Mathematician/Bioethicist challenges concept of whether DNA is naturalistic

[Hans Blaster]

Which deck of the Enterprise is that on?

none. the Enterprise is part of a socialist, non-monetary utopia.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Darned argumentative Ferengis!

Ferengis? I'm actually Bajoran.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I didn't accuse Lennox of being original. In fact, the clearest impression one gets when aware of this whole genre is how unoriginal his statements really are.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. That was rather my point: Lennox isn't even original.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing. That was rather my point: Lennox isn't even original.

It's always good for us to know that we're just cellular clumps of organic matter that think they're "something" other than just clumps of organic matter. There's so much to look forward to that way.

And it gives others so much reason to take us seriously on any given point.

 

[SelfSim]

Ferengis? I'm actually Bajoran.

I think I might have some Tellarite DNA in me .. (?)
(Just puttin' that out there ..)

 

[SelfSim]

But more seriously, this extremely common notion that 'the information encoded in DNA', somehow, miraculuously, exists independently from human minds who 'have the knowledge to decode it', (along with all our other information we continually decode), is simply not evidenced. He's right about only one thing: there is a mind behind it .. its ours!

The notion that the mind there, is independent from ours, is clearly yet another belief .. and that is the evidence for this Lennox dude, being yet just another believer .. whether he recognises that or not.

 

[Joseph G]

Both the video and thread are mistitled. Lennox is a mathematician, not a scientist and sadly his claim is just innumeracy.

[edit: got the name of the fool wrong]

Thanks for the heads-up. I changed the title accordingly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's always good for us to know that we're just cellular clumps of organic matter that think they're "something" other than just clumps of organic matter. There's so much to look forward to that way.

And it gives others so much reason to take us seriously on any given point.

Some of us are Horta.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But more seriously, this extremely common notion that 'the information encoded in DNA', somehow, miraculuously, exists independently from human minds who 'have the knowledge to decode it', (along with all our other information we continually decode), is simply not evidenced. He's right about only one thing: there is a mind behind it .. its ours!

The notion that the mind there, is independent from ours, is clearly yet another belief .. and that is the evidence for this Lennox dude, being yet just another believer .. whether he recognises that or not.

Yep, I agree. Fortunately, the Christian faith doesn't depend upon or ride upon making a distinction within the mind/body problem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some of us are Horta.

Oh, my favorite. ... I guess this means I need to grab some thermal concrete.... Maybe they have some in the church warehouse.

 

[SelfSim]

Yep, I agree. Fortunately, the Christian faith doesn't depend upon or ride upon making a distinction within the mind/body problem.

Yep .. its all just one big belief, all right!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep .. its all just one big belief, all right!

I think I'll stick with the 'truth is coherence' posture of Roger G. Newton.

 

[SelfSim]

And it gives others so much reason to take us seriously on any given point.

And eventually, even the Horta had to be taken very seriously ..

 

[SelfSim]

I think I'll stick with the 'truth is coherence' posture of Roger G. Newton.

So you're prepared to completely ignore incoherence and dechoerence.. and that is your reason?

 

[Joseph G]

That's a common thing I've seen: people like Joseph will use anyone BUT a scientist to try and prove whatever point they think they have.

So I guess whoever isn't a scientist here should drop out of this thread? Hey, even a child can point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes... *smile*

The overarching question remains. Do cells and firing synapses alone create thought? If so, why did it take our parents/others to teach us how to communicate - even to ourselves? Why do we need others to grow in knowledge if our own brains can handle the load? And if the mind and thought are merely products of a physical process, why don't our brains grow larger as our knowledge increases?

And Who taught the original teacher? Our ancestor the amoeba that crawled out of the primordial goo, Who taught him how to survive and procreate minus language?

As I've said many times - the challenge before us is whether to remain in the delusion that all perception of reality emanates from us to us - including contemplating potentials that we cannot yet see - therefore proclaiming ourselves to be our own gods - or to recognize that the obvious design that predates our understanding (like the complexity and brilliance of DNA which Lennox appeals to) leads us to conclude there is a God greater than us. And whether He is worth knowing and discovering just what He requires from us.

God bless!

biblegateway.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So I guess whoever isn't a scientist here should drop out of this thread? Hey, even a child can point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes... *smile*

The overarching question remains. Do cells and firing synapses alone create thought? If so, why did it take our parents/others to teach us how to communicate - even to ourselves? Why do we need others to grow in knowledge if our own brains can handle the load? And if the mind and thought are merely products of a physical process, why don't our brains grow larger as our knowledge increases?

And Who taught the original teacher? Our ancestor the amoeba that crawled out of the primordial goo, Who taught him how to survive and procreate minus language?

As I've said many times - the challenge before us is whether to remain in the delusion that all perception of reality emanates from us to us - including contemplating potentials that we cannot yet see - therefore proclaiming ourselves to be our own gods - or to recognize that the obvious design that predates our understanding (like the complexity and brilliance of DNA which Lennox appeals to) leads us to conclude there is a God greater than us. And whether He is worth knowing and discovering just what He requires from us.

God bless!

biblegateway.com

The overarching question is an interesting one, but it really comes down to brain development. Very few animals immediately know how to do things the moment they are born. Elephants, a very intelligent species, do not immediately know how to use their trunks. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans, all other apes and monkeys really, are very dependent on observing their parents and learning from them on how to do things. That's all tied in to brain development.

The 'first' as you say is coming from a philosophical area, and in your case it's obviously a religious area too. So to try and use science when you clearly just mean God comes across as very... duplicitous is definitely not the word I want to use, but it doesn't come across as a genuine desire to learn from you. It just comes across as you wanting to preach.

And stop putting in the url to biblegateway. Its your favourite website. We get it. You don't do anything worthwhile with it and it's not your domain to plaster around as if you own it.

 

[Joseph G]

The overarching question is an interesting one, but it really comes down to brain development. Very few animals immediately know how to do things the moment they are born. Elephants, a very intelligent species, do not immediately know how to use their trunks. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans, all other apes and monkeys really, are very dependent on observing their parents and learning from them on how to do things. That's all tied in to brain development.

The 'first' as you say is coming from a philosophical area, and in your case it's obviously a religious area too. So to try and use science when you clearly just mean God comes across as very... duplicitous is definitely not the word I want to use, but it doesn't come across as a genuine desire to learn from you. It just comes across as you wanting to preach.

And stop putting in the url to biblegateway. Its your favourite website. We get it. You don't do anything worthwhile with it and it's not your domain to plaster around as if you own it.

You're still ignoring the question of the origin of knowledge. I know it grates you, but there is no escaping the reality that knowledge - like all creation - originates with a Superior Force which we cannot see/touch that is so obviously intelligent that we are like strutting ants in comparison.

Science and God are irrevocably intertwined with or without your approval.

And just for you, my amiable friend...

Ta da!

biblegateway.com

To know God is to love Him!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're still ignoring the question of the origin of knowledge. I know it grates you, but there is no escaping the reality that knowledge - like all creation - originates with a Superior Force which we cannot see/touch that is so obviously intelligent that we are like strutting ants in comparison.

Science and God are irrevocably intertwined with or without your approval.

Hence why I said it's a philosophical and religious question, not a scientific one. There is no way of knowing when intelligence, no matter how obliquely we call it began, nor can intelligence be graded. The ability for a creature to set up an ambush is an intelligent act, which many animals are and would have certainly been capable of doing, though I doubt that you'd call that intelligence.

I have never once said that science and God aren't intertwined, and it certainly does not need my approval so I have no idea how on Earth you got that idea into your head. But since science doesn't try and answer the question, we are clearly left with other ways. And there is no real problem with saying that God created intelligence in humans, through whatever means He did so. But you're SOL if you try and use that as anything scientific.

 

[Joseph G]

But since science doesn't try and answer the question, we are clearly left with other ways.

Au contraire. That is precisely what the secular humanist faction of science sell - something from nothing without any form of intelligence initiating the process. They cut God out of the equation and go to great lengths to control the narrative such as to preclude God being introduced back in.

Re-read your latest reply, Warden, and make up your mind. God - in or out - where do you really stand?

 

[River Jordan]

That is precisely what the secular humanist faction of science sell - something from nothing without any form of intelligence initiating the process.

That's weird. In all the places of science I've worked in, with, and adjacent to, I've never seen anything like a "secular humanist faction". Is that a specific branch on an org chart at a science office that you know about?

They cut God out of the equation and go to great lengths to control the narrative such as to preclude God being introduced back in.

I wasn't aware God could be incorporated into an equation. What value would you assign God and can you give an example of a scientific equation with a God value in it?