| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » Environmental Contingencies
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dave Ulmer |
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq4h0a1.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca...
Quote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:20:54 -0800, Dave Ulmer wrote:
20 years of careful study and testing and re-testing...
References to publications in refereed journals, please.
I have made numerous attempts to publish my knowledge of Intelligent Systems
but it seems that Usenet is the only possibility. Understanding intelligent
systems takes considerable effort on the part of the reader and I haven't
found an editor/publisher willing to put forth the effort. Its much easier
to just call me a crackpot and trash my paper.
The other problem is a resistance to anything that comes close to explaining
the 'secret of life' which most scientists apparently consider impossible to
understand. The Ten Directors are the secret to understanding 'life itself'
and as you probably know, the 'Secret of Life' is just rediculous crackpot
stuff..
Dave... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf Kirchmeir |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:02:08 -0800, Dave Ulmer wrote:
Quote: Current understanding of 'life' from the DNA code perspective goes only so
far as identifying the fact that certain codes do certain things. There has
been no progress on actually understanding the language of DNA. The first
step would be the ability to identify the difference between codes for
knowledge and codes for an understanding.
I'm sorry, again, Dave, but the above comments indicate that you have an
out-dated concept of how DNA works. The DNA codes don't _do_ anything,
actually. The language metaphor of DNA's action is almost as misleading as
the blueprint metaphor, and that one is so far off that it's not even wrong.
There is no "language" of DNA - there is just coding for proteins, and that
coding is pretty well understood, in the sense that it's understood how DNA
--> RNA --> protein works for some sequences, and more are being unravelled
daily. It's what the proteins do and how they do it that's not well
understood. One reason is that it's pretty clear that the same protein will
do different things in different biochemical environments (which includes
other proteins), and that substances other than proteins affect the way
proteins do their thing. Another recent discovery is that some of the
intermediate products in the biochemical process chains and networks exist
for very short times, which makes it rather difficult to trace their role in
those processes.
The comment about codes for knowledge vs codes for understanding suggests
that you think the DNA somehow encodes "knowledge" and "understanding" as
evinced by intelligent systems. There can be no such codes, since "knowledge"
and "understanding" are epiphenomena - we attribute these traits to a system
because of the system's behaviours, and very different substrates could
produce similar behaviours.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Ulmer |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq5co33.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca...
Quote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:13:43 -0800, Dave Ulmer wrote:
The other problem is a resistance to anything that comes close to
explaining
the 'secret of life' which most scientists apparently consider impossible
to
understand.
Well, sorry, Dave, but the "secret of life" is subject to scientific
scrutiny, and in its general outlines is pretty well understood. Not but
that
there aren't surprises, as for example the recent realisation that junk
DNA
does have a various functions in the control of genes, and hence
influences
and in some ways even determines inheritance. Etc.
Current understanding of 'life' from the DNA code perspective goes only so
far as identifying the fact that certain codes do certain things. There has
been no progress on actually understanding the language of DNA. The first
step would be the ability to identify the difference between codes for
knowledge and codes for an understanding.
Current DNA science is like reading the one's and zero's on a CD disk
without knowing the Name or Purpose of the CD.
Dave... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf Kirchmeir |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:41:24 GMT, Michael Olea wrote:
Quote: You made mention earlier of "the recent realisation that junk DNA does have
various functions in the control of genes". I never liked the term "junk
DNA", which is just asking for refutation - "non coding DNA" would have been
more circumspect, though less memorable. Anyhow, I would like to hear more
about some of these various functions, if you don't mind taking the time to
elaborate.
Scientific American has had a couple of articles in recent months summarising
this and other revisions of the DNA-only model of inheritance. Most recent:
Nov 2003, "The Unseen Genome: Genes Among the Junk", (W. Wayt Gibbs). Part 2
will appears in December issue.
Good hunting!
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Olea |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
in article jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq5rf90.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca, Wolf
Kirchmeir at wwolfkir@sympatico.can wrote on 12/19/03 11:57 AM:
Quote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:02:08 -0800, Dave Ulmer wrote:
Current understanding of 'life' from the DNA code perspective goes only so
far as identifying the fact that certain codes do certain things. There has
been no progress on actually understanding the language of DNA. The first
step would be the ability to identify the difference between codes for
knowledge and codes for an understanding.
