"Pre-programmed" knowledge
Pages: 12
I had a very lengthy multi-hour discussion with someone at dinner tonight and we touched on all sorts of topics (initially starting with religion) and finally getting to the most interesting topic before departing: "pre-programmed" knowledge.
After we got past disagreeing about whether or not instincts counted as knowledge (I thought they did), we got to whether DNA could make your hippocampus form with some neurons already connected - that is, whether the DNA could cause our brain to form already with memories and/or knowledge in it. We both agreed that there was no evidence to support that this does happen, thought I thought it did and the hought it didn't, but we had to depart before we could settle our dispute over whether it can happen. The last thing he said as that he might be willing to accept that it could happen only by intentionally altering DNA, and not by evolution (which I could agree to if I knew why evolution could not cause it to happen).
However, I still feel confident, almost without a doubt, that DNA can be altered to make our brains form with pre-programmed knowledge, whereas he still thinks it's highly unlikely.
What do you think? Can DNA be altered so that our brains develop with 'pre-programmed' knowledge and/or memories? If so, can evolution do the same thing given the time and stimulus? Do you believe it is already a reality?
After we got past disagreeing about whether or not instincts counted as knowledge (I thought they did), we got to whether DNA could make your hippocampus form with some neurons already connected - that is, whether the DNA could cause our brain to form already with memories and/or knowledge in it. We both agreed that there was no evidence to support that this does happen, thought I thought it did and the hought it didn't, but we had to depart before we could settle our dispute over whether it can happen. The last thing he said as that he might be willing to accept that it could happen only by intentionally altering DNA, and not by evolution (which I could agree to if I knew why evolution could not cause it to happen).
However, I still feel confident, almost without a doubt, that DNA can be altered to make our brains form with pre-programmed knowledge, whereas he still thinks it's highly unlikely.
What do you think? Can DNA be altered so that our brains develop with 'pre-programmed' knowledge and/or memories? If so, can evolution do the same thing given the time and stimulus? Do you believe it is already a reality?
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| After we got past disagreeing about whether or not instincts counted as knowledge (I thought they did), |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I know nothing about biology, but aren't you describing instinct? |
Last edited on
Whether or not you personally qualify them as knowledge, they certainly are the result of your brain being wired (or 'pre-wired') a certain way, are they not?
His argument that you needed to learn knowledge in order for your instincts to apply - at least, that is what I understood his argument to be. We had such radically different views that often we were unable to effectively communicate what we meant. In any case, he refused to budge on his stance that instincts were not knowledge, so instead I went with his definition of knowledge and tried to argue that knowledge as he knows it could still be pre-programmed. I think I was slowly convincing him but we had to depart.
I'm reminded of the writings of Bertrand Russel, who (probably quoting someone else) said that intrinsic knowledge is that of which escapes the scope of systematic doubt. In other words, it is the things like being aware that you are not in a dream that define intrinsic knowledge, i.e. instinct.
However, then you have things such as Piaget's stages of learning and self-awareness, which introduce a whole host of problems such as being born with the idea that what you see exists (this is why a child is always so amazed when something leaves their sight, then reappears). It could be said that your brain isn't intrinsically built with instinct, but that DNA gives it a footprint to grow within the brain as you hit around the age of 5. Or something to that effect.
However, then you have things such as Piaget's stages of learning and self-awareness, which introduce a whole host of problems such as being born with the idea that what you see exists (this is why a child is always so amazed when something leaves their sight, then reappears). It could be said that your brain isn't intrinsically built with instinct, but that DNA gives it a footprint to grow within the brain as you hit around the age of 5. Or something to that effect.
Yes, he agreed that the brain continues to develop based on DNA, but he hated the mainstream use of the word "develop" as it applies to the brain and preferred me to use the word "flux". I tried to talk to him about self-awareness and certain things like fear of heights, but he insisted that each of my examples of pre-programmed knowledge were actually taught or learned and not coded by our DNA.
| knowledge and/or memories |
You really have to define these things carefully before going too far down this road.
But I would definitely say that the brain has 'knowledge' from the start. That being said, a single cell organism does too, in my opinion.
I think the question though, is whether you can have specific arbitrary knowledge baked into our DNA, so that for example, you are born knowing the distance between the earth and the moon. Sure it's probably possible, but also probably very far beyond our capabilities.
Could evolution do it? Maybe? To some extent I agree that it already happens on some level.
Last edited on
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| After we got past disagreeing about whether or not instincts counted as knowledge (I thought they did), we got to whether DNA could make your hippocampus form with some neurons already connected - that is, whether the DNA could cause our brain to form already with memories and/or knowledge in it. We both agreed that there was no evidence to support that this does happen, thought I thought it did and the hought it didn't, but we had to depart before we could settle our dispute over whether it can happen. The last thing he said as that he might be willing to accept that it could happen only by intentionally altering DNA, and not by evolution (which I could agree to if I knew why evolution could not cause it to happen). |
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| We both agreed that there was no evidence to support that this does happen, ...... |
Think of the turtles, without any help from anything, they break out of their eggshell, escape out of the sand, make their way into the ocean, live their lives then return to the same beach 30 years later to lay eggs.
