Posted on 07/05/2003 4:20:08 PM PDT by betty boop
“Integrative Science”: The Death-Knell of Scientific Materialism?
A Meditation Excerpting from:
“Toward an Integrative Science,” Menas Kefatos and Mihai Drãgãnescu;
“The Fundamental Principles of the Universe and the Origin of Physical Laws,” Attila Grandpierre;
“The Dynamics of Time and Timelessness: Philosophy, Physics and Prospects for Our Life,” Attila Grandpierre.
Kafatos is University Professor of Interdisciplinary Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Drãgãnescu is affiliated with the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania.
Grandpierre is chief research assistant of the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
BEFORE WE EMBARK ON THIS “MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR,” we need some clarifications:
RE: Scientific Materialism: Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin (a Marxist, as Grandpierre takes pains to point out) writes:
| We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute…. |
In other words, matter in its motions is assumed to be (against all reason, if need be) the ultimate basis of Reality. The corollary to this is that nothing can exist that is not explainable on the basis of purely material causes arising within normal space-time. All phenomena of life can be explained by physical laws governing electromagnetism, gravity, chemistry, and quantum fields. Anything not explicable on that basis is held a priori not to exist. Consciousness is not any kind of natural principle in its own right, but is merely the epiphenomenon of the electrochemical activity of a (more or less random) succession of brain states.
RE: Integrative Science: According to Kefatos and Drãgãnescu (et al.), consciousness is “the last great frontier of science.” The “integrative science” of which they speak is both structural (“Standard Model” quantum mechanics; i.e., quantum theory as “renormalized” for Einsteinian Relativity) and phenomenological (having to do with qualia; i.e., subjective experience, sensations, feelings, thoughts — that is, with consciousness itself). It also involves information science and mathematics, particularly set theory and, given discoverable symmetries at all levels of nature, geometry. The newly-perceived urgency of the consciousness problem is to some extent a by-product of the measurement problem of quantum mechanics; that is, the problem of the observer.
Kefatos and Drãgãnescu write:
| The non-locality of quantum processes in the universe is a strong argument for an underlying deep reality out of space and time (Kafatos, Nadeau, 1990, 1999, Kafatos 1998, Kafatos 1999): “Quantum theory states that whatever is meant by the word reality, it has to be non-local and counter to the view of local, realistic classical theories. The experimental evidence is revealed by the Aspect and Gisin experiments [...] and imply a non-local, undivided reality which reveals itself in the physical universe through non-local correlations and which can be studied through complementary constructs or views of the universe. Quantum theory and its implications open, therefore, the door for the thesis that the universe itself may be conscious (although this statement cannot be proven by the usual scientific method which separates object from subject or the observed from the observer).” — Kafatos (1999). It is evident that the structural science has arrived at the frontier of a deep reality, which is outside of space and time (Drãgãnescu, 1979, 1985), and has opened the doors of a realm of reality in which phenomenological processes become predominant. This level of reality is the source of all that is phenomenological, and also is the source of the deep energy used and formed by phenomenological information into strings, membranes or elementary particles. The structural science that remained purely structural (with its prequantum or classical domain, then with the quantum domain of the Standard Theory and followed with the quantum domain of Supersymmetry and Strings) until it reached the frontiers of deep reality, will be transformed entirely into a structural-phenomenological science because of a gnoseological wave, produced by some knowledge of deep reality. The phenomenological is always present in all reality of the universe either in a closed or an intro-open way. When it is closed (the structural is hiding the phenomenological), in a very good first approximation, the reality may be treated as structural, but in a second approximation the phenomenological has to be taken into account. The classical physics, in a second approximation will admit phenomenological processes, because these are always present in the substrate of all things in a holistic way. When it is intro-open (the phenomenological is directly available through the structural), the structural approximation is not anymore possible, and this, we believe, is the case for trying to understand mind and consciousness. |
The “important forms of consciousness” that Kefatos and Drãgãnescu want to take into consideration are, broadly speaking, the following:
(1) natural human consciousness (related to mind and life);
(2) artificial, supposedly human-like consciousness (to be eventually obtained if some structures of hardware develop quantum phenomena similar to those of the human mind); and
(3) Fundamental Consciousness of existence (I kid you not: That prospect ought to give Richard Lewontin the heeby-jeebies, but probably won’t, since apparently he is determined to rule it out on a priori grounds).
