Specifically, it looks like the genetic code is a LISP dialect.
Operon structure of genetic code:
– https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1094/2016/11/03164740/OSC_Microbio_11_07_Operon.jpg
LISP function structure:
– http://support.ircam.fr/docs/om/om6-manual/res/listprefix.png
Nested genes:
– https://player.slideplayer.com/31/9782148/data/images/img11.jpg
Nested LISP cons cells:
– https://www.tutorialspoint.com/lisp/images/treestructure.jpg
OMagain,
If ID is trivial why are you worried about it?
That’s a fun idea.
Do you have any, y’know, evidence to support that idea?
Or any of your ideas regarding the need for quantum entanglement in a biological system?
There is a paper he links with that title. I have no idea of its biological merit. I did notice that the authors are careful to try to explain how decoherence is avoided, although I do not know if their explanation holds water, so to speak.
I also notice that “category theory” has been added as something new in to J-Mac’s scientific vocabulary, although perhaps I may have missed it in the past. I am still unclear on whether or not he is using something like the tool at this link:
http://www.davidbarrow.com/psjg/
I read Leslie Valiant’s book Probably Approximately Correct a couple of years ago and noted the analogy he makes between learning and natural selection. This is an interesting topic for a different thread; in the meantime I’ll have to go back and remind myself of his argument.
An analogy BF Skinner made around 1928.
Really? How so?
Of course: photosynthesis, bird navigation, sense of smell, consciousness…
It can be easily test it…
It’s not the need that matters…which seems important in itself… like in bird migration or the efficiency of photosynthesis being close to 100%…How about the precision of mitosis?
Don’t be ignorant Jock! Just because quantum biology wasn’t around when you did your work, it doesn’t mean there is no need for entanglement, or that it’s not happening in life systems…
ETA: How about Quantum mechanics in the mechanism of sexual reproduction?
Stop embarrassing yourself!
It’s a basic math concept…
Learning what? From whom?
Using ‘natural selection’ marks a reductionistic approach to human learning.
Exactly. Rather outdated & already overcome, except it still sounds attractive & even somehow ‘logical’ to biologists & other natural scientists who don’t or even have never read about educational theory and practise.
‘Human selection’ eclipses mere ‘natural selection’ when it comes to ‘learning’ (at least, the non-reductionistic human kind). Then again, Joe is the uncultural type in his language, so turning to a computer scientist about ‘learning’ may seem like a ‘good idea’ (just like ‘memetics’ did to a whole bunch of naturalists!).
Go make a leaf.
Except it’s not so easy, is it?
I mean, if it was easy you could do it. And you never will. You just assume the outcome will be as you want it to be (see my earlier comment where a speculative OP turned into evidence for a subsequent OP) and that is good enough for you.
How about it? Go on, say something! You appear to think that adding the world Quantum to things is some kind of revelation.
How many papers have you published on this J-Mac? Oh, that many?
Not sure how that is relevant, or even meaningful.
As I understand his ideas, Valiant is not engaged in reductionist thinking. Rather, he postulates a mathematical/statistical model which he claims can capture some general structural features of both biological evolution and human learning.
I would not want to “embarrass myself” by trying to explain the details of the mapping of the relevant mathematical structures that he proposes.
I know as much about educational theory as I do about population genetics (ie nothing of note) but if an expert in it was posting at TSZ, I would ask about whether workers saw any value in Valiant’s work in, for example, studying the mechanisms of successful human learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_sciences#The_nature_of_the_learner_and_of_learning
Nope. Quantum information cannot be copied (thanks to the no-cloning theorem), but the entire point of DNA is that the information in it can be copied.
You’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome when it comes to QM — your understanding of it is so bad that you have no idea just how bad your understanding is. Seriously, please either learn enough about it to be able to tell its real implications from pseudoscientific nonsense, or realize that you don’t know enough to tell the difference.
Yes, but Valiant has theorems. The question is, if we apply them to biology, do they tell us anything interesting?
This is a great point, and also very strange. Nothing we humans have created are true quines. For example, the closest we seem to get is with quine computer programs, but they rely on a whole host of background materials that are not reproduced.
The ability to reproduce is pretty astounding from an engineering point of view.
@BruceS interestingly, Valiant’s PAC learning is undecidable:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06324
So, if it is representative of human learning, then that is evidence of the human mind being a halting oracle.
A similar concept is Solmonoff induction, which is also only possible with a halting oracle.
At any rate, my question relating LISP and the genome has certainly struck a nerve. I’m not bringing up anything related to intelligent design, but it seems fear of opening that door is making commentators want to shut down the question.
So, if we assume for sake of argument that I’ve actually identified a useful correlation between the genome and programming languages, this is an example of how anti-ID bias is stopping scientific progress.
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/85289/is-the-genome-a-programming-language-e-g-like-lisp-can-we-analyze-it-as-soft/
https://bioinformatics.stackexchange.com/questions/8890/is-the-genome-a-programming-language-i-e-lisp-can-we-analyze-it-with-compute
J-Mac,
So that’s a “No”, then.
Thank you for your honesty.
Those are Q&A sites, not funding agencies.
In any event, is there anything wrong with their reasons as to why this is not something worth spending limited scientific funding on. You can call it bias, but that is not an argument.
Really?
How could that be if DNA on subatomic level is quantum as well which means, like it or not, contains quantum information?
Is it possible that you don’t understand the no-cloning theorem?
Or, is it possible that you don’t understand what exactly is copied? Or, could it be both?
This is the first sentence from the link you provided. I want you to read it very carefully:
“In physics, the no-cloning theorem states that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state.”
If you bothered to read my link, you wouldn’t be asking stupid questions..
Don’t waste my time!
Jesus H Christ. How can you confuse mockery with fear?
Fucks sake. Nobody is stopping you doing anything at all!
The crowd has spoken. You have been given a -5 and mocked soundly.
Now, fucking prove them wrong!!
If criticism gets you down then you are in the wrong game!
Here, let me help. If you do something that has some actual value that can be used to create novel useful results then your ideas will be taken up and used! But you have to do that initial work. The world is full of crackpots.
You are suffering from the same problem as J-Mac. You are “just asking questions”
Why don’t you analyze it as software? And show that that can be done and produce something useful from it.
Bozo the clown got laughed at too you know.
Why not? It seems you don’t mind wasting it yourself!
Why are you pissing around with this when you have important Intelligent Design insights to bring to industry Eric? Profit is a good indicator you are onto something.
Ever wonder why there are no YEC oil prospectors?
The PAC paper is just an interesting math result. It says nothing about the usefulness of PAC as an empirical model.
In terms of applying the result to science, I only saw a brief mention of AI as a possible application, and that was limited to noting that the result implied there could be no universal way to tell if AI learning based on PAC would succeed on given data and labels. But so what? AI works by trying and tuning, not by trying to decide in advance whether to even try.
For biology, evolution is similarly a trial and error (ie die) situation, with a variety of genomes (TM tapes?) in play in a population, and constant refresh of the variety by mutation. There is no reason to suppose that an empirical model for evolution has to include being able to learn everything even for one given genome, let alone a mutating population. Indeed there is no reason to suppose that difficult to learn environments are even physically possible.
Similar real-world concerns apply to human learning. There is no reason to suppose that human intelligence can solve the halting problem as part of building an empirically successful scientific model of human intelligence. Quite the opposite: it is only by building emprically successful models that we can know what human intelligence can do. The same applies to any theoretical mathematical limitation which is not grounded in science.
Pointing to pure mathematical results to imply they limit successful science as our best source of knowledge of how the world is, is to assert rationalism as a source of knowledge of how the world is. As for me, I believe in empiricism: it is science that limits the math that is useful and pertinent, and not the rationalist reverse.
So that is my worldview, and I am sticking to it, because it works for me, and, for what it is worth, most of the rest of the world as well, as expressed by where societies spend their money — on empirically grounded science!
Really? If I were you I’d look up first what quantum state is and then, if you ever understand what exactly it is, have an assessment done on: ” I hate ID so I’m going to contradict everything they say even if I make a fool of myself”.
Good job! You accomplished it perfectly today…😅
ROFL
What? The link that states
Given that this paper has been cited exactly four times, three of them by its first author, safe to say that all they have is mental m*sturbation – zero evidence – experimental evidence, the kind you insist on, supposedly.
I checked out the fourth citation too. That’s how I roll.
But given that you walked into this trap, it is also safe to say that you did not read the paper you linked to. Or if perchance you read it, you did not understand it.
Happens a lot.
Measuring LDL, anyone?
Eric is motive-mongering. What do the secret Darwin cabal not want you to know? What are the 5 tricks to destroying materialism including the 2 big Pharma *really* don’t want you to know? Have it it – get published.
You know you can create better, unfettered science-plus, right? Its just got to actually, functionally, empirically, .. be better. I hope you do it, Humanity will be better off. But you wont.
It is not! By his own admission Sal said the cell is an open system. Therefore, it receives input. Due to that it can’t function in the similar way to Quine.
So, you don’t understand the paper not to mention quantum entanglement ? Fair enough. Just a side note, if decoherence happens, the cell division is halted. You wouldn’t know why, would you? I didn’t think so… 😂
It’s easy to test…😉
I’m planning to do an OP on the bear cholesterol/LDL. You aren’t going to object or write alerts like when I did the OP on LTEE?
Are you planning to deny that you agreed with me on the big deal cholesterol levels and then you changed you mind? I have a screen shot just in case 😆
Beats me how a code can also be a language. I’m familiar with quite a few languages, and have generated a lot of code with them, but the code is the output, not the language. The cake is not the recipe.
Now, I admit I have also disassembled a lot of binaries produced by compilers, to the point where I can certainly guess what language’s compiler produced those bytes, and sometimes guess which company’s compiler was used. Different languages make distinctly different uses of, for example, the stack. But this doesn’t mean that the code IS the language. I suppose it’s quite possible to construct a C compiler to produce binary output that looks like Lisp. There is no necessary relationship between the code and the language that creates it. Love songs can be written in any natural language, even German!
When I was an adoloscent, I enjoyed this book
2000 Insults
You may wish to buy a copy if you want to add some variety to your posts.
I see them as worthless in cognitive science. But cognitive scientists have not yet discovered that they are making a huge mistake.
“if decoherence happens, the cell division is halted”
Frankly, I don’t believe you. Citation please. I’m pretty confident that decoherence happens every second.
“It’s easy to test…”
then you should have no trouble providing experimental evidence in support of your Quantum Woo, specifically the Type II Restriction Endonuclease Woo. So far, you have supplied none, and that one struck me as especially Woo-ful. (Caveat: there are data regarding photosynthetic centres that supports the idea that cytochromes take advantage of QM effects, likewise with magnetic navigation, although I personally don’t buy the latter)
Err, I think you have me confused with someone else, mate. Making your LTEE thread rule-free was done without my
consentapproval. 😉Don’t have the foggiest what you are getting at here. You are going to have to get MUCH more specific. WHen we last discussed this topic, you were busy demonstrating that you were didn’t even know how LDL levels are determined. It was pretty awkward. You provide your screenshot and I’ll provide the links to your performance.
There’s a couple on other questions (protein design and your buddy Malcolm Kendrick’s use of RMST in analyzing statin trial data) that you ran away from. I’d love to re-visit those.
No-one else would however.
It wasn’t meant as an insult… I thought you were a mathematician, so I wanted to spare you the embarrassment…
Now I know…
Frankly I don’t give a damn…
Good bye!😘
This is a perfect example why you are a waste of time…
Evidence really does care what you think, Jock?..😆
Double good bye! 🙈
er, um, evolutionists?
For this claim, evidence is an unnecessary extravagance apparently.
It’s still evolving too…
Just ask the Darwin’s faithful what is their prediction of the evolution of the genetic code in 35 billion perdicted by evolution species of microbes…
You can also ask them on what evidence they based their speculations that the genetic code evolved too..
The funny thing about Darwinism is that all the evolutionary intermediates are suspiciously missing just like the intermediates of the code through a “doublet” phase…🤣
I just had to repost that.
It’s called developmental genetics. If you are genuinely interested, I suggest you look it up.
For future posts, just assume I have no clue what you are talking about. Please fill me in.
Inconsistency alert!
OK, but I did say “valuable to cognitive scientists” and not “valuable to retired mathematicians who claim to know more about cognitive science than people actually working in the field.”
