Still working my way backward through Matt Chait's excellent blog Beyond Evolution, I got to his post on "Intelligence." Here he gives voice to a question that has bothered me for years. He says it better than I can, so here is an except:
Let's look at the manufacture of enzymes, which takes place millions of times in the one hundred trillion cells of your body every day. Over three billion genes are folded over and over again inside the nucleus of each cell. The nucleus is surrounded by a membrane which protects it from anything harmful that might come floating through the cell's cytoplasm. When a cell needs a certain enzyme produced, another enzyme moves to that exact location in the nuclear membrane that separates the needed piece of genetic code from the cytoplasm and this enzyme opens a hole in the membrane. Then, more enzymes separate the strand of DNA that contains the code from its partnered strand so that the needed code is pressed up against the opening in the membrane. Then another molecule, RNA, attaches to the exposed code and 'copies' it. More enzymes close the hole in the membrane and more enzymes help the DNA strand reattach to it's partner strand. Then the RNA with the copied code travels through the cytoplasm to a ribosome molecule which 'reads' the code and manufactures the needed protein. This process goes on millions of times every day within your body. Oh, yes, and not to worry about mistakes made with all this reading and transcribing. There are other enzymes that 'proofread' and correct mistakes in all these processes. Currently some of these processes are considered 'understood' and some are considered 'not yet understood'. By that is meant that many of the enzymes involved in the process have been identified and named and other enzymes have not yet been identified and named.
Let's suppose that everything were 'completely understood' in those terms. Let's suppose that we could specify every enzyme and every molecule that was used in all of these processes. Would we, then, completely understand how enzymes and proteins were manufactured? How does the cell know what enzyme it needs? I know when I need something to eat. I know when I need some sleep, but I am recognized as a modestly intelligent being. How does the cell know precisely what enzyme it needs out of thousands of possibilities if it has no intelligence? I could probably go to the Library of Congress and find a particular article I needed with the help of a librarian and a computer, because, once again, I am a human being with some intelligence and sophistication. Yet, how does that microscopic droplet of enzyme know exactly where to locate the needed genetic information in the nucleosome, which, by the way, contains more information than the Library of Congress?
This is the big question for me, yet I have not seen it addressed or even acknowledged in biology books and articles that I've read. It's one thing to say that X enzyme does such-and-such, and Y enzyme does this-or-that, but how can these enzymes "know" what to do and when to do it? What signal is sent to activate the right enzyme at the right time, and who or what is sending the signal? How is this whole elaborate process coordinated? Who's in charge?
Other than Matt Chait and, from a somewhat different perspective, Rupert Sheldrake, I have not found anyone who writes about this issue, yet it seems (to me) that it is the biggest issue of all.
At the end of the post Chait poses this devastating rebuttal to materialist reductionists:
How did Albert Einstein come up with the theory of relativity? He made one vertical line with three horizontal lines attached to it and that gave him the E. Then, he made two horizontal lines, one underneath the other, and that gave him the =. He followed this with two vertical lines attached two two slanted lines which yielded the M, one curved line which gave him the C and, for his coup de grace, he took a curved line and attached a horizontal line to the bottom of it, and he was done; E=MC2. See, now we completely understand the theory of relativity!
In his book Quantum Healing, Deepak Chopra comments on the "intelligence" of molecules of biological systems. In his view, the intelligence of the body directs the coordinated action of all its parts for a correct fuctioning.
The moleculas, enzymes, etc. of the body "knows" WHAT function to do, but most importantly, WHEN to do it.
In Chopra's views, to know the intelligence of the body is very important to understand the phenonmenon of spontaneous healings in medicine, and the origin of psychosomatic diseases.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 01, 2008 at 07:38 PM
I've often wondered how it is that after a sperm and an egg unite together to form a new living creature, and they are just a little mass of undifferentiated cells how it is that one group of cells turns on and becomes liver cells, and another group of cells becomes brain cells, and another eyes, and so forth? Since they all carry the exact same DNA code how do they know how to differentiate and at the proper time? Very strange?
Posted by: Art | August 01, 2008 at 07:53 PM
“Since they all carry the exact same DNA code how do they know how to differentiate and at the proper time? Very strange?”
Very strange indeed. Random chance maybe? Future generations will look at our understanding of reality and smile at our unawareness as we looked at past generations that thought the world was flat and we on planet earth were the center of the universe and anything not seen by the naked eye did not exist.
From the time the first paper on germ theory was written to the common practice of surgeons washing their hands before a surgery was about 100 years. What is it about we humans that we continue to think we do not make the same mistakes in interpreting reality as our ancestors?
There is a song I have heard sung in churches called “Our God is an Awesome God”. This may be a song the Christians have chosen to sing that is truly in line with reality.
Posted by: william | August 01, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Another scientist who has written on molecular behavior and how it may be influenced by mental and emotional states is http://www.candacepert.com/>Candace Pert, who was featured in the What the Bleep films.
The level of complexity that Chait outlines is staggering, and it is surprising that there aren't more asking MP's questions: ". . . how can these enzymes "know" what to do and when to do it? What signal is sent to activate the right enzyme at the right time, and who or what is sending the signal? How is this whole elaborate process coordinated? Who's in charge?"
The bulk of the scientific community seems to shrug their collective shoulders and say, "It just happens."
Pert supports the idea of God as an http://www.candacepert.com/blog/blog.htm>underlying field, and blames the shoulder shrugging on too many boys in science who cast spirituality aside when they ditched religion:
"The heart of science is feminine. Many who can’t embrace a partnership with God are either looking through a dominantly male perspective, wanting objectivity, rationality and separation to rule the day or have rejected religion because of its association with family-induced emotional scarring (all potentially reversible!) in childhood and teen years. God is not rational, something to be proven beyond a doubt. God is closer to a feeling -- we sense a field that is mysterious, theoretical and undetectable by the scientific method I still passionately embrace."
