Are the genes a map that preceded the landscape, or a map that prescribes the landscape (so that if you don’t follow it, there are errors)?
#science #evidencebased
I don’t think a map is a good analogy. How about: physical, non-cognitive constraint-and-feedback processes that form a distributed system shaping the development and maintenance of the organism, influenced by many interacting factors along the way. Variations happen. Some aren’t so pleasant.
Elegant, concise.
2 Likes
I agree with greenfuse. The map analogy is not bad, but pretty redactive in regards of the depths this rabbithole reaches.
Genes are/is a coding language → coding language expresses code → code is storing information and instructions → Requires a reader for execution → results in clear distinction between software and hardware
So when you sit there with the map, the questions also arise: Who wrote it before maps even existed, using what, where did the paper come from, the language, the units used for it, the method for transcribing and so on and so forth.
You can dig yourself half way to china with this if you are willing to look into it at sufficient depth.
The third of de facto (is) and de jure (ought) is de potentia (value). Well. They are each a third (and a first, and a second) to the others.
What appears as a shuffling of cups is only the need to mind the frames.
@niallm …just in case you are not already seeing this.
I don’t know much about genes @Ichthus77, apart from that it’s hard to find ones that fit properly.
I boil-washed a pair recently to shrink them, seemed to work a bit.
1 Like
2 Likes
Geography doesn’t care about maps, it’s only for our own benefit we draw them. A two-dimensional representation of something that is anything but, I’m quite sure that applies to genes as well. I’ll check out the copilot session later today, sounds interesting.
You know why some humans hate Jesus? With him, men & women, all races, and the worst sinners are on the same level as the human’s gender (whether or not it was assigned at birth), the human’s race (whether or not it was with or without a beginning or any particular level of purity or trueness to the original— which may have been more than one, but never mind that… we are a happy little rainbow of the spectrum of beauty), and whatever sin they’re being super hypocritical about—number one.
Number two … he steel man’s the problem before he solves it, like some kind of badass you ain’t never gonna one-up.
He’s the M. Night Shyamalan, Quentin Tarantino, or Stephen King of metaphysics.
1 Like
I’m looking over at my periodic tables of element(s) and I’m thinking some stuff maybe you could help explain?
Let’s start with, “If it’s never found in nature, why is it on the periodic table of elements?” Follow up question: And how was it even possible to synthesize… IN NATURE?
I’m not asking how it became something that was put on the table of elements…because I know how…because I learned under someone who explained that part… his father was involved in all of that.
1 Like
Let’s just say… if a human ever genuinely does something new “under the sun”… it is not an advance.
Whenever you hear the word “emergent“ you have to hear that certain things all have to be happening at the same time or it’s not going to happen. This is how they mask/obscure irreducible complexity — talk about it without getting “expelled”.
It’s fun to rib them about it if they are actually the expellers.