>
But it’s still impressive that it can encode moderately complex information like “looks like the face of my species” or “cylindrical looking objects on the ground might be dangerous”… even if it’s encoded in a lossy subconscious instinctual level.I think it helps that the encoding does not have to be transferable in any way. This kind of "memory" has no need for portability between individuals or species - it doesn't even need to be factored out as a thing in any meaningful sense. I.e. we may not be able to isolate where exactly the "snake-shaped object" bit of instinct is stored, and even if we could, copy-pasting it from a cat to a dog wouldn't likely lead the (offspring of the) latter to develop the same instinct. The instinct encoding has to only ever be compatible with one's direct offspring, which is a nearly-identical copy, and so the encoding can be optimized down to some minimum tweaks - instructions that wouldn't work in another species, or even if copy-pasted down couple generations of one's offspring.
(In a way, it's similar to natural language, which rapidly (but not instantly) loses meaning with distance, both spatial/social and temporal.)
In discussing this topic, one has to also remember the insight from "Reflections on Trusting Trust" - the data/behavior you're looking for may not even be in the source code. DNA, after all, isn't universal, abstract descriptor of life. It's code executed by a complex machine that, as part of its function, copies itself along with the code. There is lots of "hidden" information capacity in organisms' reproduction machinery, being silently passed on and subject to evolutionary pressures as much as DNA itself is.