is DNA stupid?

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

In general, I notice if you post from America, you take your eyes off the subject and focus on the person rather than the discussion. I wonder why that is? Do find that easy or is it just that you are taught to respong like that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

You keep saying that. However, his point is valid. *You* introduced Chomsky and never provided references for the statement. Also, Marcus is right in assuming that you must defend the statements that you make. You are the one that introduced these things.
Both of your statements have been debunked and refuted, yet you refuse to provide any defense. I find it extremely difficult to take your arguments seriously. -- D. Jay Newman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

----------------------- No, I actually think this way and talk this way.

-------------- Sure we do, why not, nobody knows how big it is!
-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
Karen J wrote:

--------------------- You don't get it, no "cybersoul" in software somewhere in hardware either in this dimension or the future or any other is needed, because the Infinite Imagination includes that possibility along with all possible others simultaneously. Nothing you can describe is Infinite as is the Imagination, because it includes ALL possible lives, all possible experiences.

------------------------------------- I know about relative infinities, but the largest is the most general, and that's the Imagination, because it has NO features, and is neither personal, nor mental, nor physical, it probes the question of life right down to row, row, row your boat, life is naught but a dream!!

----------------------------- And much more...

------------------------------ Misquote, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Shakespeare, "Macbeth"

---------------------------- What's the "meta-golden rule"?
-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

"Fear the Supercomputer System Operator, who could sack your silly cybersoul at any second."
But since you don't accept (yet) that you are a cybersoul, I guess you are free to blather on, and on, and on....
- karen715j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Foolish, foolish person. Here is one of many examples of such: ftp://ccreweb.org/software/kforth/examples/lf.4th
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..he wrote, using an encoding system (ASCII) with seven bits per symbol...
--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy Macon wrote:

Careful. Next he'll be saying ASCII is stupid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

They are not bits, they can be highly complex "rules" or "intructions" for making a protein. These single proteins can then have many different effects with in a chemical system like the body. Simple rules often lead to very complex behavior. You should know that being an "information technologist".

The Brain is not a typical information system. I cant use an algorithm to calculate the circumference/perimeter of a circle on a rectangle and expect it to make sense, likewise you cant apply stuff for information systems to something like the Brain until you are sure they are equivalent, and no one really knows how the brain works in detail (especially *where and how* memories are stored for example).

It doesn't get stored in DNA - this is why your personality can be significantly different from your parents. Obviously some traits are passed along, but the majority of the personality is created ad hoc as the child grows up and experiences the world. This experience is also significantly influenced by your parents usually which leads to similar personalities usually - this is rapidly heading towards "Nature vs Nurture" type arguments which is something of a minefield!

Chomsky is not the ultimate decider on the issue. Leave a baby on its own in a box for 5 years and assuming it wont starve to death in the first few days, it wont learn language or social skills and it probably wont learn to walk and it probably wont learn to use tools as it has no need for these things. Kids learn a lot in their first few years - obviously some stuff like swallowing is reflex but then its the same with all animals. I dont see why it is incapable for a child to learn everything it does - how long does it take to learn something afterall, even as an adult? Kids learn how to speak, walk etc with *zero* experience in a fairly short amount of time, much quicker than adults can in similar situations.

The brain already exists when you are born! And it doesn't neccesarily need to be "programmed" - the brain is not a computer in the common sense. Some might argue that its physical structure is the programming, but this is pretty dynamic.

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

----------------- No, you are. The personality/memory/capacity of a human is NOT encoded in DNA, only the construction plans are. The rest is implicit in that construction, in other words the DNA is just a stupid chemical, it isn't "magic", and instead it is what it produces that becomes amazing. DNA has no idea what it has done, it is a machine for pssing on implicit capabilities.

---------------- It isn't. It's stored in the pattern of dendritic and axionic connections that form the synapses of nerve cells and their weighting functions.

---------------- You're deluded. Somebody told you wrong or permitted you to believe something that is totally wrong. We learn these things, we are NOT vorn with them. In a way, the entire reality is what programs our lives to experience and learn what we know. The entirety of reality is the inheritance mechanism for awareness and thought, our DNA merely builds our body, not our ideas. Experience causes our brain to learn to think because it is capable of it, not DNA!! A child can be kept in a closet and it won't ever really become a live human being with a mind and ideas.

--------------------------------- It comes from outside us.

----------------------- Chomsky's not Gawd.

---------------------------- Who says? We don't even know how to do that kind of math successfully yet! That's nothing but a guess!
What supports and implies one idea from another idea is built in, but that embedded capacity implies knowledge causedby existence, but it is like any order arising from chaos scenario, it looks difficult till you see it work. The very first ALife experiment was not expected to go very far, but it invented punctuated equilibrium, and sex, and several other higher features no one expected were that easy!

----------------------------- No, you only need to build the machine, and if you do it right, it will learn how to learn. That sounds improbable, but we do it! We do NOT have a personality, an awareness, when we are first born! We have to acquire one by accidental processes, and the human brain built by DNA simply has a high probablity of doing so!! The rest are severely autistic in some form.

---------------------- Nonsense. It does not.

---------------------- Your premise is wrong, we do NOT get learning as a "software", but as a hardware capability, and we learn to think by accident due to exposure and the implicit bias of our brain to learn that.
-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

I think the problem here is, our open-minded colleague e7 is treating the brain something like a Von Neumann computer, which must hence have an entire, complex intelligence-defining program loaded into it as you would load an AI program into your PC, on top of which actual sentience emerges. What he fails to realise is that the DNA probably (I say probably because my own knowledge of this entire topic is sketchy at best, please feel free to correct it or just flat-out tell me I'm wrong) only needs to carry enough data to define just a few types of brain cell, how many are needed in the brain, and their basic behaviour (and it is very basic - as far as I know, all they do is make or break connections with each other, influenced by the various chemical factors in that region of the brain, acting basically like discrete logic). All higher behaviour patterns, learning, etc are built up by the basic making and breaking of connections of those cells (one could say it's sort of like the evolution of society - countless individual, basic nodes all constantly interacting & associating to form more and more complex groupings and structures with ever more complex behaviours of those groups, on their own agenda and completely without consciousness of the higher structures they form).
I think we're fighting a losing battle here, though - it's not a good sign when someone asks a question then promptly insists the answer must be wrong.
OK, flame away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom McEwan wrote:

If this bit were even mildly true, a chimpanzee which is only 1% different from a human will be 1% deficient from a human.

A chimp would also be able to do this. But unfortunately it cannot because it is not pre-loaded with human software. Where is the human software stored? It can't be in the 1% difference between human and chimp.
J
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are factually incorrect again.
You are getting closer, though. In your previous error (which you have yet to own up to) you underestimated the number of bits in the human genome by a factor of 290,000!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
would
emerges.
because
free
needed
as
You're probably assuming all parts of the genetic code have uniform significance, and any difference in data corresponds to a proportional effect. I doubt this is true, in fact I think they showed that only a single bit change can mean the difference between a hair and a feather, quite a big change. (this is a remembered fact from some documentary I heard ages ago - probably incorrect)
And besides, as an analogy, 1% difference in the code of the average computer program, depending on where is is, can cause anything from 0% to 100% failure of the program.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

------------------ Unless those few differences were entirely crucial to what we know as higher intelligence. Are you sure you are intelligent enough to even speak english if you don't already realize that?? The genome is just a state machine that generates the body and brain, not the mind, it doesn't preprogram us anymore than it feeds us food.
That you are whining on about this stuff is merely a symptom of a psychological disturbance on your part that involves some delusion.

------------------------- You really don't get it. Go read up on emergent properties of CAS's, complex adaptive systems, they generate their own intelligence because of their structure and evolved nature acting within in the environment of their evolution. The human is a learning machine that is only built by its genome, but it is only in a VERY minimal sense "programmed" by it in the manner of its own inherent design properties, in that it is evolved by evolution to solve problems for the organism, and it is because this means it must do this for countless examples of the experiences of different organisms, that it has had to progressively evolve more and moreso to be a learning machine. Once upon a time it could be a pure state machine, when we were worms or insects, but the more complex its environment, the more adaptability it needed, however adaptibility not being programming, but instead being the programmability and ability to learn, then also do we see that, comparatively, very little more DNA is needed to add these features, it would have taken MUCH longer to have evolved a human that met its needs as we do in an entirely proprogrammed manner. So you see, it is NOT programmed with what it must learn initially, but only with the capacity to learn those things, and that is VERY VERY much simpler to code into a learning machine, rather than a static logic array or state machine!!
--
Oh no, I just looked at your website, and you're that crank!:
The Fractal Robot Fool, J. Michael!!!!!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R. Steve Walz wrote:

You have to debunk Chomsky's result before saying that.

Generate own intelligence? Show one example of where an emergent system has learned more than the sum of its programming. This is the same heap that AI lands in every time.

So where is the program for countless examples of the experiences different organisms stored on the DNA?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why bother? If you are so dimwitted and stubborn that you can't tell the difference between twenty thousand and three billion, how can you possibly understand the many ways in which you have misunderstood Chomsky or the subtle errors Chomsky himself made?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com wrote:

At least its clear you left the debate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Umm, what?
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.