We don’t need to table it, or come back tom it. You have already accepted “identical in every aspect” as the working definition.
I’m pretty sure I have not said that. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.
Don’t know where you got that either. Can you show me?
So, to drive the final nail in that coffin, your analogy in the linked thread was fatally flawed, right? The spider does not know (has no knwledge) of how to build a web?
We are in a debate. The first order of business is to mount a logical argument. You have arrived at that the point the moment you assert ‘if x, then y.’ In the case of the OP, I admit it was buried a bit, but cleaned off, it would look something like this –
Since there is no qualitative difference between stimulus/response neural activity that is coded genetically vs acquired through experience, there is no need to make a distinction between the two.
At that point, the onus is on you to support X, (there is no qualitative difference between stimulus/response neural activity that is coded genetically vs acquired through experience.) You have failed. Spectacularly. So much as to deny asserting that the two are identical, when it is implicit in your thesis, and by your own words have twice stated that they are. If the neural activity is not identical, your whole case goes away.
This is just sloppy. I am not looking for a definition. Sure, I asked you to define it, but only because of your constant equivocation as to what it means. So you link me to the Cookie Monster. Frankly, it is becoming difficult to take you seriously.
Can you please show me were anyone has made that claim?
As I said, if you are not employing logic right out of the gate, you have set yourself a hopeless task.
RaftPeople, I composed a long post addressing your argument in detail. You simply ignored the vast majority of what I posted, including calls for definitions and clear examples of logical fallacies. That is bad manners to say the least and wilful ignorance at worst.
Cite!. Please provide evidence to support your claim that all computer scientists and allmathematicians believe that all neural networks contain information.
This claim is quite clearly bollocks. The idea that a blank neural network contains information is simply preposterous. Your claim that a neural network programmed by chaotic input is equally preposterous. How can something that is blank or deliberately created chaotic contain information? That is a total oxymoron, yet that is exactly what you expect us to believe.
I look forward to seeing your references to support this extraordinary claim.
No, it is a perfect example, and you have just ducked the question. I don’t think this weaseling as escaped anyone’s notice. But just to keep things crystal clear.
You claimed that “the structures in the brain created due to the DNA …contain information”.
I pointed out that the machinery of mitosis such as spindle fibres are structures in the brain created due to the DNA.
Therefore by your argument we are forced to accept that the machinery of mitosis such as spindle fibres contain information.
Alexander the Great’s brain contained the machinery of mitosis such as spindle fibres.
Therefore by your argument Alexander the Great’s brain contained information concerning mitosis.
Without weaselling this time, can you please explain where you think the logical flaw is in my argument? And if you can’t point out the logical flaw will you concede that your position leads forces us to ridiculous conclusions.
Nobody gives a rat’s tit whether “specific neurons and connections are created” because your claim was never that that specific neurons and connections are created. Your claim was that any structure in the brain created due to the DNA contains information.
Once again I suspect that you are playing fast and loose with your definitions and moving the goalposts as soon as it becomes clear that your position is untenable. The polite thing to do would be to acknowledge this and retreat from that position. To do simply continue arguing from the original position even after it is shown to be ridiculous is at best rude.
You seem to be arguing that mitosis occurring within the brain isn’t controlled by structures within the brain. Is this in fact what you are claiming, and if so can we have some evidence for such an extraordinary position?
If you concede that mitosis occurring within the brain is controlled by structures within the brain then would you please explain how Alexander’s brain didn’t contain structures created due to the DNA pertaining to mitosis?
Now you are just being disingenuous. Pearl Harbour was still bombed even though the we didn’t know we had an opponent. Similarly your position has been thoroughly demolished even if you refuse to concede the point.
If you would just stop weaseling and answer the question then I could answer you.
You have ignored repeated calls form multiple posters to define what you mean by “contains information”. Since you have used that term in at least three different ways in this debate your question above is unanswerable.
Now please stop equivocating and state plainly and simply what you mean by “contains information”. Do you in fact mean “ contains structures in the brain created due to the DNA” as you have stated at one point? Or do you mean “contains knowledge of” as you used at another point?
If you are using your former definition then yes it contains information, including detailed information on mitosis. Since the conclusions forced by using this definition are absurd your argument is clearly incorrect.
If you are using the latter definition then no, of course it doesn’t contain information.
And once you stop weaseling and tell us what definition you are attempting to use here we can progress this debate and hopefully eliminate some of your ignorance.
And I refer you to Dr Suess. What a pointless reference.
The position that neural networks often do not contain any information. Hell yes. Simply put “blank neural network” into Google for a layperson;s refernce. Try putting “Neural network “Information free state” into any journal search engine for higher level information.
As one example, referring to the VISOR neural network system (PDF WARNING) “From the first presentation of the hammer, an initially random schema started to encode its spatial structure. Its shift suggestions were random because no information had been encoded.”
It really isn’t hard to find countless references to neural networks that are blank, essentially random or even truly chaotic. By definition these networks contain no information. I await with bated breath your references for your claim that all scientists and mathematicians disavow that information free networks exists.
That should be good reading.
Just to put this into perspective I’m an ecologist by profession with broad training in the biological sciences. Nonetheless I have never known anyone to claim that information free neural networks don’t exist.
But since there are apparently millions of pages stating this I look forward to seeing your present this evidence here.
Cite.
I want to see your evidence that learning is solely the result of growing new connections between neurons and strengthening existing connections and nothing whatsoever to do with responsiveness and sensitisation.
That should also be good reading. I am getting the strong impression that you don’t; understand this subject nearly as well as you claim. I know almost nothing about neural networks, yet I know that zero information networks are commonplace and that learning results from responsiveness and sensitisation in addition to structural change within the network.
No, you personally are using it in at least three different ways. To wit:
To have structures encoded by DNA.
To have knowledge of:
To have the structures associated with.
Three distinct definitions of information that you have used and switched between at will.
But since you claim that you are “using it in the sense that mathematicians, computer scientists and information theorists would use it” can please tell us whether y0u are agreeable to using the following definitions:
INFORMATION: Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event. (This is the standard information theory definition and forms a necessary contrast with “DATA” which are the accumulated facts used as manipulate for calculation.)
“TO HAVE INFORMATION”: To possess knowledge concerning a fact which has been or can be communicated.
KNOWLEDGE: Perception or awareness of a datum as manifest by responsiveness to changes in condition or value of that datum.
Are those definitions “that mathematicians, computer scientists and information theorists would use” agreeable to you?
My biggest problem is twofold:
The “stuff” can’t be communicated, and so fails the crucial definition of information. How can a spider’s brain communicate the data and coding required to build a web without actually building a web? Since the only way that the data and coding can manifest is through their own exploitation they fail the primary test for information: they aren’t communicable.
Contrast that with a spider that is learns that a ringing bell precedes an electric shock. Once a spider has that information it can communicate it by immediately jumping as soon as a bell is rung even if no shock is ever administered: Pavlovian response. We can know that the spider has coded “bell means danger” without ever presenting the danger. No such communication exists re webs. The only way to know if a spider’s brain contains coding for web building is to see it build a web.
You are totally unable to demonstrate that spider has any awareness of the encoded data. If a spider learns that a bell means danger it can demonstrate awareness of changes in the condition of the bell. When the bell vibrates at certain frequencies the spider jumps. Clearly it is aware of the condition and value of the data “noise frequency”. Can you demonstrate that a spider is aware when the condition and value of the data “web coding” changes?
The problem isn’t primarily with usage and retrieval. The problem is that you have been totally unable to demonstrate that inherited material can be communicated or that the possessor has any awareness of the material. Without both communicability and awareness it fails to be information by the definitions “that mathematicians, computer scientists and information theorists would use”.
Actually it is an entirely banal and uninteresting question.
