Gaming11 mins ago
Is The Enlightenment Paradigm Of Material Reductionism Beginning To Creak?
68 Answers
Many biologists now know that genes aren't selfish (and Dawkins has become something of an embarrassment). Lamarck's theories of evolution - which pre-date Darwin- are firmly back on the table being now called epigenetics. The Genome project, though brilliant hasn't produced much in the way of benefits.
Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter and we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.
Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter and soul and does man live, 'not by bread alone'?
Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter and we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.
Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter and soul and does man live, 'not by bread alone'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, //Why, whenever you disagree with anything I say (which happens all too frequently) you feel the need psychoanalyse me instead of addressing what I have said?//
I have addressed what you said. You said, “Personally I have no need to re-locate”, indicating that you believe you have something others lack - and if that isn’t some sort of moral/intellectual superiority, what is it? You tell me. Frankly, if it includes your ‘enlightened’ proclivity for misinterpreting and misrepresenting anything and anyone to suit your agenda, or for so spitefully and disingenuously attacking those who disagree with you, I don’t want whatever it is you perceive to be an attribute, Khandro, because it isn’t. I’d rather be me.
Theland, I don’t believe that anything is supernatural. Nothing at all.
//I think that basically you don't WANT thereto be a God so you feel safer in company.//
I have no idea what that means.
//Join the folk who have hope, rather than the hopeless.//
If by ‘the hopeless’ you mean people who take responsibility for themselves, who need no imaginary cherry-picked crutch to support them, and who don’t waste their lives dwelling upon death and the dire, thanks all the same but no thanks.
I have addressed what you said. You said, “Personally I have no need to re-locate”, indicating that you believe you have something others lack - and if that isn’t some sort of moral/intellectual superiority, what is it? You tell me. Frankly, if it includes your ‘enlightened’ proclivity for misinterpreting and misrepresenting anything and anyone to suit your agenda, or for so spitefully and disingenuously attacking those who disagree with you, I don’t want whatever it is you perceive to be an attribute, Khandro, because it isn’t. I’d rather be me.
Theland, I don’t believe that anything is supernatural. Nothing at all.
//I think that basically you don't WANT thereto be a God so you feel safer in company.//
I have no idea what that means.
//Join the folk who have hope, rather than the hopeless.//
If by ‘the hopeless’ you mean people who take responsibility for themselves, who need no imaginary cherry-picked crutch to support them, and who don’t waste their lives dwelling upon death and the dire, thanks all the same but no thanks.
jim; // It is, however, clearly easier in principle to rule out a strictly material origin for consciousness, because you could actually try to test it. We aren't yet at that point, so far as I know -- but I think we're a lot closer now than ever before.//
This simply isn't true, we are no closer to explaining consciousness now than we have ever been.
//I don't really have a problem with what he [Dawkins] says; only how he says it.
Really? this, a scientist who says the origin of life was a "happy chemical accident".
What with "happy" chemicals and "selfish" genes, with such explanations, is this anyone whom you should have ever taken seriously?
This simply isn't true, we are no closer to explaining consciousness now than we have ever been.
//I don't really have a problem with what he [Dawkins] says; only how he says it.
Really? this, a scientist who says the origin of life was a "happy chemical accident".
What with "happy" chemicals and "selfish" genes, with such explanations, is this anyone whom you should have ever taken seriously?
agreed Old Geezer
Genes havent been shown to be unselfish
No Lamarck isnt back on the map
No Lamarck does not approximate to epigenetics unless you fail to understand both
Genome project is long term
( likened to having the whole of the text of the new testament but not knowing anything about Greek)
er and that's it
If you state without evidence I reserve the right to refute without evidence.
Genes havent been shown to be unselfish
No Lamarck isnt back on the map
No Lamarck does not approximate to epigenetics unless you fail to understand both
Genome project is long term
( likened to having the whole of the text of the new testament but not knowing anything about Greek)
er and that's it
If you state without evidence I reserve the right to refute without evidence.
// This simply isn't true, we are no closer to explaining consciousness now than we have ever been. //
erm excuse me - organisms with DNA can be conscious and well as unconscious - which implies that it is not directly connected with DNA, the genoma project and the rest.
can we get back on the subject please ?
erm excuse me - organisms with DNA can be conscious and well as unconscious - which implies that it is not directly connected with DNA, the genoma project and the rest.
can we get back on the subject please ?
PP; //No Lamarck does not approximate to epigenetics unless you fail to understand both//
Professor Michael Skinner of Biological Science at Washington State University (and many others) think differently;
https:/
Professor Michael Skinner of Biological Science at Washington State University (and many others) think differently;
https:/
Among the many things I don't understand is why I even bother to waste my time explaining anything to someone whose apparent sole purpose in life is to pretend that they have won arguments through the remarkable tactic of giggling at anything the other person says, whether they understand or not (and, almost invariably, not).
Be that as it may, let's at least make a few points clear:
1. The "happy chemical accident" is not an accident of "happy chemicals", but a "happy accident" with chemicals involved. I'm pretty sure a ten-year-old can understand that. It's also pretty uncontroversial that it's "happy", because we wouldn't be around otherwise. Then the only debate is over whether or not this was an accident after all, not any of the adjectives attached to the process.
2. There is actually some good reason to think of it as somewhat accidental. Not so much the earliest forms of life on Earth, whose origin might be better described as a "happy chemical inevitability", but certainly the origin of complex life smacks of "accidental", because there is no reason to suppose that Eukaryotic cells have to emerge as an inevitable consequence of anything. Still, this remains an open question, of course.
3. Why are you so afraid of open questions in Science, anyway? It's a simple truth that we will never know everything about where we came from, what we are doing, how we work, how the Universe works, etc etc. But so what? That just means that we'll never run out of new stuff to learn.
Be that as it may, let's at least make a few points clear:
1. The "happy chemical accident" is not an accident of "happy chemicals", but a "happy accident" with chemicals involved. I'm pretty sure a ten-year-old can understand that. It's also pretty uncontroversial that it's "happy", because we wouldn't be around otherwise. Then the only debate is over whether or not this was an accident after all, not any of the adjectives attached to the process.
2. There is actually some good reason to think of it as somewhat accidental. Not so much the earliest forms of life on Earth, whose origin might be better described as a "happy chemical inevitability", but certainly the origin of complex life smacks of "accidental", because there is no reason to suppose that Eukaryotic cells have to emerge as an inevitable consequence of anything. Still, this remains an open question, of course.
3. Why are you so afraid of open questions in Science, anyway? It's a simple truth that we will never know everything about where we came from, what we are doing, how we work, how the Universe works, etc etc. But so what? That just means that we'll never run out of new stuff to learn.
n. I think it was sidelined - if not bushwhacked - into silly semantics purposely rather than address the issues; like 1, my question at 10:00 Tues. about DNA, and the following link at 10:13
It having been said that there was no connection or even approximation between Lamarck and epigenetics, this refuted by Prof. Skinner and many others, this was not answered or challenged.
It having been said that there was no connection or even approximation between Lamarck and epigenetics, this refuted by Prof. Skinner and many others, this was not answered or challenged.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.