From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu 10 Nov 2005 - 23:05:59 GMT
Derek,
> At 22:37 09/11/2005, Dace wrote:
>
> >What ought to happen to the cell at any
> >given moment is precisely what does happen when it dies-- disintegration.
> >Why doesn't it all disintegrate? What's holding it all together? This
is
> >where life comes in, not as a vital force but the simply the
self-existence
> >of the whole. It's the whole that lives, not the bits and pieces. It's
the
> >living whole that organizes the bits, not the other way around.
>
> Living cells keep themselves
> alive because their internal homeostasis mechanisms are in balance;
And how do they do that? You're just pushing the question back a step.
Cells are composed of molecules. As we know from thermodynamics, the
behavior of molecules is indeterministic. How does the randomness of
molecular behavior add up to the order of cellular behavior at larger scales
of activity?
> these are well understood at the molecular level and involve things
> like the citric acid cycle, glycolysis etc. The death of a cell is
> usually because external conditions, ie. in the intercellular
> compartment, become so extreme that homeostasis can't cope. Man has
> heart attack, heart stops beating, blood doesn't pump to extremities,
> cells at extremities start to lack oxygen etc, after a few hours of
> this cells cannot maintain their homoeostasis and gradually conk out.
Naturally, a cell disintegrates when it's dead. The question is why it
doesn't do so when it's alive. Even when it has all the materials it needs,
why doesn't it follow physical and chemical principles and promptly
disintegrate?
>Reductionistic biology cannot explain life. It can only explain what life
> >would be like if it were actually machinery. In the effort to explain
life,
> >as opposed to mechanisms masquerading as life, we have no choice but to
> >posit two things: field and memory. We must have holistic coordination
of
> >disparate activities, and we must have memory to guide the field. You
have
> >yet to offer any reason as to why a memory-based morphogenetic field is
> >impossible.
>
> Because there's no known physical basis.
And what's the physical basis for gravity or electromagnetism or the strong
force? The point is that we can't explain the behavior of planets or rocks
or atoms without field theory. To say there's no physical basis is like
saying God hasn't decreed it. Why, there's no basis for it in the Bible!
Science is about what we figure out regardless of what some invented
authority figure has to say on the matter.
> >Since the memory/field hypothesis is the only hypothesis that
> >can explain the basic features of life, including our own experience of
> >being alive, the burden is on you to explain why it's impossible.
>
> That's rather like being asked by a creationist to explain why God
> doesn't exist.
You don't experience a white guy with a beard sitting on a heavenly throne.
You do experience consciousness, will, freedom, intelligence, etc, none of
which are compatible with reductionism.
> It's impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the
> determined believer.
Projection. Your entire approach is that of a true-believer. You're acting
more like a lawyer defending his client (reductionism) than a scientist
interested in arriving at the truth. At the very least, you should be
recognizing that the holistic approach to life is as valid as the
reductionistic approach. But you have no interest in comparing rival
theories, only in tarring the one you don't like with guilt by association
(as in equating field theory with creationism).
> then the most likely state of affairs is
> that there is no elephant/God/field.
> >You must explain why there cannot be a memory-based morphogenetic field.
> >What principles of existence are violated by such a field?
>
> Principles of existence? I'm more worried about principles of
> physics (or even sanity).
Keep in mind that Elsasser was a physicist. He recognized that biologists,
rather than developing their own theory-- just like physicists do-- were
trying to piggyback on the principles physicists have uncovered studying
nonliving phenomena. This is not to say that there are laws that apply
exclusively to life, simply that we're not likely to find the universal
principles that account for life except in the course of studying it. It's
in the study of life that we recognize the need for holistic memory, a
property of nature exploited by life along with many other properties that
have been uncovered by physicists.
> the
> >components
> > > >of a cell are not ordered.
> > >
> > > But they are. Hans Krebs, among others, knew by the 1930s that this
was
> >the
> > > case.
> >
> >I'm referring to the ultimate, molecular components of the cell, not
> >intermediate components.
>
> Proteins are highly ordered.
Yeah, and proteins are macromolecules. When a protein emerges, higher-level
order has already been established, and this order cannot have been built up
from molecular disorder.
> >Naturally left-right polarity is established prior to the emergence of
the
> >organ. Point being that genes can account for a superficial trait but
not
> >its fundamental organization.
>
> So left-right polarity is superficial now? A short while ago it was
> an example of the kind of fundamental thing biology couldn't address.
You're not making any sense. Obviously, a rational biology can address the
fundamentals of life, and clearly left-right polarity is a superficial
characteristic of an organ having nothing to do with its detailed structure.
ted
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 10 Nov 2005 - 23:25:03 GMT