Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:39:34 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <v1v4fr$1um0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v175s8$1mprm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsvf3jt621a4kvtj2rq4162nhcpvsubeda@4ax.com> <v1rpvh$335cp$1@dont-email.me>
 <77r24jloc6k59o98o9nb47j8ul3n3ngh6a@4ax.com> <v1siuq$3bu3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <70744jl77r3gfd4emv9963073u37ocrnhn@4ax.com> <v1t9sh$3h96u$1@dont-email.me>
 <blf44jd02a3ink6v2ve5s0up2962lglj5k@4ax.com> <v1tio8$3j983$1@dont-email.me>
 <1am44j1afb75t5m9ubmv0guis10jtt41k7@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 09:39:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e8ac15a8fbb3a6381b0c0e4e3649d888";
	logging-data="64192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+inOLjLG4TCPReG1WAEcXbVlMttuIDaqE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u/TqedWHsYH5bZk/JbMif9gihPI=
In-Reply-To: <1am44j1afb75t5m9ubmv0guis10jtt41k7@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7453

On 14/05/2024 4:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/13/24 18:31, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/24 16:10, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/24 03:30, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>>>>> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
>>>>>>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>>>>>> An international collaborative research team has discovered that
>>>>>>>>>> G-quadraplex DNA (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons and dynamically
>>>>>>>>>> controls the activation and repression of genes underlying long-term
>>>>>>>>>> memory formation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have always though that memory could be stored as DNA sequenxes...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More likely RNA or some other protein.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The oft-mocked Lamarckian concept, of genetic learning (not just
>>>>>>>>> natural selection) is probably real, and some reverse transcription
>>>>>>>>> does happen, namely that DNA is edited within the life of one
>>>>>>>>> organism. But remembering where you left your glasses is probably
>>>>>>>>> handled at a lower level than editing your chromosones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But how can it be passed down as Lamarck thought, if the eggs in the
>>>>>>>> ovaries are formed early? If genetic memory could be passed down it
>>>>>>>> would be only from the father because sperm are formed recently. But the
>>>>>>>> sperm spawn from local cells. If DNA is edited to store memory then
>>>>>>>> would these changes be duplicated in all cells in all tissues? How else
>>>>>>>> would the changes get into sperm cells? How could they get into eggs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is advantageous for a woman's life experiences to be passed onto
>>>>>>> her children, nature will find a way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it's called 'education'. No need to invent improbable
>>>>>> mechanisms without scientific basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>
>>>>> No sense in dismissing possibilities because you don't like them. That
>>>>> applies to biology and electronics. Nature invents "improbable
>>>>> mechanisms" which have a "scientific basis" when shown to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ideas of jumping genes, reverse transcription, and epignetic
>>>>> switching were all mocked, known to be impossible, by the rigid
>>>>> neo-Darwinists. I think there's all sorts of cool stuff waiting for
>>>>> old farts to die so they can be considered and discovered.
>>>>> Mitochondria are sadly neglected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution by random mutation and natural selection is for losers.
>>>>> Losers are also known as lunch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You missed your vocation. You should have become a biologist.
>>>
>>> My interest and talent is electronic design. Besides that, biology is
>>> too slow. I can invent and simulate and test a new circuit in an
>>> afternoon.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Most people, including most engineers, are instantly hostile to
>>>>> unauthorized ideas. That's fine with me... it leaves me more stuff to
>>>>> invent and sell.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most people judge the validity of new ideas in the context of their
>>>> knowledge base. You have to have some way to quickly weed out
>>>> the torrent of harebrained ideas, or you wouldn't get anything
>>>> done at all. Yes, this can backfire.
>>>
>>> Weeding out ideas, as a habit and a priority, is a good way to have no
>>> ideas. Playing with ideas is better.
>>>
>>> A human brain can play with multiple, literally millions, of ideas as
>>> effortless parallel background process. In your sleep. If you let it.
>>>
>>
>> And you implement all of them?
>>
>> No, of course.
>>
>> So you *are* weeding out the ones you judge inferior.
> 
> 
> After giving all of them a chance, I just pick the best one to build.

The best one you could come up with.
> Background thinking is like brainstorming, in that good ideas can lurk
> behind, and be inspired by, stupid ideas.

And - like brainstorming - can miss perfectly obvious better ideas.

> You are arguing for rejecting ideas ASAP because there's not enough
> mental bandwidth available. I suggest that our brains are quantum
> computers with essentially unlimited parallel-processing power, and we
> can afford to give everything a chance, to explore the infinite
> solution space for a while.

Unfortunately, the solution  space is limited by the available 
knowledge, and if haven't got the background information that you missed 
by skipping lectures as a n undergraduate, the soltion space isn't 
remotely infinite.

> What's a simpler concept is that social pressures make most people
> afraid of having unorthodox ideas.

Sensible people are properly nervous about presenting half-baked ideas - 
brainstorming is designed to reduce that barrier - but everybody wants 
good ideas.

> Half of electronic design is psychology. The other 60% is packaging.
> The rest is thermal.

50% plus 60% is 110%. A certain grasp of arithmetic needs to be added 
into the mix, and John Larkin seems to lack that.

A lot of good electronic design is knowing what needs to done, and dim 
newbies showing up here asking for help are seldom specific enough about 
what they are trying to do or why they need to do it.

John Larkin waffles on a lot about psychology, which is a trifle ironic 
granting his obvious problem with narcissism.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney