(January 30, 2016 at 7:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(January 30, 2016 at 2:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'd say by definition an evolved DNA code represent a long-term interaction among DNA and the environment, no?
The DNA by itself doesn't represent any specific interaction. Only by embedding it in a system (the living cell inside the living body) does it achieve any level of "long term interaction" at all. So once again we see that it isn't the 'idea' or representation in memory or the sequence of DNA that represents — these are all shorthands for the system which makes their content refer to other things. Without the system, they are nothing on their own.
Of course, any code requires a context. If I encoded the bits of an .mp3 file on a beach, would it be an .mp3 file? Only if there was someone/something designed to act on it. And yet-- there it is, and organized patterns of black and white stones.
The same goes for the brain. If you could isolate whatever specific neural systems represente a discrete idea, and pull them out of the brain, would it still be an idea out of its context?
I sometimes feel with you and Rhythm that there's special pleading happening (and I think you can see why I feel that clearly from our past exchanges). I don't mean either of you is using dishonest argument to push a point. What I mean is that for your definitions of things, I can always find other physical systems that I think share those properties, and you guys will add a new "rule" why my thing doesn't match that definition. Again, nobody please get mad at this-- I'm not trying to insult anyone, only to say that it's very hard for me to pin down and understand exactly what you guys mean by things.
Maybe we need to stop and define the word "idea." I tried to, but I don't think my definition was accepted, on terms of it being to broad. So what defines a more narrow, and hopefully, more useful definition? I'd like a definition that, if I can match all criteria, we will definitely all agree: yes. . . this is definitely an "idea."
