On Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:02:52 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/27/2012 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:32:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 9/26/2012 9:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> On 9/27/2012 12:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>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? >> >> >> No, Stathis, >> >> Craig is pointing out that functions are not separable in the real >> world. Nature does not build things in a gears and spring method, every >> part of a cell is an integral part of a whole. If we are to replicate the >> function of a cell exactly we must literally replicate all aspects of a >> cell, or else we are making something completely different. >> >> >> And you know this...how? >> >> Brent >> > > > Because of mortality and morbidity. Cells die. Bodies die. They cannot be > revived, even with formaldehyde and electricity. If you cut a rat in half > and then meticulously sew it back together, you still have two parts of a > dead rat. We know from our own experience as well - we can't replace our > youth with an equivalent part. Quantum wave functions may not seem to care > whether time runs forward or backward, but experience does. We can't take > out a part of a story and expect it to make sense in the same way, just as > we can't replace words in a sentence and have it make sense in the exact > same way. Interchangeability is not a given. > > > Neither is non-interchanability. Rats can have their cells modified to > produce luceferin, so they glow in the dark. But they are still > functioning rats. Rats can have genes removed and still reproduce and be > functioning rats (that's why we know there is some 'junk' DNA). Your logic > is a little screwed up: X can't be interchanged with Y, doesn't imply > ~Ex(x can be interchanged wiht Y). >
A glow in the dark rat may seem like a functioning rat to you, but probably wouldn't be much good for avoiding nocturnal predators from the rat's perspective. I understand your point though, and I never intended to claim that living cells cannot be tampered with in any way, I only say that I think that the particular significance of the irreversibility of death and the potential for a quality of dread or grief associated with it is not reproducible in the inorganic world. Craig > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VlXripFm5RwJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
