Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
William Morse wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrotesnip<
The causal processes involved in throwing a ball or catching it (much
harder, computationally, which means my dog is a better mathematician
than I am; which is true, and I have no dog) are best described by
some set of equations. But when I catch a ball, I don't *do* those
calculations. I have a set of responses learned by trial and error
over years, I have observations to anchor those responses in this
case, and I have success some of the time (so we ignore the "bad
calculations" I did when I *missed*). In saying "the processes are
manifested calculations", all you are saying is that we can describe
the processes with calculations. Which is what I said to start with.
When you throw or catch a ball, in fact you _do_ perform the
calculations. If you didn't, you wouldn't catch the ball. Simple trial
and error won't help you a bit as soon as you face a different
trajectory, yet humans and dogs can reliably adjust throws and catches
to a different trajectory. The algorithm may well be that of a neural net
that requires training, but that is not different from a computation that
requires values for the constants. And we do not ignore the bad
calculations when you missed, they go to refine the constants. Let me
repeat - you (and your dog) _are_ doing the calculations. There is a
subroutine in your brain that is being fed the inputs of weight of object
thrown, speed of target aimed at,distance to target, and approximate
wind velocity to arrive at an appropriate trajectory and velocity to hit
the target.
snip<
JE:-
I agree that no matter which analog of these many complex calculations that
anybody employs, the results will be the same. However I think the point
under discussion is that Newtonian Mechanics is NOT being done as explicitly
known "Newtonian Mechanics" by the dog or the functioning of our brains. The
analog we use to understand these processes will in all probability be quite
different to the analog the process may have employed but does not need to
understand. As an example, the basics of mathematics can be reduced to
patterns without numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods
Using Cuisenaire rods 3^3 IS a cube. That cube does not need to understand
that it has calculated 3^3 simply because the Cuisenaire pattern analog can
do this without thinking about it. An event and the understanding of that
event are entirely separate issues.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?
- From: William Morse
- Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?
- Prev by Date: Article: RNA can be heredity molecule
- Next by Date: RE: Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon Hypothesis
- Previous by thread: Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?
- Next by thread: Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|