More practically speaking, the phenomena of mind and consciousness are seen by these men as relating to:
(1) understanding the foundations of quantum physics;
(2) the explanation of biological evolution and life in general;
(3) the existence of intelligent robots and the possibility of conscious robots;
(4) the cosmology of the universe and the sense that it, perhaps, is related to the Fundamental Consciousness;
(5) the underlying deep reality as a basis for the Fundamental Consciousness and as a source for minds and consciousness in the universe.
They go on to say:
| The structural-phenomenological theories consider the phenomenal experience as a fundamental phenomenon, which cannot be explained by contemporary physics, either classical or quantum. These theories may be: b1) dualistic, considering that the phenomenal experience is transcendental; b2) intrinsic, considering that the phenomenological properties are inherent in the nature of quantum phenomena, for instance, at the level of the quantum wave function; b3) extrinsic, considering that an extra-ingredient, outside all the physical ingredients known today, is necessary for explaining phenomenal experience.... Dualistic theories (b1) cannot be retained in modern-day science. Such theories are showing that important aspects of mind and consciousness cannot be explained by contemporary science. Some structural-phenomenological theories consider that quantum processes in the brain inherently involve ‘experience’ phenomena, whereas others propose a quantum physics rooted in the deepest layer of existence where the source (the extra-ingredient) of the phenomenological senses may be found.... The existence of such a deep source was proposed many years ago by Bohm (1980, 1985) — see also Bohm & Hiley (1993), Peat (1999) — and Drãgãnescu (1979, 1985). David Bohm named ‘active information,’ the deep information, considered by him not to be of the digital form, but related to the nature of senses. Today, a great number of scientists from domains like physics, chemistry and information science are recognizing not only mental ‘experience’ as a scientific truth, but they consider that such a manifestation is a general phenomenon of existence..... In their own environment (informatter) the generation of phenomenological senses cannot be described formally, it is a non-formal process, although a general frame of tendencies for such phenomena are perhaps present. This process of non-formal processing might explain the phenomena of intuition and [creativity] of the mind and consciousness. |
Continuing the explication of Kefatos and Drãgãnescu, quote:
“THE COMPETITION OF TWO PRINCIPLES
“There are two contrary principles today that are haunting the community of scientists:
“A) The structural science is sufficient to explain all nature,... life, mind and consciousness.
“B) The structural science is not sufficient, and is incomplete for explaining all existence,... life, mind and consciousness....
“The inertia of structural science is very great, and many scientists are declaring in an open way that they believe firmly in principle A [e.g., Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett, et al.]. They hope, for instance, that the living cell or the brain will be completely modeled in the frame of the structural science on digital computers, because physical law is amenable to computer simulation and biological structures are derived from physical law....
“We predict that science will renounce principle A for principle B due primarily to the difficulties enountered in the explanation of mind and consciousness.... The problem of consciousness leads...not only to the last frontier, mostly unexplored, of science, but also to perhaps the most important frontier for mankind in the 21st century....”
Kefatos and Drãgãnescu note that “integrative science” would bring new ways of doing science:
-- based on foundational principles that cut across different levels;
-- able to address the phenomenological realms;
-- start from the whole to study the parts;
-- to find connections from all fields of human experience (e.g., perennial philosophies, metaphysics, etc.) to explore and enlarge scientific frontiers (as expressed in foundational principles);
-- returning to structural approaches to make concrete suggestions for new theories, which are based on phenomenological realms but in turn provide structural solutions;
-- prescribing general approaches from where current structural theories can be derived (e.g., category theory of mathematics as the common underlying language of physical/mental/deep reality realms);
-- it will not insist on separating object from subject.
The cross-disciplinary approach of integrative science is also evident in the work of Attila Grandpierre. A specialist in solar physics, he asks the pregnant question: Is biology reducible to physics? And answers with a resounding: NO! On Grandpierre’s speculation, the foundational universal laws boil down to three categories: the physical, the biological (psychological) and the noetic (logic [mathematics], reason).
