This ques is placed in this sub - forum because I feel it is a bio - tech question.

I was reading that Baby sea turtles hatch from their nest en masse and then rush to the sea all together to increase their chances of surviving waiting predators.

My question / push towards a discussion are below.

1) Where do the babies get the 'software' from that tells them to rush to the water?
2) They are never in a womb but rather in an egg. So when does the 'bootloader' get flashed? ( The same 'bootloader' that tells them to stay away from predators and go towards water?
3) Is this a classic example of a software-less hardware-only based system where the output is always to go towards water?
4) Are the brains of the turtles similar to the original Pong video game which had no code and was built using hardware circuitry only? ( In the case of the turtles, they never really get a bootloader flashed but go by what their brain directs them ? ( I am assuming the shape, position and structure of their brain might be similar to us positioning, structuring NAND gates etc to achieve a certain logical outcome?
5) Yes, I am aware that the turtles follow sun light or moonlight which guides them to the water, but still, there needs to be some sort of code in their brain that says something like:

if ( _sunlight || _moonlight == 1)
{
_go_to_water = 1
}
There gotta be that one 'bit' of data that makes them go towards the water.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

Sea turtles are not computing machines. Their brains are not computers.

 

I don’t understand why you think there has to be “code” involved. Brains are not Von Neumann machines. Their behavior is mediated by a neural network which has been formed evolutionarily, no one wrote code for their brains, and even mammals don’t get “firmware flashed”.

Why do you have such a strong attachment to the idea of code in this case?

 

There is no "software" in the brain as distinct from "hardware".
The behavior is determined by their neural network arrangement in the brain.
This is likely due to "survival of the fittest" evolution where those without that behavior are less likely to survive predators.

It's no different than the vast instinctive set of behaviors that all animals are born with.
Look at the complex behavior of many insects, such as the bee or ant for example, which is totally determined by how their small number of brain neurons are wired at birth.
How long would a baby live if its brain wasn't wired for it to start breathing when born?

 

Although I'm 90% in agreement with what the responders of this thread say about "code not involved" biologically speaking, I believe that there must be some sort of "programming" mechanism that rapidly imprints (through gene expression, or the subtle alteration of DNA for instance) unique behavior on an advanced animal's offspring when said animal goes through an extreme experience whose memory might be worth retaining for survival purposes.

Fearful Memories Passed Down to Mouse Descendants​

He and Dias wafted the scent around a small chamber, while giving small electric shocks to male mice. The animals eventually learned to associate the scent with pain, shuddering in the presence of acetophenone even without a shock.
This reaction was passed on to their pups, Dias and Ressler report today in Nature Neuroscience1. Despite never having encountered acetophenone in their lives, the offspring exhibited increased sensitivity when introduced to its smell, shuddering more markedly in its presence compared with the descendants of mice that had been conditioned to be startled by a different smell or that had gone through no such conditioning.

 

I believe that there must be some sort of "programming" mechanism that rapidly imprints (through gene expression, or the subtle alteration of DNA for instance) unique behavior on an advanced animal's offspring when said animal goes through an extreme experience whose memory might be worth retaining for survival purposes.

It is rather amazing that something the parents learned is apparently directly passed to their offspring.
It has to be somehow passed through the animal's sperm and egg.

 

It is rather amazing that something the parents learned is apparently directly passed to their offspring.
It has to be somehow passed through the animal's sperm and egg.

Amazing, yes ... but, as an engineer, it's hard not to think about some sort of "code" being involved ...

 

Amazing, yes ... but, as an engineer, it's hard not to think about some sort of "code" being involved ...

Sure, there's a code involved but IMO it's not close being something we can emulate with current boolean algebras like we can with digital neural networks. The brains neural networks and pathways are IMO only a small part of the total code.

Each living thing is only a small drop in the universe of possibilities.

 

Sure, there's a code involved but IMO it's not close being something we can emulate with current boolean algebras like we can with digital neural networks. The brains neural networks and pathways are IMO only a small part of the total code.

Each living thing is only a small drop in the universe of possibilities.

