• Metaphysician Undercover
    4.5k
    I disagree with this because DNA is the formula that directs biology.SonJnana

    DNA is made up of smaller parts which themselves carry out directed activity. Biologist have not found the bottom.

    Why don't you address the logic of my reply rather than referring to some conflicting opinion which you hold?
  • SonJnana
    243
    DNA is made up of smaller parts which themselves carry out directed activity. Biologist have not found the bottom.

    Why don't you address the logic of my reply rather than referring to some conflicting opinion which you hold?
    Metaphysician Undercover

    I was addressing the logic.

    DNA is made up of nucleotides. It is biochemistry which is just chemistry that is more directed towards biology. Chemical reactions happen. It can go down all the way to the atom, and we try our best to understand how and why molecules and the atoms they are made of react the way they do. Up to this point, it makes sense for the most part why particles do what they do. Beyond that when getting into subparticles and quantum mechanics, it gets confusing. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we never will.

    At some point we could ask why physics is the way it is. We may never know. But how do we go from asking that to assuming there is an immaterial soul inside of us? And then we would ask is there then a soul in other animals? In plants? In bacteria? In viruses? In atoms? Where do we draw the line, after assuming there even is an immaterial soul inside of us?

    Just to clarify, is your argument that there has to be an immaterial formula for physics?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    At some point we could ask why physics is the way it is. We may never know. But how do we go from asking that to assuming there is an immaterial soul inside of us. And then we would ask is there then a soul in other animals? In plants? In bacteria? In viruses? Where do we draw the line, after assuming there even is an immaterial soul inside of us?SonJnana

    We don't draw lines out of biases. We just observe. As it turns out, the more we observe the more similarities we find between life - as well as differences. That the Mind may function in different ways should be of no surprise it's fine simply observes the differences of opinions between humans.

    DNA actually provides extremely little insight and it is surprising that it still carries much weight but then again, it had become its own self-perpetuating industry.

    https://www.grain.org/article/entries/375-unravelling-the-dna-myth

    "The mistakes might be dismissed as the necessary errors that characterise scientific progress. But behind them lurks a more profound failure. The wonders of genetic science are all founded on the discovery of the DNA double helix – by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953 – and they proceed from the premise that this molecular structure is the exclusive agent of inheritance in all living things: in the kingdom of molecular genetics, the DNA gene is absolute monarch. Known to molecular biologists as the “Central Dogma,” the premise assumes that an organism's genome – its total complement of genes – should fully account for its characteristic assemblage of inherited traits. [5] Since Crick first proposed it forty-four years ago, the Central Dogma has come to dominate biomedical research. Simple, elegant, and easily summarised, it seeks to reduce inheritance to molecular dimensions. The molecular agent of inheritance is DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, a very long, linear molecule tightly coiled within each cell's nucleus (see diagram opposite). DNA is made up of four different kinds of nucleotides, strung together in each gene in a particular linear order or sequence. Segments of DNA comprise the genes that, through a series of molecular processes, give rise to each of our inherited traits."

    "But the premise of the Central Dogma, unhappily, is false. Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly publicised scientific undertakings of our time, the Human Genome Project, the theory collapsed under the weight of fact. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants, say, and people. By any reasonable measure, the finding (published in February 2001) signalled the downfall of the Central Dogma. It also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering and the validity of the biotechnology industry's widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are “specific, precise, and predictable” [6] and therefore safe. In short, the most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale."
  • charleton
    1.2k
    You are missing the point.
    The history of the concept of determinism is not relevant here.
    I did not say that.
    The development of science relies on an assumption of determinism without which we could not have reached the moon.
    Belief in God is not compatible with reason; free will; or determinism. Whether or not astronauts believed in god was not important as long as they knew what buttons to press.
    The real pioneers of the space program are the engineers and scientists who actually did all the work, and for them being able to DETERMINE how to get a rocket in space was what made it happen.
  • SonJnana
    243
    I'm gonna need some more sources before I throw out what I've learned in college about biology. Sadly, a 2003 article on a farmers website that could easily be propaganda won't do.