As his speculative conjecture goes, the latter two cannot be derived from the first of these. And the reason for that is the most basic law of physics is the principle of least action — more familiarly known to philosophers as the Law of Parsimony. Following Ervin Bauer, who Grandpierre identifies as the greatest biological thinker of our era, he says that there is a fundamental principle of biological life that exists as a countering force against the laws of physics, and that the two types of law express in tension:
| By my evaluation, the most thorough, systematic, insightful foundational work of theoretical biology, which is at the same time also explicitly articulated in mathematical formulations is that of Ervin Bauer (1920, 1935/1967). It is hard to evaluate the real significance of his work, and its marginal influence to the present-day science seems to be rooted largely in historical circumstances and in the ignorance of dominant materialism. Ervin Bauer was born (1890) and educated in Hungary. He ha[d] been working in the most productive period of his life (1925–1937) in Soviet Union, in Moscow and Leningrad. He became arrested and jailed in prison in 1937 and died as a victim of Stalin’s massacres in 1942 (Tokin, 1963/1965, 11–26). In his main work “Theoretical Biology” (1935/1967) he formulated the key requirements of living systems. The first requirement is that “the living system is able to change in a constant environment, it has potential energies available to work”. His second requirement tells that a living system acts against the physical and chemical laws and modifies its inner conditions. His third, all-inclusive requirement of living systems tells that “The work made by the living system, within any environmental conditions, acts against the realisation of that equilibrium which would set up on the basis of the initial conditions of the system in the given environment by the physical and chemical laws” (Bauer, 1967, 44). This third requirement does not contradict to the laws of physics since the living system has some internal equipment, the use of which may modify the final state reached from the same initial state in the same environment. “The fundamental and general law of the living systems is the work made against the equilibrium, a work made on the constituents of the system itself” (ibid., 48). ...Bauer formulates the universal law of biology in the following form: “The living and only the living systems are never in equilibrium, and, supported by their free energy reservoir, they are continuously invest[ing] work against the realisation of the equilibrium which should occur within the given outer conditions on the basis of the physical and chemical laws” (ibid., 51). “One of the most spectacular and substantial difference[s] between machines and living systems is that in the case of machines the source of the work is not related to any significant structural changes. The systemic forces of machines ... work only if the constituents of the machine are taken into motion by energy sources which are outer to these constituents. The inner states of the constituents of a machine remain practically constant. The task of the constituents of a machine is to convert some kind of energy into work. In contrast, in the living systems the energy of the internal build-up, of the structure of the living matter is transformed into work. The energy of the food is not transformed into work, but to the maintenance and renewal of their internal structure and inner states. Therefore, the living systems are not power machines” (ibid., 64). The fundamental principle of biology acts against the changes which would set up in the system on the basis of the Le Chatelier-Braun principle (ibid., 59). The Bauer-principle recognises the problem of the forces acting at the internal boundary surfaces as the central problem of biology.... Now Definition 2 and 3 is very useful when evaluating the level of biology if it represents or not an autonomous ontological level irreducible to the physical principle. If new threats emerge on the development or complexification of a system, these emergent characteristics may still belong to the realm of physics. Emergent materialism is a monist ontology based on the belief that physical principles may trigger processes that determine the development of emergent processes, including the living processes, too. With the use of Definitions 1, 2 and 3 I show here that the concept of emergent materialism in the biological context is based on a false belief. The material behaviour (Definition 2) tends towards the physical equilibrium. The biological behaviour is governed by the life-principle (Definition 3) which acts just against the material behaviour. It can do this only by a proper modification of the boundary conditions of the physical laws. The biological modification of the (internal) boundary conditions of (living) organism is behind the realm of physics. The biological activity acts on the degrees of freedom that are not active in the material behaviour. Therefore, we found a gap between the realms of physics and biology. If the biological principle is active, because the conditions of its activity (a certain amount of complexity, suitable material structures, energies etc.) are present, it realises a thorough and systematic modification of internal boundary conditions of living organisms. In comparison, in an abstracted organism in which the biological principle is not active, the same internal boundary conditions would be not modified, and so the organism should fall towards physical equilibrium [i.e., physical death from the standpoint of the organism]. In principle, it would be possible to fill the gap with processes in which the biological modification is not realised in a rate necessary to govern the physical processes. In practice, such intermediate processes are strongly localised in space and time, and the ontological gap is maintained by the continuous and separate actions of the physical and biological principles. This formulation offers us