31 réponses à ce sujet

[Rusted Cage]

Do you guys think there is any science fact behind Javik's "biological marker" concept? At first I thought it was magical nonsense that had no place in the series but now I'm starting to wonder. I recently saw a Mythbusters episode in which the team used wolf musk to distract a guard dog and it appeared to be effective.

 

This is interesting as, assuming the dog had never seen or smelled a wolf before, why would it appear intimidated by the scent of one?

Also, I have frequently seen kittens on the a Livestream kitten Cam demonstrating unlearned behaviour in the form of attempting to bury food after eating despite there not being a time in which the kitten would have observed this from a mother or an apparent reason why they would want to.

In both those scenarios, it is easy to answer that it is instinctual behaviour. Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA? So as DNA can be decoded, is it only a matter of time before we see those biological markers Javik can pick up?

Serious question.

[Excella Gionne]

Lolz, everything you just stated sounded like what the Animus does from AC.

[David7204]

I don't know if I would call it 'encoded in our DNA,' but that fact that animals are born with preset behaviors is beyond question. Humans have quite a few of them.

Modifié par David7204, 26 août 2013 - 08:10 .

[LiL Reapur]

Who knows........

[Iakus]

 Javik's ability more resembles remote viewing than anything found in nature

[Mcfly616]

Welcome to science fiction. There's some sort of "magic" that is indescribable by real world scientific terms in every single story you'll find within the genre (regardless of what people may like to believe)

Modifié par Mcfly616, 26 août 2013 - 09:36 .

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Welcome to the science fiction. There's some sort of "magic" that is indescribable by real world scientific terms in every single story you'll find within the genre (regardless of what people may like to believe)

Magic A is Magic A is fine.  But this is yet another example in an increasibly long list of space magic that gets handwaved away.

[JonathonPR]

I am sad that so few people know the difference between hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy. The problems in Mass Effect occur because they try to portray science fantasy as one of the two other forms.

[Br3admax]

LiL Reapur wrote...

Who knows........

Yep, that explains it perfectly. 

[Reorte]

JonathonPR wrote...

I am sad that so few people know the difference between hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy. The problems in Mass Effect occur because they try to portray science fantasy as one of the two other forms.

IMO it started off at least aiming for soft science fiction - things like the mass effect being thrown in to get around problems like FTL travel, for which there is no hard science fiction solution. Unfortunately more science fantasy elements got thrown in that weren't ever necessary (and they go back to ME1).

As for Javik, no. That's firmly in the science fantasy land, and rather too far into it at that. DNA is more like a seed for a pseudorandom number generator that's used to generate, for example, a landscape. In a computer the seed plus the combination of programmed rules gives rise to a landscape. With DNA the seed plus the rules inherent in the laws of nature produce a living creature (and it's pretty damned amazing that that's even possible IMO). The life form is a consequence of the DNA, it isn't programmed into the DNA. And as for things like understanding language from a touch, that's even sillier and not even necessary, since I find it hard to believe that Liara could know anything about the Protheans without some knowledge of their language. I find it hard to believe that all Prothean-derived knowledge comes purely from reverse engineering leftover tech and inspecting technical diagrams.

[AlexMBrennan]

So as DNA can be decoded, why can't we see those biological markers?

Because there is like, a ton of data? How do you know that it's not encoded in the "junk DNA" that makes up 98% of the human genome?

Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA?

That seems unlikely, at least in the sense that you seem to be thinking of - mostly because DNA is static: Your DNA will look exactly the same in ten years time, so there is no way useful advice that you learn (e.g. Hide food, don't breath underwater, etc) could possibly be stored...

[Br3admax]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA?

That seems unlikely, at least in the sense that you seem to be thinking of - mostly because DNA is static: Your DNA will look exactly the same in ten years time, so there is no way useful advice that you learn (e.g. Hide food, don't breath underwater, etc) could possibly be stored...

More or less, your DNA can actually leave markers to deal with certain situations, but it will be mostly the same. A village had a season of famine, and the decscendants of these peole had genetic markers to store more fat. This wasn't NS, mind you, it was simply that their grandparents experienced famine and their DNA adapted. 

[Reorte]

Br3ad wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA?