Born with some knowledge - I think so.
But there is a big difference between various animals, some are born to be independent immediately, others are quite the opposite and need to learn everything while under care of their parent/s.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| The last thing he said as that he might be willing to accept that it could happen only by intentionally altering DNA, and not by evolution (which I could agree to if I knew why evolution could not cause it to happen). |
But evolution is responsible for ALL the knowledge / instinct / behaviour / adaptation that exists in all animals currently - ever since the first eukaryotic cells.
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| I think the question though, is whether you can have specific arbitrary knowledge baked into our DNA, so that for example, you are born knowing the distance between the earth and the moon. |
I guess one would have to sort out what could or could not be be instinctive. I wonder about things like Earth Moon distance, because the concept of units (at least) is definitely a human learnt thing, as opposed to how other animals are cognizant of things such as distance. Also numbers are a thing that lots of animals are cognizant of (probably in a fairly basic way), but what about the concept of scalar quantities like 1 million? Could one be born with those types of concept built in?
I imagine science falls into a similar category - definitely knowledge based to which communication is essential.
Language is another interesting thing, apparently chickens have a vocabulary of 32 words. Are they born knowing that, or do they learn it? Could humans be born already knowing some language? Could be tricky given we have so many languages already.
Anyway, good work LB, it is an interesting topic :+)
This makes me think of the game Assassins Creed. The premise is that the memories of one's ancestors are stored somewhere in their DNA, and through special machines these memories can be accessed. For storyline purposes it was used to discover long lost secrets and knowledge and whatnot, but the idea is fairly similar to what you're talking about. I think the possibilities are fascinating though.
@htirwin: He was what I call a 'word purist' and insisted on using words exactly the way they are supposed to be, regardless of how society uses them (e.g. gay). I had to convince him that me calling DNA an "instruction set" was appropriate before we could continue. Once we figured out that we were just using words differently we were able to adapt to each other and continue.
You have hit the nail on the head with "baked into our DNA" - that's exactly what I'm getting at. He is very skeptical that it is possible, and when he suggested he may be able to accept that it is possible only through external intervention (e.g. scientist making adjustments), I said I might agree that evolution may not be able to do it. It is well known that evolution can get stuck at local maximums despite there being a higher global maximum - but we would need to know whether evolution gets stuck before or after this DNA baking.
@TheIdeasMan: I presented similar scenarios to him that were like your turtle scenario. He considers such things to be instincts and therefore completely unrelated to knowledge.
He doesn't doubt evolution, he just doubts that it could ever arrange our DNA in such a way as to pre-bake memories and knowledge into our minds as they form. Again, remember he considers instincts and knowledge/memories unrelated.
Some of the questions we ask we cannot know without either a full understanding of how everything involved works or through vast amounts of testing that shows without a doubt what is actually true. Unfortunately neither is particularly viable, so we instead focused on the more simple matter: is it even possible? That's where our disagreement is.
@ModShop: I think that scientific evidence (currently) eliminates that entirely. However I think it's entirely possible (though very complicated) to reprogram our DNA so that our memories can be written into our genes (thus meaning our brain would have to rewrite the DNA that gets used for reproduction). But we'd have to know for sure just how much space we can allocate in our DNA for such things.
You have hit the nail on the head with "baked into our DNA" - that's exactly what I'm getting at. He is very skeptical that it is possible, and when he suggested he may be able to accept that it is possible only through external intervention (e.g. scientist making adjustments), I said I might agree that evolution may not be able to do it. It is well known that evolution can get stuck at local maximums despite there being a higher global maximum - but we would need to know whether evolution gets stuck before or after this DNA baking.
@TheIdeasMan: I presented similar scenarios to him that were like your turtle scenario. He considers such things to be instincts and therefore completely unrelated to knowledge.
He doesn't doubt evolution, he just doubts that it could ever arrange our DNA in such a way as to pre-bake memories and knowledge into our minds as they form. Again, remember he considers instincts and knowledge/memories unrelated.
Some of the questions we ask we cannot know without either a full understanding of how everything involved works or through vast amounts of testing that shows without a doubt what is actually true. Unfortunately neither is particularly viable, so we instead focused on the more simple matter: is it even possible? That's where our disagreement is.
@ModShop: I think that scientific evidence (currently) eliminates that entirely. However I think it's entirely possible (though very complicated) to reprogram our DNA so that our memories can be written into our genes (thus meaning our brain would have to rewrite the DNA that gets used for reproduction). But we'd have to know for sure just how much space we can allocate in our DNA for such things.
Last edited on
> make our brains form with pre-programmed knowledge
> He asserted that instincts were not knowledge
> I went with his definition of knowledge
> insisted on using words exactly the way they are supposed to be
> He considers such things to be instincts and therefore completely unrelated to knowledge.
so... ¿what's knowledge?
> you needed to learn knowledge in order for your instincts to apply
¿what? ¿could you rephrase it?