an unprecedented insight into the ultimate constituent of reality. Using the newly found formulation of the ultimate principle of matter, our Definition 1 may be formulated in a more exact manner: Definition 1': any existent is regarded as an “ultimate reality”, if it is based on a universal and ontologically irreducible ultimate principle. The essential novelty of the biological phenomenon therefore consists in following a different principle, which is able to govern the biological phenomena even when the physical principles keep their universal validity. Until a process leads to a result that is highly improbable by the laws of physics, it may be still a physical process. But when many such extremely improbable random process is elicited, and these extremely improbable events are co-ordinated in a way that together they follow a different ultimate principle which makes these processes a stable, long lifetime, lawful process, then we met with a substantial novelty which cannot be reduced to a lower level principle. An analogy may serve to shed light to the way of how biology acts when compared to physics. It is like Aikido: while preserving the will of the attacker and modifying it using only the least possible energy, we get a result that is directly the opposite of the will of the attacking opponent. It is clear that the ever-conspicuous difference between living beings and seemingly inanimate entities lies in the ability of the former to be spontaneously active, to alter their inner physical conditions according to a higher organising principle in such a way that the physical laws will launch processes in them with an opposite direction to that of the “death direction” of the equilibrium which is valid for physical systems. This is the Aikido principle of life. A fighter practising the art of Aikido does not strive after defending himself by raw physical force, instead he uses his skill and intelligence to add a small power impulse, from the right position, to the impetus of his opponent’s attack, thus making the impetus of the attacker miss its mark. Instead of using his strength in trying to stop a hand coming at him, he makes its motion faster by applying some little technique: he pulls on it. Thus, applying little force, he is able to suddenly upset the balance of the attack, to change it, and with this to create a situation advantageous for him. The Aikido principle of life is similar to the art of yachting. There, too, great changes can be achieved by investing small forces. As the yachtsman, standing on board the little ship, makes a minute move to shift his weight from one foot to the other, the ship sensitively changes its course. Shifting one’s weight requires little energy, yet its effect is amplified by the shift occurring in the balance of the hull. Control is not exerted on the direct surface physical level, but on the level of balance; it is achieved via altering balance in a favourable direction that against much larger forces, the effect of very small forces prevails. However, being able to alter balance in a favourable direction presupposes a profound (explicit or implicit) knowledge of contributing factors, also the attitude and ability to rise above direct physical relations, as well as the ability to independently bring about the desired change. If life is capable of maintaining another “equilibrium of life”, by a process the direction of which is contrary to the one pointing towards the physical equilibrium, then the precondition of life is the ability to survey, to analyse, and to spontaneously, independently and appropriately control all the relevant physical and biological states. Thus, indeed, life cannot be traced back to the general effect of the “death magnet” of physical equilibrium and mere blind chance that are the organisation factors available for physics. The principle of life has to be acknowledged as an ultimate principle which is at least as important as the basic physical principle, and which involves just the same extent of “objectivity” as the physical principle. If it is a basic feature of life that it is capable of displaying Aikido-effects, then life has to be essentially different from the inanimateness of physics, just as the principle of the behaviour of the self-defending Aikido disciple is different from the attacker’s one. Thus in the relationship of the laws of life and those of physics, two different parties are engaged in combat, and the domain of phenomena of two essentially different basic principles are connected. Practising the art of Aikido is possible only when someone recognise[s] and learn[s] the principle and practice of Aikido. Now regarding the origin of the principle of Aikido, it results from the study of the art of fight. Regarding the origin of the principle of biology, it cannot result from the physical laws by a physical principle, since the ultimate principle of physics acts just the contrary to the life principle. Therefore, the life principle shows up as an independent ultimate principle above the realm of physics. [Boldface added] |
In his paper on Time — easily the most challenging of the three papers cited here for the intelligent non-specialist, but worth engaging all the same [and which was presented at a NATO science conference in 2002] — Grandpierre speculates on Soul as a first principle:
“Analysing the concept of ‘soul’ it is found ... that in some ancient high culture the soul is conceptualised as the ultimate driving factor of life. The Dictionary of Hungarian Language ... determines the concept of the soul as the following: ‘1. <By a primitive> concept the soul is the hypothesised, more-or-less material ultimate carrier of life phenomena, which departs the body at the moment of death’. At the same time, a closer scrutiny reveals that this allegedly ‘primitive’ conceptualisation is related to the deepest scientific concept of mankind, which is the concept of ‘first principles’. Eisler ... stated that soul appeared as a (first) principle at the special kind of animism of ancient Greek philosophers.
