Re: religion and the brain
From: Paul Bramscher (brams006_nospam_at_tc.umn.edu)
Date: 10/19/04
- Next message: Curt Welch: "Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists"
- In reply to: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Next in thread: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Reply: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:54 -0500
Phil Sherrod wrote:
> On 18-Oct-2004, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Molecules, organic or otherwise, only form under correct environmental
>>and phase conditions. And it might that the DNA/RNA coding schema needs
>>a number of prerequisite things to occur which are not self-evident via
>>reduction of the end result. In other words, the answer to the origin
>>of DNA might actually be in a different molecule or set of processes
>>external to it. But once begun, it no longer relied on the initial
>>mechanism.
>
>
> Didn't you say earlier that you don't accept anything that can't be
> demonstrated? As I recall, you won't even accept a mathematical proof of QM
> because it is not empirical. How does that jive with the hand-waving you
> presented above?
This offers fertile ground for experimentation. Search for molecules
and processes that exhibit this property and design experiments around
them, as researchers are currently doing at the amino acid and other
levels. Where's the magic between an amino acid and a chain of
nucleotides? Aside from a scaling problem, I see no need to explain DNA
by virtue of the supernatural.
Unlike QM, they need not harken to God/uncertainty/singularity (none of
which offer empirical/experimental investigations).
I have no faith in this explanation whatsoever. I do, however, know
that the explanation offers many testable hypotheses. And that it will
likely require hunting outside of DNA proper to find DNA's necessary
environmental conditions to explain its emergence.
The non-scientific method would be to write it off as God's Creation,
and halt any further progress, except as explains scripture. As was
done with Evolution, a non-earth centered universe, and who knows how
many other scientific advancements which have been made in spite of the
Church's explanatory monopoly. Sometimes at great personal risk.
- Next message: Curt Welch: "Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists"
- In reply to: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Next in thread: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Reply: Phil Sherrod: "Re: religion and the brain"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|