I'm sorry, again, Dave, but the above comments indicate that you have an
out-dated concept of how DNA works. The DNA codes don't _do_ anything,
actually. The language metaphor of DNA's action is almost as misleading as
the blueprint metaphor, and that one is so far off that it's not even wrong.
There is no "language" of DNA - there is just coding for proteins, and that
coding is pretty well understood, in the sense that it's understood how DNA
--> RNA --> protein works for some sequences, and more are being unravelled
daily. It's what the proteins do and how they do it that's not well
understood. One reason is that it's pretty clear that the same protein will
do different things in different biochemical environments (which includes
other proteins), and that substances other than proteins affect the way
proteins do their thing. Another recent discovery is that some of the
intermediate products in the biochemical process chains and networks exist
for very short times, which makes it rather difficult to trace their role in
those processes.
The comment about codes for knowledge vs codes for understanding suggests
that you think the DNA somehow encodes "knowledge" and "understanding" as
evinced by intelligent systems. There can be no such codes, since "knowledge"
and "understanding" are epiphenomena - we attribute these traits to a system
because of the system's behaviours, and very different substrates could
produce similar behaviours.
You made mention earlier of "the recent realisation that junk DNA does have
various functions in the control of genes". I never liked the term "junk
DNA", which is just asking for refutation - "non coding DNA" would have been
more circumspect, though less memorable. Anyhow, I would like to hear more
about some of these various functions, if you don't mind taking the time to
elaborate. Matt Ridley writes, in "Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience,
and What Makes Us Human" of "alternative splicing" - which, if I remember
correctly, involves sewing together a sequence of exons, where a particular
exon is "chosen" from a set of exons rather than being a fixed sequence, and
the "choice" perhaps involving sensitivity to environmental factors - a
probabilistic switch statement in gene expression?
-- Michael |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Ulmer |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq5rf90.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca...
Quote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:02:08 -0800, Dave Ulmer wrote:
Current understanding of 'life' from the DNA code perspective goes only
so
far as identifying the fact that certain codes do certain things. There
has
been no progress on actually understanding the language of DNA. The first
step would be the ability to identify the difference between codes for
knowledge and codes for an understanding.
I'm sorry, again, Dave, but the above comments indicate that you have an
out-dated concept of how DNA works. The DNA codes don't _do_ anything,
actually. The language metaphor of DNA's action is almost as misleading as
the blueprint metaphor, and that one is so far off that it's not even
wrong.
There is no "language" of DNA - there is just coding for proteins, and
that
coding is pretty well understood, in the sense that it's understood how
DNA
--> RNA --> protein works for some sequences, and more are being
unravelled
daily. It's what the proteins do and how they do it that's not well
understood. One reason is that it's pretty clear that the same protein
will
do different things in different biochemical environments (which includes
other proteins), and that substances other than proteins affect the way
proteins do their thing. Another recent discovery is that some of the
intermediate products in the biochemical process chains and networks exist
for very short times, which makes it rather difficult to trace their role
in
those processes.
The comment about codes for knowledge vs codes for understanding suggests
that you think the DNA somehow encodes "knowledge" and "understanding" as
evinced by intelligent systems. There can be no such codes, since
"knowledge"
and "understanding" are epiphenomena - we attribute these traits to a
system
because of the system's behaviours, and very different substrates could
produce similar behaviours.
Now I must admit I have done most of my research on large scale Intelligent
Systems like corporations and societies but it is clear that the fundamental
concepts go deep down to the DNA level. A typical cell contains numerous
intelligent systems regulating all its many functions. The DNA and RNA fit
the definition of what knowledge is since it can be preserved after life.
The proteins are the understanding engines that operate on the knowledge of
the DNA/RNA knowledge and external data. Understanding engines require
caloric energy in order to perform their data processing so that
understanding is impossible after death.
The Ten Directors are simply the knowledge contexts that must exist even at
the DNA level in order to make understanding of the knowledge possible.
Knowledge out of context is useless at any scale.
Dave... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:58 pm
|
|