That seems unlikely, at least in the sense that you seem to be thinking of - mostly because DNA is static: Your DNA will look exactly the same in ten years time, so there is no way useful advice that you learn (e.g. Hide food, don't breath underwater, etc) could possibly be stored...

More or less, your DNA can actually leave markers to deal with certain situations, but it will be mostly the same. A village had a season of famine, and the decscendants of these peole had genetic markers to store more fat. This wasn't NS, mind you, it was simply that their grandparents experienced famine and their DNA adapted. 

No, DNA doesn't change (well, not usually, and the usual  result of changed DNA is cancer).

[Br3admax]

By markers I mean how it is read. That's why I said more or less. That's a real thing by the way, look it up if you don't believe me.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Epigenetics. And apparently, genetics can store/carry learnt information as well, as I learnt from someone on here.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 26 août 2013 - 09:27 .

[Jukaga]

Most scientists today dismiss the possibility of 'genetic memory' but the MEU just assumed it was correct and ran with it. Put along the other 'lies' like ALL of the Mass Effect technology it's not a hard pill to swallow, or it shouldn't be but some people like to pick on that particular bit of nonsense science but give things like eezo and biotics a free pass.

Modifié par Jukaga, 26 août 2013 - 09:44 .

[Mcfly616]

JonathonPR wrote...

I am sad that so few people know the difference between hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy. The problems in Mass Effect occur because they try to portray science fantasy as one of the two other forms.

the term is "Space Opera".....not "space fantasy".

Mass Effect was a space opera from the very beginning.


As far as magic is concerned, as I said in my previous post: you can find magic (or something unexplainable in real world scientific terms) in any science fiction novel or sub-genre. Whether its at the end of a "Hard Sci Fi" novel such as Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space, or throughout the entirety of such space operas as the Pandora's Star duology by Peter F. Hamilton.

It comes with the territory, for better or worse.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 26 août 2013 - 09:50 .

[Reorte]

Jukaga wrote...

Most scientists today dismiss the possibility of 'genetic memory' but the MEU just assumed it was correct and ran with it. Put along the other 'lies' like ALL of the Mass Effect technology it's not a hard pill to swallow, or it shouldn't be but some people like to pick on that particular bit of nonsense science but give things like eezo and biotics a free pass.

Eezo exists as a necessary thing to get FTL travel working. Such things usually get a pass in soft science fiction if they're there to achieve something completely necessary for the setup. At that point a few other bits of nonsense, like biotics, can get slipped through. The usual rule - get your exceptions and additions to reality in place early on, and don't have more of them than is absolutely necessary for the setup you want.

[Reorte]

Mcfly616 wrote...

JonathonPR wrote...

I am sad that so few people know the difference between hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy. The problems in Mass Effect occur because they try to portray science fantasy as one of the two other forms.

the term is "Space Opera".....not "space fantasy".

Mass Effect was a space opera from the very beginning.


As far as magic is concerned, as I said in my previous post: you can find magic (or something unexplainable in real world scientific terms) in any science fiction novel or sub-genre. Whether its at the end of a "Hard Sci Fi" novel such as Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space, or throughout the entirety of such space operas as the Pandora's Star duology by Peter F. Hamilton.

Hard science fiction usually aims to limit itself to having things that we don't know how to engineer rather than any complete space magic (e.g. working fusion reactors), and even then aims for plausible extrapolations from current technology.

Space opera and science fantasy aren't the same thing although both may be present in the same work, and often are. However it is entirely possible to imagine works with only one of them, it just makes your space opera much easier to write if you throw in science fantasy. The best space operas go light on the fantasy elements and aim for the mid to soft range.

[Mcfly616]

Reorte wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

JonathonPR wrote...

I am sad that so few people know the difference between hard science fiction, soft science fiction, and science fantasy. The problems in Mass Effect occur because they try to portray science fantasy as one of the two other forms.

the term is "Space Opera".....not "space fantasy".

Mass Effect was a space opera from the very beginning.


As far as magic is concerned, as I said in my previous post: you can find magic (or something unexplainable in real world scientific terms) in any science fiction novel or sub-genre. Whether its at the end of a "Hard Sci Fi" novel such as Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space, or throughout the entirety of such space operas as the Pandora's Star duology by Peter F. Hamilton.

