Do biomolecules have a collective form of "consciousness"? Ross Tessien answers!

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Wed Dec 23 23:47:02 EST 1998


Claude, there are strong similarities in your post, quoted below, and
discussions that I've posted in the past.

We should sort this out, and not allow rumors to gain any life. K. P.
Collins

patanie at my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <367b0d51.0 at pink.one.net.au>,
>   "\"Sir Knowitall\""
> <for.spam.reasons.peel.away.until.only.fellin.remains at one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > >From: Ross Tessien <Tessien at oro.net>
> > snip
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> 
> Dear Ross,
> 
> 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
> coperinian times.
> 
> 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
> constructed pseudo-mysteries?
> 
> If we see things from the side of the "etherists",a lot of mysteries simply
> vanish.
> 
> This might mean that the "etherists" are,perhaps,on a truer path than the
> "non-etherists"?
> 
> 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!
> 
> > snip
> >
> > 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
> the ground!!!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Claude
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list