Posted by: Michael H | August 01, 2008 at 09:53 PM
IN CONTRAST TO MICHAEL H's PHILOSOPHICAL POST ABOUT GOD NOT BEING RATIONAL, SWEDENBORG WHO SPENT 27 YEARS TRAVERSING THE LIFE AFTER THIS, WRITES THIS:
Swedenborg explained that these memories of what is now called "past lives' are the memories of those who have gone before us. Very often, we sense these past memories and believe them to be our own. Swedenborg's explanation does not discount the experience - this life was lived - but not by the person claiming more than one life. We have one life - eternal life - and we are ourselves throughout eternity.
HERE:
Swedenborg also wrote that God, being Divine Wisdom, in addition to Divine Love, is always rational. In other words, God always makes sense. If something doesn't make sense, it is not from God.
William, you might want to see my post on the previous thread about "birthmarks" , etc.
Posted by: | August 02, 2008 at 12:09 AM
There are also all sorts of signs of deep intelligence at work in higher orders of organization. Chait mentions migratory birds in his introduction the the linked post, but plant life is remarkable as well. The PBS program Nature had a recent feature, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/plants/planet.html>The Seedy Side of Plants, which explored the incredible diversity that's involved in plant propagation. It's an awe-inspiring hour, but PBS, of course, toes the reductionist line:
It seems that this topic is 'no longer a secret' in the same sense that Chait's discussion of enzyme production isn't. The PBS editors somehow allowed an errant sentence into their introductory copy, though:
At first glance, some seeds' designs make plants seem downright intelligent.
Well, yes, I guess it might make it seem that way. Good thing we know better.
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 12:14 AM
“God is closer to a feeling -- we sense a field that is mysterious, theoretical and undetectable by the scientific method I still passionately embrace."
Very well put.
I like the way the intelligence that came through George Wright in the book the open door talks of God as the cosmic consciousness. This intelligence states that to try and define infinite vitality is to limit it, so in essence God cannot be defined. Infinite Isness is but we are. Well kind of.
So many things have happened to me this past month that defy explanation other then we exist as soul clusters or families on this journey to discover our true identity. It is too personal and complicated to explain but this past month’s experiences validates in so many ways the teachings of many spirits the idea that we exist as soul families or bands in the physical and astral worlds.
It is one thing to read about these teachings of the spirits but when we experience them it boggles the rational mind. Sooner or later one must begin to admit to the logical mind that coincidence alone cannot fully explain these phenomena.
Posted by: william | August 02, 2008 at 12:29 AM
First off: no reason to shout, Ghost Poster. Secondly, the quote was Candace Pert's. Third, there is no contradiction between Pert's quote and Swedenborg's. Pert's statement was:
"God is not rational, something to be proven beyond a doubt."
She's simply saying it can't be proven objectively, not that it's irrational. The complex organization that's discussed in this post is an example of how precisely rational it is, as is the continuing complexity and organization that extends to galaxy clusters and beyond on the macro scale, and the behavior of elemental particles on the micro scale.
Swedenborg is a fascinating mystic, but like all mystics, the truth is in what he's pointing to, not in what he says. As an example, I agree with this quote, though I'd add a qualifier:
We have one life - eternal life - and we are ourselves throughout eternity.
I'd completely agree, though I'd suggest our interpretation of 'ourselves' will change dramatically over time.
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 12:41 AM
“Swedenborg explained that these memories of what is now called "past lives' are the memories of those who have gone before us. Very often, we sense these past memories and believe them to be our own.”
If I have learned nothing else in my 17 years of research into the mysteries of life I have learned not to put all of my eggs in one basket. I have researched as many areas as possible trying to find cross validation.
Swedenborg was considered a Christian mystic and that alone can account for his disbelief in reincarnation. Even enlightened Hindus often carry over beliefs they were taught about Hinduism as a young child. My take on Swedenborg is that he was very much influenced by Christian teachings.
As like attracts like in this world and the astral world Swedenborg may have visited etheric dimensions with Beings that did not believe in reincarnation. Not believing in reincarnation does not mean it does not exist.
This is one instance that I hope you are right and I am wrong, as reincarnation is not a pleasant thought for me at least. But my research suggests otherwise. Watching my granddaughter play highly suggests reincarnation as she has knowledge of this world that no one has taught her.
What is up with people not wanting to sign a name to their comments?
Posted by: william | August 02, 2008 at 02:13 AM
Michael H's post about plants reminds me of Findhorn. Amazing things happened, but the miracle passed. I think this business of "very interesting but puzzling and theoretically impossible, so put it to one side" will be the case until some genius comes along to give some theoretical basis to what Matt Chait discusses - we need to be able to understand how it works. It may be that the theoretical basis will have to be a new technique to access our own intuitive abilities. Current techniques are too hit and miss.
I think that if someone with exceptional psi abilities came along who could demonstrate powers at will (even to the satisfaction of Randi types), then there would be a new faith in these abilities, and people would look to cultivate them. At that point, many fresh insights would lead to a paradigm shift away from materialism.
Posted by: Teri | August 02, 2008 at 03:59 AM
I agree with Zetetic Chick and Matt Chait that there is intelligence in the body. And I think that this intelligence is clearly separate from "us". After all, we come in to inhabit a body at birth, but don't wholly control the process according to Michael Newton. During our lives, we often work against the body, but it carries on in spite of us, doing its best. Then of course we die and leave the body behind. There can be little doubt that biological processes are organised on a different level from soul processes. I kind of hope that cells have a little soul of their own that returns to the biological 'God field' when they die!
Posted by: Teri | August 02, 2008 at 04:13 AM
Appeal to Michael P or Michael H:
Could either of you gentlemen bring Matt Chait's blog to the attention of The Daily Grail? I know both of you have links to that site, and Matt would surely be an excellent addition to their repertoire (especially when he posts something new)..?
Posted by: Ben | August 02, 2008 at 04:35 AM
Michael H. I wasn't intending to 'shout', the reason I capitalized some of my comments was to try to 'separate' some things that way.
William (and I don't mean to sound rude to you in this post, forgive me if I do), you are contradicting yourself...you SPECULATE about Swedenborg visiting realms where they do not "believe" in reincarnation does not mean it is not "real"...this is a total contradiction...then it could just as easily be said that to "visit" or "hear" from those who think it is real, does not mean that it exists either. Are you implying that it only exists regarding those who "believe" it? Or are the ones who don't believe it simply stupider than the ones who do?