Yes, inherited “stuff” influences our thinking. We all know that we get distracted and irritable when we are hungry and become effervescent and happy when we fall in love and become queasy when we are carsick. Those are perfectly boring observations and an indisputable proof that inherited brain structure influences our thinking.
But, given that our brain is composed of neurons, connections between neurons and chemicals for communication, it seems like a reasonable assumption that both instinctive and learned information is both stored using that same mechanism.
If they are both stored using the same mechanism, then it seems possible that information from an instinctively created structure could possibly interact/influence cognitive thought, which was really the original idea that was challenged by Contrapuntal.
I don’t see why. Instinct serves preset purposes, learned knowledge is the function of a general-purpose system - I see no reason to suppose they are based on the same mechanisms. They could be, or they might not be, in some or all cases, but I don’t see why we should assume anything, much less build upon that assumption.
Why do they have to be stored by the same mechanism for this to happen?
And aren’t we talking about spiders? Is there any evidence that they are capable of cognitive thought?
I assume it because all of the reading I’ve done regarding the brain and it’s various functions have always discussed neurons, connections and chemicals. I don’t remember ever reading about a different storage/computation mechanism.
The original point was about humans and the spider web was used as an example of complex inherited information in an animal brain.
But many invertebrates have nervous systems that perform the innate functions, but are not complex enough to produce conscious thought - in these cases, at least, we have examples of storage/computation mechanisms that aren’t equivalent to being born already knowing something.
RaftPeople you refuse to acknowledge bona fide criticisms of your argument and refuse to answer simple questions even after multiple requests. Furthermore you have attempted to put words into the mouth of Contrapuntal, the worst kind of strawman. I will leave it up to him whether to report your behavior to the moderators.
At this point I think we can all safely assume that you have no interest in honest dialog.
When you are prepared to actually engage and acknowledge those of us who are attempting to dispel your ignorance then you may get further replies form me. Until then you can stay in the dark.
I challenged this assertion of yours upthread, and requested a cite. You ignored that, and are continuing to spread lies. You refuse to respond to direct points, instead choosing to fabricate positions that no one has taken. You absolutely refuse to engage in honest debate. You can’t even get your story straight from one post to the next. Which of these is your thesis?
At one time or another you have claimed each of these to be it. Is it possible that you cannot see that they are not the same thing at all?
Stop putting words in my mouth. Really. Just stop it.
Various Shark learning/modification of instinct examples are on this page:
"Certain instinctive behaviors may be modified through learning, but most tend toward a narrow, predictable response. "
An example regarding spiders on same page:
“Zoologists Robert Jackson and R. Stimson Wilcox have demonstrated that – despite their tiny, simple brains – jumping spiders of the genus Portia can learn to hunt other spiders using trial and error”
Back to this cite: While the learning is not specific to web building, it is specific to other inherited information in spiders:
Furthermore, their terminology:
“The observed phenomenon and variations in time are explained in terms of current concepts of memory function and information processing.”
More data regarding modification of instinct:
“Instinctive behavior generally acts as an initiator or triggering mechanism to arouse the organism, and it is modified by learned behavior as well as innate regulatory mechanisms”
Again I agree. I assume there is a continuum of complexities from very simple to very complex.
Most of my energy has been spent attempting to defend the challenge to the idea that inherited information stored in our brain could influence our thoughts (along the lines of having faith or “knowing” that god exists without having any direct experience to draw upon to support that belief). I believe that it seems logical they can whereas others feel that what you inherited is so distinct from information that is learned that you don’t even have “access” to that which is inherited, and that it is incorrect or trivial to call it “information.”
So, these are my positions and so far I have only found cites confirming these ideas, I have not found any cites that disagree:
Animal brains have inherited information coded into them in the form of neural structures (neurons, connections, chemicals, etc.)
Animal brains have learned information coded into them in the form of neural structures (neurons, connections, chemicals, etc.)
Because both 1 and 2 make use of the same physical mechanism for information storage, and because they reside physically within the same general location (i.e. the head) it seems logical that both could present information to the conscious part of the brain resulting in a belief that is not supported by experience but that turns out to be correct.