    Regardless, even if that was true, all that would mean is that we don't understand it. It doesn't mean that we conclude there is some immaterial force that leads to why living organisms are the way they are that goes beyond our knowledge of how atoms work.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The development of science relies on an assumption of determinismcharleton

    No. It most certainly does not rely on determinism. If it did we would still be denying Quantum Mechanics

    What science relies on its:1) repeatabiity of certain phenomenon (call them habits of nature) 2) a symbolic language (usually created by mathematicians) to approximately describe these repeatable events. I emphasize approximate because no two events are ever three same and calculations are always approximate for all practical purposes (FAPP) a concept set forth by the physicist John Bell.

    Determinists far overstate their case by proclaiming that science depends on absolute determined accuracy. Far, far from it. In all cases it is approximate.
  • SonJnana
    243
    There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants, say, and people.Rich

    This is a very very simplified view that does not understand the complexity of genetics. It's not "this code accounts for this trait, this code accounts for this trait." Many codes combined account for different traits and it's all very regulated. When and where transcription happens matters. Yes we don't fully understand genetics. That's not surprising, it is extremely complicated. But to assume the genetics don't account for traits because there are not enough genes is just nonsense.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I agree that whether it be DNA out Quantum Mechanics, neither speaks to the question of Choice (I don't embrace the Free Will nomenclature because it is very misleading). However, it does undermine the notion that all (including the choices we make) are all fated and determined in some manner (the mechanism remaining undefined).

    As for what they teach in colleges, well they are still teaching that there are things called particles which is a concept that really ceased to exist 100 years ago. Textbooks die hard, and biologists for whatever reason are really heavily invested in DNA - as well as big industries. It actually takes enormous amount of courage for a person in the field, such as the one who wrote this article, to voice opposition. His isn't the only voice. I have read many others voicing similar critiques of DNA. I know from my own personal life experiences in many, many fields that Determinism is an empty proposition as a philosophical point of view which is why I am usually skeptical of pronouncements such as that which accompanied DNA.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The article was written by a Phd in biology and was obviously simple for public consumption, however if up research the details it will be easier to understand the conclusions. In fact, the most recent book I read on the subject confessed early on that there are very, very few traits of a limited type that can actually be tied directly to DNA. Once again science is way ahead of itself and I conclude it is for marketing purposes.
  • SonJnana
    243
    If you have any other sources feel free to post them because I have never heard of this.

    I didn't read the full article, but from the quote you posted that is absolute nonsense. Science has well established that many are responsible for one trait. Combinations of codes matter. And there is such a huge amount of combinations of sequences it's mind blowing. On top of that, genes are regulated as well. And it would actually be ridiculous to think that we could have understood all of these complexities by now. It sounds like the author of that article is refuting his understanding of genetics after he learned about punnet squares in his highschool biology class.
  • SonJnana
    243
    What book was it?

    The central dogma is a model that we created based off of what we understood. Just because genetics is confusing and we have a hard time with it, does not refute the central dogma. It may make it more shaky, but it definitely doesn't refute it.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    No. It most certainly does not rely on determinism. If it did we would still be denying Quantum Mechanics

    What science relies on its:1) repeatabiity of certain phenomenon (call them habits of nature) 2)
    Rich

    Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effect - i.e. determinism.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effectcharleton

    Some causes with approximate effects. One mustn't exaggerate for the goal seeking purpose to push a philosophy.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effect
    — charleton

    Some causes with approximate effects. One mustn't exaggerate for the goal seeking purpose to push a philosophy.
    Rich

    No. All causes with partially known effects.
    The more simple the more effects are predictable. But the predictability is constant in all cases equally and reliably.
    Quantum is just not yet understood. It's a failing of the way we model some aspect of reality. But does not challenge determinism; in fact it asserts its importance.
    But we got to the moon without understanding it. We designed cars without understanding it and we built and even identified QM with an assumption of determinism. There would not even be any QM without that assumption.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    If you are interested, I'm sure you'll do the necessary research. It's definitely available.