You are hoping that "you are wrong about this but your research indicates otherwise"...or could it be that your research is biased and done in circles that are biased as well? You sometimes come across as being eager to discredit others and other "research" that contradicts yours...it is because of this that your previous statement which I noted suprises me to say the least. Perhaps you need to expand your research to include things you don't "believe" and not instantly try to discredit it. After all you invalidate Swedenborg and many others for the very same reason you CHOOSE to 'believe' your particular 'research', it is a contradiction and almost circular reasoning, yet you don't seem to be aware of it.
How could you or anyone possibly know the answer to this? How would you explain the supposed return of Madame Blavatsky as well as Hindu "spirits" who suposedly come through channels and mediums (which is documented) both somewhat bewildered and/or renouncing what they were so adamant about while here? Why ignore all this? William you seem to sometimes imply foolishness on the part of Christians as well as what can be taken as their dogmatic, and as you term it, "irrational" belief system, yet you seem to be equally as dogmatic about your own and choose to "believe" it despite all the evidence contradicting it, including all others explaining why reincarnation is illogical both scientifically and otherwise.
What you speak about your granddaughter has been explained by Swedenborg, various past and modern mediums, and so called spirits...as to why she is not remembering any other "life" at all...you do not KNOW this, you simply CHOOSE to believe it is what you say it is despite all other logical explanations from credible sources. It appears that you consider yourself and your sources to be logical and valid, but no others are, so perhaps your 'research' has been biased for some time.
You fall into the category that a medium recently spoke with me about, you simply WANT to "believe" it is what you say it is even though it can easily be explained otherwise.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that your own personally favored "spirits" are some kind of much higher intelligence, you only choose to believe they are. There is a mountain of information that goes completely against your "belief" that you seldom acknowledge...and as far as someone who has recently passed over not being qualified to speak about this subject, why would anyone (not necessarily referring to you here) discredit that he/she would say there is no reincarnation yet be willing to conclude that some "thing" that is unseen, unfelt, unknown, unverified...UN-everything...yet should just be assumed to much 'smarter' than someone who has just passed? Do people simply believe anything that someone tells them? Obviously many do...and even from "things" that are "UN-everything" ! As long as it lines up with their own belief of course, if the information that comes doesn't, then they disregard it as "unevolved" or something. (God I hate the two words 'unevolved' and and 'enlightened'-implying such a judgemental attitude to people)
THE MEDIUM EXPLAINS:
A. Having a dream set in another time and place, which as far as I am concerned is not evidence of anything. We imagine up all sorts of things in our dreams.
B. Having a vision or what seems like a memory of another time and place, ... which can be done with psychic ability picking up on the energy of that and it’s meaning is absolutely nothing. Seeming to know about another's life does not mean it was our own life once upon a time, it would be the life of someone else in spirit that we are picking up on.
C. Others just want to believe in it with nothing to support it because they either like the idea of having many lives, think we need to have every imaginable experience, think we can only possibly learn from our mistakes by copping some sort of pay back or chance to correct a wrong doing in the form of Karma...(HERE WILLIAM)...or as one spirit I have spoken to put it "they can't yet conceive of another way of living so they hold a physical life as the pinnacle of existence".
So whilst some people think that evidence enough, I think it is no evidence at all. What strikes me -in no particular order - as illogical about reincarnation tho is ...
A. The amount of people who all claim to be the same historical figure - Cleopatra, Napoleon, etc, etc, .. they can't all be right! However, if they have had some experience which has led them to believe that, then it only backs up one of the points above, ... that they are dreaming something not true, picking up a thought energy that is just there to be tapped in to by anyone without it being applicable to themselves, or they just want to think they are based on pretty much nothing.
B. Reincarnation is going around in circles when the natural order of things is evolvement and progression.
C. If people come back here, who are mediums speaking to when giving messages? If people have no individuality/ identity, then how can mediums speak to them and identify them? Also how can mediums tell if they have one, two, three, etc, spirits linking to them if their separate uniqueness can not be sensed? It can - we can have more than one spirit link to us at the same time and be able to tell them apart simply by feeling the different energies.
D. The fourth reason, and the one that clinches it being totally illogical to me is unfortunately a concept that is clear in my head but hard to externalize to explain to another as the spiritual side of it really has to be experienced to truly understand that there is no time beyond the divisions we apply based on our physical environment and our planets revolution (but divisions that do not apply when not on a revolving planet in a physical environment - making no time really) , other aspects that all tie in here refer to light and it taking what we perceive as 'time' to travel, our ability to literally see the past as it is unfolding due to technology such as the Hubble telescope based on light as it reaches it, and it also needs an understanding of Einstein’s time space continuum. You can at least read up on that last bit, (which will give you the cornerstone to understand a concept of an eternal now in which past and future are fluid and "RE" incarnation can not fit in to the reality of an eternal now) but people can spend ages trying to arrive at this understanding from a spiritual side of things and it takes a lot of deep contemplation, and possibly even a state of expanded consciousness. I sat and thought about this and nothing else for 4 days straight before it all clicked in to comprehension, so as you can appreciate, I can't exactly spill 4 days of thought processing out that easily. I can only say I don't 'believe' this, for me it is a ‘knowing’ as clear as knowing water is wet. I wish I could find words to make it make sense to someone who has not arrived there themselves, but I think that may be the only way to FULLY get it - for it to click in to knowingness for one's self.
Did you read my post about "birthmarks" and other things in near the end of the previous topic here?
Posted by: Dick | August 02, 2008 at 09:05 AM
By the way MP, I just read your comment in the previous topic about long posts, I will try to refrain from such long posts and I extend my apologies for the inconvenience.
Posted by: Dick | August 02, 2008 at 09:11 AM
"It's one thing to say that X enzyme does such-and-such, and Y enzyme does this-or-that, but how can these enzymes "know" what to do and when to do it? What signal is sent to activate the right enzyme at the right time, and who or what is sending the signal? How is this whole elaborate process coordinated? Who's in charge?"
How does water know when to freeze? How does rain know when to fall? How does a cake know how to rise or a ill-made soufle know how to fall? Biology is a lot of interrelated chemical and physical reactions.
If you don't understand this, get a college degree in biology. If a primitive aborigine thought there was a genie inside an automobile you would simply say he is ignorant of mechanical engineering. To me it looks like you are just ignorant of chemistry and biology.
To get to your question... scientists have identified feedback loops in cellular biochemistry. When some molicule is lacking that has consequences that result in more of that chemical being produced. It is just like, on a larger scale, when there is too much sugar in the blood, insulin is produced which lowers blood sugar. The same kind of thing happens within cells to make sure the right amounts of cellular chemicals are produced.
The enzymes do things not because they know how but because they naturally do them because of their physical structure. An enzyme is simply a catalyst (look that up if you don't know what it means). You add cream of tartar to egg whites to make them form a stiff foam. How does cream of tartar know hwo to do that? Exactly the way an enzyme knows what to do - by an automatic chemical reaction that is a result of its physical structure.
Posted by: drknow | August 02, 2008 at 09:47 AM
1. Michael:
Some of the material found in _The Seth Material_ touches on the topic.
You may recall how you weren't impressed, while I defended it somewhat. Jane Roberts was a published science fiction writer when she began to her psychic explorations, not a biologist; she had no scientific training whatsoever.
The mind of the medium is always a key factor in the translation that is central to channelling while the channelling in that particular book took place quite early in Jane's Seth odyssey.
The material became more sophisticated in later books as Jane become more skilled at channelling Seth even as she gained familiarity with his concepts and he became more adept at expressing them through her.
I do know a physicist who has become quite proficient at channelling but here what would be truly pertinent would be the results of a biologist willing to explore in this direction.
A native English speaker who is fluent in German can create far better English-German or German-English translations than someone who must rely on dictionaries.
2. Dick:
You have very restrictive ideas and beliefs about what's called "reincarnation."
As I've posted, the word refers to particular realities but greatly simplifies those realities.
You emphasize "karma," for example, but that is simply a great deal of baggage that accompanies particular traditions associated with concepts of "reincarnation."
Who is to say that particular baggage has the slightest validity or, if it does, that it is at best greatly distorted, at worst, false and misleading?
You could loosen up a bit and throw away unnecessary and hidebound concepts, focusing on what is core.
What is essence/entity/soul? What is a focus personality? What is a physical aspect of an essence/entity/soul?
Linear time is a part of traditional "serial" reincarnation concepts, but time is only perceived as linear in narrower states of consciousness. What happens to the concept of reincarnation in those realms of consciousness or during those experiences of regions of self in which a much more expansive time is evident?
Regards
Bill I.
Posted by: Bill I. | August 02, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Watching my granddaughter play highly suggests reincarnation as she has knowledge of this world that no one has taught her. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are all connected and our separateness is an illusion. Holographic Universe 101. According to Pimm Van Lommel and many others our brains work like recievers and transmitters of information and consciousness is like a field that permeates the entire universe. Until Children develop a strong sense of self they are able to tap into this collective unconsciousness that seems to permeate the Universe. It's like a radio that is tuned to more than one station at a time. After children turn about 7 or 8 years old their own sense of self begins to dominate and as they develop their own memories they start to forget or lose the ability to tap into those other memories, that is unless adults keep reminding them with "remember when you said that you were Aunt Helen?"
Posted by: Art | August 02, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Could either of you gentlemen bring Matt Chait's blog to the attention of The Daily Grail?
I just submitted a link over there, we'll see if it shows up on their regular news or blog round-up postings - I'll try to post a blog entry on it soon as well.
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I think this business of "very interesting but puzzling and theoretically impossible, so put it to one side" will be the case until some genius comes along to give some theoretical basis to what Matt Chait discusses - we need to be able to understand how it works. It may be that the theoretical basis will have to be a new technique to access our own intuitive abilities.
I think it’s already arrived, Teri, though not on a large scale. As Chait points out, we are both composed of and surrounded with miracles every moment, but mankind as a whole has placed so much emphasis on the analytic use of our minds as the means to arrive at all answers that no one even recognizes that we are using our minds in a highly specific way, or that there’s any other option available to us. Our entire educational system is built on it, and the philosophic roots run deep.
That said, there are two separate efforts underway in the West that are attempting to help others recover access to their intuitive abilities. (I say ‘recover’ because children already have these built in before we educate them out of it.) One effort is in the field of psychology, the other in the field of philosophy. In psychology, the approach known as http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/wviih/index.asp>Health Realization is gaining steady momentum, while in philosophy, http://www.peterkingsley.org/home.cfm>Peter Kingsley’s efforts to restore pre-Socratic philosophy is attempting to make inroads on the academic level.
Both of these efforts are founded on the premise that the constant emphasis on analytic thought has led to the loss of the understanding of the proper use of our minds, and that anyone so inclined can reverse that if they choose. I had an opportunity to attend a Health Realization conference in San Jose, CA last fall, and was very encouraged by the atmosphere of deep calm and exhilaration that permeated the gathering of the several hundred attendees, most of whom are involved in health professions or community application work.
Chait’s blog entry is suggesting that there is a deeply intelligent spiritual foundation to existence, and if someone accepts that premise as a scientific hypothesis, one can infer through observation that a higher order of intelligence is driving all sorts of processes, both organic and inorganic. Consequently, one can claim that empirical observations support the hypothesis that we are already in a spiritual reality. It’s not somewhere else. Absolute proof of this hypothesis can come about only by developing our intuitive nature though, because we ourselves are constructed from and integrated with the spiritual foundation. We have to intuit its existence individually, and we can never demonstrate it to another once we have; but if two people have each realized the foundation themselves, they will inevitably understand one another.
Both Kingsley’s interpretation of western philosophy and the Health Realization approach to psychology recognize a spiritual foundation to existence, and are focused on helping others recover the innate ability we all have to realize it through the proper use of our minds. Judy Sedgman’s “Reflections Essays”, available at the Resources/Publications tab at the WVIIH website, are a good introduction to and exploration of the application of the Health Realization understanding. WVIIH also offers a CE course online: The Natural Remedy for Stress and Burnout. An introduction to Kingsley’s ideas is available at the Writings tab on the linked page, and includes information on his books, as well as selected articles and interviews that can be downloaded or read online. Mohrhoff’s compilation of passages from Kingsley’s books at the ‘articles’ tab is an especially good introduction.
