it is in that the same DNA in a teenager, an adult, or a post menapausal person. In effect DNA may have many workable "decode keys" that produce useable information at the pro per point in an animals life cycle. Then if that is true who's to say the there is not a life-cycle point (decode key) where a large part of the DNA data is decoded in a slightly different way to provide some extra boot strap infomation to the brian. Perhaps in some of the part of the DNA that we don't understand there is a key sequence the says in effect 'read every seventh pair in rotating recirculating sequience to program this kids personality'. Biology tends to get more than one use out of most things. Why not DNA.

Simple facts and what can be devised from them,
human being exist they have personalities so those personalities have to be created/built/made whatever it happens so it must be posible that said just because we can not explain it RIGHT NOW does not mean that we will not be able to explain it someday.
As no one here is an expert reseraching this (at least no one has assert such expertese), then all we are doing here is trying futilely to explain to ourselves what we each think about the process to better understand our own views, to convince others of our own point of view, to convey to others our own view in hope of approval or validation, or for the enjoyment of the mental exercise. Which is of course determined by each of our respecive personallities regardless of how they came into being.
Charles L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

-------------- Chomsky is NOT a geneticist, NOT a programmer, NOT a roboticist, NOT a systems analyst, etc. Chomsky is wrong if he said that, but actually I think he NEVER said that, and that you merely misquoted and misunderstood him!
And this is QUITE LIKELY, because YOU'RE THE CRANK!: J. Michael of "Fractal Robot" crank-insanity fame! All you do is repeat yourself when questioned, it's a form of mental illness called schizophrenia.
SEEK HELP!!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.