Biological (analogue) Systems v. Manufactured (digital) Systems
So far as this essay goes (and beyond) I propose that their are two different 'worlds'. There is the world of 'Nature' and the World created by the 'man/Man' creature. Difficult though it may seem, the capitalisation of noun words is essential to separate the 'natural' from the 'un-natural'. It is a tortuous path to tread...
I firmly believe that there are at least two species of human animals, the 'humans' and 'humanoids' (who deem to believe that they are beyond Nature and can change it fundamentally, thus the world (Nature) has been usurped by the humanoids who deem to oppose Nature and create a World for their own ends. The World, therefore, is a construct created by tool-makers.
In other words, humans live with Nature (world) and humanoids live trying to create a Nature (World) of their own.
One might suggest, therefore that humans believe in the analogue (continuous) and humanoids believe they can make Nature into digital (discontinuous) creations.
One might be able to appear to make an analogue (neither beginning nor end, i.e. infinite) and believe that this continuous process can be reduced to individual digits, which may (or may not) be moulded or transformed into something else. That we can, in some ways create digital impressions of some Natural phenomena, is not in dispute, however, there is no way that analogue systems (__________) can be reduced to digital (---------------) without leaving something out. (Witness a .wav file reduced to an .mp3 file, (for example), in sound recording and the quality loss thereof). For example, no matter how good the sampling, a digital piano will never sound the same as a 'real' piano. A real piano can be detected, even through closed doors. The real piano is created (as we know) by striking strings which move the (continuous) air and must create a different sound than the movement of a speaker system.
In my view, it is the 'out' of a digital system that prevents us perceiving Nature as it should be, that is, continuous.
What is important is that whilst one might be able to digitise the universe via our 'technological propensities' (or tool-making propensities), one cannot reverse the process. In other words, one cannot take something from an analogue system, reduce it to digits and reconstruct the original analogue, even if we allow that there is no such thing as a perfect (on/off) digital domain.
Biological (analogue) systems cannot be constructed from a digital domain, however. Again, one may be able to deconstruct a biological domain to digits but not the reverse because we have removed a vital element: the element of (endless) continuity. That is, in reality, we cannot replace the parts that have been taken out.
Thus we enter the realms (and theories) of 'particles'. Particles are what they appear to be given our biological processes (senses) as humans (or humanoids). These 'particles' may not be seen by other flora or fauna with the same senses that humans may be able. We can never know. It is certain that we humans cannot see the world of Nature in the same way as other flora or fauna. I would love to know how my dear felines or my pine trees see me, for example.
Biological systems have been created by 'Nature' or the 'world' into which we have been placed.
Manufactured systems have been created from biological systems into a 'World' into which we are also placed but which are not 'Natural', they lack vital elements which make the Natural.
It is important to recognise the difference, otherwise we find ourselves in a construct that has preferred the manufactured over the Natural by those who impel us to abide by their interpretations and controlling machinations.
However 'clever' we think we are as life-forms to contemplate such, we can never 'beat' Natural events in the long run.
For example, however you try to resist the evacuation of your bladder after a few beers, wine or coffee, 'Nature' will win every time. I fail to devise a means to digitise this event...
This silly joke is the essence of the nature of Nature.
As already stated, Nature is analogue or continuous (without interruption). Manufactured is digital (with interruption), however small the interruption.
A biological analogue cannot be made into a digital construct and replicate the original analogue. Something is missing. The missing is the important part.
The notion that a biological event (such as a bud growing into a leaf) is not possible in the digital domain is because the budding of the leaf (in the analogue) is continuous and must necessarily be so in Nature. It is a continuous iterative process that, apart from deliberate destruction by outside sources, cannot be stopped except by its own volition, if that were possible...
Digital devices may be stopped (?) because we can/may be able to interfere in the space between the digits and therefore disrupt an apparent analogue process.
In the context of the D.N.A./gene arena (for example), we have serious problems even imagining the beliefs in such. We have tried to make biological systems into mechanical/digital ones which we can take apart and reconstruct by digitising them into 'particles' of some kind. Particles are not analogue, they are digital.
Mechanical objects (working in the analogue domain) can be taken apart and new and exciting things can be produced from them.
This may be true for digital systems as well. However, the same in not true for biological (analogue) systems.
In simple, one might invite a form of alchemy (combining analogue elements for an unknown) called 'cooking'. We invite several ingredients to combine together (by whatever means available) and produce a new product called a 'cake'. We might assume that the ingredients are separate (flour, water, fillings) but when applied to a natural form of 'heat', they combine to create our wanted 'cake'. Thereafter, it is impossible to separate out those individual ingredients to their original state.
This same alchemical treatment by 'Nature' is apparent in all biological systems. Once created (by whatever means) the ingredients cannot be separated to expose their original content.
The notion, therefore, that a biological substance (analogue) such as what is called D.N.A. can be extracted from a biological organism (flora or fauna) 'dead' or 'alive' and can be deconstructed into 'genes' is a total nonsense.
[I do have a 'gene' map of the fruit fly (drosophilia melanogaster) in my possession dated from 1939 but not sure how to post its image. I just wonder how they can pick out certain 'genes' to determine what is there. How on earth do they lead one to believe that a specific location can produce a viable result and what evidence is that a particular location is the same in/on any strand of D.N.A. results in a conclusion of any sort? ]
For example: One might consider a micro-chip (apparently digital), which once constructed cannot be 'deconstructed' to its basic elements.
It would, of course, be naiive to suggest that certain 'traits' are not carried on from parents to their progeny (flora or fauna), however, we may never know how this is achieved and does it really matter?
Theories, theories, theories...
So what is 'D.N.A.?
D.N.A. is yet another theory. It (whatever that 'it' is) is allegedly a part of a 'cell' (also a particle theory) that carries the data of an organism from one 'generation' to another. It allegedly comprises of 'genes' (individual 'elements') that have a particular trait that is passed from one generation to another.
My notes from the 1960's reveal that D.N.A. is a construct of four chemical 'bases' which create what is called 'chromosomes'. Each 'chromosome' consists of 30,000 (?) 'genes'. There are (apparently) 48 chromosomes in each 'cell' (of humans). That 's a lot of 'genes' each with its particular 'behaviour'! (and that allows for a lot of behaviours). Where all these figures come from is a mystery. (How, if I gave you a pile of sand and said count the grains, let alone the grains of the grains could you do that?)
Deconstructing the human body (or other flora or fauna)...
I have already alluded to the notion that a complete deconstruction of biological (analogue) systems is impossible. You may break a china plate but can never reconstruct it completely to its original state.
Any whole or part of a human body (for example) can never be re-constructed if it is placed in a centrifuge (or some-such) and spun to a pulp.
This apparently is how 'they' detect a 'string' of D.N.A. and they then repeat other transformations upon this substance and claim they have found a 'gene'.
Having found this 'gene', they are then apparently able to establish its 'identity' and magically tell you what it does. How this is achieved is just as magical but spare me the .
To go back to my cake analogy, I defy these humanoids to find a single 'particle' of flour or sugar and determine the whereabouts of its original state before transformation.
In short, the D.N.A. theory (at the very least of most 'scientific' theories) is dead in the water.
If it is incorrect, it is the same as the theory of rockets beyond the atmosphere. If we can't get beyond it, anything relating to the notion of moving beyond it (except in imagination) is a necessary fiction.
If D.N.A. extraction cannot be a reality, then anything beyond it is a fiction or at the very least conjecture.
If the notion of 'particles' is incorrect, then anything beyond it is a fiction or at the very least conjecture.
If the notion of 'germs or viruses' is incorrect, then anything beyond it is a fiction or at the very least conjecture.
Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.