    It's not how little we know that is being questioned, rather it is the hype being projected by the scientific/industrial complex.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    No. All causes with partially known effects.charleton

    All causes? Nope only those that technicians feel are significant and can be measured. Again you are confusing what is adequate with absolute precision.
  • SonJnana
    243
    I actually read most of the article. He criticizes the central dogma of Watson and Crick because they didn't account for alternative splicing. We don't learn the central dogma today as Watson and Crick understood it. We have already accommodated alternative splicing, in fact that's what I was talking about in the previous comment. And it goes on to talk about other complexities that are important to understand the way genes really work.

    Really all the article is saying is that the Human Genome Project was a failure because it's approach to understanding genetics was way too simplistic. He's saying that the project doesn't take into account alternative splicing and all the other things in a cell that influence it. That may be true, I don't know the details of the genome project. But I did not see anything said that contradicts the way we learn about the central dogma and biology today. When we learn the Watson and Cricks central dogma, we assume that it is just a model to understand genetics in a basic way, but that there is way more complex stuff happening in the cell.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Quantum is just not yet understood. It's a failing of the way we model some aspect of reality. But does not challenge determinism; in fact it asserts its importance.charleton

    There is zero support or need for determinism in quantum physics. It is merely a probabilistic equation and it would take some very clever redefinition of Determinism to turn it in a probabilistic philosophy. In such a case, only the word is preserved while the philosophy is jettisoned. Is the word that important. For some, apparently it is.

    But we got to the moon without understanding it. We designed cars without understanding it and we built and even identified QM with an assumption of determinism. There would not even be any QM without that assumption.charleton

    The path to the Moon landing was filled with all kinds of failures including deaths. These failures are a testament to the unpredictability of things. Again, the hype should be contained.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Here is an article that may interest you.

    https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/dna-020415

    "Traits passed between generations are not decided only by DNA, but can be brought about by other materials in cells.

    Edinburgh scientists studied proteins found in cells, known as histones, which are not part of the genetic code, but act as spools around which DNA is wound.

    Histones are known to control whether or not genes are switched on.

    Researchers found that naturally occurring changes to these proteins, which affect how they control genes, can be sustained from one generation to the next and so influence which characteristics are passed on.

    Research avenues
    The finding demonstrates for the first time that DNA is not solely responsible for how characteristics are inherited.

    It paves the way for research into how and when this method of inheritance occurs in nature, and if it is linked to particular traits or health conditions.

    It may also inform research into whether changes to the histone proteins that are caused by environmental conditions - such as stress or diet - can influence the function of genes passed on to offspring."

    One can always hold out for some miracle discovery that will explain all of life, but it will never come because all that we discover is a manifestation of Mind and Mind is always changing. It's like the donkey chasing the carrot.

    It is if no mind to my life whether people believe there lives are fated, though it bothers me when they are told by science that all is fated. That is when science turns into religion.
  • SonJnana
    243
    I've already in previous comments talked about how genes are regulated and other parts of the cell will affect genes. No one who has taken an upper biology class thinks today thinks that it's only the sequences themselves that matter. The presence of proteins, other enzymes, alternative splicing effects, etc. all affect how the genetic code is expressed. And it is pretty well established that environmental conditions do affect genetics.

