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
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
Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B.
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
This was from the wikipedia link.
So basically your statement has already *been*
D. Jay Newman
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
And you still have yet to provide a reference.
D. Jay Newman
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.
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....
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.
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.
That means the singularity will be here soon:
I could describe a dinosaur in about a thousand words.
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.
Sorry, but you don't have that option. When it is *you*
stating a radical opinion as fact, it is up to *you* to
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:
2. Environment (learned by a "machine" described by the
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
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.
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.