Hard science fiction usually aims to limit itself to having things that we don't know how to engineer rather than any complete space magic (e.g. working fusion reactors), and even then aims for plausible extrapolations from current technology.

Space opera and science fantasy aren't the same thing although both may be present in the same work, and often are. However it is entirely possible to imagine works with only one of them, it just makes your space opera much easier to write if you throw in science fantasy. The best space operas go light on the fantasy elements and aim for the mid to soft range.

"science fantasy" has never been clearly defined or officially recognized as a genre. As such, most critics just refer to the romatic/melodramatic space adventures that are light on actual science, as: Space Opera's

You're right about Hard Sci Fi writers though. They do try to limit the "space magic". Nonetheless, it still inevitably pops up at some point within the writers work.


( just so you know that I wasn't pulling that "science fantasy" bit out of thin air: http://en.m.wikipedi...Science_fantasy)

Modifié par Mcfly616, 26 août 2013 - 10:08 .

[Reorte]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 "science fantasy" has never been clearly defined or officially recognized as a genre. As such, most critics just refer to the romatic/melodramatic space adventures that are light on actual science, as: Space Opera's

You're right about Hard Sci Fi writers though. They do try to limit the "space magic". Nonetheless, it still inevitably pops up at some point within the writers work.

Fair enough, although I feel it's worth differentiating between space operas that happily pile on the fantasy and those that try to avoid it (in which case it'll usually not come up at all).

I'm not sure I agree that space magic always pops up, although inevitably there comes a point as to whether something is space magic or just a very long projection from what we have and know.

Just to muddy the waters, what about light science series that would be called space opera except they don't have much to do with space? For example the X-Files.

[domm]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
attributed to either Arthur C Clarke or Larry Niven

ie - just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't exist.

[AlexMBrennan]

But the corollary (everything we don't understand at this point in time will eventually be possible) is not true either.

[Wolfva2]

Well, answering the OP's question and ignoring the "MY definition of fantasy trumps YOUR definition because *I* say so!" arguments, memory is just protein chains stuck to the crenelations in the brain. I suppose it could be possible for an organism to evolve an ability where, by touching biological matter, they could release enzymes to decode that protein strand. Not quite sure if that's what Javik does...to be honest, it's more like the old ESP dodge where you touch a scarf or something and get 'imprints' from the previous owner.

Man, I'm starting to wish (again!) that I'd stayed in college and finished those bio degrees...<LOL>.

[Rusted Cage]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

So as DNA can be decoded, why can't we see those biological markers?

Because there is like, a ton of data? How do you know that it's not encoded in the "junk DNA" that makes up 98% of the human genome?

Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA?

That seems unlikely, at least in the sense that you seem to be thinking of - mostly because DNA is static: Your DNA will look exactly the same in ten years time, so there is no way useful advice that you learn (e.g. Hide food, don't breath underwater, etc) could possibly be stored...

This is pretty much what I thought where our current understanding lay. It doesn't explain what instinct actually is or how it is passed along, though. Is this a genuine gap in our knowledge or am I missing something?

Br3ad wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Yet does this also indicate that ancestral memory is somehow written into DNA?

That seems unlikely, at least in the sense that you seem to be thinking of - mostly because DNA is static: Your DNA will look exactly the same in ten years time, so there is no way useful advice that you learn (e.g. Hide food, don't breath underwater, etc) could possibly be stored...

More or less, your DNA can actually leave markers to deal with certain situations, but it will be mostly the same. A village had a season of famine, and the decscendants of these peole had genetic markers to store more fat. This wasn't NS, mind you, it was simply that their grandparents experienced famine and their DNA adapted. 

I remember seeing or reading this, how scientists were able to see how the human population was almost utterly destroyed after a super volcanic eruption or how they can see when the consumption of milk became common by looking at the causes of lactose intolerance.

However, things like irrational phobias are still strange. Many people in Great Britain are afraid of spiders or snakes. This I assume is a holdover from the days where such fears were justified because the creatures are deadly. There is no reason to fear them in this country - we have no poisonous ones.

So what carries that holdover ancestral fear? If these things aren't genetic, why do cats behave as they do, why does the dog get scared of the wolf he has never even experienced?