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 <whats...@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? 
>>
>>
>>  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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to