Yup ... so far we haven't the faintest clue about the origin of consciousness, but only the faintest of speculations. It's a fascinating subject. Sometimes I wish I weren't this old so I could see what the future of science will be like in 50 years ...

 

It’s not procedural or instruction-based; it doesn’t use an instruction set. It is a neural network with analog weighting and feedback. You could describe it (quite incomplately) with an instruction based computer language, and you could simulate behavioral responses, but it wouldn’t be doing anything like what is being done in the brain and wouldn’t ba able to capture anything more than a small part of the complex interaction.

 

The 'software on hardware' paradigm is inappropriate for other that a cursory model of brain and behaviour.

A better model of the brain is that of a hard-wired logic engine with the ability to rewire itself based on input (and internal) events and actions.

The initial logical wiring is described by the DNA of the developing embryo, and connections are provided to excess. Early learning and development consists of synaptic pruning to tune the logical system to fit the environmental demands encountered.

 

Maybe this is just because I tend to view myself as somewhat of a chaotically programmed automaton with an incomplete emotional profile who identifies with machines more readily than humans, but I tend to view my own brain as a CPU and my own thought processes as programming, and I project that onto other people and other creatures. So I get where you're coming from. It is intuitive (maybe only for weirdos like us) to think of things in the way you described. It is like the water analogy for current flow in that it works most of the time, especially in conveying the basics of what are thinking, but it only goes so far, and maybe we try to stretch it to fit situations where it really doesn't fit. If we don't learn the vocabulary to express ourselves in other ways then we reach a plateau beyond which we are incapable of transference of higher level ideas and also found worrisome by others.

That said, I do find the innate "programming" of various creatures fascinating. I have made a rough inverse correlation of "completeness of programming at birth" to "capacity for future programming." Take for example a cow, who basically steps out of its mother's uterus one day and starts being a cow immediately, but learns almost nothing else/new for the rest of its life. Same for deer, elk, etc; most large mammals, cats. Your turtles are also a good (maybe better) example. And fish, insects, reptiles; most things that are born from an abandoned egg. Contrast those to apes, birds, elephants, dolphins, etc; all the most intelligent animals you can think of, are mostly born useless and require a great deal of parental intervention to survive and learn how to be examples of their species. There are exceptions to this of course; horses, dogs, pigs, et al. A horse basically walks out of mom's uterus just like a cow (takes a few hours to overcome jello-leg) but has great capacity for learning too. Strange thing about all the animals I've identified as being in both categories though, they're mostly animals that spend time with humans. Cause or effect? Did our intelligence rub off on dogs and horses over thousands of years of intimate exposure or did we select them as companions because we were already kindred spirits?

Your turtles are stupid. They are entirely pre-programmed NPCs. I will try to discuss your questions in terms few seem willing to.

1) Where do the babies get the 'software' from that tells them to rush to the water?

From their DNA

2) They are never in a womb but rather in an egg. So when does the 'bootloader' get flashed? ( The same 'bootloader' that tells them to stay away from predators and go towards water?

I can't say for sure as I've never tried uploading from a prenatal turtle but i would guesstimate that their bootloader is flashed around the same time they grow an asshole. But it could be the day before the egg cracks, doesn't really make any difference. All that matters is that happens at least a day before the egg cracks. Being de-shelled without a bootloader is assured death, and I'm sure that happens sometimes, probably to varying extents. If it can happen to us im sure can happen to them too.

EDIT: on second thought, I'm going to say that the bootloader is in their DNA from the very first cell division. What is driving that cell division? Once the heart develops and starts pumping, what is telling it to pump? The bootloader I must assume. And if one were forcefully un-hatched half-way through its incubation, the only reason why it wouldn't be able to turtle is that its body wouldn't be fully physically formed.

3) Is this a classic example of a software-less hardware-only based system where the output is always to go towards water?

No. Exhibit A:

4) Are the brains of the turtles similar to the original Pong video game which had no code and was built using hardware circuitry only? ( In the case of the turtles, they never really get a bootloader flashed but go by what their brain directs them ? ( I am assuming the shape, position and structure of their brain might be similar to us positioning, structuring NAND gates etc to achieve a certain logical outcome?

