flora_explora @ flora_explora @beehaw.org

Posts

2

Comments

624

Joined

2 yr. ago

But thinking of DNA as code is pretty different than thinking of it as a language, isn't it? That's why I brought up the example of binary code in the first place. And sure, I completely agree that DNA is very much like binary code (just more complex). But code written in a human readable form is again different to that because we need language to understand machine readable code. There needs to be some kind of translation for us. Because language is a form of abstraction that is not present in neither code nor DNA.

I do understand how DNA works, I'm actually a biologist. And I don't doubt that it is complex. What I doubt is that it is a complex system of communication. But sure, I see your point that is some form of complex transferral of information and that yes, if I stretch my understanding of language a bit, it probably is one as well. Maybe the next question would be: what is this useful for? What can we learn from that? Like I said (not sure if in this or in another comment), maybe we then need to have various categories for language?

E: and we could explore the new fringe cases a bit more, too. If DNA/RNA is a form of language, then even non-living entities can have language like in form of viruses. If abiotic things get complex enough, would we also call it language at some point? Like chemical reactions?

Hm, interesting point regarding not limiting the definition of language to individuals only. Maybe I should have said entities? And my point is still valid, just because everyone of us carries DNA with us, we still cannot "talk" DNA. I meant this mismatch in various levels of the complex multicellular entities we are.

Does DNA/RNA really pose an example of complex communication? It certainly is some highly specialized form of storing and transferring information. Calling it dialects sounds more like anthropomorphizing it to make it sound more like a language. Not sure if it is my human bias accustomed to human-style languages, but it somehow doesn't feel like a language to me when the information is just past further down the line and there is no real back-and-forth?

But even if I'd agree that DNA was a language, it would be something fundamentally different to what we commonly understand as language. So what is it worth? We probably need different categories of language then. And on the level of individuals, DNA would be an unintelligible form of language while humanlike language would be unintelligible on cellular level.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not set on rejecting DNA as a language. I just try to explore the opposite position to yours ;)

I think it rather depends on how you define language. For example, Wikipedia says the following:

Depending on philosophical perspectives regarding the definition of language and meaning, when used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules.

What kind system of complex communication do we have in DNA/RNA? It sure is a mode of storing and transferring information. But does this make it a language? And if yes, who is speaking the language of DNA/RNA? Can cells talk then? Because I would argue that this (hypothetical) language of DNA is then always "spoken" by individual cells and isn't transferrable to a multicellular entity? (I mean, sure all your cells are "speaking" DNA in this way, but you yourself aren't.) But back to the question of the "complex systems of communication". I would argue that while DNA is a mode of transferring information, it isn't a language in itself. Because you don't have a back-and-forth. It is a pretty simple progression of reusing information again and again. But it isn't a mode of communication and especially not complex communication.

Oh, good tip, will have a look. Thanks :)

Is it? It's probably more like binary code for computers that our machines run on but that we as individuals cannot comprehend. But you cannot call it a language as individual organisms are not able to use it as such.

Oh wow, you actually did it!! That's so great to see :O I wish I had a blacklight, too. Would be great to attract some moths, too.

Wait, the example you gave isn't manufactured and reductive? (What even means manufactured in this context? Isn't all music manufactured?) I guess, everyone should just listen to the music they like and most people tend to like easy, reductive music.

Ooh nice, would be nice if you could report back if you find anything :)

If you start looking for longer periods of time on any plant, you will see much more animals like spiders (and harvestmen) everywhere! :)

Wow, so cool!!

I just read in this fantastic book that many of the spiders "hiding" in flowers are actually brightly UV colored and even attract pollinators by giving the flower some extra shine. It may often seem to us like they blend in (because we cannot see UV light) but they might do something entirely different!

I guess this depends on if they lost functional roots or not. If they are like bromeliads that lost water uptake in their roots (which instead take up water and nutrients through trichomes in their tank) then they probably don't care about how much nutrients are in the soil. I'd think that as most bromeliads are epiphytes without any real type of soil that that is the reason they lost this functionality. And that many species of carnivorous plants are usually just growing in nutrient-poor soils. So eating animals would just be a way to get more/sufficient nutrients but that it might be still useful for them to have functional roots.

But this is only speculation. Maybe someone else has more tangible info?

Oof, this was wild!

:'(

Also, sometimes it say "won" or lost" behind the candidates, sometimes there is an asterisk, but for many entries, there is no information who won and who lost?

You hate on people that use literally this way, but you do the same thing yourself...

Moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement. Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term. It is similar to imbecile and idiot.

Wikipedia

But unless the people that use "literally" in the colloquial sense you are actually using a term that is tied to eugenics and the idea that disabled people are inferior. Maybe you should have thought about the words that come out of mouth?

Haha yes, I wasn't sure how much into detail I should go into. And it has been some years so I didn't remember his origin story that well. I guess it was based on Schroedinger's cat, right? Time to listen to it again!

It's a fictional news bulletin that is supposedly only for this small community of mad scientists all living together. And since they all have their over the top projects, it never gets boring. Like, you have the abogato (a cat that is also a lawyer), someone clones themselves way too many times, an artificial intelligence that is making a radio drama about this community but is digging up too many secrets. And hundreds of other funny stories.

Reminds me of Biotopia! Such a great and hilarious radionovela!! (But only if you understand Spanish)

The post clearly says that they also provide services to poor people and just adds it at the very end. I get that you are primed to reading this wrong but in this case it actually isn't wrong...