“Scientific research attempts to reveal facts and deeper relations. Science begins when we search the laws behind the phenomena. Now laws may be regarded as deeper level relations behind the immediate, brute facts. Although laws help us to explain and predict phenomena, they may be regarded as being only the first steps on the way to find the most clear and most transparent truth possible, which is the ultimate aim of science. Therefore, the real basis of science is related to the laws behind the laws, and to find the ultimate law which is able to explain all the laws intermediate between empirical facts and mental understanding. Now the concept that developed the notion of ultimate and universal laws, the first principles, may be regarded as the highest point of scientific conceptualisation. Therefore, soul as a universal first principle, as an ontological principle is a scientifically remarkable concept from which one can expect fundamental insights into ... Nature.” [Boldface added]
I'll spill the beans on Grandpierre, though you’ll have to read his paper(s) to follow the scientific basis and reasoning for his “solar/‘soul-ar’” hypothesis: In the end, this solar physicist speculates that the final cause of our universe and all life in it is extra-cosmic — completely outside of space and time. This is the same Fundamental Consciousness about which both Kefatos and Drãgãnescu also speculate.
This is a “new kind of science,” indeed. May it prosper!
You are in opposition to just about everyone working on biological autonomous self-organizing complexity and those working on the origin of master control genes such as the Pax-6 to explain the enormous similarities of the genetic mechanism across phyla!
PAX 6 is a small protein that forms part of the mechanism of the differentiation of eyes. It does not control the evolution of PAX 6.
In the first place, you just pulled a ”guilt by association” argument by judging Yockey because he is a board advisor on a Christian non-profit journal called “Truth.
I posted a one-sentence abstract of Yockey's contribution to a journal. If it's like any journal I've ever seen, Yockey saw and likely wrote the abstract. Judging someone by his own words is not 'guilt by association'.
That you accuse me of guilt by association with regard to Darwinism and Marxism shows that you did not catch my argument. But I’ll let the Lurkers decide. Here it the argument I posted on the other thread. The contributors had been discussing Marxism v Darwinism and I had earlier given them this link from Marxists.Org: Marxism and Darwinism. Here's what I posted at 501:
I think you guys need to emphasize the current ideological consequence of evolution theory. Looking at history is interesting, but, IMHO, Lurkers are more apt to be interested in what it means to them, today.
Because some Marxist or other claims a Darwinian justification for Marxism, is not a condemnation of Darwinism. And attempting such condemnation is guilt by association; the theory of evolution is not a social or political philosophy, and does not favor any such. Claiming there is an ideological consequence of Darwinism that forms no part of Darwinism and that most Darwinists reject is not a valid argument against Darwinism. It's a smear.
As a Southern Baptist, I would have thought you were a little more alert to this particular fallacy. The Christian religion was frequently used in the South as part of the ideological underpinnings of slavery. Of course, no objective analysis of Christianity as a whole would support the thesis that slavery is a Christian idea, and Christianity was also the ideological underpinning of much of the abolitionist movement, but just pull a couple of quotes from this page (and I'm sure I can find a few dozen similar) and you can construct a lovely web page linking the two.
Now, suppose some anti-Christian FReeper made such a page, and I told him that more pertinent to the lurkers out there might be the modern Christian Identity movement. Would that be an argument on the merits of the case?
Please note, in case it's not completely clear, that I don't claim Christianity justifies slavery. I'm simply noting an analogous logical argument to yours that I hope will have some impact.
