Wull— it actually is literal.
The relevant language parts run between 8:45 and 12:55. ENCODE has outdated the junk DNA musings.
It’s not a language. Language is conceptual.
Watch the video; I just did for …who knows this how many times this has been.
I don’t need to watch the video. If this scientist is treating DNA as a literal language then he is making the same error you are.
bioinformatics is a whole field, man
You can’t just posit/assert that it is analogous. You might as well say 'You are wrong because I am right" if the ordering is what matters then it isn’t like a program. I was a programmer. I program operates serially, temporally, but not DNA , it can attach backwards or forwards , how is not what matters. And it can’t be a category error no matter what. this is a fallacy of yours: when used to dismiss valid arguments without engaging their substance
I studied cellular biology and I was a programmer. And I leave it at that and let the audience judge
It is a category error, no matter your assertions to the contrary. DNA is metaphysically given; Language is epistemological and manmade. Those are two different categories.
1 Like
And I bet it recognizes that DNA as a language is a metaphor.
There are way too many answers for this question. Its not a single thing. Its a plethora of things ranging from evolutionary traits to the way your brain processes information on a biochemical basis.
To be fair, evolution was extremely kind to human beings in this regard. Some animals like certain species of birds and amphibians have such a low degree of processing power that they cant even be accurately described as having any kind of awareness.
1 Like
A bird told you this ?
1 Like
No, it was yo mama
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in relation to what we’ve been talking about. Is this supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? You’ll need to explain what point you’re trying to make here.
The problem here is I don’t think there’s anything to understand. It just appears to be random words strung together with no connection to the topic, or to be frank, reality.
I did with this comment what you did with one of mine. I ran it through AI, and it said it was meaningless gibberish, a deepity. That was my thought too.
read it with this and you’ll probably come to the same conclusion… click the v to expand.
It’s hilarious watching the gymnastics of trying to play God without including God in your game.
I’m just not going to interact with you from now on. I don’t have time to parse your nonsensical posts. All I said in this thread is that our brains have limitations in working memory and in the number of items we can keep track of. I don’t know what this has to do with Jesus or religion or playing God, and I don’t think you do either.
You are wrong every living thing has awareness because they are alive the only living things that wouldn’t have awareness would be cells. Even insects have awareness cockroaches respond if you try to squish them and they also respond to lights coming on.
…omniscience.
…recognizing the essential moment, versus missing the point.
Rage muting this thread.
You have reduced “awareness” to the level of cellular response to stimulus.
Flexible cognition and instinctive programming are not the same. There is either someone at the wheel, or the car is just going by bouncing off of whatever object gets in it’s path.
The standard you applied here is about as humorous as saying that a basketball has awareness because it detects the ground and bounces off of it when it comes into contact with it.
There is a bit more to that concept, do we agree?