Living cells ‘hacked’ and hijacked by MIT the universe is a Computer

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
a reply to: neoholographic
Digital is a word we made up.

How about all the other words we use?

a reply to: Bedlam

Paradox/contradiction alert! At 2:12 in the video you linked, "natural nanotechnology". I could explain to you in more detail why this is a paradoxal/contradictory term but I'm gonna wait for that one until someone actually asks for it. He's also forcing or expressing his opinion (which is actually an assumption based upon nothing more than an unverified unsupported unreasonable biased and propagandistic philosophy, namely philosophical naturalism, propagandistic based on the way it's promoted by some people in a very deceptive manner) on the audience as factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/definitive (adj. correct, without error)*, or conditioning them with it. Of course it doesn't seem like the person thought it through that way when he shared his opinion, possibly thinking he was sharing a fact or "knowledge": a familiarity with facts. It's also a way to hide (or overlook, trivialize, not emphasize) the God of the Gaps philosophy/idea, concept or way of thinking that I mentioned in an earlier comment in this thread to Phantom423: 'Mother Nature did it' (or 'Gaia did it').

* = he does this by using the verb "is", making it a statement of supposed fact/reality/truth (which it is not since nature didn't do it and can't do it), his exact words are "it's a natural nanotechnology" ('s = is).

Just wanted to give you the heads up.

OK, one clue and a short reminder why the definition in the following dictionary is not accurate or entirely honest or fair for the word "natural":

1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

From the google dictionary, not sure where they get that from. But that's not fair to any other intelligent being other than humans making or causing something and then pretending that their creations are "natural" (as if caused or made by the laws of nature). Discrimination against possible aliens Oh there's a reason btw to say "by humankind" in that dictionary rather than "by any intelligent being", which would be a much fairer and more logical definition, cause I doubt that the word "natural" is supposed to be the right word for something that was caused by any other intelligent being other than humankind, that doesn't make sense to me the way human beings use the word "natural" (a clear indication of nature or the laws of nature being responsible or the only cause for its existence when using terminology such as "natural technology", which doesn't work if you think it through and consider whether or not the laws of nature have the ability to develop or make technology and machinery. Fantasies about what nature can do don't count, especially when they're supported by elaborate just-so or maybe-so stories that the layman can't recognize for the nonsense that is being sold).

At 5:45 something similar happens again with the word and hidden implication or claim "natural". Anyway, good video, it seems I've already gotten some more clues regarding the earlier questions I asked in this thread regarding the article in the OP. Still hoping he'll get to the nitty gritty of things regarding what they've actually accomplished though (in the cell, not regarding their programming language, perhaps he'll get to that later, still need to watch the rest).

Hmmm, I think I've already said too much, that'll probably turn some minds into lockdown mode. Whatever, find the key to your own lock. (No that's not supposed to read "luck")

Oh, perhaps I can add one last tip, you can verify what I said about the usage of the word "natural" by human beings above by having a look on the wikipedia page for SETI (the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) and see how the words "natural" and "naturally (occurring)" are used compared to what they're looking for, technology that isn't natural (or signs thereof). The funny irony being that it's right under their noses (both literally and figuratively), in living cells.

Hmm, I'm now at 16 minutes in the video but I'm still not sure from the way he's talking about promoter regions (genetic switches or sequences in the DNA that trigger DNA > RNA transcription on and off, depending on the situation), if they've actually added DNA sequences in the form of promoter regions to living bacteria (as suggested in the article in the OP when they're talking about "The team have used the language on E.coli bacteria..." but are a bit vague about the results as described in my previous question about it).

ah, the rest of the video clears that up a bit.

Perhaps there's even more in this one:



The paradox/contradiction I mentioned in the previous comment can also be more quickly described as:

If it's "natural", then it's not "technology" (has to do with the meaning of those 2 words, they are incompatible).

If it's technology, then it's not "natural" (as in caused by the laws of nature, not caused by any intelligent being, it is not consistent with the use of the word "natural" by others to try to use it to only refer to things "existing in nature", cause that definition is way to broad and would include computers made by humankind, hence the extra line in that dictionary I quoted, which isn't fair, it's a trick to promote philosophical naturalism and its way of thinking about this subject. A way of thinking that is then applied inconsistently when it comes to related subjects such as what I mentioned regarding SETI).

a reply to: whereislogic



"Remember that neural network technology is founded on human brain networking - it's not exactly an innovation. Nature already did it.


