DNA and the 'Code of Life'

@pagan,

pagan;119489 wrote:

well it depends if you think that major shifts in science have metaphysical implications.

eg relativity destroyed the metaphysical possibility of absolute space and time seperate measurements in an instant. Prior to that it was up for debate. QM probability functions in the modelling likewise had major philosophical consequences re determinism.)

Absolutely! This is why the Tao of Physics was a landmark book. Physics realised the non-substantiality of matter and the indispensability of the observing intelligence. This has huge repercussions. I don't think many people are actually across it yet.

Maybe the same is happening with biology as well.

There is a whole new paradigm emerging.

Just remember, folks, you heard it here first!

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 11:08 AM ----------

From the Wired article that QN referred to on previous page:

Quote:

the (biological) models we were taught in school about "dominant" and "recessive" genes steering a strictly Mendelian process have turned out to be an even greater simplification of reality than Newton's laws. The discovery of gene-protein interactions and other aspects of epigenetics has challenged the view of DNA as destiny and even introduced evidence that environment can influence inheritable traits, something once considered a genetic impossibility.

In short, the more we learn about biology, the further we find ourselves from a model that can explain it.

(I am not saying this just to aggravate Aedes and hope it doesn't. I have just been reading a book about the discoveries that have come from mapping the genome which makes a similar point (Why Us? James le Fanu). It seems to indicate that the idea of a 1:1 relationship with genetic and physical characteristics is no longer a viable model, which in turn indicates that the model for adaptive evolution is considerably more subtle than might have been appreciated previously. Am I on the right track here?)

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I've got absolutely no problem with the notion that our explanations are insufficient as we learn more and more. The scientific method is by no means the only way that scientific data are generated -- think about high throughput drug discovery, think about the human genome project -- these are not hypothesis-driven endeavors.

But who cares? You're actually more prone to bias in a hypothesis-driven project. With the human genome project, and the mouse genome and the chimp genome and everything else, you get libraries and libraries of data, and you can look for patterns and relationships this way.

Epigenetics is a lot less revolutionary than you're making it seem -- I've been learning about epigentics since my sophomore biology course in high school, and that was in 1989. We're learning more and more about it, and with time Mendel and Darwin seem more and more 'provincial' in their scope, but there's nothing wrong with that. EVERYONE knows that genes are not 100% destiny, because there are environmental influences. The mechanism by which the environment influences genetic output is epigenetics. And epigenetic mechanisms are encoded within the host genome. So here we are -- did the "cosmic author" encode the chicken or the egg first?

As for science's relationship with metaphysics -- I kind of reject metaphysics as a truth endeavor, because it's 100% subjective and it's trapped inside of word choices. So if you're into metaphysics you can make what you will of science. I don't really go there -- science is what it is. I kind of like the idea of being both a 'thing' and a being. I like being related to reptiles and birds. But this 'thingness' needs to be reconciled with our 'human-ness' for some people, and this seems to be what spawns metaphysics.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;119501 wrote:

As for science's relationship with metaphysics -- I kind of reject metaphysics as a truth endeavor, because it's 100% subjective and it's trapped inside of word choices. So if you're into metaphysics you can make what you will of science. I don't really go there -- science is what it is. I kind of like the idea of being both a 'thing' and a being. I like being related to reptiles and birds. But this 'thingness' needs to be reconciled with our 'human-ness' for some people, and this seems to be what spawns metaphysics.

Illuminating comment thankyou, but I don't think metaphysics is subjective in the least. In the current worldview, things are either subjective, within us, or objective, within the world. But that in itself is the result of an implicit metaphysic; 'no metaphysics' is a metaphysic. Metaphysics suggests that there is a level of reality which is neither subjective nor objective, but transcendent - so called because it transcends the distinction between subject and object. There have been many different ways of describing this level or realm, such as Plato's. Of course, all water under the bridge as far as we are concerned in this day and age. So I am not asking you to accept it or believe it. But at least be clear about what it is that is being rejected. According to classical metaphysics, the objects of metphysical understanding are no more or less subjective than numbers. This is why in the neoplatonic tradition, there was such a strong relationship between arithmetic and theology.

In practical terms, where metaphysics shows up in your life is not directly in what you see, but in what you look for, and therefore what answers you get. This is shown pretty clearly in Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge. Even the modern denial of metaphysics is metaphysics.