As one would expect, both HR and Kingsley have faced significant resistance from the mainstream in their respective fields. This too goes back to the loss of the proper use of our minds. Kingsley and HR are suggesting that we need to relearn how to think, while their opponents continue to insist we need to focus on what to think, and that we can analyze our way to an understanding of everything. One side offers intuitive development; the other insists analytic reason is supreme. One side says: this is what we've learned, look and see if it's true. The other side says: look at everything we know, therefore we'll soon know everything.
So who’s offering freedom, and who’s advocating dogma?
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 12:55 PM
My take on Swedenborg is that he was very much influenced by Christian teachings.
I couldn't agree more, William. Thirteen years of exploring esoteric mysticism tells me that every mystic is attempting to describe the same thing, and they are all influenced to one degree or another by their core beliefs.
There is one truth, everyone has it, and accepting any given description as absolute is necessarily faulty. Read the mystical literature by all means, but Emerson said it as well as anyone:
"[Truth] is an intuition. It cannot be received at second hand. Truly speaking, it is not instruction, but provocation, that I can receive from another soul."
Whenever any of us comes across something that resonates with us, it is our own wisdom that speaks to us, not someone else's.
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Biology is a lot of interrelated chemical and physical reactions . . . The enzymes do things not because they know how but because they naturally do them because of their physical structure. An enzyme is simply a catalyst (look that up if you don't know what it means). You add cream of tartar to egg whites to make them form a stiff foam. How does cream of tartar know how to do that? Exactly the way an enzyme knows what to do - by an automatic chemical reaction that is a result of its physical structure.
This is a wonderful illustration of someone who has learned what to think very well.
Posted by: Michael H | August 02, 2008 at 01:33 PM
“Until Children develop a strong sense of self they are able to tap into this collective unconsciousness that seems to permeate the Universe.”
That collective unconsciousness is pretty specific for some children. I lean in the direction of what advanced spirits tell us that come through mediums. Especially mediums that do not seek fame or fortune. Again I state one must be careful not to put all the eggs in one basket. Past life and between lives hypnosis appears to support what these “advanced” spirits are saying. Also enlightened Hindus support much of this data concerning soul families.
NDE’s are powerful snapshots of the other side but they are also very much influenced by the beliefs of the experiencer. I prefer at this time to lean in the direction of those that have been in these astral worlds for some time and especially those that appear to be in these higher vibratory dimensions.
Even my own personal experience just this last month has suggested in my mind beyond coincidence that we live in this world and the astral world in soul bands, families, or clusters. It appears to me that the level of souls forming a kind of collective consciousness depends on what dimension a soul enters after crossing over. What is unconsciousness on this vibratory plane of existence may be shared consciousness for mutual benefit on a higher vibratory level of existence or dimension.
We humans are only in the beginning stages of this research into the reality, meaning, and purpose of life but then how could infinite Oneness express itself without our unawareness and seeking. The joy of seeking and discovery may very well be a big part of that expression of love and intelligence.
Posted by: william | August 02, 2008 at 01:35 PM
This may be some support for your research Art. washington post article.
"Turns out, it is a small world.
The "small world theory," embodied in the old saw that there are just "six degrees of separation" between any two strangers on Earth, has been largely corroborated by a massive study of electronic communication.
With records of 30 billion electronic conversations among 180 million people from around the world, researchers have concluded that any two people on average are distanced by just 6.6 degrees of separation, meaning that they could be linked by a string of seven or fewer acquaintances."
Posted by: william | August 02, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Biology is a lot of interrelated chemical and physical reactions.
Yes, but is that all it is?
When some molicule is lacking that has consequences that result in more of that chemical being produced.
First, at the risk of being snarky, I have to say I question the scientific expertise of someone who can't spell "molecule." I know it sounds petty to bring this up, but DrKnow is posing as someone who knows a great deal about chemistry and biology, and is implicitly asking us to assume that his knowledge trumps our ignorance.
Second, no one doubts that the cell's needs determine which proteins are manufactured at any given time. But if you read Chait's post, or even the excerpt I quoted, you'll see that he is asking questions that are not so easily answered.
For instance, how do the enzymes "know" which part of the DNA molecule to unfold? A DNA molecule is fantastically complex, containing a vast amount of information, yet the enzymes somehow "know" exactly which information is encoded in which segment. If this is merely an automatic chemical reaction, then it ought to be possible to explain how the enzymes unfold the correct part of the DNA molecule every time. What chemical reaction accounts for their ability to "know" exactly where to find the relevant coded information?
I don't believe that even people with "college degrees in biology" can answer this question.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 02:13 PM
drdeath: "Biology is a lot of interrelated chemical and physical reactions."
Yes, I agree that the laws of Nature (chemistry and physics) are amazing too. Why not just chaos? Why a preference for a lawful universe?
In biology, as Matt Chait points out, the sheer number of interrelated reactions occurring without a serious hiccup (not serious enough to kill us), for up to a century in the case of humans in spite of all the abuse we do to our bodies just to keep the whole organism going, is breathtaking. I agree wholeheartedly with Matt. What motive could blind matter have for doing it? How could a living creature self-organise with such complexity unless Nature was imbued with Intelligence? How would dead matter even begin to construct enzymes which proofread the copying process? Why would it even bother?
These are purely rhetorical questions. You either intuit intelligence behind it all or you see the laws as “just being there” and are happy to investigate them without a sense of teleology.
Posted by: Teri | August 02, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Thank you Michael P for posting on Matt Chait again.
And thank you, Michael H, for putting Matt Chait forward at TDG.
I've ordered Peter Kingsley's "Reality", because you obviously recommend it! It seems to have supercharged your ability to undermine the materialist mindset.
Posted by: Ben | August 02, 2008 at 03:12 PM
The answer to your question is this: think of a catalyst and what it reacts with as a lock and key. When the shape of the key fits into the lock, the lock can be unlocked. It's the physical shape of the enzyme matching up with the physical shape of the protein that enables the folding/unfolding. There's no more intelligence required than you unlocking your front door every day. Those truly interested in this might want to go to http://folding.stanford.edu/ where you can download and run Folding @ Home software that is involved in researching the folding and unfolding of proteins. You can be part of the answer yourself! :-)
Also, sometimes things do NOT go right, contrary to what some people seem to say above. This results in various diseases and defects.
