is DNA stupid?

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. ;-)

"R. Steve Walz" :

Not needed. Just more likely. Much, much, much, much more likely.

There are many patterns. Some are more likely than others. For instance: The Walz pattern is generated an infinite number of times in "wild" self-generated universes. But it is also generated by SISS's (SuperInelligentSuperSouls) an infinite number of times. The second infinity is much, much, much, much larger than the first. (See Cantor about infinities that are bigger than each other.)

This is all blather. A tale told by two idiots, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Here's what's important: Kindness. Honesty. The meta-golden rule.

- karen715j

Ach Noooooooooo! This has been ripped out from some trancendental meditation book hasn't it?

Awoo! PLEHEASE! Since when did we get into all this wet soppy stuff?

I thought we were on DNA information transfer topic.

The general consensus seems to be DNA doesn't code personality - it must be learned. Nobody accepts Chomsky's scientific result that 95% of personality is built in.

I don't agree with that until Chomsky is scientifically debunked.

Its an impass for now to locate the personality coding/transfer mechanism.

Why are you so confident in Chomsky?

Who's asking?

I haven't seen Chomsky debunked yet.

Sorry, but you don't have that option. When it is *you* stating a radical opinion as fact, it is up to *you* to prove it.

Claiming (rightly or incorrectly) that a so-called expert made the statement does *not* make it a fact.

Then ignore it. You don't believe that DNA can encode it because of your math errors.

You don't believe that it can be learned by the age of two because of your blind belief in Chomsky.

On the other hand, we all seem to have personalities.

Therefore it must develop through:

1. DNA
2. Environment (learned by a "machine" described by the DNA)
3. Some combination of the above.
4. Something totally new that nobody has ever heard of.

Occam's Razor says to bet on the simplest explanation that explains the facts. To me this says "3".

-- D. Jay Newman

Chomsky is a linguistic philosopher or a philosophical linguist.

If you've studied this field at *all*, you'd know that many other experts in this field think that he's a crackpot. Others think he's *the* expert.

I'm somewhat in the middle. He did some brilliant work when he was younger. This work was in linguistics and the structure of language. His later work tends to be extremely convoluted and strange.

He is not an expert in intelligence or genetics.

Frankly *we* don't have to debunk him.

You are the one quoting a rather questionable "expert".

Could you give us a reference to the *complete* book or paper where he makes this assertion? If he didn't back it up with facts, then it's already debunked.

And if you can't provide the evidence, you have no basis on which to discuss this.

-- D. Jay Newman

Someone who considers himself relatively intelligent, and who also remains thus far unconvinced of your hypothsesis or indeed your ability to present a coherent, balanced or even grammatically correct argument. By the way, you'll get nowhere fast saying things like "Who's asking?" in a scientific discussion. Just a hint for the future. Science and engineering is about rational thought and reasonable, open-minded discussion - save the aggression and defensive questions for politics. And for God's sake, never discount the possibility that you just might be dead wrong.

You can't seriously expect to vehemently tell us that Chomsky's correct and then refuse to explain why you think so.

Just because nobody's bothered to debunk it doesn't make it gospel truth. It's entirely possible that it's never been debunked because it's not considered plausible enough to be worth debunking. Unless you've got absolutely uncontestable, reproducable experimental proof, you're a fool to believe one person's hypothesis against accepted theory.

Tom

How's

for a start?

This is *not* a scientific debunk, its long verbose rant aimed at Chomsky's work.

You have no idea about his science or how to debunk him and parrot others selectively what suits you best. Your methods are questionable. You just have to debunk one of his work. The result that 95% bit is pre-programmed.

J

The question is rhetorical - why are you not confident in Chomsky?

It takes 5 minutes to debunk his theory. But nobody under any tests since his time have done so. They have re-enforced his results. The gospel truth has been written out for you to follow. If you don't a gospel truth, just try to debunk it and then we will see.

Ouch that hurts! :-) Nah! You just try to debunk him as someone who considers himself as relatively intelligent good sir!

What's this end of post throw away remark all about? His result (not theory) has not been debunked.

J

DNA information transfer is a very wet process. Check your mattress. Get used to it.

In other words cats are slothful and dogs hyperactive because of environment?? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Yeah 95% is probably way too low. More like:

99.4% genetics 00.599% which continent and century you were born into. 00.0004% whether you were an abused child. 00.0006% other.

NEWS FLASH!!!

