Re: Source of Consciousness
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:44 am
But still, what you propose is wrong in two completely different
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding.
First,
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100 trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of these
is essentially the same.
So 100 trillion libraries is no different from one library if you
choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for what DNA constitutes.
/ Richard Norman /
the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.
/ Richard Norman /
Maybe ‘the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.’
But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
Socratus
#
Second,
I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
development of a human child in nine months from a single
fertilized egg is impossible.
Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
somebody/something must be managing it.
/ Richard Norman /
It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn’t work
in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
Socratus
Actually there is something that does manage it:
the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
/ Richard Norman /
Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
Socratus
==.
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding.
First,
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100 trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of these
is essentially the same.
So 100 trillion libraries is no different from one library if you
choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for what DNA constitutes.
/ Richard Norman /
the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.
/ Richard Norman /
Maybe ‘the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.’
But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
Socratus
#
Second,
I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
development of a human child in nine months from a single
fertilized egg is impossible.
Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
somebody/something must be managing it.
/ Richard Norman /
It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn’t work
in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
Socratus
Actually there is something that does manage it:
the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
/ Richard Norman /
Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
Socratus
==.