Posted by: Joseph | August 02, 2008 at 03:21 PM
think of a catalyst and what it reacts with as a lock and key.
I think there is a failure of communication here ... I know what a catalyst is and how it works, but this hardly addresses the questions that Chait raises. Let me quote him again:
I could probably go to the Library of Congress and find a particular article I needed with the help of a librarian and a computer, because, once again, I am a human being with some intelligence and sophistication. Yet, how does that microscopic droplet of enzyme know exactly where to locate the needed genetic information in the nucleosome, which, by the way, contains more information than the Library of Congress?
Anyone who thinks the key-in-lock analogy answers this question is simply not understanding the question. It would be like saying that we know how to find a book in the Library of Congress because our hand is able to grasp a book and pull it off the shelf. The real question is: How did we track down the right book in the first place, out of all the millions of possibilities?
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Here's a little more on the above conundrum. This is an excerpt from Life Itself, by Boyce Rensberger:
The signal proteins must find and bind to the regulatory segments to cause a given gene's message to be "expressed" or, depending on the signal, to prevent expression.... At one time it was assumed that the signal proteins wandered aimlessly within the nucleus until they chanced to bump into their target sequence. Now it is clear that they don't. They grab onto a DNA strand and "walk" along it, "looking" for the sequence - yet another example of the role of autonomous motion in life. Even though the molecule may have to walk a long way to find its gene ..., the process is roughly 100 million times more efficient than simply bouncing around inside the nucleus. (pp. 93-94)
So we can see that there is a great deal more involved than just inserting a key in a lock. Yes, the protein is folded in such a way that it will specifically unlock a certain segment of the DNA molecule. (Incidentally, how and why proteins fold into unique shapes is not understood.) But the "key" doesn't just happen to collide with the "keyhole"; it actively seeks out the keyhole.
What we have, then, is not merely a key, but a key that somehow knows which lock it needs to open, and will hunt for that lock (starting in the right general vicinity) until it finds it.
But of course there's no intelligence involved! It's all just mindless chemical processes ... or is it?
:-)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 04:12 PM
I think this is a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument: "We don't know how proteins do this, so they must be intelligent".
Posted by: Vitor | August 02, 2008 at 06:17 PM
"I think this is a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument: "We don't know how proteins do this, so they must be intelligent"."
I agree. But most people don't affirm that simplistic view. People like Chopra (and I'm not a fan of him) affirm that the functioning of biological organisms point out to some type of intellegent teleology. (He uses intelligence in a metaphysical sense, not at a psychologycal sense)
An analogy: When examining Antony Flew reasons for his change of view about God, he said: "As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe"
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Look that Flew isn't arguing "We don't know the naturalistic explaination of these things yet, so they must be supernatural"
His argument is another: God, as a philosohpical inference from the empirical data, is a better explanaition to these facts that the naturalistic-atheistic ones.
In conclusion, the argument isn't "we don't have an explaination yet, so it's intelligent". But "The evidence suggest and is consistent with the intelligence hypothesis of biological functioning"
Obviously, that hypothesis can be wrong (inductive inferences aren't 100% sure), but it's part of the debate (except to philosophical materialists...)
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 02, 2008 at 06:53 PM
By the way (an sorry Michael P. for the off-topic), Dean Radin will be tonight in the program of Larry King in cnn... stay tuned!
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 02, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Apparently someone has answered your question Michael
His name is Kevin Hines his answer is
Pretty simple; the laws of nature and evolutionary "design". Of course there is also the shape of the active site and the substrate. And the presences of competitive and non-competitive inhibitors can also have an effect. Trust me, it's in a lot of text books. I could go on and on, but I assume this is enough to answer the blogger's question.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | August 02, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Joseph,
I remind you that there are approximately three billion genes in each cell. I pray for your sake that the next time you need an enzyme, which is undoubtedly exactly right now, that you don't have to wait until that key tries itself in three billion locks.
Posted by: matt chait | August 02, 2008 at 08:15 PM
Apparently someone has answered your question Michael
He has neither understood the question nor answered it.
I'm beginning to think that theory-blindness is a more prevalent affliction than I'd assumed ...
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Hi Michael, I'm the guy who "answered" your questions. I was trying to be simple so it would be very easy to understand, but I will answer 2 of your questions in a more complex manner for you right now.
//but how can these enzymes "know" what to do and when to do it?//
This is mainly because Enzymes are made for a specific purpose. For example in order for a cell to catalyze the cycle of sucrose into glucose and fructose, it produces the enzyme “surcrase”.
Of course a cell can only break down something inside of it, so the process by which the cell obtains substrates (the molecules that react with an enzyme) is also a large part of their functions. This is the job of membrane proteins.
For example, one function of membrane proteins is Enzymatic Activity. A protein built into the membrane may be an enzyme with its active site exposed to substances in the adjacent solution. In some cases several enzymes in a membrane are organized as a team that carries out sequential steps of a metabolic pathway.
So in short, enzyme don't "know" what to do, it is basic "lock and key" (for the sake of an old term). Certain substrates can only fit in certain enzymes and it is based on the active site of the quaternary structure of the protein.
//What signal is sent to activate the right enzyme at the right time, and who or what is sending the signal?//
I believe he just answered his own question without knowing it, Cell Signaling. Cell signaling is pretty complicated so I will only use one example that involves an enzyme due to the subject at hand.
G-Protein-Linked Receptors are a kind of membrane receptors used during cell signaling. It is very simple and is basically only a 4-step process. GPL Receptors play a major role in our ability to smell and see (they evolved very early). Also GPL Receptors are pretty well understand and 60% of all medicines used today exert their effect by influencing them (Source: Campbell Biology 7th Edition)
Anyways, on to the good stuff. The reaction involves 3 proteins, the GPL Receptor, a G protein with GDP (guanosine diphosphate), and an enzyme. The G protein is in active until the appropriate signal molecule binds to the extracellular side of the receptor. This cause the GPL Receptor to change its shape (like proteins do when they bond with another molecule) and then binds with the G protein (if you are wondering how that works, that is organic chemistry and involves the bonding of molecules and atoms which is normal in chemistry, but seems more amazing because it happens in a manner that makes it seem animated). This causes a GTP to displace the GDP. This activates the G protein.
The active G protein dissociates from the receptor and moves over to the Enzyme. Now I didn't explain the movement right then to inspire some questioning on your half. How does it move over and know where the enzyme is? Well the answer is really rather simple, the G protein diffuses along the membrane to the enzyme (in short, it only has one option). This activates the enzyme which catalyses a cellular response (but I won't go into that for the sake of time). This is short-lived because the G protein is also a GTPase enzyme and soon hydrolyzes (adds water) its bound GTP to GDP.
This is just a complex way to state a very simple idea; chemistry. It is the chemistry of the cells that dictates what goes on.
Posted by: Kevin Hines | August 02, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Something tells me I haven't explained myself well enough, so let me try again with a different analogy. I may have gotten this from Matt Chait's blog, but I don't recall for sure.
Suppose we are trying to explain how you retrieved a file from a file cabinet. We could say this: Your hand opened the cabinet drawer, then lifted out a folder and removed a particular document from it. And this explanation is correct, as far as it goes. Trouble is, it doesn't go far enough. It describes what happened in a mechanical sense, but it does not address the question of why it happened.
A more complete explanation would run along these lines: You realized you needed a certain file. You remembered that the file was in the cabinet. You chose to open a particular drawer. You searched through the folders to find the right one. You examined the folder's contents and recognized the document you needed.
Is it not clear that this explanation, while not contradicting the first one, operates on a deeper level?
When I raise the question of how the various proteins and organelles of a cell know how to do their jobs, I am not saying that no description of these processes is available. I am saying that the description, while fascinating and highly valuable, is not the whole story. It is a superficial account, like the first "explanation" of the file cabinet. It does not go deep enough.
To go deeper, we need to think in non-materialistic terms. We need to think about purpose, intelligence, awareness. Otherwise we will be only describing, not explaining.
Vitor wrote, "I think this is a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument."
I don't necessarily have a problem with God-of-the-gaps arguments. It seems to me that if science is narrowing the gap, then it is reasonable to speculate that science will eventually close the gap. (This is not a certainty, but at least you can make a case for it.) On the other hand, if science is widening the gap, so that the more we know, the more inexplicable the phenomena become in the absence of a spiritual explanation, then I see no problem with gravitating toward a spiritual explanation.
In the last hundred years, science has gone from viewing a single cell as a lump of "protoplasm" to seeing it as a fantastically complex system of micro-machines. When the cell was seen only as a few chemicals mixed together inside a membrane, it was possible to think that science would eventually explain its origin and workings. But given the unbelievable complexity revealed by electron microscopes, we are further than ever from understanding (not merely describing) the cell.
Since the gap in question has widened so dramatically in tandem with our increase in knowledge, I think it's reasonable to assume that the more we learn, the more untenable any purely materialistic theory will become.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 09:39 PM
To be clear, my last comment was not directed at Kevin Hines. I posted my comment at the same time that he posted his. I appreciate his taking the time to present a detailed description of some of the processes involved.
However, I think Kevin's comment inadvertently makes my point. The processes he describes, which are only a minuscule fraction of the activities taking place inside a cell, are fantastically complex. Did all this complexity arise from chance? Is it maintained by happenstance? Or does it exhibit signs of intelligence and purpose, which we would easily recognize in the macroscopic world?
Of course microbiological processes operate in conformity with chemistry, just as the processes inside a computer operate in conformity with physics. But would we say that a computer was the product of chance just because its inner workings do not violate any physical laws?
The mistake, I believe, lies in thinking that because a process can be described in terms of physical or chemical laws, it can be entirely reduced to physical or chemical laws. This is a non sequitur.
At least that's how I see it. But I'm grateful for Kevin's comments, which give me an even greater appreciation of the phenomenal - indeed, miraculous- activities at the heart of a "simple" cell!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 09:41 PM
Oh, with regard to cell signaling, once again Chait says it better than I can.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 02, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Has anyone thought to observe the situation close-up, disguised as a protein?
I'm imagining something akin to an anthropologist journeying deep into a jungle but at a suitable size and time scale.
Of course this would have to begin imaginatively; imagine, too, that focusing your mind in such a way actually creates a conscious connection with processes that are normally deeply below waking consciousness.
This cosmos of proteins would likely be drastically different than the surface world we walk around in, such that converting or translating impressions and perceptions gained from it might have much in common with painting or improvisational musicianship.
Suppose there is some bizarre equivalent to the Internet or the computing cloud in this realm, a kind of pervasive networking possibly involving electrons but definitely not of the I/P variety?
I can see no reason not to get slightly trippy on such a topic.
Bill I.
Posted by: Bill I. | August 02, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Enzymese don't know which part of the dna to bind to. They are bounced around by brownian motion until they stick to something because of electrical attraction when the shape and charges of their atoms match a complimentary shape/charge on the dna molecule. You may know how the two strands of the dna double helix sticks together because the bases form complimentary pairs. The enzymes stick to the dna because they stick to helix in a similar manner.
Components of any chemical reaction don't know where to go or what to bind to. They move around by brownian motion until their positive and negative electrical charges interact with the positive and negative electrical charges of other molecules.
Okay, you don't need a college degree but you do need modern high school courses in chemistry, and biology and a college course in biology, biochemistry.
I think one can seriously question how the complexity of a cell could originate whether by self organization or by intelligent design. But I don't think there is any need to invoke supernatural or paranormal forces to explain how the cells live and reproduce. To say otherwise is just ignorance.
Posted by: drknow | August 03, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Michael Prescott,
I wonder if you have ever considered moving your comments to a full fledged disscussion board or discussion forum like
http://www.vbulletin.com/
I think your blog has collected a very unique community of commenters and a more sophisticated means of communication would encourage discussions to continue after the next post goes up, facilitate quoting of text in replies and tracing replies to previous comments. As administrator you could choose to control creation of new threads if you wanted to keep things limited to your blog.
