On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:30:33 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> >> Metabolism involves replacing parts of cells that break down with 
> >> inanimate matter from the environment. The cells may or may not have 
> >> experiences associated with them but apparently this process preserves 
> >> the experiences. A car may have experiences and replacing the worn out 
> >> car parts preserves the car's function and may also preserve the car's 
> >> experiences. In what way is maintenance of cells fundamentally 
> >> different to maintenance of cars? 
> > 
> > 
> > The difference is that cells only metabolize when they are alive. A car 
> was 
> > never alive so it has to be maintained externally and can't heal itself. 
> The 
> > car is also not really one thing but thousands of parts assembled to act 
> as 
> > if it were one thing. An organism is completely different in that it is 
> > really one cell which has grown and replicated through its own sense and 
> > motives into a body. The body isn't an assembly of cells acting like a 
> body, 
> > it is a single organism on one level and many organs and organisms on 
> other 
> > levels. Just because cells perform mechanical functions also doesn't 
> mean 
> > that they are machines. 
> Craig, have you ever worked in a biology lab? Have you ever discussed 
> these ideas in person with a biology teacher at school or university? 
> It's not even that you're wrong, it's that you've completely missed 
> the point of the last two centuries years of biological science, which 
> essentially consists in treating living organisms as understandable 
> machines rather than mysterious spirits. 
The problem is the assumption that they can only be one thing if they 
aren't the other. This kind of dualism is a prejudice of a particular phase 
of scientific development that is overdue for reconciliation. By framing it 
as 'understandable vs mysterious' instead of public-spatial vs 
private-temporal, we close off all possibility for progress. Do you think 
that I don't know how effective the reductionist approach has been for 
Western Civilization? The Catholic Church was deemed equally effective 
during Galileo's time. You misunderstand my perspective and assume that I 
am talking about some new force outside of physics when what I am doing is 
showing a way of integrating the obvious conditions of our experience with 

 I think that realizing that cells are also our sub-personal experiences 
will be the next two centuries of biological science.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to