Just a heads up, it wasn't the 'hidden' God of the Gaps: Mother Nature, that did it (see the sign at 7:39 in the video above). That would be an illogical conclusion since the laws of nature (or nature) do not have any engineering capabilities (or access to or ability to develop the required nanoscale and smaller technology). Notice the comment about "nature did it" in this video after 6 minutes (it's best to skip the first 6 minutes anyway if you don't want to hear confusing things): "



This simply is not true. The "engineering capability" you speak of is the genetic code embedded in DNA. It is a self-executing code which delivers the "engineering" information to mRNA. That's mother nature at her finest.

a reply to: Phantom423

The "engineering capability" you speak of is the genetic code embedded in DNA.

That would be the effect of engineering and programming (computer engineering or computer programming overlap in a way, we tend to refer to only the programming part, but you'll need the machinery and machine code as well to do the programming).

"Code" is not "engineering capability". It's the effect or product of someone with engineering and programming capability (capabilities).

Perhaps it's useful to know that synonyms for the word "code" under the adjective (or meaning) that you and I just used it are:

formula/blueprint/specifications

Here's a video that shares some research that has been done in this regards of what the laws of nature are capable of producing (what kind of effects) and what they are not capable of accomplishing (such as engineering and programming blueprints/specifications/codes for functional machinery and nanotechnology):

a reply to: neoholographic

you quoted from an article:

Computational biologist Sergei Maslov of Brookhaven National Laboratory worked with graduate student Tin Yau Pang from Stony Brook University to compare the frequency with which components "survive" in two complex systems: bacterial genomes and operating systems on Linux computers. Their work is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Maslov and Pang set out to determine not only why some specialized genes or computer programs are very common while others are fairly rare, but to see how many components in any system are so important that they can't be eliminated. "If a bacteria genome doesn't have a particular gene, it will be dead on arrival," Maslov said. "How many of those genes are there? The same goes for large software systems. They have multiple components that work together and the systems require just the right components working together to thrive.'"

Hey, I've found some people who think alike (at least regarding 1 line of thought or way of thinking about something)! I'm so happy right now...

Check out the playlist I shared with Phantom423 in my first comment to him towards the latter stages to find out why (funny that they also picked Linux to compare with, I didn't even know someone had done that and got their work published, somehow, that tickles my ears, gotta be careful...).

Back on the topic of Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of "immaterialism", your chosen terminology "simulation" and Einstein's ill-chosen terminology "illusion" (I really think he meant "hologram", given his understanding of the subject) and in order to find some agreement with you: I'd have to say "hologram" is the more appropiate word to describe the way particles of energy behave in relation to one another to form objects visible to human eyes (and understandable by the human brain, what Newton called "beheld by that which in us perceives and thinks").

Besides that I'd like to stress the dangers of listening to Bishop Berkeley's ideas/philosophies and suggestions regarding reality or what is beneficial to either your mind or body by reminding you that Berkeley also advised, promoted, encouraged, got his fame from distributing tar-water for the purpose of drinking it for your health (basically all known ailments if you read Berkeley's work on it carefully and notice the "etc." , stomach aches was also included in there somewhere if I remember correctly). Note that besides the fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned that drinking tar water (or tar-water) causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning (which I can imagine being stomach aches) for a long time (sorry, don't remember the detailed years), parents who trusted Bishop Berkeley and his entire clique of physicians that jumped on his bandwagon regarding tar-water (without proper evidence), continued force-feeding it to their children for multiple centuries. Who then get stomach aches, or it gets worse, and because Berkeley said:

it should be drunk warm and in bed, as much and as often as the patient can bear. I am persuaded tar-water may be drunk with great safety and success for the curing of most diseases, particularly all foul cases, ulcers and eruptions, scurvies of all kinds, nervous disorders, inflammatory distempers, decays, etc.

So you get this vicious circle, the supposed medicine (wonderdrug made of the cheapest substance available in the harbor that was close to his Church, tar) causes the very symptoms it's supposed to cure, and the more you get it force-fed to you, the worse it gets. Perhaps this video explains the problem better:



Here's another similar man discussed (which if you read wikipedia's page on him you might be left with the impression that they're on opposite sides of the fence, but not on this subject allthough they don't quite articulate that very well in the video below, and it's like WWF wrestling anyway). Note that these are the people that used to call themselves and eachother "illuminatus" or "illuminati", or the ones that continued their line of thinking based on their philosophies. Those words are the Latin words for "enlightened" and "enlightened ones", cause they liked publishing in Latin cause it looks more sophisticated then (the philosophies market/sell better, see my 2nd comment about marketing to Phantom423):



They like to jump on the same bandwagon, and provide mutual support. They are not worthy of your attention. You can learn more from Newton alone than from that whole clique together.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't agree with Dr. Meyer. I think he's taking a process which has been elucidated, tested and reproduced and turned it into a semantical argument. He wants the audience to draw the conclusion that intelligent design is somehow involved in the process. There's no evidence for intelligent design regardless how you twist and turn current knowledge.

It's not dissimilar to the OP's post about the universe as a simulation. There are anomalies here and there, but no hard evidence. That's not to say we shouldn't investigate the anomalies. It only says that at this point in time, there is no hard evidence.

The intelligent design hypothesis and the simulation hypothesis are just that: hypotheses.

As far as RNA is concerned, I would direct Dr. Meyer to the RNA lab which I initially posted. The definitions are fairly well understood by the scientific community: DNA is a code. That said, it's obviously not binary code or any derivative of it. Is it mandatory that a code - any code - be written by someone or something? No. We know that self assembly of biological organisms is a common trait on this planet. We also know that code embedded DNA can initiate protein synthesis via mRNA.

And about the word "code". Unfortunately, all human languages have one thing in common - they have a very difficult time getting complex ideas across. That's why we have mathematics. The mathematical models tell us a lot more than the Merriam Webster dictionary. I think Dr. Meyer would do well to avail himself of mathematics and stop trying convey convoluted ideas that have no basis in science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic

He wants the audience to draw the conclusion that intelligent design is somehow involved in the process. There's no evidence for intelligent design regardless how you twist and turn current knowledge.

Sigh, you heard the term "intelligent design" and went into reality denial overdrive mode, didn't even hear how he used the term and what he was applying it to. So predictable...

a little frustrating. Quite discouraging to continue trying to respond to anything else you said about it. Probably best to just let it go. I already knew how you were going to respond Perhaps one day you're capable of thinking about this a bit more realistically and less conditioned (the patterns are so 'in my face', don't know how to properly deal with this kind of denial of realities/facts/truths/certainties without offending someone, like I alluded to earlier, haven't figured out the lock yet and my question regarding ATS in general or on average remains).

a reply to: whereislogic

denial of realities/facts/truths/certainties without offending someone, li

You don't offend me. The intelligent design crowd regards their opinions as facts, not hypotheses. That's antithetical to real science. The statement I quoted above from your post says it all - intelligent design is your reality, truth, fact and certainty. That's fine. But don't try to convince a scientist without hard evidence that has been rigorously tested and repeated.

The OP's topic is intriguing. But no where does he state unequivocally that it is a hard proven fact. Maybe your intelligent design characters are in league with the whoever may have designed and implemented this universe. All ideas are on the table for discussion. But like it or not, every hypothesis that has become theory and then fact has gone through this process:



Yours must also pass the test.

a reply to: Phantom423
Well since you indicated you can handle a bit more colorful language.

hmmm, I see nothing about denying facts or twisting, misinterpreting the meaning of and misusing language to conform with philosophical naturalism (the idea/philosophy 'nature did it' comes into play here) in that diagram. Or justification (or logical reason) for the use of the 'hidden' God of the Gaps way of thinking: "Nature... did it" or "Mother Nature at its finest" (your 2nd variation of the same way of thinking and core philosophy originating from Gaia-worshippers and the Hindus who used a different name for 'Mother Nature' or 'Mother Earth'). You're welcome to try to give me a logical reason why I should believe nature did something that I've only observed being done by beings with the required intelligence and technological know-how.

