Re: Genetics as a *FORMAL* Language System

In article <1130968443.999643.277860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Kim G. S. Øyhus wrote:
>
>> >In all language-type systems, the
>> >transfer of meaningful information is
>> >order dependent. Order is everything.
>> >Mess up the order too much, and
>> >the information is lost.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> If you use the norwegion word "er"
>> instead of the english "is", then
>> information is lost.
>>
>> However, the word "er" is a modified
>> "are", which is a form of "is".
>>
>> So, the word in languages has evolved
>> far beyond their accepted form,
>> because the whole language evolves
>> at the same time, not just single
>> words. This is the reason that words
>> are so different in different
>> languages.
>
>Human languages can and do evolve because of the intelligence of humans
>behind the languages. Human language evolution is not limited by the
>neutral gap problem that does limit biological evolution. Humans can
>evolve or create novel words and whole new languages without much of a
>problem because humans have access to a highly intelligent mind that
>has a great deal of informational complexity. Humans are also not
>limited by function-based selection. Humans can select and create
>languages and new functions/meanings for new words based strictly upon
>arbitrary agreement. Biological systems can't do this.

But if you had studied how real languages did evolve, you would have
seen how words and meanings changed more or less randomly. Your claim
that human languages are modified intelligently, is more or less wrong.


>> Thats why you cannot use the
>> specificity of a word to find out how
>> much the word can vary.
>
>I'm not saying this. What I am doing is using the specificity of a
>word or a string of characters in various language systems to show that
>all meaningful/useful language systems tend to decline in ratio with
>increasing sequence length and/or specificity.

The ratio between meaning and use? So, you claim that with longer more
specific words and genes, the language and genomes get more useful,
but with less meaning?

No, that is not what you have claimed.


>They don't have to do
>this, but they do. So do biological systems and system code sequences.
>The more genetic real estate and or genetic specificity is required, at
>minimum, to achieve a certain type of function, the smaller will be the
>ratio of beneficial verses non-beneficial sequences at that level of
>functional complexity - and this decline in ratio is an exponential
>decline. It doesn't have to be this way, it just is.

I think you should try to explain what you mean more clearly.
Or perhaps you have not understood what people told you about
your misunderstandings.



>> The only important thing in a word is
>> how people understand it. Words
>> can change enormously into other
>> languages, without changing their
>> meaning. But meaning is changed too,
>> albeit slower, but the language
>> continues to work anyway.
>
>You seem to confuse the evolution of human natural languages with the
>ease at which biological evolution works or could work. They are not
>equivalent. There is a key difference.

Groundless claim.


>> These effects can also be found in DNA.
>
>Not beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

Again groundless claim.

You do not write clearly enough what you mean, which makes me think
that you do not mean clearly. And you do not support your claims well
enough, which makes me think that you do not have support.

Anyway, what you try to write about can be calculated and measured,
and has been calculated and measured. And you are welcome to study it,
whatever it is.

Kim0

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... etc." are known in the modern Turkic languages too. ... and the sources I cited are not Kazakh sources but western ones! ... cf., for example, the mention of the qazaq years ... not yet the exclusively military meaning which it had afterwards. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A Slavonian name
    ... pronounciation. ... Not sure about other slavic languages, but in Polish it does not depend on ... I additionally suggest that everyone look to the meaning of the name ... <slav> is a root from which there are literally ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Verbose functional languages?
    ... If the meaning is all tied up in subtle ... If the writer is attempting to communicate, ... cooks by just working down the receipt. ... dominate the look of program texts in other languages. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: A Slavonian name
    ... Other Western Slavs would spell it Boleslav with identical ... pronounciation. ... Not sure about other slavic languages, but in Polish it does not depend on ... I additionally suggest that everyone look to the meaning of the name ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A Slavonian name
    ... European Celtic languages sounded like. ... Slavic names were the most likely Slavic words written down ... (I am guessing a related Slavic meaning of 'large' or 'great') ... diplomat and able scholar Constantine, called the Philosopher, ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading