well, need is a strong word...
On Sep 3, 12:45 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
