An interesting comment BJ. My guess is we try to understand through metaphor. My partner clearly went through hell in chemo-therapy and I could equate this in some part through my own previous experience recovering from being shot (years ago). My best mate is blind and I did once make a pathetic attempt to understand by trying to get to work blindfold - I was nearly in panic at my front gate and couldn't make it on the train even with assistance. I knew I'd fail - I just wanted some clue about how damned hard it would be. I only lasted an hour - quickly realising I'd never know the real experience because I could take the blindfold off. There is something we can empathise, but not the chronic nature of conditions. We don't know where the individual starts and society ends - however we want to put this. Science probably has it that we were all 'one cell' once - even this is not the start. Fatty acids, which are not alive, tend to form proto-cells - this stuff exists in comets and is probably older than the Earth. Something pre-life seems 'designed' to form it. I would guess by now they have made life from chemicals (Harvard) - we can build a cell and computer-designed DNA from chemicals - suggesting at least we can design new creatures from 'chemical scratch'. I'm not sure yet in my pondering whether this is much more than making custard without custard powder 'from scratch' - but suspect it is. If this stuff (not the custard) has 'life' then what is 'life' - is it lurking about waiting to inhabit what we think of as physical? Could our life flit into it? There might be no need to dick around anymore Chris!
On 3 Sep, 04:07, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Atheist Crazy? Reductionist Science? Sorry, Alan. What you are talking about > is what is known as Science, period. You may have decided for yourself from > your "Factor X" perspective that "soul" doesn't mean what I think it does, > but what you are decrying is science, and to rebut my judgement of your > position as non-scientific by attacking science, while pretending you are > still operating within its confines, strikes me as the sort of disingenuous > line of circular reasoning presented so readily by Intelligent Design > folks...no, of course they don't mean Creation, by God...just something that > looks, sounds, and smells just like it. > The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's the only real > rebuttal that I got from your position. That's a philosophical statement, > not a scientific one. You ignored my observation that you were throwing out > established science by saying that you start in observation. Yes, so did > cavemen, and it took 6000 years to go from "God make the clouds go boom" to > modern science. Guess how? By figuring out the parts, and the organization > of those parts. > > You're welcome to take an unscientific view, just be honest about it. Don't > dick around and try to act like its something other than what it is. > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 9:33 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a > > thing > > > > > proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you like, > > but > > > > > it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. > > > > > We look around and notice there are living and nonliving things. What > > > > is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call it 'soul'. If at > > > > that point our 'legitimate biologist' want to ignore the formal cause > > > > of the observed difference, and study the parts of the organism in > > > > isolation, he is welcome to it. But unscientific? Why would you say > > > > that? > > > > First, why would we call the difference between life and non-life soul, > > when > > > there is an established scientific principle that life rises from > > > organization? > > > Established established principle that life arises from organization? > > No, that is the stipulation of reductionism. > > > > You completely throw out all of science to make that leap to > > > begin with. > > > I begin in observation. I look around, I notice there are living and > > nonliving things. What is the cause of this observed difference? > > let us call it the X factor. Don't go all atheist crazy over this term > > soul; it is not what you think it is. > > > >Then you make an error in scientific thought to state that this > > > is ignoring a "formal cause of the observed difference"...not at all! The > > > entire discipline of origins science is based on that observed > > difference, > > > and never once has a "soul" been offered in origins science as an > > > explanation. > > > Reductionist science is based on a certain way of studying this > > difference -- of breaking the whole into parts, studying the parts, > > ignoring the whole. They are welcome to that line of inquiry. It will > > of course miss any effects of the X factor, defined to be the cause of > > the observed difference between living and nonliving things. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