I realise this is aggravating. I don't do this professionally. It is just something that interests me.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Metaphysics must be subjective because there is no reference point outside the interchange of human words and ideas. When a master logician like Bertrand Russell can point out to us that even the verb "to be" has multiple meanings, then it becomes clear that metaphysical ideas are 100% subservient to the words we choose and how they are understood by others.

What is objective? The fact that a rock is more dense than ice is objective. Without any words at all, without even any concepts, I can demonstrate to a million people that a 1 pound sphere ice will float on water but a 1 pound spherical piece of granite will sink. I needn't ever open my mouth.

But if I make an assertion about metaphysics -- there is no reference outside of words. None.

I do not agree that the modern denial of metaphysics is metaphysics. I do agree that the argument that metaphysics is a metanarrative is a metanarrative.

Metaphysics can "suggest" whatever it wants -- but it can never be corroborated. It can only "make sense".

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes

what if you silently demonstrated that the 1lb sphere of ice floated and the 1 lb sphere of granite sank ....... and then the audience spontaneously jumped up and applauded and declared you their spiritual leader!

"Where did he get that hailstone from? It must have been from the sky god!"

"yeh ..... and that pebble was pretty impressive too."

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;119527 wrote:

Metaphysics must be subjective because there is no reference point outside the interchange of human words and ideas.

The same can be said for mathematical reasoning. Such things as imaginary numbers don't have any physical counterpart, yet they can't be said to be subjective, because they are the same for everyone.

Furthermore the network of human words you refer to is a major component of reality - maybe it is 'intersubjective' if you like, but it completely conditions what we are able to see. This is the whole basis of the critique of knowledge called 'constructivism'. It is also significant in analyses such as Peter Berger's The Social Construction of Reality.

There is an oft-told anecdote, which is related in The Fatal Impact, by Alan Moorehead. It quotes from the logs of Joseph Banks, who was the chief scientist on board the Endeavour when it sailed into Botany Bay in January 1788, to establish the colony of Australia.

The Endeavour sailed into Botany Bay, which is an almost perfectly circular bay of about 7 miles diameter. They dropped anchor some distance from shore , I think it was about 1,000 yards, but within sight of some indigenous peoples who were mending their nets on a sandbank.

Banks noted with interest that the natives paid no attention at all to the Endeavour. The crew watched them through long glasses for some hours. Then finally a long boat was winched down, and made its way towards the group. As soon as the long boat was separated from the Endeavour, there was a big commotion on the shore. The warriors were all gesticulating and waving their spears at the boat and straight away sent out a canoe to intercept it.

Thus began the long and very sad story of the decimation of the Australian native tribes by the European settlers. Banks wrote in his diary that he was curious as to why the appearance of the Endeavour had not drawn the least attention.

I believe that it was because they didn't notice it. And the reason they didn't notice it was because it was completely outside their reality. Their minds could not assimilate or recognise the Endeavour, even when it was in plain sight, so they didn't actually see it.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;119547 wrote:

The same can be said for mathematical reasoning.

Yes, I agree, but math in isolation is just an abstract reasoning process, it's not really a science.

jeeprs;119547 wrote:

Furthermore the network of human words you refer to is a major component of reality - maybe it is 'intersubjective' if you like, but it completely conditions what we are able to see.

If the network of human words were so beholden to truth, then philosophy would have never invented symbolic logic. The fact of the matter is that words have inherent ambiguities even when everyone thinks they agree. It's a form of chaos unto itself, i.e. subtly added error upon error upon error. When you and I talk about "cause" we are probably neither talking nor thinking of the same thing. When we talk about "evolution" we are definitely not talking nor thinking of exactly the same thing. We have difficulty even getting our terms straight. Language is critical, but it's also imperfect.

So amidst all that, where is metaphysical truth? What is metaphysical truth? Can this be answered in a way that allows some sort of objectivity?

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Thankyou Aedes! I agree with what you are saying. And I think in going through this process, we will gradually enlarge our view of that very interesting question as to what is metaphysical truth. I think it can indeed be answered in a way that allows objectivity, but it is obviously a big question and this is not an easy task. So I don't expect an answer will 'spring off the page', so to speak.

As for mathematics - as we have touched on before, I believe that the undoubted correspondence that has been discovered to exist between H Sapiens mathematical ability and the structure of the cosmos is indicative of some hidden depths. I suppose that sounds a bit dramatic. Nevertheless I am sure I am not alone in this view. There was a seminal paper by Eugene Wigner on this very topic called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Natural Science. Several people have tried to debunk this paper, but I think it is pretty hard to criticize.

