Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA07272 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 8 Aug 2001 06:19:54 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 00:21:04 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Teleology Message-ID: <3B7085F0.25944.726FA7@localhost> In-reply-to: <002701c11f82$ef46f920$f188b2d1@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 7 Aug 2001, at 13:52, Dace wrote:
> > > Genes do not appear to contain instructions for the folding of
> > > proteins. The very concept of "genetic instruction" is
> > > speculative. There is, as yet, no evidence to bolster it. Nucleic
> > > acid chains produce amino acid chains. That genes produce proteins
> > > is a meme, and this meme is obstructing the emergence of a new
> > > theory.
> > >
> > They do so indirectly, by producing their components (via
> > messenger RNA), complete with specific locks and keys to govern
> > their combination/assembly.
>
> DNA does not code for locks and keys to govern protein assembly. The
> folding of protein remains a mystery, as any biochemist can tell you.
>
If it codes for protein construction, then lock and key configuration,
being an aspect of overall configuration, is neccesarily a part of the
whole.
>
> > > > Different proteins with different locks and
> > > > keys are made, according to genetic instruction,
> > > and those whos
> > > > locks don't fit into the others' keys simply don't join when
> > > > they bump into each other. Nothing has to be pushed; there are
> > > > certain ionic and covalent bonding possibilities that serve as
> > > > attractors once candidates drift close.
> > >
> > > Very little in the body works according to mechanical or chemical
> > > necessity. When Drew Endy and John Yin at the University of
> > > Wisconsin-Madison modeled a virus that attacks E. coli in the
> > > human gut, they thought their model would tell them precisely how
> > > the virus would react to various drugs. Instead they found "a
> > > tremendous number of degrees of freedom" in the possible reactions
> > > of the virus. Biochemist Alfred Gilman, a Nobel prize winner,
> > > summed it up nicely. "I could draw you a map of all the components
> > > in a cell and put all the proper arrows connecting them. I or
> > > anybody else would look at that map and have absolutely no ability
> > > to predict anything."
> > >
> > Here cause and effect apply. If a cell evolves with certain
> > characteristics and is presented with particular stimuli, then it
> > reacts within a certain range.
>
> Says who? Did you read the quotes from Endy/Yin and Gilman?
> Biological processes do not necessarily react predictably to given
> stimuli. You're still dealing with the body as if it were an
> automobile engine. As Kant pointed out, in a machine the parts are
> built so as to fit each other. In an organism, the parts build each
> other as they build themselves. Thus all the parts identify with each
> other holistically. Organisms exhibit "self-organization" (Kant's
> term). There's no "self" in a machine. Mechanistic biology is
> incompatible with the holistic notion of self-nature. Perhaps you
> weren't aware of that.
>
There's also no self in organisms below a certain degree of
complexity. As your argument proceeds fom the point of view of
single cells, it is quite certain that the requisite complexity for self-
awareness is absent in them. they might respond to the stimuli
presented by contiguous cells, but they no more identify with their
neighbors than they identify with themselves.
Anthropomorphization on a cellular level is an egregious error.
>
> > > The cause of this recent upsurge of uncertainty is the Genome
> > > Project.
> > > It was thought that we would finally start seeing some hard
> > > evidence
> > > regarding the existence of genetic instructions, and it just
> > > hasn't panned out. Instead the reductionist approach is looking
> > > increasingly implausible. The ultimate triumph of molecular
> > > biology is proving to be its undoing.
> > >
> > We have much work to do to understand the synergistic effects of
> > many genes working in concert, and many developments occurring at
> > the same time in gestation. Rather than fetal development being
> > affected by any kind of vague and mystical "extra-genetic species
> > memory", it is much more likely that development of each component
> > is affected by the simultaneous development of other, physically
> > contiguous areas.
>
> When electromagnetic fields were first discovered, it was claimed that
> these were "vague and mystical." The belief in the necessity of
> physical contiguity is the basis of the concept of the ether. The
> universe does not function according to contact mechanics.
> Mechanistic theory long-ago accepted the reality of fields and
> resonance. There's no reason why these phenomena can't be applied to
> biology.
>
First you decry what you perceive as the application of a
mechanistic view to biology, and then you attempt to do so
yourself when it suits you. It is extrewmely doubtful whether
electromagnetic fields could carry a precise, detailed and info-rich
instruction between cells, even if they possessed transmitters and
receivers of sufficient complexity to communicate same - which
they don't.
>
> > > > > The lesson of
> > > > > 20th century physics is that there's no center, there's no
> > > > > ground, there's no whole, there's no essence, and there's no
> > > > > substance. Physicalism is nihilism. Yet, as Aristotle pointed
> > > > > out, you can't have accident without substance. Since the
> > > > > concept of substance has no meaning in physics, it must be
> > > > > metaphysical. The error is to equate physical with natural
> > > > > and therefore metaphysical with supernatural. The task is to
> > > > > find a natural object whose existence is absolute.
> > > > >
> > > > This is to confuse the microphysical with the macrophysical.
> > > > While it is true that indiividual quantum particles demonstrate
> > > > a statistical probability of existing or of occupying a
> > > > location, once you take dodecadrillions to the nth power of them
> > > > in the aggregate, the weight of all those individual cases
> > > > multiplied by each other resolves the probabilities into
> > > > something prohibitively approaching certainty. That is why
> > > > light measurement can affect the energy state and location of an
> > > > electron, and positron-electron pairs can blink into and out of
> > > > existence, yet viewing a thrown baseball does nothing
> > > > measureable to its speed, location or existence.
> > >
> > > In other words, the world is not grounded on substance. It's
> > > grounded on statistics. Physics isn't reality. It's
> > > "information." If there's substance, it's metaphysical. And if
> > > there isn't substance, then the universe has no self. Not just
> > > people but all of existence would then be a recursive
> > > hallucination.
> >
> > To say that the universe is all a
> > hallucination basically redefined hallucination as real. It could
> > just be that you have not thought long and carefully about these
> > things; all people practice philosophy, some just practice it well,
> > and others badly. The very idea of the totality being hallucinatory
> > without a real referent by means of which to make a grounding
> > comparative judgment on the matter is foolish, which is why I was
> > sharp with you earlier. Some people do not suffer fools gladly; I
> > have a difficult time suffering them at all. But there is a
> > difference between ignorance, on the one hand, and dense obtusity,
> > on the other; the first is remediable, and the second is not.
>
> You are really an ass. Obviously I'm not claiming that the universe
> is a recursive hallucination. It's been my experience that paying
> attention is useful in these situations.
>
If you were intending to satirize, you were quite obliviously doing so
to your own position, not mine.
>
>
> Ted Dace
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 06:24:48 BST