    Science itself is not a religion. Some scientist have a hard time parting with a theory they've been working on for 30 years of their life. Does that really surprise you? We are human and some scientists have trouble letting go of what has been their whole life. It's a coping mechanism. However the nature of science is always changing to accommodate new information. And as long as we are honest, science is good.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Researchers found that naturally occurring changesRich

    This is the key phase. Ones eyes and ears should always perk up when "natural" is used. Just think Mind.
  • SonJnana
    243
    This is the key phase. Ones eyes and ears should always perk up when "natural" is used. Just think Mind.Rich

    All it is saying is that naturally occurring changes can be passed on through generations. Natural changes can happen for many reasons depending on the conditions. And the researchers tried to mimic the changes that would naturally occur to see if they could get results. Meaning they simulated the conditions of the cell. There's nothing special about this lol
  • SonJnana
    243
    All they were doing in that experiment was change the histone in a way that is similar to how the histone could change without their interference (depending on the conditions), and see if that change would persist in the histones of the next generation. They found that it does. That's all that is happening there
  • Rich
    3.2k
    naturallySonJnana

    That's the important word. That's the substitution word for the action of the evolving Mind.

    Natural Laws
    Natural Selection
    Natural Occurring changes

    All are the creative, enjoining Mind. The Eastern Philosophies all understand this.
  • SonJnana
    243
    That's the important word. That's the substitution word for the action of the evolving Mind.

    Natural Laws
    Natural Selection
    Natural Occurring changes

    All are the Mind.
    Rich

    The way they are using naturally there is the same way they'd say if you drop an apple, it naturally falls. Physics is the way it is and we don't know why it all turned out the way it did. But there's no necessary reason to rename it the Mind, whatever that even means. Didn't we already try to have a discussion where I was refuting your claim that determinism is impossible? And rather than addressing it you said "well you can't prove determinism" even though I was never even asserting for determinism. You want to have the same discussion again? lol
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The way they are using naturally there is the same way they'd say if you drop an appleSonJnana

    I don't believe so. The way I'm reading it is as a "placeholder". That is, we all know we have minds but we aren't going to say it. Too much is at stake.

    The reason to admit to the Mind is because it is what we experience, defines us, and is creating, learning, and evolving throughout our duration in life. It is codified into law, it is so obviously there. It really is only biological sciences that refuses to say the unmentionable word. So instead new phrases are created such as Thermodynamic Imperative, or Natural.

    As I said before, there is zero support for Determinism from any source. Is it possible? Of course. The Move is very creative and continues to create new concepts. But it is simply a story, a belief and it is up to each individual to choose to believe it or not. Scientists are free to express whatever idea they wish. They are humans. But one must question their Central Dogmas when they declare a belief is a scientific fact.
  • SonJnana
    243
    I don't believe so. The way I'm reading it is as a "placeholder". That is, we all know we have minds but we aren't going to say it. Too much is at stake.Rich

    You are misinterpreting what they meant then. What they mean by naturally is that how it could change (depending on conditions of the cell) without them manipulating the histone for experimental reasons.

    The phenomena we refer to when we say the natural laws of physics are there. It is demonstrable, testable, noncontradictory. That is what science does, to create models to understand our universe. If you reject this, then you are a hypocrite for using all the technology you use that was created using the principles of physics. Our understanding of this is what we refer to as the law of physics. And you also believe in the practicality of this phenomena. In fact if you didn't, you wouldn't have any problem jumping off of a cliff. But you know better.

    The claim of determinism seems to me more like a claim that has to do with metaphysics and is something that can't be demonstrated. I don't really see the purpose of claiming it's true or not when it clearly can't be demonstrated.

    What we do have is a scientific model of how the universe works. We don't know why, but we know it does. And it's important that we understand it. We know that if you drop an apple, it falls. We know that if you react certain chemicals together, they react the way we predict. And there's no reason make metaphysical claims about the Mind whatever you even mean by it that are somehow beyond the material brain and cause and effects.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    naturally is that how it could changeSonJnana

    natural laws of physicsSonJnana

    There is is again: Natural.

    I am not misunderstanding. I understand why the placeholders are being used. The religious placeholder is God. The Eastern Philosophical placeholder is Mind. It is that which is effecting change.
  • SonJnana
    243
    nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

    That is all we mean by natural. We are making no metaphysical claims.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The metaphysical element is the denial of Mind.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.