OK… could you point out the citation that supports the notion that the mechanisms (once set up by one process or the other) are indeed qualitatively similar?
This is simply more equivocation on your part. Where have I said instinctive behavior cannot be altered? Where have you established that modification of inherited behavior equals access to inherited information on the part of the subject? Modification of behavior is a result of respnse to stimuli. If I train a dog not to dig holes, has the dog acceessed inherited information?
You tell lies, and are a false debater. Whatever your agenda is, it would be better served in a forum where the standards of rhetoric are much lower than here. Until you are prepared to address the multiple posts directly questioning your facts, assertions, and cites, as well as your total disregard for intellectual integrity, I am through with you.
You cannot even keep your own story straight from one post to the next.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Really. Just stop it.
You introduced the word “identical” in this context. I used it when comparing 2 hypothetical neural networks, which was a different context and unrelated to the continued use of the word in the thread.
In addition, you seemed to assume I meant to imply that the same information that is inherited necessarily produces the same structure as information learned. In reality, I was attempting to counter your claim that inherited “stuff” is not information by pointing out that it’s inconsistent to say one neural network does not have information whereas the other does, even though the structure is the same (and yes “identical” is a good word here).
My goal is not to put words in your mouth. If it looks like I have, then it is purely due to my understanding (or lack of understanding) of your position.
But where is that modification stored? In the brain, right?
The inherited information is modified in one of two ways:
At it’s source (meaning within the very neurons/connections/chemicals) that code the information
Or, the source is left as is and the information is modified as/after it is pulled out of the neural structures that store it (I would call this accessing it, but you wouldn’t, so I won’t use the word here).
Either way, the information is ultimately modified before it is used to control muscles.
If the dog attempted to, or did dig a hole in that process, then absolutely. Just like the spider accessed the information stored in it’s brain when it built the web.
I don’t see how it’s possible for a creature’s body to be influenced by the inherited information related to web building or hole digging without accessing the information.
If the neurons in the brain are firing and sending chemical and electrical signals around and ultimately controlling muscles to build a web or dig a hole, then yes the information has been accessed.
FYI: Here are some definitions of “access”
“means the ability or the means necessary to read, write, modify, or communicate data/information or otherwise use any system resource”
“A specific type of interaction between a subject and an object that results in the flow of information from one to the other”
“To approach, view, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of computers or information resources”
So, lets bring back one of your original posts:
Are you trying to say that behavior can be modified without modifying the information that drives that behavior?
Even if the information is retained as is, but then filtered and modified by learned information on it’s way to causing movement in muscles etc., then the information has at least been acessed.
It seem like you are saying the following, which does not seem possible to me:
Inherited information can’t be accessed
Inherited information can’t be modified
Behavior due to inherited information can be modified
If it can’t be accessed or modified, what is the mechanism for modifying the resulting behavior?
I’m happy to look for it, but we should define “mechanism.” To me it’s the neurons, connections and chemicals that are used by the brain to store and process information.
For them to be qualitatively similar to me, it means that they are both storing/processing information via a neural network that has been created with neurons, connections and chemicals. This may seem trivial (and to me it does), but I was originally challenged with the following statement:
“Originally Posted by Contrapuntal:
The “information” that a spider has is encoded in its genes. The spider has no access to the information. The spider cannot alter the information. It is only “information” in the language of genetics.”
When I read that it says to me the information is not stored in a neural network in the brain.
I can assure you I have not intentionally misrepresented your position and I am happy to try to understand it, but it would appear that I still do not understand your position exactly.
As evidence that I am trying to understand what you believe, I would ask this question again:
“Are you trying to say that behavior can be modified without modifying the information that drives that behavior?”
I assumed you believed that because my original post in the other thread was that it seemed possible people could have information gained through evolution that caused them to have certain beliefs despite the lack of first hand experience to give them that information.
You challenged that even after I replaced the word “knowledge” with the word “information” and it would appear you continue to challenge that notion. Am I not understanding your challenge?