On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

But where do you get the idea that replacing a part of a cell with an
equivalent part will make a difference to the cell? You're speculating
that there is some special thing going on in cells that only you know
about and that has never been observed in centuries of laboratory
research. Isn't that a little bit arrogant?

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
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