Please give it some thoutht.
What do other commenters think?
Posted by: drknow | August 03, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I don't want to be an "interpreter" of Michael P., but I suspect that in this debate some have misunderstood Michael P.'s point.
The explanaition of Dr.Know and others is satisfactory from a scientific point of view. It explains HOW (= the chemical and physical mechanisms) the biological organism works.
But Michael P. is arguing about other point: he's asking WHY these phenomena occurs. If I understand Michael correctly, he's posing a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
The metaphysical-ultimate WHY can't be reduced to the scientific HOW, because science works with (material) mechanisms, not with ultimate justifications and explanations.
Science can explain a phenomena with the physical law P, but if you question it and ask "why that law is so?", "why exists that law and not other", etc. you're asking ultimate-philosophical questions, not scientific questions. You're pushing science behind its own limits (as some scientific fundamentalists don't see limits in science, they consider it be an absolute and all-embracing ideology, not limited to scientific questions only. But it's an ideological misconception and crude distortion of science).
I think that point is made clear in the following Michael P.'s comment: "It describes what happened in a mechanical sense, but it does not address the question of why it happened"
The "why it happened" question is hardly a scientific question; it's an ultimate, a philosophical question, that can't be resolved "only" in scientific-descriptive terms.
When Chopra and other argue for a "intelligence", he's arguing for a metaphysical ultimate explanation of the phenomena, for the ultimate WHY, for the ultimate reason, not for a descriptive-scientific "how-type" explanaition (which are well known by scientists).
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 03, 2008 at 12:48 AM
“To say otherwise is just ignorance.”
One has to wonder how many times such statements have been made by people with good intentions. What comes to mind are the flat earth people, earth the center of universe folks, nothing can fly heavier than air scientists, the mechanical universe experts, etc.
I still remember my grandmother reminiscing of her childhood days when she said she heard people say that if man were meant to fly they would have been born with wings.
Posted by: william | August 03, 2008 at 01:50 AM
“The "why it happened" question is hardly a scientific question; it's an ultimate, a philosophical question,”
From asking HOW to asking WHY to asking MEANING. From my point of view this simple statement defines the journey of the soul. Humankind is slowly moving from the how questions to the why questions. One can only speculate when humans are able to ask the meaning question on a mass scale.
Posted by: william | August 03, 2008 at 02:17 AM
Enzymese don't know which part of the dna to bind to. They are bounced around by brownian motion until they stick to something because of electrical attraction when the shape and charges of their atoms match a complimentary shape/charge on the dna molecule.
I believe this is incorrect. See again my quote from Boyce Rensberger, which I reproduced in one of my comments above:
"At one time it was assumed that the signal proteins [i.e., enzymes] wandered aimlessly within the nucleus until they chanced to bump into their target sequence. Now it is clear that they don't. They grab onto a DNA strand and 'walk' along it, 'looking' for the sequence - yet another example of the role of autonomous motion in life. Even though the molecule may have to walk a long way to find its gene ..., the process is roughly 100 million times more efficient than simply bouncing around inside the nucleus."
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 03, 2008 at 02:30 AM
Bravo, Michael P. It's astonishing how scientists assume that science is being attacked when you pose a metaphysical question, or intuit a spiritual basis to existence. Presumably this derives from Intelligent Design or Religious forums which really do attack science. Hey, scientists! We don't hate science! We just don't have any time for Materialism as a philosophy. If you read the book "Irreducible Mind", you will know why.
Posted by: Teri | August 03, 2008 at 03:56 AM
I just got back from work and am about to get some sleep, but something in your comment to me stood out a bit;
//Did all this complexity arise from chance?//
Be careful how you use the word chance in biology, as you will kindly (or firmly) be told that evolution is the exact opposite of random chance. Evolution by natural selection is a completely nonrandom process of random mutations.
Remember that the first cells were very simple and did not have complex reactions like this (bilayers and DNA are really all they had). All living creatures today are modern creatures, some are more complex than others, but all are modern. This means that even the most simple of cell today is a lot more complex than the cells of 3.9 billion years ago. The complex enzyme reactions we can observe are the work of 3.9 billion years of evolution on a species that produces a lot of generations (this makes evolutionary changes occur a lot quicker).
So in short, the means by which cells obtain these enzymes and metabolic pathways is evolution, and how the enzymes and pathways work is chemistry. Take some time to really study how atoms and molecules form and break bonds and how their shape affects their function and you will understand my point.
I will comment on the other two questions of your blog tomorrow night after work.
Posted by: Kevin Hines | August 03, 2008 at 06:55 AM
"At one time it was assumed that the signal proteins [i.e., enzymes] wandered aimlessly within the nucleus until they chanced to bump into their target sequence. Now it is clear that they don't. They grab onto a DNA strand and 'walk' along it, 'looking' for the sequence - yet another example of the role of autonomous motion in life."
Right, they bounce around until they grab onto the dna.
Since you understand how this works why invoke vitalism? Didn't you just prove my point?
Posted by: drknow | August 03, 2008 at 07:52 AM
"The "why it happened" question is hardly a scientific question; it's an ultimate, a philosophical question, that can't be resolved "only" in scientific-descriptive terms.
When Chopra and other argue for a "intelligence", he's arguing for a metaphysical ultimate explanation of the phenomena, for the ultimate WHY, for the ultimate reason, not for a descriptive-scientific "how-type" explanaition (which are well known by scientists)."
Frankly, I really don't understand this "why" question. It either happenes by self organization or because that's how it was created. What else is there?
I also have a problem with how people think intelligence is involved. I can see how someone might think an intelligence might create a cell or mutations and be involved that way. I don't understand how intelligence is concieved to be involved in cellular machinery. In tomorrows thread I asked the same thing: if it's made by an intelligence why not make it self sufficient rather than require intelligence to operate?
If you mean the little bits in the cell are intelligent - that ribosomes want to make proteins? For that to be substantially different from the chemical model of the cell you have to have some kind of forces that are attributable to intelligence. Do you think enzymes are intelligent, they use esp to find their substrates and use pk to make them react?
Posted by: drknow | August 03, 2008 at 10:43 AM