As far as locality; it's my understanding that entanglement experiments don't contradict relativity, in that they fail to allow transmission of matter or information faster than the speed of light. 'Local realism' is not a physical law; it's a particular property of macroscopic matter which doesn't always hold in the quantum regime.
You said: An axiom is not a demonstration. You are trying to take a pass on something that is the very thing in dispute here as "self-evidently true."
That is correct, an axiom is not a demonstration becasue it is primary. It is not derived from any other concepts, but it necessary to all other concepts in its category. An axiom is not an assumption, and it is not "self-evident." It is a truth that may be very difficult to first realize, but once it is discovered, it is impossible to deny without being self-contradictory, and all concepts dependent on it, imply its truth, whether explicitly recognized or not.
Existence is such an axiomatic concept. Existence is primary and precedes all other things. Since you did not bother to address the very clear (most third graders could understand it) explication of why existence must be before there can be consciousness, I assume you either misunderstood it, or just don't care about the truth.
We aren't dealing with the issue of concept formation here.
Really!? That explains a lot.
They hypothesize consciousness as a general principle and, as such, something distributed throughout nature, from the micro world of QM through the macro world of classical physics.
Yes, I know. Not exactly a new idea. A very old one, in fact, in another version it is called animism. A superstition remains a superstition regardless of the name you give it.
I asked you before, please give me one example of life independent of a living organism. I can show you countless examples of life, all exhibited as that qualitey that differentiates living entities (organisms) from non-living ones. Can you show even one example of life, not as a quality of a living organism?
If you think this conjecture is fallacious, then please show me why I should agree with you and not these other gentlemen.
I do not care if you agree with me or not. I would know I was making a great mistake if more than a very few agreed with me. Besides, if you agreed with me, what would we talk about.
Hank
... and willing to attempt to invalidate reality ...
I'm not. Color is only a concept for all the colors. Have I invalidated the reality of the colors? Don't be absurd. (Well, of course you can be absurd if you choose, it's just an expression.)
And you've asked why one would label your tactics Fabianistic?
What tactics? Are we at war?
Based upon your tactics and the conflicting positions and expressions you've made, one wonders if and when you are sincere.
Don't worry about it. It's only a forum. You'll never have to do business with me. Then you would have to worry about sincerity.
(Jesus told parables with the intention of obfuscating the truth to hide his meaning from the Pharisees. Was Jesus insincere?)
Hank
PAX 6 is related to a lot of other developmental genes; the homeobox is a common motif in most such. They probably all have a common ancestor. The development of 'eyeness' as you put it, is probably a result of duplication and divergence of another developmental pathway. For example, in C. elegans, which has no eyes but has PAX-6, the gene is involved in two other differentiation processes; that of the tail, and of the sense organ.
Since eyes undoubtedly evolved from some other primitive organ, this makes perfect sense.
The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for genetic programming in the presumptive ancestral genes. Whether that programming arose by God’s design, by alien seeding (panspermia) or through self-organizing complexity of physical processes --- is the big question.
Making the likely conjecture that the eye developed from another sensory organ, possibly a chemo-sensory one, the gene which controlled differentiation of that sensory organ then took over differntiation of the eye. The further evolution of PAX-6, including the patterns of conservative single amino acid mutations seen between organisms, exactly follows that of other highly conserved proteins, and the pattern predicted by evolution.
But by all means show some common feature in the genes of C. elegans and Hydra PAX-6 (both eyeless) that suggests that PAX-6 was 'designed' to control the differentiation of eyes. That feature would have of course have to be specific to PAX-6 and absent from other similar proteins such as the other PAXes.
My claim is that science is being abused today by these Marxists and Metaphysical Naturalists being in so great authority that they direct not only what is being done but how it is read (theory and “meaning”) in science publications.
I am asserting that the science community has dropped the ball.
Scientists (I imagine being aware of the Galileo incident) – have been very careful to make sure that traditional religion does not influence the work done and is not factored into the theories and “meaning” derived from that work in the science publications.
But, IMHO, science has failed to recognize that it is being likewise used by the ideology/religion of Marxism and Metaphysical Naturalism. My specific recommendation was that science ought to either:
allow all ideologies/religions a seat at the science publication table.
Then maybe you would like to begin again and this time start with reality instead of construct.