I said they were stupid but I think they deserve a bit more credit than this. Think about it this way, if you had to design an autonomous turtlebot that would emulate a turtle for the lifespan of a turtle... that is to say, start out on a beach, get to the water without being eaten by predators, find food, migrate across the planet over a span of years all the while avoiding predators, nets, etc, while finding and catching enough food to sustain itself, could you do that with a handful of NAND gates? I think not. I think at least some elementary Ai (lowercase i) would be required.

5) Yes, I am aware that the turtles follow sun light or moonlight which guides them to the water, but still, there needs to be some sort of code in their brain that says something like:

if ( _sunlight || _moonlight == 1)
{
_go_to_water = 1
}
There gotta be that one 'bit' of data that makes them go towards the water.

I have bit that makes me go toward water too. If I didn't I would die of dehydration. I think the main difference between me and a turtle in this isolated example is that I could explain to you in words what I'm doing as I use my awesome thumbs to manipulate the faucet while I get water or if I'm really clever, talk you into getting it for me.

 

I would only say the more you know about computers and computing, the more you know that living things are not that. The AI ‘imitation game’ we are currently playing out, is IMO a dead end. We can't even make a 'real' potted plant cell completely from scratch.

What is the Emotion Code?

Professor Jefferson's Lister: “Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain—that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants.”

 

I would only say the more you know about computers and computing, the more you know that living things are not that. The AI ‘imitation game’ we are currently playing out, is IMO a dead end. We can't even make a 'real' potted plant cell completely from scratch.

What is the Emotion Code?

Professor Jefferson's Lister: “Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain—that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants.”

Which begs the question, how can one prove that someone or something (other than oneself) is actually conscious and emotional and not just mimicking?

I honestly don't have the faintest idea. The only thing I can do is accept reality as my senses perceive it.

 

The video below reminded me of this thread. You can take the beaver out of the dam but you can't take the dam out of the beaver. Speaks to some amount of "programming" from my perspective.

https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/14grdzj

 

It would seem like consciousness would be very difficult to achieve in a machine as it involves self-awareness, a running memory of past and recent events, and how that may affect future events and actions.
That could be emulated to a certain extent of course, but our consciousness is not emulated or programmed. It arises spontaneously from the intelligent brain.

 

Genetics is a fantastically complex Code,
but it's only a "Blue-Print", that we have absolutely zero clue how to read.

Brains don't do any thinking ...... zero,
brains only coordinate and react to stimuli.

Do a calculation on what it would take,
( in any format that You would prefer ),
to contain all of the intricacies, of all of the memories that You have.

A brain does not contain enough Atoms to even come remotely close to retaining all that information.
In any known format.

"You", are not a chunk of "Meat".
"You" are a spiritual-being having a physical-experience.
You may ( foolishly ) claim that this is "mere speculation" and "superstition",
well, every concept discussed in this thread is "mere speculation" and
could easily be called superstition as well,
when communicated to any person who has a better understanding of how and why life actually works.

Take it or leave it,
but poo-poo the concept at your peril.

This concept is equally as valid as any other (misguided) concept discussed in this thread,
You just can't see it ......... just like Electricity, Gravity, or Inertia, etc,.
.
.
.

 

Genetics is a fantastically complex Code
[...]
poo-poo the concept at your peril.

This concept is equally as valid as any other (misguided) concept discussed in this thread,

I would just like to point out that you came to thread about creatures being programmed, argued that they are programmed, and then called the premise of the thread misguided. Where did we go wrong? Is it because we didn't sprinkle spirituality and mysticism on it?

 

A brain does not contain enough Atoms to even come remotely close to retaining all that information.
In any known format.

Well, that is certainly not true.

"You" are a spiritual-being having a physical-experience.

It may well be that we are 'spiritual' beings, but such statement seems to serve only as a barrier to enquiry, and doesn't offer any advancement in understanding the topic being discussed.

 

Brains don't do any thinking ...... zero,

That is certainly obvious for some in the political spectrum, but I won't name names.
So what mystical source do you attribute it to?