All of which serves to illustrate that 'objectivity' itself is something of a moving target, not nearly so cut-and-dried as many would think. Maybe it is all we have, or all that can be spoken of in this day and age. But it is informed by a structure, and the structure is very much of our own making, as it is the structure of our own thought and cultural outlook and all the rest. And being aware of this fact is already beginning to enter the proper discourse of metaphysics, because it is thinking about the nature of thought, and how this conditions the view of reality. So if you can appreciate that distinction, then we have the beginnings of an agreement at least on what the subject comprises.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;119555 wrote:

math... is just an abstract reasoning process

Just like every language.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 03:02 AM ----------

Aedes;119555 wrote:

then philosophy would have never invented symbolic logic

Please explain....

Q? Is a symbol in a mind an image of an object?

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 03:09 AM ----------

Aedes;119555 wrote:

where is metaphysical truth? What is metaphysical truth? Can this be answered in a way that allows some sort of objectivity?

Metaphysical Truth is,

that even if we lived in an entirely deceptive universe, if that were indeed true, then Truth is.

Truth Is, no matter what the circumstance.

It is the boundary we cannot cross.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;119460 wrote:

I know your Q was directed at Aedes, but I must interject my own personal insight.

What is natural, is anything without a code.

Anything with a code is artificial. Yes, humans and all life are artificial, as in... authored into existence from the mind of another sentient entity.

There is no such thing as SuperNatural. There is only Natural and Artificial.

---------- Post added 01-12-2010 at 04:04 PM ----------

Yet, I could be swayed to give a title of SuperNatural to the original Unauthored Author... (be that an Author or Chaos either way)

---------- Post added 01-12-2010 at 04:10 PM ----------

HA! Imagine... If Chaos is the Author of Life... Then Chaos itself is SuperNatural.

Who Knew?

You have to prove that first surely? If something is naturally occurring, then its nature. You have to accept my reasoning that it was foreseen,that there has always existed the possibility of life. With your notion, if we have an author then everything is designed, everything is artificial. With that reasoning you are asking me to believe, the universe existed by the natural laws but life was created.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;119595 wrote:

Please explain....

Symbolic logic eschews words in favor of symbols that have predefined meaning. Even the very basic functional verb "to be" has at least three meanings that can be used ambiguously in logical propositions (existence, identity, and predication).

QuinticNon;119595 wrote:

Truth Is, no matter what the circumstance.

It is the boundary we cannot cross.

I'd argue that truth is a boundary that we cannot reach let alone cross. But the approach to truth is a shared experience. And metaphysics is difficult to share without resorting to unverifiable ambiguities.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;119599 wrote:

You have to prove that first surely?

I can't even get a respectable martini any more. I've forgotten what proof is.

xris;119599 wrote:

you are asking me to believe, the universe existed by the natural laws but life was created.

That's all I have evidence for. We can theorize about anything, but that's all I have evidence for. Like you, I have personal theory that goes beyond what the physical sciences can support. I'm just sharing the science (as best as I can understand it)... In the end, we both believe what suits us best. Surprised

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 08:55 AM ----------

Aedes;119628 wrote:

Symbolic logic eschews words in favor of symbols that have predefined meaning.

I'm having trouble following. Is not a word still a symbol? Are you saying the difference is that (typically) words have already been defined and symbols have not?

My real question was to understand why you claimed that Philosophy invented language.

Aedes;119628 wrote:

Even the very basic functional verb "to be" has at least three meanings that can be used ambiguously in logical propositions (existence, identity, and predication).

Yes I found that interesting when you mentioned it before.

Aedes;119628 wrote:

I'd argue that truth is a boundary that we cannot reach let alone cross.

What? Is it all subjective? Is it too bright for humans to witness, causing us to shade it with subjectivity? What?

Aedes;119628 wrote:

But the approach to truth is a shared experience.

Shared or earned?

2 Replies

@QuinticNon,

well how can we understand, communicate and develope understanding without language? If language is essential to building a narrative of understanding and behaviour, then how can we ignore the characteristics of different languages, the characteristics of different media and the characteristics of different narratives, and then the way they all interact with each other..... without ignoring the very tools we use to understand and behave? A carpenter doesn't ignore the chisel. A painter doesn't ignore the brush.

Its like a society dependent upon electricity and not even being able to change a fuse ...... because they are too immersed in the thrill of the gadgets to get involved in the nature of the gadgets themselves. Science and mathematics went through revolutions in language during the 20th century. But still the old classical logic survives ...... the message is independent of the medium. It matters not what it is written on. ie It is pure information ..... and therefore potentially pure truth.

