undefined

points

[-]

From an information theory perspective it does not matter how many levels of interpretation are in between, that hardcoded information must pass the genome. for example we can discuss "what about protein synthesis", for example binding affinities, folding helpers etc. they in turn were encoded genetically as well.

> There are a few extra levels of interpretation (like protein synthesis) that are more like a transpiler than compression (imo), over a 4-base language that is read in a sliding window and is affected by surrounding conditions, so the same "token" sequence may produce different things depending on external factors. Some biologists I used to collaborate with talked about 7 layers to this process, I have only described one level here

so the same "token" sequence may produce different things depending on external factors.

yes, non-hereditary learning depends on external factors, thank you for paraphrasing me while shifting attention.

the multi-scale nature (transpilers etc.) doesn't change the theorems in probability and information theory which seriously constrain the maximum amount of information a message can store.

The whole point of a brain is that it is an organ dedicated to storing, retrieving and timely utilising information one can't afford to store in a genome.

by verdverm1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not convinced information theory is the right avenue for such non-deterministic, environmentally affected, open ended systems. Protein synthesis is defined by far more than the DNA, which is always being processed, most of which is junk and being recycled. The layers in between are more than interpretation of the prior layers, the data grows at each level to incorporate more sources under your information theoretic formulation.

I was never paraphrasing you, but thank you for attempting rhetorical antics?