Your 'ID isn't science' mantra isn't going to have any effect on me no matter how nice you dress it up. Perhaps I should point out that I didn't use the term "intelligent design" to explain any of my own views (because I feel it's redundant, unintelligent design is another paradox/contradiction and misuse of either of those words, either one doesn't apply then to what you're discussing). You should try to learn the differences between opinions and facts before making accusations about "The intelligent design crowd" regarding the subjects of "facts" and "hypotheses". Unless you already know and are faking it on purpose, just making bogus false accusations as ad hominems (most of the arguments you used are like that anyway, and already sufficiently shown in the documentary "Expelled" that I shared 1 part of earlier, it's like you're just directly parrotting from that documentary what the likes of Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, E.C. Scott and that clique are saying, lame propagandistic illogical unreasonable attacks on what is referred to as ID). Or accusations towards me regarding a term I don't even like that much (for the reasons I've already given, redundancy and going along with certain philosophers warping people's understanding of language while calling themselves and eachother scientists while they're spreading their philosophies/ideas about words and realities).

I also made it clear that I brought up Meyer's video for another reason. Here's how I said that:

Here's a video that shares some research that has been done in this regards of what the laws of nature are capable of producing (what kind of effects) and what they are not capable of accomplishing (such as engineering and programming blueprints/specifications/codes for functional machinery and nanotechnology):

a reply to: whereislogic

Look, you're free to believe what you want. I have no idea who Dr. Meyer is addressing in that lecture but the guy completely ignores everything we know about stereochemistry as well as the secondary and tertiary conformation of RNA. He used a flat surface with magnetic letters to demonstrate his point - well the last time anyone looked, all biomolecules, to include DNA and RNA are three dimensional structures. He's really disturbed about the lack of covalent bonds in the "ladder" as it puts it, but never mentions the Van der Waals force, hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic, hydrophilic interactions, ligand interactions. Plus he never mentions the three classes of RNA, each of which have different roles in protein synthesis. And this guy is a chemist?

He repeatedly confuses DNA with RNA. This leads me to believe - and this ain't difficult - that he reversed engineered the entire biomolecular process to suit an agenda.

I'd really like to see him give the same lecture to an audience of chemists and molecular biologists and be a fly on the wall during the Q&A session!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic
I have no idea who Dr. Meyer is addressing in that lecture but the guy completely ignores everything we know about stereochemistry as well as the secondary and tertiary conformation of RNA.

Just throwing some terms out there isn't going to help your belief, philosophy that traces back to religious philosophy, view, opinion and claim about the supposed fact that:

Nature... did it.

There's nothing in the study of stereochemistry that helps your case (and you probably know it which is why you didn't give any details as to why Dr. Meyer supposedly should have gone into details about that specific subject at that specific point). Considering the 3D structure of biomolecular machines and components including the molecules the DNA and RNA blueprints are made up of is only going to make your case for 'nature did it' worse (which Meyer refers to as "self-organizational scenarios"). You're just throwin red herrings out there like bringing up "secondary and tertiary conformation of RNA" which has the same effect if we do start talking about all the different forms in which RNA is used or appears in the cell, including regulatory RNA (micro RNA and such). At least I'm making a logical point when I'm bringing up additional components of the system of interdependent biomolecular machinery that make up a living cell, even the unicellular living organisms with the tiniest genomes on the planet (rather than fantasizing about pink unicorn prokaryote RNA based ancestors without even a cell membrane that can properly select what goes in to the cell and what not). Quoting you again:

... never mentions the Van der Waals force, hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic, hydrophilic interactions, ligand interactions. Plus he never mentions the three classes of RNA, each of which have different roles in protein synthesis.

Again more red herrings that all make it worse regarding your claim that 'nature did it'. None of which provide any evidence whatsoever that nature even can do it, let alone did it; and the last thing you mentioned only shows more interdependency that refutes any idea that 'nature did it' gradually over multiple generations of living reproducing organisms. As you should realize when you read something like:

Computational biologist Sergei Maslov of Brookhaven National Laboratory worked with graduate student Tin Yau Pang from Stony Brook University to compare the frequency with which components "survive" in two complex systems: bacterial genomes and operating systems on Linux computers. Their work is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Maslov and Pang set out to determine not only why some specialized genes or computer programs are very common while others are fairly rare, but to see how many components in any system are so important that they can't be eliminated. "If a bacteria genome doesn't have a particular gene, it will be dead on arrival," Maslov said. "How many of those genes are there? The same goes for large software systems. They have multiple components that work together and the systems require just the right components working together to thrive.'"

That was something that neo... quoted. You may want to read the rest of what he quoted in that comment.




But of course right...your pink unicorn prokaryote RNA ancestor that you're thinking about but haven't spoken out loud about (too busy with the ad hominems and misrepresentations of ID and expressing your emotions about those talking about that subject*) was much 'simpler'....or the 'Great We Don't Know (Yet)' God of the agnostic gaps (but nature did it anyway, gonna keep on saying, posting and believing that in spite of the evidence and what it's pointing at with the biggest figurative mental roadmarkers I've ever seen before I started studying molecular biology and biomolecular machinery and technology).

* = and possibly avoiding saying anything substantial about the subject of the so-called "RNA world" that Meyer discussed at the start of the video



You not responding to my invitation to provide evidence, justification or any logical reason for your usage of the God of the Gaps and belief that (Mother) Nature did it is also duly noted. Here's how I made that invitation:

You're welcome to try to give me a logical reason why I should believe nature did something that I've only observed being done by beings with the required intelligence and technological know-how.

a reply to: whereislogic

Look, this is turning into a hijack of the OP's thread and it's impolite. If you really want to discuss this topic I suggest you post over on the Creationist board. I'm happy to oblige. But I'm not going to answer your post here.

a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't worry about it, quoting from the OP (neo...) regarding the research I just quoted something from as well:

This is EXTREMELY INTERESTING especially if you know about Linux and computer programming in general. This goes to the argument of intelligent design. There's parts of the system that can't function without all of the components in place. They can't thrive in the environment without these components working together.
...

Maslov's finding applies equally to these complex networks because they are both examples of open access systems with components that are independently installed. "Bacteria are the ultimate BitTorrents of biology," he said, referring to a popular file-sharing protocol. "They have this enormous common pool of genes that they are freely sharing with each other. Bacterial systems can easily add or remove genes from their genomes through what's called horizontal gene transfer, a kind of file sharing between bacteria," Maslov said.

More evidence that DNA is a ... code that was designed. I'm just glad it's like Linux and not Windows. I hate Windows.

Hear, hear (after minor adjustment and considering what I alread mentioned about the term "intelligent design"). You know, evidence, that which you are in complete denial of, cold hard facts that you try to twist or ignore to your liking so you can stick your head in the sand regarding the evidence and pretend it doesn't mean anything regarding the fact that:

codes are initially* designed by a designer or designers

They are not gradually formed by the magical wand of Mother Nature over multiple successive generations of self-reproducing codes that initially can't quite be referred to as codes regarding their instructive functionality concerning reproductive processes (and that's not even talking about the machinery required for interpretation of the code to actually get that functionality out of the code).

* = not sure if I can use "originally" there as well, but consider it, programming and programmer or programmers also apply instead of the words that you have no doubt not completely forgotten the meaning of

Oh, and I already brought up videos to consider the subject of stereochemistry (also known as 3D chemistry) in the playlist I shared with you in my first comment to you and later videos. They don't change any of the true/factual/absolute/certain/conclusive (adj.: correct, without error) things Meyer says in that video (apart from my issue with his redundant usage of "intelligent design", and perhaps, I'd have to check again, this might be one of those videos where he actually refers to an established fact and correct conclusion as an hypothesis, but I think I wouldn't have shared it if I had spotted that. That would be a bit too much accommodation and submissiveness to the agnostic philosophical naturalists, philosophers and evolutionary mythologists that are referring to themselves as scientists that I'm willing to share, as they spread their ridiculous philosophy and linguistic paradox/contradiction that 'science does not deal with absolutes').

a reply to: neoholographic

God made man.

God puts man through tests.

Either way you look at it, life is a simulation.

a reply to: whereislogic

Good points and I think the notion that a code somehow naturally evolved is insane. It takes intelligence to give meaning to a sequence of letters to carry out instructions.

To me there's a natural interpretation of evolution which makes no sense and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution that explains everything beautifully.

The genes that regulate expression didn't evolve. These genes didn't try to find their way. They were encoded for a specific purpose and function. To regulate gene expression. Also, these genes were encoded for a specific purpose and function.

Let's look at the operon in E.Coli that expresses a protein that breaks down lactose. The operon has a promoter region of DNA, an operator and the DNA sequence that expresses the protein. There's a repressor that turns on and off the expression of the gene based on the presence of lactose. When lactose isn't present, the repressor attaches itself to the operator and the protein that breaks down lactose isn't produced. When you drink some milk, lactose is present and it attaches itself to the repressor and gene expression is turned on. Now the RNA Polymerase can attach itself to the Promoter region of DNA and express the genes that produce the proteins to breakdown lactose.

This is the mechanics of the genetic program. It didn't evolve. It didn't try to find it's way. These repressors are encoded for a specific purpose and function and that is to regulate gene expression and these genes have a specific purpose and function like the genes that breakdown lactose or the genes that regulate the design of the eye or of teeth.

Here's some questions:

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?



The point is, DNA is already computing and the article is saying we're hacking into this computation. Again, to think nature can arrange DNA letters into a code or a sequence of letters that convey instructions is just insane and this is just more evidence that we live in a computational universe that a simulation or a holagram of information encoded on a 2 dimensional surface area. Either way, the evidence doesn't support an objective physical universe but a universe that's built on information, computation and intelligence.

a reply to: neoholographic

That's why it took 3.5 billion years for us to make it to the nuclear age? And as far as we know, there is no life out there, nothing capable of so much as taking a dump. Seems to fall a little short of an intelligent universe. Also seems premature to declare the nature of the universe based on the bacteria from one planet.

a reply to: neoholographic

ooh, ooh, I know the answer to your questions:

'We don't know yet' [but nature did it anyway, or it happened anyway, or it evolved by mutations acted upon by natural selection anyway]

The last thought not spoken out loud anymore after these types of questions are raised. Then it's all about:

'science does not deal with absolutes' (and all variations on that selectively agnostic philosophy, only selectively agnostic regarding things for which the logical correct conclusion, nature DID NOT do it, leads to unwanted ways of thinking regarding who or what might have done it then and what attributes and capabilities we can tell right away are required from using the logical process every human is born with, inductive reasoning)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

'Science is progressive', 'we're still figuring it out', 'science is self-correcting', 'we're making great progress', 'all the evidence is pointing in the direction of our myth supported by "we don't know yet"', 'look fossils, ERV's, phylogenetic trees, and the rest of our house of cards called a mountain of evidence, stop thinking about your questions please and stop using a God of the Gaps because 'we don't know' of any logical reason to believe our own myths', 'come, let's turn the world upside down with us and accuse everyone who exposes our way of thinking of everything we're doing ourselves', etc.

Everything above between '...' is meant to be translating the arguments from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (with a touch of selective agnosticism, or convenient denial of established facts/certainties/realities/truths, things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/definitive, adj. correct, without error). Where you see a / I'm using synonyms as reminders.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I hear what you're saying here....but I think what Neo is getting at here is the metaphor may have deeper meaning.

I mean....DNA is a programming language, right? For biology? At least, as a metaphor, right?

Anyway....im not so sure that we have causation assigned properly. DNA being a metaphor for programming may not prove anything. Because it could just as easily be that programming is a metaphor for DNA. That we designed computers using concepts we were already familiar with as a basis. That the univese isn't a supercomputer, but rather a supercomputer will eventually attempt to imitate a universe.

Kind of like following the axiom "as above, so below"....we have only tried to recreate that which we already know, being unable to really create anything new within this universe.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TerryDon79

That we designed computers using concepts we were already familiar with as a basis.
....we have only tried to recreate that which we already know, ...

Your timing is off, we only started learning about how DNA as found in the genomes of living organisms IS and functions as a code that uses a programming language starting since 1953 (and still people have a hard time accepting that reality/fact/truth/certainty). It's been a slow progress since (I can't tell you when exactly people started to use the terminology "code" and "programming" regarding DNA).

From wiki on the page for Computer:

Mechanical analog computers started appearing in the first century and were later used in the medieval era for astronomical calculations. In World War II, mechanical analog computers were used for specialized military applications such as calculating torpedo aiming. During this time the first electronic digital computers were developed.
...
The differential analyser, a mechanical analog computer designed to solve differential equations by integration, used wheel-and-disc mechanisms to perform the integration. In 1876 Lord Kelvin had already discussed the possible construction of such calculators, but he had been stymied by the limited output torque of the ball-and-disk integrators.[15] In a differential analyzer, the output of one integrator drove the input of the next integrator, or a graphing output. The torque amplifier was the advance that allowed these machines to work. Starting in the 1920s, Vannevar Bush and others developed mechanical differential analyzers.

First general-purpose computing device

Charles Babbage, an English mechanical engineer and polymath, originated the concept of a programmable computer. Considered the "father of the computer",[16] he conceptualized and invented the first mechanical computer in the early 19th century.