Internet forums seem to attract solitary geniuses who have special, privileged access to the truth. Or so they say.
But it is true that some of them are much better at taking good natured insults than others.
There might be an interesting discussion about whether DNA+cell biochemistry can be usefully considered a Domain Specific Language with an interpreter to produce codes for proteins.
The OP does read as confusing a picture of a linked list structure as used in LISt Processing language with the LISP language. I am unclear on whether Eric understands that.
In any event, it seems that the OP was actually intended to lead to complaining about the scientific conspiracy to suppress ID. Sigh.
I’m guessing that we don’t understand brains well enough to have theorems. Did Darwin tell us anything interesting, before we had genetics?
I’m tempted to think of AI and cognitive science as bordering on cargo cult science. There’s been some success in robotics, but I think we have a long way to go.
Neil’s take on things seem mainstream to me.
EricMH: just a reassurance that I am rereading Dembski (1996, 2002) to make sure I am not mischaracterizing his argument. Will comment on that here soon.
Yes, I do know what a quantum state is. I took a year of graduate-level QM while I was in college. I don’t claim to be an expert (and I’m certainly rusty), but I’m familiar with the basics and relatively used to thinking in quantum terms.
Do you understand QM at even a basic level? Can you actually say anything more specific than “it’s quantum information!” like some sort of magic incantation, and quote other people on the subject? Do you know how to think in quantum terms?
Here’s a quick quiz about QM, quantum information, and the relevance of the no cloning theorem (in a simple case). It doesn’t require any particularly deep understanding, just a basic knowledge of the notation, jargon, and some algebra. If you actually understand QM as well as you seem to think, this should be easy for you.
(Ok, there’s a kind of annoying amount of algebra, to the point where I can’t guarantee I didn’t lose track of the sign of any terms when I worked through it. My goal isn’t to make you do the algebra, but to make you prove you know what algebra to do, and needing to work through it is just part of proving that. ‘Course, if you’re a real expert, you’ll probably just set up the relevant transformation matrix and let Mathematica do everything for you…)
Suppose we have a a qbit, with the usual basis states |0⟩ and |1⟩. Suppose we have a qbit “copier” that, given a gbit in the state |0⟩ produces a pair of qbits in the state |0⟩|0⟩, and given one in the state |1⟩, produces a pair in the state |1⟩|1⟩. Straightforward so far, right?
(I did think about doing this with a 4-state system with {|A⟩, |C⟩, |G⟩, |T⟩} as its basis, but it just made the algebra sloggier.)
Now, let’s define two other states for our qbits, |+⟩ = (|0⟩ + |1⟩)/sqrt(2) and |-⟩ = (|0⟩ – |1⟩)/sqrt(2). These are orthogonal and unitary, so they form another basis for our qbit’s state space.
Question 1: Suppose we fed a qbit in the state |+⟩ into the “copier”. What state would the pair of qbits it produces be in?
Question 2: Suppose, given two qbits in the state from question 1, we measured each of them in the {|+⟩, |-⟩} basis. What’re the possible combinations of results we might get and their probabilities?
Question 3: Suppose we lost the copy (i.e. the second qbit). Is there any test we can perform on the first qbit that’ll distinguish it from being in a random state? If so, what is it?
So there’s your challenge. Either answer the questions, or admit that you don’t understand QM well enough to.
Don’t mistake quantity of response as a measure of quality; that way lies clickbait. Worse, in a forum like this, the best form of clickbait is really really obvious nonsesnse from the other side — the sort of thing that everybody wants to join in pointing out how ridiculous it is and what obvious idiots the other side must be to think such things.
I noticed this phenomenon back when I read talk.origins regularly. A creationist would post something completely stupid, everyone on the evolution side would point out that it was stupid, and the creationist would say something like “Guess I really struck a nerve there!” And then the creationist would, probably unconsciously, adjust their arguments to maximize response. Essentially, they’d make themselves into buffoons, because that’s what got the big responses.
Don’t do that. Don’t mistake the response to this post to hitting on something significant. What’s happened here is that you’ve made an obviously bad argument, and everyone had to jump on the point-and-laugh-at-the-silly-IDist bandwagon. So don’t make more arguments like this; make better ones.