[extropy-chat] Re: Harv's Explanation for Slow Progress

[Brett Paatsch]

[interjection - very reluctantly as this is off-topic again]

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Harvey said:
> 
> > Yes, the genome got mapped faster than predicted. But since
> > those predictions, we have learned a lot more about genetics.
> > Instead of giving us all the answers on gene expression,
> 
> Actually with respect to normal gene expression it has given 
> us a big part of the puzzle.  Transcription factors primarily come
> in two or three standard forms and it is relatively easy to pull
> them out of the genome sequence. (They are small tend not to
> have introns that interupt the sequence, etc.)
> 
> > we now know we have to conquer  mitochondrial DNA
> 
> We knew that up front and its quite simple actually.  There is
> a large and expanding database of MtDNA sequences from
> various species.  Human MtDNA is actually one of the easier
> ones since it is one of the smallest.
> 
> > RNA,
> 
> Its not a large story -- we know the RNA genomic sequences,
> where they are and what they do.  The only exception to this
> would be the microRNA sequences that appear to be largely
> left over from the "original" genome
> 
> (since most appear to influence development).
> 
> Still an open question IMO is the degree to which the RNA
> sequences contribute to aging.  The sequences coding for RNA
> within the genome tend to be repetitive and so the may 
> contribute to improper recombinational repair that results in 
> the corruption of the genome over time.
> 
> > protein folding,
> 
> It was always recognized by molecular biologists that this was
> going to be part of the puzzle.  I have read that the NSF is
> cranking up the X-ray crystalography capabilities to ~30,000
> proteins/year.  I will believe it
                                  ^^^^^
Robert, this is not an aspiration that is good for you. There is
nothing cerebral about *believing anything* its just a habit of
internal labelling that also gets expressed by those who do it. 
The word is in the dictionary sure - but somewhere someone 
is probably adding mother-fucker as we speak to the dictionary
as well and we probably don't want to use that either. 

When you use the word in a post like this it picks up extra 
credibility from you and makes it all the more likely others are
going to use it in the same way. I've made (or tried to make) the
point to Spike, to Harvey, to Jacques and to others. Spike, Harvey
and Jacques seems either not have got it or to have disagreed
and decided not to voice their reasons for disagreement. That is
their perogative and I will not hound them now that I know they
are aware.  

You maybe haven't had the chance to realise it yet and make a 
choice. So let me point it out. (1) There are available synonyms
for every possible legitimate use of the word believe and belief
that a person can use and convey their meaning just as well.

(2) There are consequences in a social world of believers to
intelligent folk (like yourself and the others on this list) propagating
the meme of believing by expressing the word in communication. 
 
(3) The word is extremely habit forming and will become part
of what we say and write if we don't check its use. Using it, rather
than not using it, is the default because believing is part of our
cultural heritage we learn to label things beliefs and to say I
believe when we learn to speak. Believeing as a meme invades
us like enteric bacteria invades a neonate. But we can replace
the use of the word in our thoughts and our expressions to 
our good political effect if we choose to - if we are aware 
of the process. 

Please tell me you are aware of the process and are making a 
deliberate informed choice whenever you use the word BELIEVE
and I will not bother you over your use of "I believe" again. (Well
not you anyway and not for a while - I'm not repeat posting for
the fun of it). 

No insult is intended (I think you know that) but I am writing
knowing others will probably read this too. And I think it is
important that people see that intelligence is no safe-guard
from propagating bad memes that become part of our habit.

As to the arguments as to whether the meme is actually bad
there are now probably about a dozen threads (I'd guess)
that have arguments in them but I will gladly spell them
out again for you offlist I you want. 

Sorry for the interjection Robert I am very interested in the
rest of the post too and if I seem preoccupied with this believe
word business it could well be that I am - but so far no-one 
has countered the arguments with anything more than strawmen
and I think I have answered most of the strawmen too.  

Regards,
Brett