4 ms·

No, it's not compression at rest. What GP is talking about is the encoding of recipes for acquiring skills rather than encoding the skill itself. The end result

No, it's not compression at rest. What GP is talking about is the encoding of recipes for acquiring skills rather than encoding the skill itself. The end result is that the skill is acquired, but the skill is not latent in the genome, so your .gz analogy doesn't hold. It's a compression that has access to a vast existing dictionary and makes better use of it then some other. The information develops through the expression of the phenotype in the environment, but it can't be said to be latent in the genome. This is what one would expect given what we already know about biology and Turing machines. The difference is the Turing machine here doesn't start with an empty tape -- far from it.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> The information develops through the expression of the phenotype in the environment, but it can't be said to be latent in the genome. Why not? Consider birdsong. Many birds must learn "correct" song from models. If raised without good models, they still sing, but they sing a deformed song. This is, correctly, treated as evidence that the song of these birds is a cultural phenomenon -- a bird raised in isolation will sing in an identifiably different way than a bird raised normally. So is normal song arbitrary? Can we say that it isn't encoded in the birds' genetics? Those answers are no and no; when birds with deformed song raise children, those children learn normal song. Normal song is the only steady state of the bird population; any other state will inevitably become normal song. This is sufficient to say that normal song is latent in the birds' genome -- the genome will create it from nothing if necessary -- even though the genome cannot cause a single individual bird to sing correctly in isolation.
- inimino 7y ago
  That's just one, particularly limited, way of compressing information by using the environment. The information is merely a fixed point of the "function" that is encoded. But what about all the other sources of signal that don't originate from the organism's own genome? If there are other ways to compress the information even further, should we not expect Nature to use all of them? Consider human language. Would humans reproduce spoken language given a generation or two? We can't do the experiment but there are well-known results that strongly suggest not. (Strictly speaking, the genome can't even create the bird from nothing, but I understand what you are getting at.)
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Would humans reproduce spoken language given a generation or two? We can't do the experiment but there are well-known results that strongly suggest not. Which? I would say the answer is clearly yes. The closest analogue we have is the innovation of sign language by deaf children who were brought into schools with each other. They created working sign language from -- again -- nothing; they could not learn spoken language due to being deaf, and they had no sign language model to learn from. This took only a single generation, even better than the birds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language This is an exact match to your hypothetical question if you're willing to overlook the fact that sign languages are not "spoken".
    - inimino 7y ago
      The hypothetical would be, as a thought experiment, what if Mars was colonized by a bunch of newborn human babies? Leaving aside the question of how they'd survive, would they develop languages like the ones we have today within a few generations? I think the very idea is ridiculous, but you may disagree. Nicaraguan sign language was not developed in a vacuum, it was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with the full use of all their senses but one. Far from "nothing".
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        It was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with zero exposure to language. So yes, ignoring the question of how they survive, a community of children will develop its own language without the need for external input. Why do you think differently? "I think the very idea is ridiculous" isn't much of an argument.
        inimino 7y ago
        > It was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with zero exposure to language. If they are living in a normal society, they are exposed to language nearly continuously, from visible printed language to visible body language to the visual evidence of language being spoken all around them.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> The information develops through the expression of the phenotype in the environment, but it can't be said to be latent in the genome. Why not? Consider birdsong. Many birds must learn "correct" song from models. If raised without good models, they still sing, but they sing a deformed song. This is, correctly, treated as evidence that the song of these birds is a cultural phenomenon -- a bird raised in isolation will sing in an identifiably different way than a bird raised normally. So is normal song arbitrary? Can we say that it isn't encoded in the birds' genetics? Those answers are no and no; when birds with deformed song raise children, those children learn normal song. Normal song is the only steady state of the bird population; any other state will inevitably become normal song. This is sufficient to say that normal song is latent in the birds' genome -- the genome will create it from nothing if necessary -- even though the genome cannot cause a single individual bird to sing correctly in isolation.

inimino 7y ago
That's just one, particularly limited, way of compressing information by using the environment. The information is merely a fixed point of the "function" that is encoded. But what about all the other sources of signal that don't originate from the organism's own genome? If there are other ways to compress the information even further, should we not expect Nature to use all of them? Consider human language. Would humans reproduce spoken language given a generation or two? We can't do the experiment but there are well-known results that strongly suggest not. (Strictly speaking, the genome can't even create the bird from nothing, but I understand what you are getting at.)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Would humans reproduce spoken language given a generation or two? We can't do the experiment but there are well-known results that strongly suggest not. Which? I would say the answer is clearly yes. The closest analogue we have is the innovation of sign language by deaf children who were brought into schools with each other. They created working sign language from -- again -- nothing; they could not learn spoken language due to being deaf, and they had no sign language model to learn from. This took only a single generation, even better than the birds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language This is an exact match to your hypothetical question if you're willing to overlook the fact that sign languages are not "spoken".
  - inimino 7y ago
    The hypothetical would be, as a thought experiment, what if Mars was colonized by a bunch of newborn human babies? Leaving aside the question of how they'd survive, would they develop languages like the ones we have today within a few generations? I think the very idea is ridiculous, but you may disagree. Nicaraguan sign language was not developed in a vacuum, it was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with the full use of all their senses but one. Far from "nothing".
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      It was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with zero exposure to language. So yes, ignoring the question of how they survive, a community of children will develop its own language without the need for external input. Why do you think differently? "I think the very idea is ridiculous" isn't much of an argument.
      - inimino 7y ago
        > It was developed by children living in a completely normal human society with zero exposure to language. If they are living in a normal society, they are exposed to language nearly continuously, from visible printed language to visible body language to the visual evidence of language being spoken all around them.