1 + 1 = 2

Its true on paper, monitors, in our heads, in the sand ..... therefore it is true independent of the medium. This is classic logic.

One could point out that 1 + 1 = 2 has never been witnessed outside a medium, and then use classic logic to state that therefore it is always written on a medium. So take your pick ..... classical logic ice pick that is.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;119654 wrote:

It is pure information ..... and therefore potentially pure truth.

That's the very conclusion I've come to as well.

The Greeks searched for the mysterious animator. A missing 5th elementary principle to the universe beyond earth, wind, fire, water. They called it "Quintessence".

QuinticNon (the unknowable 5th unknown) honors that search. I believe this missing Quintessence is indeed Truth... as you say, pure Information.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 09:22 AM ----------

A noble pursuit would be to elevate mathematics to the 5th power. Will an understanding of Quintic Non Linear equations reveal a fundamental metaphysical principle that previously eluded us?

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

Quote:

1 + 1 = 2

Its true on paper, monitors, in our heads, in the sand ..... therefore it is true independent of the medium. This is classic logic.

uh QuinticNon you are aware that i was demonstrating the nature of the conclusion ..... not advocating it? After all in the context of this thread (scientific narrative) i have been very clearly pointing out the alternative.

Quote:

One could point out that 1 + 1 = 2 has never been witnessed outside a medium, and then use classic logic to state that therefore it is always written on a medium.

and have tried to demonstrate potentially profound implications of that 'materialistic' perspective (in sync with a crucial aspect of the scientific narrative) when considering the unique phenomenon of non human created 'information matter'. ie dna/rna molecules.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I new it was too good to be true.

I don't (and never) argue that Information is indeed "always written on a medium". I just don't see them as intrinsically linked by necessity, noting that multiple mediums express the very same Info. That alone satisfies their disconnect for me.

"Always written on a medium" is simply for our convenience to know of it. Much like Dark Matter is only knowable through an equation, but it is not the equation.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 10:00 AM ----------

And I'm still confused as to your perspective of my views. You seem to determine me as thinking only with the "classical logic ice pick" of materialism. Yet my Info principle refutes the hard materialist. I don't get it. The "Laws of Logic" themselves are even immaterial.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;119649 wrote:

My real question was to understand why you claimed that Philosophy invented language.

My real question is why you believe I claimed such a thing -- because I have not.

QuinticNon;119649 wrote:

What? Is it all subjective?

We can all see, touch, feel the rock on the ground in front of us. There is a physical entity whose existence we will all agree upon. That anchors our subjective experiences to something that is external to consciousness.

That cannot happen with, for instance, a soul.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 11:30 AM ----------

pagan;119654 wrote:

1 + 1 = 2

Only because we have accordingly defined the terms 1, +, =, and 2. That statement must be true because we define the terms to have a particular relationship. There is nothing in the cosmos that makes that statement true, only the definitions of those symbols.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Earlier to told Jeeprs

Aedes;119555 wrote:

If the network of human words were so beholden to truth, then philosophy would have never invented symbolic logic.

I don't understand this statement.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 10:37 AM ----------

Aedes;119668 wrote:

There is nothing in the cosmos that makes that statement true, only the definitions of those symbols.

But is there anything in the cosmos that can make statements at all? Can the cosmos "make statements"?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

First of all, if you got from that statement of mine to "you claimed that Philosophy invented language", then you have completely proven my point that language is imprecise, because I said absolutely nothing to even imply that.

Symbolic logic is a formal domain of philosophy, developed by logicians like Frege and Russell, chiefly to express logical arguments using the most precise possible terminology. The only way to do that was to eliminate words and use agreed-upon symbols instead.

I have no idea where you're going with this cosmos making statements. The cosmos doesn't make statements. "1+1=2" is a statement that WE make. But whether it's true or not is not because of its natural cosmological truth, but only because that is how we've defined those symbols.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Aedes wrote:

But whether it's true or not is not because of its natural cosmological truth, but only because that is how we've defined those symbols.

You mean it has no direct correspondance with reality. Such as the truth that water is composed of H2O does, right?

But does that make it not a truth? It is still true that 1+1=2, is it not? We understand that our numbers are abstractions, but that doesn't mean we can't make truth out of them, does it?

2 Replies

DNA and the 'Code of Life'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know