Perplexed comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong

36 Post author: multifoliaterose 15 August 2010 07:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (613)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 17 August 2010 03:31:02PM 0 points [-]

I agree with your analysis, but I also understand where PZ is coming from. You write above that the portion of the genome coding for the brain is small. PZ replies that the small part of the genome you are referring to does not by itself explain the brain; you also need to understand the decoding algorithm - itself scattered through the whole genome and perhaps also the zygotic "epigenome". You might perhaps clarify that what you were talking about with "small portion of the genome" was the Kolmogorov complexity, so you were already including the decoding algorithm in your estimate.

The problem is, how do you get the point through to PZ and other biologists who come at the question from an evo-devo PoV? I think that someone ought to write a comment correcting PZ, but in order to do so, the commenter would have to speak the languages of three fields - neuroscience, evo-devo, and information-theory. And understand all three well enough to unpack the jargon to laymen without thereby loosing credibility with people who do know one or more of the three fields.

Comment author: timtyler 17 August 2010 04:52:51PM *  0 points [-]

The problem is, how do you get the point through to PZ and other biologists who come at the question from an evo-devo PoV?

Why bother? PZ's rather misguided rant isn't doing very much damage. Just ignore him, I figure.

Maybe it is a slow news day. PZ's rant got Slashdotted:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/17/1536233/Ray-Kurzweil-Does-Not-Understand-the-Brain

PZ has stooped pretty low with the publicity recently:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/the_eva_mendes_sex_tape.php

Maybe he was trolling with his Kurzweil rant. He does have a history with this subject matter, though:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php