Howdy Folks,

[insomniac]

Glad to meet some fellow questors.

I found this place by googling something that got me to the "parts of the whole" thread. Some thoughtful dialog going on here, i says to myself, and joined up.

I've got a manuscript in progress, titled, LifeOS: exploring the system that executes DNA. It surely didn't start out as a theory of everything, but any serious attempt at explaining reality has got to include all of it. What i'm doing is just taking the point of view that the universe is an information processing system first, with matter as its medium for memory, and its output.

From my intro:

"All creatures alive today, plus the remains of all living things that have gone before, all the organic compounds, all fossils, all fossil fuels, all the biomass accumulated by this planet over billions of years, exists because, information coded into DNA was accessed, read and acted upon by a cell. Before any one of those cells could grow, before any living tissue could be manufactured, before any polypeptide chains could be assembled, before anything could happen in ANY cell, DNA information had to be processed. Information processing is the very first act of Life.

Why is this an important distinction? Because information processing involves a set of concepts that are independent of the processing method being used. For one, there must exist a consistent set of rules or protocols that govern information processing within the system. This is called an operating system, or OS.

All living organisms follow the same rules for accessing and reading DNA code. These universal rules infer the existence of a biological operating system. I call it LifeOS."

That's the tip of the iceberg, anyway. Deeper we get into how quantum mechanics, holography, consciousness, shamanism, entheogens and everything paranormal and occult fits into this model. One of the things that is really exciting to me is that this line of thinking has become more popular recently. I first started talking a holographic universe in the early eighties, back when lasers were relatively rare, and nobody got the drift of what i was saying. Heck, i was pretty vague on the process myself. Since then, the whole idea has taken off. The more i read about related subjects, the more i see the details of my original model... sort of like filling in the details in a hologram.

Meanwhile, i'm following some pretty interesting threads here. Hope to contribute along the way.

cheers,
jim

[Mohan.C]

Welcome to toequest jim,
I'm sure you're going to have a good time here... Looking forward to see more of your posts.

Mohan,

[baudrunner]

Hi insomniac,

you said,

before anything could happen in ANY cell, DNA information had to be processed

You're wrong. The process that saw evolution from a single-celled life form with a few nucleotide sequences in it into a eukaryote, or a single-celled life form with a nucleus with a rudimentary DNA molecule in it, was a process that spanned about two billion years.

Natural selection is the result of the evolution of a more primeval form of evolution which was essentially a process of preservation of random selection based on chance opportunistic sequences of events resulting from favorable environmental conditions. Deterministic evolution is what we know today, that the more advanced a life becomes the more likely it is to be conserved.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Jim;
The current concept that fits known data (as baudrunner points out) is quite compelling. You must present evidence or methods to test your concept before it is capable of challenging existing popular theories. The field of Emergence is showing a great deal of promise in the quest to explain life.

The explanation of life is the main blockage to most TOE’s; maybe you can stimulate some good discussions in that area.

[insomniac]

Hi insomniac,

You're wrong.

Only the second time i've been wrong today.

Howdy baudrunner,

According to the western scientific context, you are absolutely right. However, that context admittedly leaves out some important areas, like consciousness and the information processing that goes on subconsciously. It further ignores, even disrespects anything that could be called introspective. Well, that context is, and always has been, insufficient to explain my experience.

I think a systems approach does a better job of explaining how it all works. It is a point of view. It doesn't really deal with how the system was formed, that's a question that doesn't come up in this model. The systems view deals with how the system works in the present. What feedback loops control the process? How is the information passed? How is the information organized and displayed? How does the system remember and adapt? When those questions are answered, we will have defined the system well enough to see the flaws in the random mutation part of the theory. In an efficient system, randomness just doesn't fit in. Everything is controlled by information, nothing is left to chance.

cheers,
jim

[insomniac]

Howdy Mohan,

Thanks, looking forward to it.

[Graybeard]

Only the second time I've been wrong today.

In an efficient system, randomness just doesn't fit in. Everything is controlled by information, nothing is left to chance.

This could be your third ...

A system without a random factor is a system without change. 'Imperfection' is the 'most perfect' survival technique.

greg

[insomniac]

Thanks David,

I'm not ready to challenge such "compelling" beliefs, but rather to present a point of view that offers a different interpretation of the same data.

cheers,
jim

[insomniac]

Howdy Graybeard,

That's like letting the errors in Windows define the future of their products. Maybe that's what they did?

cheers,
jim

[Graybeard]

That's like letting the errors in Windows define the future of their products. Maybe that's what they did?

Yes ... good point. But not so much an error as the ability to change randomly (to error), and discard all those that don't work. The 'discards' or 'errors' are not purposely eliminated, but they can't compete.

TCP/IP was never the best protocol. But it was the best that could be distributed in the time the world was demanding. Better ones could not compete, and there were many better, in the time it took to 'standardise'.

In this sense, your statement 'In an efficient system, randomness just doesn't fit in. Everything is controlled by information, nothing is left to chance.' does not allow that nothing in nature is perfect, simply the best random selection at the current time. Look around!

cool bananas ... greg