Do biomolecules have a collective form of "consciousness"? Ross Tessien answers!
patanie at my-dejanews.com
patanie at my-dejanews.com
Wed Dec 23 08:05:21 EST 1998
In article <367b0d51.0 at pink.one.net.au>,
<for.spam.reasons.peel.away.until.only.fellin.remains at one.net.au> wrote:
> >From: Ross Tessien <Tessien at oro.net>
> >The thing that is amazing to me, is that biologists think in terms of auto
> >assembly or little molecular machines to assemble the components of DNA.
> >But they fail to take one step further back to realize that there must be a
> >mechanism for accomplishing that feat in spacetime itself. Spacetime, must
> >have the genetic information in it. Otherwise, you could not call atoms
> >into the correct locations and end up with, Biology.
Ilya Prigogine has studied quite a bit auto-organisation. I would say that
Ilya is at the intersection between physicists and biologists.
Obviously,there is a great divide between biologists and physicists. It seems
to me that this divide is due to over-mathematisation of "reality" by
physicists. When you work all day with maths,it is easy to dissociate the
reality of what you are trying to understand from the maths you are using in
order to describe the phenomena under your scrutiny.
Let us take one example:the "etherists" vs the "non-etherists" physicists.
Physics not relying on a concept of "ether" becomes,quickly,full of
hyper-mathematisations whick looks very much alike the epicycles of pre
As soon as new unknown phenomena are discovered,conventional quantum
physicists add new "mathematical epicycles" to "explain" those phenomena.
With the maths of quantum physics it is very easy to imagine anything magic
and them transform this magic into quantified reality! Quantum mechanics is
full of mysteries but these mysteries are they real mysteries or only
If we see things from the side of the "etherists",a lot of mysteries simply
This might mean that the "etherists" are,perhaps,on a truer path than the
I do not know,as I am not a physicist.
But,coming back to biology,I often say that Spacetime is NOT a Memory.
However,what you write seems to show that you believe that,in some
ways,Spacetime can behave like a Memory.
Could you detail this?
As for myself,I see no way how Spacetime could behave like a Memory!
Postulating the existence of such a thing would be a nice thing for those
people who believe in the persistence of "soul" "after" death,as all
religions based on the existence of a "soul" "after" death need,basically,a
Spacetime having the qualities of a Memory and,even,of a biological Memory!
> Dear Ross,
> I believe this "conceptual simplification" is in most cases a very sensible
> approach, and one that most biologists would readily and appropriately
> defend by a statement that could read something like:
Most biologists are very down to earth.,as compared to phycists.
This is due,it seems to me,that Biology does not require a lot of
mathematisation and,worse,hyper-mathematisation which makes you lose sight of
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
More information about the Neur-sci