> He asserted that instincts were not knowledge
> I went with his definition of knowledge
> insisted on using words exactly the way they are supposed to be
> He considers such things to be instincts and therefore completely unrelated to knowledge.
so... ¿what's knowledge?
> you needed to learn knowledge in order for your instincts to apply
¿what? ¿could you rephrase it?
I had a hard time understanding what he meant myself, so it's hard for me to explain it. As for knowledge, I assumed it was defined (by him) to be memories and anything that makes you intelligent (e.g. the ability to add numbers, or a time you spent at the beach).
I dunno... to me it sounds like he's splitting hairs and making arbitrary distinctions between things that aren't really all that different. Perhaps this is more an argument about semantics than anything else. Given how you've described him as a "word purist" (which when I read it, sounded like you were describing him as a poor communicator ;P), I'd say that's likely.
I still fail to see the difference between "pre-programmed knowledge" and "instinct". In what way is instinct not knowledge? You are born knowing to do certain things necessary for your survival.
I still fail to see the difference between "pre-programmed knowledge" and "instinct". In what way is instinct not knowledge? You are born knowing to do certain things necessary for your survival.
A potential difference between knowledge and instinct is that we are not necessarily aware of our instincts until they are triggered and we have the necessary reflection to notice that they were, whereas knowledge is consciously accessible from the moment we acquire and store it. Just throwing that out there.
-Albatross
-Albatross
I have been having similar discussions, my house mate, a good physicist, that come around to supporting your view.
On talking about artificial intelligence (the definition is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion) ; He was telling me how he thought emotions were irrational by definition and my argument is that they are highly logical and not so much a side effect but the very clock that makes us crunch each cycle of thought.
I believe that animals aren't controlled automatically like our hearts, even including insects are controlled by complex networks of weighted pressures that control our decision making, its like hunger is the kernel between the machine reflex of an empty stomach and our adding needing to get around to eating against the "but im on a diet" grouping of emotions.
To support this my housemate started the conversation about how superstition is whats needed to use the imagination to investigate possibilities when confronted with anything we come across.
Take evolutionary computing, a robot might learn how to open a box open a box to get a reward if it saw a cube picked it up and shook it because last time something fell out, so it goes round shaking boxes and later stumbles across that they have lids, then it could develop a way of looking for lids on things, its the superstition that makes it shake the box.
Like babies explore ya know.
therefore the superstition programming has got to be really early behaviour all the way back to hippo campus times, so I do believe that emotions can be genetic, but only the primary colour equivelent of emotions, I then believe higher emotions are blends of simpler ones.
I think this would also explain anomolous inteligence in all mamals, like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4DnnXV1jM
I believe that the above video is human like fun, I believe that this birds naturally occurring motives in a previous problem solving experience have just by chance blended to recreate a similar feeling of fascination that toddlers on slides have, its isolated the experience and now snowboards.
The inverse also explains why some animals, and people, are assholes.
On talking about artificial intelligence (the definition is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion) ; He was telling me how he thought emotions were irrational by definition and my argument is that they are highly logical and not so much a side effect but the very clock that makes us crunch each cycle of thought.
I believe that animals aren't controlled automatically like our hearts, even including insects are controlled by complex networks of weighted pressures that control our decision making, its like hunger is the kernel between the machine reflex of an empty stomach and our adding needing to get around to eating against the "but im on a diet" grouping of emotions.
To support this my housemate started the conversation about how superstition is whats needed to use the imagination to investigate possibilities when confronted with anything we come across.
Take evolutionary computing, a robot might learn how to open a box open a box to get a reward if it saw a cube picked it up and shook it because last time something fell out, so it goes round shaking boxes and later stumbles across that they have lids, then it could develop a way of looking for lids on things, its the superstition that makes it shake the box.
Like babies explore ya know.
therefore the superstition programming has got to be really early behaviour all the way back to hippo campus times, so I do believe that emotions can be genetic, but only the primary colour equivelent of emotions, I then believe higher emotions are blends of simpler ones.
I think this would also explain anomolous inteligence in all mamals, like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4DnnXV1jM
I believe that the above video is human like fun, I believe that this birds naturally occurring motives in a previous problem solving experience have just by chance blended to recreate a similar feeling of fascination that toddlers on slides have, its isolated the experience and now snowboards.
The inverse also explains why some animals, and people, are assholes.
| @Disch: Instincts are not memories. |
That's debatable.
If knowledge has to be a memory, then how are we defining memories now? I would think it'd be something you experienced that you can recall at a later time. But by that definition, you could never have pre-programmed knowledge/memories because you never would have had the initial experience.
So if that is what your friend is saying, then he's right. But I don't think that's the spirit of the conversation here.
Of course our brain can be (and often is) pre-wired to think certain things -- the only thing you're really debating here is whether or not you call those things "knowledge". It really just boils down to semantics.
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| But by that definition, you could never have pre-programmed knowledge/memories because you never would have had the initial experience. |
A clone wouldn't have the same memories as you. That's not how cloning works.
You're thinking of like the sci-fi fantasy version of cloning, which is not realistic.
You're thinking of like the sci-fi fantasy version of cloning, which is not realistic.
Last edited on
Pages: 12