is DNA stupid?



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

can
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:

Doh! This is definitely going nowhere!

Doh! And who wrote the software for the emergent system then?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

learn
You are either incapable of understanding or a troll. I am not going to waste any more time on you.
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B. Xenotech Research 321-206-1840
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D. Jay Newman wrote:

You tripped up at the first hurdle of understanding. If it didn't need to be programmed then who wrote the AI program then?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

To debunk this theory we would have to raise a child in isolation for two years.
Not only is this illegal, immoral, and unethical, it would take longer than five minutes.
There have been *many* studies on children who have, for some reason, been raised without language. In all cases, they were not able to pick up language completely.
This was from the wikipedia link.
So basically your statement has already *been* debunked. -- D. Jay Newman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D. Jay Newman wrote:

Who says? What's wrong with all the studies of deaf and other incapacitated children?

Yeah but they sure as hell know a lot more than they were ever trained. Take the deaf for example.

Yeah right - raising a child in isolation forms a pretty steep example of your limited understanding of debunking I assume?

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

Example? That was a single phrase. Examples have DETAILS!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

These are very different from your proposal.
Your statement is that 95% of the personality (and by that you *seem* to mean knowledge) in the brain is hard-wired.
Therefore a child raised in total isolation should have 95% of the information of a normally raised child. If I am wrong, please tell me where I have misunderstood you.

You're getting off the subject. Deaf children are rarely raised without language. They may not be able to hear, but they can see and know that communication is going on.
Only in a few pathological cases are there major problems with aquiring language. And most of those are from lack of personal feedback.
I was talking about feral children who have attained adolescence without language aquisition. These were studies from your link.
In none of these cases have the children been able to assimulate human society including language.
If 95% of the personality were built in, then why do these children have such problems?

Strange. I thought you made a statement about posters insulting you? I have been very careful to debate your points and not you personally.
And yes, I think my thought-experiment totally debunks your statement.
And you still have yet to provide a reference. -- D. Jay Newman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How's http://human-brain.org/chomsky.html for a start?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom McEwan wrote:

This is *not* a scientific debunk, its long verbose rant aimed at Chomsky's work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guillaume <"grsNOSPAM at NOTTHATmail dot com"> wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Go study some neuroscience and get back to us when you're done.
Thanks :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

600 million years of trial and error and survival of the fittest all over the earth.
7 million years from chimps to humans. All over the western hemisphere.
But human technology went from walking to rocket ships in about 5000 years.
Human technology is proceeding much faster than Darwinian evolution. Say, maybe 10,000,000 years from walking to flying in dinosaurs; 5,000 in humans.
When the Jew's ancestors discovered eugenics about 6000 years ago that speeded things up also.
The curve is not exponential.
It's hyperbolic.
That means the singularity will be here soon: http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1992/CyberPigs.html http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

I could describe a dinosaur in about a thousand words.

And teach it to a child in about 5 seconds.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Karen J) wrote in message

Eastern Hemisphere
- karen715j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

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

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

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.
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.