I have evidence that we are living in a cartoon published by Mad Magazine in the year 2124!!!

We were, but you refused to admit that you made a fundamental math error (confusing twenty thousand bit with three billion bits) and the discussion stalled as everyone realised that you are ineducable.

Nobody is going to waste time showing you the error in your interpretation of Chomsky as long as you deny, deny, deny your errors in simple arithmetic. Admit that you were wrong about the human genome having 20,000 bits of information and we can move on to your next error.

It would take an infinite amount of time to debunk it to the satisfaction of a dimwit who refuses to admit to simple math errors. You are too stubborn and crazy to admit that you were wrong about there being 20,000 bits of information in the genome, so we can predict that you will be too stubborn and crazy to admit that you were wrong about Chomsky, no matter how good the refutation is.

Exactly. Many scientists agree. Chomsky did some interesting work, but he was pretty much full of shit when it came to the human thinking process and even more so when it came to his own thinking process ;-)

This very extract shows it so very well to any scientist that it can't even be discussed:

"Take the human number faculty. Children have the capacity to acquire the number system. They can learn to count and somehow know that it is possible to continue to add one indefinitely. They can also readily acquire the technique of arithmetical calculation. If a child did not already know that it is possible to add one indefinitely, it could never learn this fact. Rather, taught the numerals 1, 2, 3, etc., up to some number n, it would assume that that is the end of the story."

This so-called proof is entirely anti-scientific. I'll requote something of particular interest:

"If a child did not already know that it is possible to add one indefinitely, it could never learn this fact."

In other words, he denies the very basics of learning. Obviously, he must not have studied a lot about mental deficiencies either. He would know that some children can't possibly learn to count, and this is not because of some lack of built-in notion about numbers. This is almost always because of a defect in the association process in some parts of their brain (in other words, the ability for neurons of making new, useful connections).

Actually, his "number system" blabber has me wonder whether I should laugh or cry. He seems to define "learning" as some sort of "thought cloning" process, and then tries to convince himself that the humain brain must possess built-in notions of various things to extend the learning. This is obviously false. This even sounds like a backwards way of understanding how the brain works.

Sheesh...I just started reading this group and will present myself properly in the appropriate thread. However, this guy (e7) is just a troll for attention. My take on this is:

1) he is in the later part of his PhD candidacy and has based his body of work on his own theory; however, to complete the defense of his work, he must disprove Chomsky (which "finding" we do not know). So he starts an argument "for" Chomsky in an effort to get other sto do his work, or alternately...

2) He is the early part of his candidacy and plans on finishing within one year!! Here's a bit of advice, e7, my boy. Emerge yourself in all of the data. Not simply those pieces that fit your argument. Take the time to become familar with it and the data will teach you...becasue I assure you, if you try to teach the data..you will not teach it a thing.

2) He is an uneducable (and ignorant from my reading) fool. I would not stake my claim on a single source...EVER! My work would not be taken seriously. So why would you stick your flag in one source? Also, since he is the one who introduced Chomsky as a source, it is up to him to build credibility for his source, as in any peer review...

In general, I notice if you post from America, you take your eyes off the subject and focus on a person rather than his result. I wonder why that is? Do find that easy or is it just that you are taught to respong like that?

You are mis-reading the interpretation here. What it means is that it is already known to the human brain. The very thing we are discussing - that 95% of the brain is pre-learnt information. Our objective is to locate to storage place for that software in DNA.

Chomsky and Shannon as a pair are fatal to all AI researchers who wander from their conclusions.

If you want to make an AI program that produced more information that had been put in, then do it. The world waits for such a hero to reveal himself.

If you want to copy the brain, then you have to know how much it knows and how it learned it. But you take a 2 year old child, and immediately run into problems. The child knows far more than any scientist is able to analyze.

Even simple things like vision recognition is so far advanced with millions of rules that have already been implemented, that it is impossible for that information to have been learned.

If you try to break down what a child has learned it breaks down like this:

starting with the eye....

Segmentation algorithms, motion detection algorithm, image classification system, image recognition system, contour recognition system, orientation recognition system, shadow descrimination system, noise filtering system, differential color matching system......

We haven't even reached hand eye coordination, linguistics, language, thought processes, .... the list is just growing and growing.

The problem is obvious. Who the hell had time to write all this software? Many of these things cannot even be described let alone be taught in the time that is allocated.

J