3 ms·

Environment being another source of information was mentioned (in my 2nd paragraph), but interactions that are determined by their starting points don't add inf

by 10ren 16y ago

Environment being another source of information was mentioned (in my 2nd paragraph), but interactions that are determined by their starting points don't add information - even if the result looks more complex. This idea (and the comment about the mandlebrot set) is similar to "pi holding all the information in the world" (assuming it's normal, meaning not repeating/regular) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1567225 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1567225 Whereas the training data for a neural net is extra information - but in utero, what is the training data that is not a predictable consequence of the genome? (ex utero there might be an argument, since humans not exposed to language don't develop it; although a group of isolated humans have developed language spontaneously - complex grammatical structures, the whole bit - which makes sense, given the variety of human languages. This supports the idea that language is genetic, or as Pinker provocatively describes it, the language instinct). EDIT here's a thought experiment to illustrate why predictable interactions don't add information: taking the figure of six billion bits for the whole human genome, this means it can specify 2^6,000,000,000 different genomes (a lot). You can imagine changing one single bit, and all those complex interactions leading to a slightly different human phenome. Most of the possible phenomes wouldn't be a living human, or even anything recognizably human (or living). But the crucial point is that you simply can't specify any other phenomes (apart from those 2^6,000,000,000). You've changed all the bits - what else is there left to change within the genome?

KirinDave 16y ago
> Whereas the training data for a neural net is extra information - but in utero, what is the training data that is not a predictable consequence of the genome? For starters, the mother's chemistry which is a function of her DNA and environment. And the mother's physical environment, diet, health, etc. These are things that have no representation in the genome but can radically change brain structure in a developing mammal. I'm not claiming the environment magnifies existing information, I'm claiming it's part of the total set and Kurzweil (and you) are vastly underestimating the amount of state that is associated with the exact details of a developing organism. This seems to be the thrust of Myers's point (at least in the beginning): you are simplifying and you are not allowed to do that. Myers then follows that point by saying that even if we do manage to isolate all that information and understand it, we actually don't have certain critical problems like protein folding solved, or even reliably simulated yet. Even if you hand-wave all this and assume it's possible, the notion that 10 years is the timeframe for this seems... excessively optimistic.
- 10ren 16y ago
  Looks like I placed too much weight on your parenthetical "and themselves" > interactions between cell types and their environment (and themselves) is a giant information content multiplier and we're actually in agreement; my first comment included: > I'm not so sure about the simulation > The only other source of information is the non-genomic environment - extra-nucleur DNA like mitochondria, and the womb (which is arguably already specified in the genome, unless mother nature has done a Ken Thompson http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html at some point.)
- 10ren 16y ago
  Actually, we're not in agreement. > vastly underestimating the amount of state that is associated with the exact details of a developing organism. Sir, kindly indicate where Myers makes that point. I read him as going straight into protein folding, and the complex interactions required for the expression of the genome. (I believe you agree that state in the environment that is caused by the expression of the DNA is not information originating in the environment - ie that this is merely magnifying information, as you put it.) While there is an incredible amount of state created, in the from of gradients and so on, this is directed by the genome... Or maybe this is our basic disagreement: do you think that an image of a mandelbrot set creates information as it is generated (and that pi creates information as each digit is calculated), or do you think that the information is defined within the algorithm that calculates it? [there are other issues, but just taking this one alone] So I'm not 100% sure what you mean; please clarify if I understand you correctly. While there's information in the environment, there's not very much: consider the white and yoke of a chicken egg. Like letters etched in metal with acid, most of the information is in the placement of the letters; the exact nature of the chemical reaction contributes a very small amount of information. Can you indicate why you think there is a great deal of information originating in the environment? Yes, the heath of the mother can have an effect, but that's if she is unhealthy, and development does not proceed normally. Assuming she's healthy, the specific condition of the mother doesn't determine whether or not a human being is created. Are you suggesting otherwise?

by 10ren 16y ago

KirinDave 16y ago

> Whereas the training data for a neural net is extra information - but in utero, what is the training data that is not a predictable consequence of the genome? For starters, the mother's chemistry which is a function of her DNA and environment. And the mother's physical environment, diet, health, etc. These are things that have no representation in the genome but can radically change brain structure in a developing mammal. I'm not claiming the environment magnifies existing information, I'm claiming it's part of the total set and Kurzweil (and you) are vastly underestimating the amount of state that is associated with the exact details of a developing organism. This seems to be the thrust of Myers's point (at least in the beginning): you are simplifying and you are not allowed to do that. Myers then follows that point by saying that even if we do manage to isolate all that information and understand it, we actually don't have certain critical problems like protein folding solved, or even reliably simulated yet. Even if you hand-wave all this and assume it's possible, the notion that 10 years is the timeframe for this seems... excessively optimistic.

10ren 16y ago
Looks like I placed too much weight on your parenthetical "and themselves" > interactions between cell types and their environment (and themselves) is a giant information content multiplier and we're actually in agreement; my first comment included: > I'm not so sure about the simulation > The only other source of information is the non-genomic environment - extra-nucleur DNA like mitochondria, and the womb (which is arguably already specified in the genome, unless mother nature has done a Ken Thompson http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html at some point.)
10ren 16y ago
Actually, we're not in agreement. > vastly underestimating the amount of state that is associated with the exact details of a developing organism. Sir, kindly indicate where Myers makes that point. I read him as going straight into protein folding, and the complex interactions required for the expression of the genome. (I believe you agree that state in the environment that is caused by the expression of the DNA is not information originating in the environment - ie that this is merely magnifying information, as you put it.) While there is an incredible amount of state created, in the from of gradients and so on, this is directed by the genome... Or maybe this is our basic disagreement: do you think that an image of a mandelbrot set creates information as it is generated (and that pi creates information as each digit is calculated), or do you think that the information is defined within the algorithm that calculates it? [there are other issues, but just taking this one alone] So I'm not 100% sure what you mean; please clarify if I understand you correctly. While there's information in the environment, there's not very much: consider the white and yoke of a chicken egg. Like letters etched in metal with acid, most of the information is in the placement of the letters; the exact nature of the chemical reaction contributes a very small amount of information. Can you indicate why you think there is a great deal of information originating in the environment? Yes, the heath of the mother can have an effect, but that's if she is unhealthy, and development does not proceed normally. Assuming she's healthy, the specific condition of the mother doesn't determine whether or not a human being is created. Are you suggesting otherwise?