The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[bondserv]

Interesting read on some modern discoveries regarding the human brain.

http://khouse.org/articles/technical/19990201-229.html

[Right Wing Professor]

AG, no doubt you'll ignore this, but you're posting some serious tinfoil helmet stuff here (literally; EM fields are what tinfoil helmets are supposed to screen out) There are people who study low frequency electomagnetic field emissions of living matter; they're potentially a way of doing remote EKG/EEG sorts of measurements, but the idea that this is some sort of 'link to the cosmos' is loopy. We emit photons at the low end of the spectrum, as a sort of low-intensity electrical noise from our muscles and neurons, but as js1138 wrote in 798, we have no apparatus for receiving them (except for our eyes, and to an extent heat receptors in our skin).

[Right Wing Professor]

I must say in passing I find it amusing that our anti-evolutionist posters seem very generally to be afficionados of the Art Bell school of scientific thought, complete with black projects in the DOD to produce holographic UFOs, low frequency EM resonances linking our consciousnesses together, etc. This bears out my observation that while many creationists may be scientifically literate, it's on a very superficial level; the idea of estimating on the back of the envelope what voltage could be induced in a human neuron by a neuronal depolarization 6 feet away is one that just doesn't occur to them. So they can calculate the probability of arranging the 10^9 bases in the human genome in the exact order, but they have no idea if this is a small or a big number in comparison with other probability calcuations on a molecular scale (FWIW, it's very small ).

I have to advocate credulity, but you really ought to admit that if 99% of the physicists in the country agree on a scientiifc question, they are probably not going to be correctly second guessed by someone who knows a lot less physics.

[Right Wing Professor]

A metaphysical, (non scientific) argument against creation such as this based upon your own expectations of what a designer would or would not do, or should or should not do, or is capable or incapable of doing does not constitute a proof of evolution or even evidence of evolution

In ths instance, I was arguing against 'intelligent design', not for evolution. If you argue that genomes are similar because of 'code reuse', you then need to ask whether similarities between genomes have characteristics that reflect reused code.

One major premise of ID is that design can be detected by scientific principles. You're arguing against ID by saying the designer's purpose is ineffable.

[Right Wing Professor]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already identified at least FIVE unique "original" life forms/species that share no common genetic characteristics other than using the same DNA instruction processing system?

I know of no single organism of this sort, let alone five.

[Right Wing Professor]

Man is now able to begin contemplate genetic modifications to himself.

Yes, scary, isn't it? Worse, he is able to contemplate modifications of his offspring. Take a look at Michael Jackson's 2003 face, reflect on the fact he has custody of three of his own children, and tell me our species is ready for this. As if we need yet another way to screw up our kids' lives!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the link!

The part about shuffling around salamander brains and memory returning is particularly fascinating as it runs contrary to Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis" where he asserts that mind (including the soul) is fully contained within the physical brain. Your linked article said:

Indiana University biologist Paul Pietsch set out to disprove Pribram's theories. In a series of over 700 operations on salamanders, however, he discovered that their learned behavior was not affected by repositioning, reversing, or even shuffling the brain. After recovering from the operation, their behavior returned to normal.2

I recall one of the reviews of Crick's work said that it would be necessary to run many test removing different parts of the human brain to test the theory (and that would never happen in our society.)

[HiTech RedNeck]

The brain isn't the mind any more than the piano is the concerto.

[bondserv]

You must be referring to the information sciences, Theoretical physics, and the like, which is doing more to disrupt the viability of the evolutionary model. Many more real scientists are pursueing the evidence without the educational establishments grant money.

http://www.ldolphin.org/LTDres.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/gspeed.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/update.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! I agree!

[js1138]

I recall one of the reviews of Crick's work said that it would be necessary to run many test removing different parts of the human brain to test the theory (and that would never happen in our society.)

It happens all the time due to accidents and cerebrovascular accidents. It's also possible to study localization of function with real-time MRI scans. Non-locality of memory has been known for decades. It is one of the reasons I believe artificial intelligence is beyond my lifetime, because no one knows how it works.

None of this argues for any non-physical property of the mind. Just because memories are spread out doesn't mean they aren't embodied.

From the standpoint of ID vs evolution, I find it interesting that the level of redundency in the brain is staggering, compared, say to the redundency of the space shuttle's heat shield.

[Right Wing Professor]

Many more real scientists are pursueing the evidence without the educational establishments grant money.

And as a bonus, they may find Amelia Earhardt and the Real Killer of OJ's wife along the way!

http://www.ldolphin.org/LTDres.html

I see he's going after Einstein as well as Darwin. Now that's a *real* scientist, all right!

See my other post about the Art Bell school of science. This guy should be their provost!

[js1138]

Nor does the concerto exist without instruments, players, and the compression and rarefaction of air. Nor does it exist in the composer without the operation of the brain.

[edsheppa]

He did point out in his book that the human brain is bombarded 24/7 by all species of electromagnetic radiation coming from the outside environment.

Good thing we have this!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! I shall not ignore it.

you're posting some serious tinfoil helmet stuff here (literally; EM fields are what tinfoil helmets are supposed to screen out)

Everything that I posted is from a credible source. You may disagree with them, and certainly Abraham has a Buddhist tilt, but they aren’t “tin foil” types either.

These are some of the books published by Ralph H. Abraham:

Linear and Multilinear Algebra, Benjamin, New York, 1967.
Transversal Mappings and Flows (with J. Robbin), Benjamin, New York, 1967. MR 39#2181 (J. Palis, 1970)
Foundations of Mechanics(with J. Marsden), Benjamin, New York, Second Edition, 1979. MR 81e:58025 (D. L. Rod)
Dynamics, the Geometry of Behavior, vol. 1, (with C. Shaw), Aerial, Santa Cruz, 1982. MR 84m:58001 (P. D. F. Ion)
On Morphodynamics, SFX 2, Aerial, Santa Cruz, 1985.
Manifolds, Tensor Analysis, and Applications, Second Edition, (with J. Marsden and T. Ratiu), Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1988. MR 89f:58001
Complex Dynamics, SFX 3, Aerial, Santa Cruz, 1991.
Trialogues on the Edge of the West (with Terence McKenna and Rupert Sheldrake), Bear & Co, Santa Fe, NM, 1992.
A Visual Introduction to Dynamical Systems Theory for Psychology (with Fred Abraham and Chris Shaw), Aerial Press, Santa Cruz, CA. 1991.
Dynamics, The Geometry of Behavior (with C. Shaw), Second edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. 1992.
Chaos, Gaia, Eros, Harper and Row, San Francisco, CA. October, 1994.
The Web Empowerment Book, (with Frank Jas and Willard Russell), TELOS/Springer-Verlag, New York, March 1995.
And these are books by Dr. Alex Kaivarainen:

Dynamic Behavior of Proteins in Aqueous Medium and Their Functions. Leningrad, Nauka, USSR, 1980
Solvent-Dependent Flexibility of Proteins and Principles of Their Function. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster, 1985
Mesoscopic properties of matter and its interaction with light. Principles of self-organization in ice water and biosystems. University of Turku, Finland,1992
Dynamic Model of Wave-Particle Duality and Grand Unification. University of Joensuu, Phys. Dept. Joensuu, Finland, 1993
Hierarchic Concept of Matter and Field. Water, biosystems and elementary particles. New York, USA, 1995, pp. 485. ISBN: 0-9642557-0-7.
The second article (Alex Kaivarainen) is particularly interesting to me because he proposes a physics-based hierarchical microtubal mechanism for perception and memory. I'm a big fan of Roger Penrose who proposed a microtubal mechanism in Shadows of the Mind. On a prior thread, Physicist derided Penrose generally on the subject so I am interested in the models to the contrary to arrive at my own conclusion.

If you disagree with Kaivarainen then fine, but please give me more than just a hand waive.

The third link, International Institute of Biophysics has this to say of themselves:

There are worldwide about 40 scientific groups working on biophotons. The biggest association is the International Institute of Biophysics (IIB) e.V. in Neuss (Germany), founded for an interdisciplinary approach of the understanding and the investigation of living systems. 14 Institutes (Governmental Research Institutes and Universities) are connected in common research on:

Coherence in Biology
Biocommunication
Biophotonics

I’ve just started wading through their contents, but they appear to be more new age or Eastern philosophically and thus would run counter to the young earth creationist point of view.

With regard to Art Bell, UFO, Crop Circles and the ilk – that is not my bailiwick, and I have no opinion.

Electromagnetism is an undeniable force and thus, a significant subject in physics. I do not have any personal “tin foil” hat theories but I have noted some allegations concerning brain tumors and cancers:

Doctor Sues Cell Phone Makers Over Tumor Behind Right Ear

A neurologist in the United States is suing Motorola, the world's second largest mobile phone manufacturer, because he says that using a cell phone caused a malignant brain tumour.

Dr Christopher Newman, 41, has filed an $800m (£540m) lawsuit against Motorola and eight other telecommunications organisations.

The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore, accuses the companies of failing to tell users that cell phones produce high levels of radio frequency radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects. The malignant tumour was discovered in March 1998 behind Dr Newman's right ear.

His lawyer said that he used mobile phones at least several times a day between 1992 and 1998 for his work.

Cancer study may help Motorola suit 9/10/02

In what could bolster an $800 million lawsuit against Motorola and major cell phone carriers, a new study found a possible link between older cell phones and brain tumors. Although many studies have found no cancer risk from cell phone use, the research published in the latest European Journal of Cancer Prevention said long-term users of analog phones are at least 30% more likely than nonusers to develop brain tumors.

Newer digital phones emit less radiation than older analog models of the sort studied.

Judge rejects cancer link to mobiles 10/1/02

A US judge has thrown out the evidence filed against several mobile-phone firms in an $800m lawsuit that alleges the devices cause brain tumours.

The move clears the way for the dismissal of the suit against several manufacturers, including cell-phone giant Motorola, which was brought by American neurologist Christopher Newman…

Dr Newman's lawyers presented evidence from a Swedish researcher that suggested brain tumours were more likely to be found on the side of the head where patients held their mobile phone.

They also presented the judge with studies that showed that radiation damaged rats' DNA.

But US District Judge Catherine Blake ruled that the evidence was not generally accepted by scientists and that there was no proven link between cell phones and tumours…

Mr Angelos said he may appeal against the decision….

That happens to be the same location of the tumor they removed from my nephew a few years ago.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Non-locality of memory has been known for decades. It is one of the reasons I believe artificial intelligence is beyond my lifetime, because no one knows how it works.

Indeed, non-locality of memory does not favor Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis." I hadn't heard of the salamander experiments, so they were particularly interesting.

None of this argues for any non-physical property of the mind. Just because memories are spread out doesn't mean they aren't embodied.

Likewise, none of this argues against a non-physical property of the mind.

[edsheppa]

Because the brain is 99.999 percent free of magnetic materials.

I recall reading somewhile ago of a frog being suspended in a very strong magnetic field. This was due to the diamagnetic properties of water. Presumably one could do the same with a human. That would be very cool!

[edsheppa]

The brain isn't the mind any more than the piano is the concerto.

How about brain is to mind as player-piano is to concerto.

[unspun]

OOPS - TOO IMPATIENT WITH THAT EDITING - REWRITING A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS.