OK, this and your previous post help quite a lot. I find it interesting also that exons, separated by introns, can map to specific protein domains: that opens up the theoretical possibility that the same exon in the same location could be used in the formation of different proteins--does that happen, I wonder? It would make for a highly modular system. Or, rather, can the same exon be found repeated in different gene sequences? I guess the latter is asking if a specific intron/exon sequence is unique to the production of a specific protein, even though the same exon might be found in different gene sequences.
I must say that I lean towards Loneshaman's view that Shannon information isn't semantic, which you also seem to agree with. There is meaning at the bottom of everything, of that I'm convinced, and meaning can only arise in consciousness, which latter is what it is and has no progenitor. One can think in terms of Panpsychism or Idealism (which is my own personal preference), or whatever: I don't suppose any of us know for sure. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of us are coming to similar conclusions, and only really differing in our preferred interpretations of what's going on. In that sense, it may not be so important whether one leans towards Yogic explanations, or something else. The main issue with that is that different interpretative systems use different concepts and terminology: but I suppose they could in the end be largely isomorphic.
Everyone knows that Shannon information is not semantic. It is a formal model of coding. The fact that it lacks the ability to model meaning is both a limit and a strength of the model. You can see this in how computers work: a digital image, audio file, or word processor document all reduce to the same thing, a string of 1s and 0s. To us, they all mean something different, to a computer they are all the same. Computers and the internet would not be what they are without this sterile view of information.
The bold thing I am saying in
What Is Science? about yoga is that it is not an explanation, not in the sense of any philosophical explanation. It is a set of methods and practices that, if one learns to do successfully, it will allow one to
experience the answer to these questions. Now, we can talk about what yogis describe and turn it into a philosophical position, but this defeats the purpose and just puts us back where we started from, which was not my intent. It's like intellecualizing NDEs. Just go learn to OBE for yourself and have the experience. NDEs are another way to get there, not one I would personally advocate, but it takes you to the same "place".
The best metaphor I have for my viewpoint at the moment is this. Imagine it is 1690 and you are in a pub in England. In walks this guy, Robert Boyle. Now, you have to imagine the world in 1690. There is no science as we know it. Newton's stuff is one generation old, and is esoteric stuff known by few. No electricity, etc. And you and some friends are sitting in the pub debating the alchemists vs the atomists of Democritus. In walks Boyle and says, hey, I can convert wood to a few different types of atoms, or I can convert rock to some other different types of atoms. At that time, Democritus' idea of atom meant that everything was made of the same atom. There was only one type of atom and everything was made of it. And you and your friends are sitting there speculating on what this ultimate atom of matter was,what its nature was.
And Boyle joins the conversation and starts adding all these weird new ideas. And you and your group think he is just another philosopher. But he says, no, this is not philosophy...come with me. And he takes you back to his estate and in his barn is one of the first chemistry labs the world has ever seen. And he shows you how to convert a rock or piece of wood to its constituent atoms. What Boyle was doing was not philosophy, it was something else, something we eventually came to call "chemistry" and was a branch of what eventually became "science".
This is how I look at yoga. It is like walking into Boyle's lab when there were no other labs in the world. Yoga is a set of methods for achieving altered states. And you learn things in these altered states. That is what I am saying in What is Science? and even is the question Alex asked about at the top of the thread.
The Boyle metaphor, though seemingly oblique is the best I have at the moment. If you have never read the
Skeptical Chymist, you should check it out. The wiki page has links to the book itself. It transports you to a time when there was no chemistry as we understand it. Boyle was the first to understand modern chemistry, not through philosophy but through actually doing it.
So, while I am forced to sit here and express these ideas and they sound like philosophy, the most important thing I can do is help you learn the methods. Like in DO-OBE, or in WIS where I outline the methods of yoga enough to get someone started on them.
Does this make sense?
Thanks, Michael!
Best,
Don