What tactics? Are we at war?
I am, spiritually. You seem to be too, whether or not you accede to it, expecially in your attempts to attack and deconstruct Christian understanding
Don't worry about it. It's only a forum. You'll never have to do business with me. Then you would have to worry about sincerity.
"Time is money." - B. Franklin. I invest both in FR. All users invest at lest the former.
(Jesus told parables with the intention of obfuscating the truth to hide his meaning from the Pharisees. Was Jesus insincere?)
It was an attempt from one who knew who would believe and who would not, in order to pass along revelation from God to believers while putting off the unbelievers. We wouldn't suggest you are the Messiah, would we?
No one disagrees PAX-6 is a developmental regulatory gene. Weiss makes the point that PAX-6 controls some (but varied) aspects of eye differentiation in some (but not all) animals; He seems to ignore the fact it also controls development of two other functions, one sensory, in Caenorhabditis, and some unknown function in Hydra and the coelenterates. But his case - that development of complex organs is likely to be complex and messy and anything but a 'just so story' - would suggest a process, the primary origin of whose variability is randomness rather than design, no?
Since you posted that before I posted the corrected link to the Weiss article, I must presume you haven't read it yet and thus do not know what he says the various hypotheses are.
In a nutshell, one has to imagine that all of the ancestors in these phylas happened to use pretty much the same selection of resources when faced with the need to see light. That does not speak to random mutation but genetic pre-programming.
There are only so many excellent solutions to the survive and multiply movement of lifeforms. The less than excellent solutions disappear because they are eaten. It might be noted that sensitivity to light is not restricted to eye constructions. Transistors have this sensitivity, as to diazo dyes and in fact any chemical bonds.
I believe that mathematics will eventually answer the question whether it is even possible that such variability (I call it genetic programming) could have arisen from non-living conditions in the timeline as hypothesized.
The possibility of the eye was already present at the critical juncture when complex moleculaes made the leap to cell structure. It was present before then, in simple molecules, in single atoms, and in subatomic particles. We should worry no more about this than about the rise of consciousness. All that was latent, awaiting sufficient complexity for expression. All phyla trace back to the first gigantic upheaval of which no trace except in our imagination remains. The capability of the eye was already present and the various expressions of the eye are due to different phyla emerging from the original peduncle.
He knew who would believe before they believed but did not know there would not be fruit on the tree until He actually saw it. (Mark 11:13) As for my own insight, one never knows. (Heb. 13:2)
By the way, what is, "Christian understanding." The Bible makes no reference to any such concept. In fact, there is not one verse of Scripture that says a person ought to be a Christian.
The word "Christian," (in any form) only appears in the Bible three times. Not once is it used as a term for what a child of God is supposed to be. In today's world, there is no majority of people who call themselve's Christian who agree on what that means. Most of those who believe they are, "Christains," ought to call themselves "Augustinians," since most of the doctrines they believe were invented by that Pagan arch-Catholic.
Since it is you who brought up the subject, I submit the majority of doctrines you call, "Christian," are contrary to Biblical teaching.
Oh yes, I an not at war. (James 4:1)
(Spiritual warfare is not fought on forums. It is fought on one's knees.)
Hank
I just came back from a much needed vacation and… well, wondering if I should roll up my sleeves and dive in again. --- Well, why not…
It seems to me that five senses without consciousness of some sort is meaningless. C.S. Lewis I believe captured this in his story of trying to explain lights’ existence to a culture of the blind. How would one explain logic or anything for that matter to those who refuse to see?
We know light does exist and we know logic does exist; can the two exist separately? If one states that all that exists is energy, is all that exists equal to MC 2 – – LOL!
Light and logic… Many have postulated that mathematics existed before its’ discovery. Obviously light did but what about logic? If logic is not a universal given but something invented by mankind than logic is an illusion much like the way a blind society would ‘see’ light as described by one who sees light. But can logic exist outside of time, space, and matter? Can light?
Mathematical formulas can exist beyond our existence as light and I would ‘think’ logic can and does. If one were to ponder this, which one of the five senses would they use? How do we describe light as a given or logic as a given to the blind to either? The blind can be blind to the existence of light and logic. It does not negate the existence of either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.