As a matter of direct observation, a gene is a medium that must be translated in order to convey a specification among alternatives. In order to persist, it must convey the specification of its own translation.
Продолжу комментарий. Поэтому реализованное физически эпистемное сечение символ-материя (то есть организация, символьные ограничения на движение частиц материи, составляющей биосистему) должно являться условием существования живого, а не побочным его эффектом, мифически проступающим по мере развития живых систем.
Еще один его комментарий далее в той же ветке (комментарий 42):
#39 sorry for the delay
To you, as a “firm believer in empirical investigation”, my point is we already know how genes exist as a symbolic medium. They persist over time because of semantic closure, which is merely a term to describe the necessary functional relationship between the sequence of the medium and a set of physical constraints that specify what the medium represents.
You’ll likely remember from your reading on genetic translation that the gene establishes the sequence of amino acids in a protein, but a separate set of aminoacyl synthetases (aaRS) independently determines which specific amino acids will appear within that sequence.
In short, the codons in the medium are symbolic representations, and the set of aaRS are the necessary constraints that determine what is being represented. If you have questions about this architecture, you’ll surely also remember that the anticodon-to-amino acid association inside the cell is temporally and spatially isolated from the codon-to-anticodon association.
This architecture establishes a “discontinuous association” between the representations and their referents, which is the very thing that makes specification possible in the first place. (In other words, in a semantic-free material universe, codons don’t actually represent amino acids; they only do so as a product of this special organization).
There is another interesting detail of the system. Semantic closure, as mentioned above, refers to the necessary functional relationship between the sequence of the medium and the non-integrable constraints that will interpret that sequence. It is fundamental to the preservation of the system, given the fact that a system that cannot describe itself cannot persist, and neither can a system that cannot successfully interpret its description.
The interesting thing is that the relationship between these two sets of objects (the codons and the constraints) must be based on Crick’s “reading frame code”. In other words, only by the use of combinatorial permutations will the system have the capacity it needs to describe its own translation. Also, only by the use of combinatorial permutation will that high-capacity be transcribable between mediums (which is a requirement of self-replication).
The bottom line here is that this physical description of the system is now half a century old, and we have known for half a century that the only other place that we can positively identify this exact same physical system is in written language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence.
So my question to the intelligent atheist such as yourself — whom seeks empirical investigation and claims no debilitating bias – how do you reason away the multiple requirements of symbolic representation, discontinuity, interpretation, combinatorial permutations, a reading frame code, and the formalization of semantic closure prior to the ability to organize the cell?
It does not go unnoticed that your first reaction is to reach for a proof-question that no one can ever answer. You then hit the same question over and over again. It would be difficult to not recognize this as your response when faced with what we already know to be true.
Feel free to verify anything you question. I can suggest: