Mechanisms and Organisms

[Fenrir]

The human genome project was going to be a means to understand and the ability to cure much of our illnesses.

Citation required

[CharlieM]

You haven't even asked if I had any alternative ideas before accusing me of incredulity.

If you had any worthy ideas at all, you wouldn't keep them to yourself, would you? Instead, that is, of churning out agitation and fabulism as you have done. What you do in between a bunch of ridiculous interpretations of what you find is cite facts that anyone with access to the internet can easily locate with focused search terms and search engine recommendations. If you had any worthy ideas, we'd be discussing them now.

Is churning out agitation and fabulism necessarily a bad thing? Would you prefer that the status quo was maintained? What do you have against a bit of stimulatory stirring? I, for one, am enjoying this ongoing discussion. I'm not sure why Johnny Blade was banned but I'll miss his inputs. How boring would it be if we were all on the same page?

I must admit that most, if not all of my ideas are far from original (and far from mainstream), but I have shared many of them in the past when prompted to do so.

[CharlieM]

The human genome project was going to be a means to understand and the ability to cure much of our illnesses.

Citation required

I am not a professional scientist who is obliged to justify my writings with peer revues and relevant references. My words above are taken from the point of view of an interested member of the public going by what the media were saying.


As Richard A. Gibbs wrote in the peer reviewed article, "The Human Genome Project changed everything", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7413016/

It was not until closer to the programme launch in 1990 and at milestones along the way that the rhetoric was loudly elevated to claims of revolutionizing biology, biotechnology, drug development and even society. A favourite prediction was the personalization of therapies and the liberation of drugs that otherwise were unusable, through identification of the few individuals with adverse responses. The mysteries of the architecture of common complex diseases were to be revealed and even behavioural traits might be solved. The predictions included the possibility to breed ‘super babies’ based on this new knowledge and, at the same time, perhaps even predict criminality. In hindsight, there was plenty of hype that was shared with the media and the wider community. Critics are correct that the apex of these claims was not reached. The hyperbole that we look back on did not, however, come from the front line. It came from those who championed the programme, mindful of its long-term benefits. Thanks to them, they generated the enthusiasm to fund this transformative work.

No matter which direction it came from, the public were being fed a lot of hype.

[Fenrir]

Ah. So it's bullshit. Apology accepted.

[CharlieM]

Ah. So it's bullshit.

Yes, I'm afraid so. We do get fed a lot of bullshit.

Apology accepted.

That's very gracious of you.

[CharlieM]

I don't see what we gain from having to engage in this mealy-mouthed "the novelty emerges from the whole" way of speaking when we start looking at the specifics. I some times get the sense that you're not even sure of what you're trying to say, you just have this strange but actually ill-considered attraction to "holistic", "dynamic", "living", "fluid" interpretations.

They're buzzwords, really. You just have buzzwords in the end. We must see the whole. We must see the ends. The teleodynamics. The whole, the living, the dynamics, goal-directedness. For universal love and peace on Earth. We must consider the relationship across time and space, it's all it's multiple facets and nuances.

Like back when you wrote:

It has been ingrained in our thinking minds to see the living world as no more than machines produced by evolutionary processes. We need to move on from this repressive, stultified, dead thinking to a more dynamic, living way of studying nature.

"More dynamic", "living way" of studying nature. And if we don't engage in this (whatever the fuck it really is) then we're being repressive, stultified, and showing dead thinking.

It's the Goethean way of studying nature. Looking at an organism in as much detail as possible, in as many situations as possible, without any speculations or additions to what is directly perceived. The more this is done, the more familiar one becomes with the particular organism, the better understanding one has of the organism in the mind's eye. All the separate instances of actual observations can be combined in the mind to produce a dynamic panoramic view of the life of the organism in its essential nature. First exact sensory perceiving followed by a meditative exercise on all that has been perceived.

I suppose it's something that individuals have to experience for themselves. If that isn't your thing, fair enough. I wouldn't want to force you to do anything.

Yawn.

[Cito di Pense]

I suppose it's something that individuals have to experience for themselves.

You're able to look stuff up on the internet, but every. word you write on your own account is bullshit, through and through. Take, for example, what I just quoted from you. To shut me up, present a counter-example. The bullshit pile gets deeper and smellier:

Looking at an organism in as much detail as possible, in as many situations as possible, without any speculations or additions to what is directly perceived. The more this is done, the more familiar one becomes with the particular organism, the better understanding one has of the organism in the mind's eye.

Bullshit.

All the separate instances of actual observations can be combined in the mind to produce a dynamic panoramic view of the life of the organism in its essential nature. First exact sensory perceiving followed by a meditative exercise on all that has been perceived.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. That's why you publish it. You enjoy crapping on rationality, fuck knows why. Folks who do this as much as you do usually got poor marks in school science lessons or are practicing to be public charlatans.

[CharlieM]

I suppose it's something that individuals have to experience for themselves.

...every. word you write on your own account is bullshit, through and through...The bullshit pile gets deeper and smellier:

Bullshit.

...Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Yet you keep reading my posts. Why? Your masochistic tendencies are noted. Or maybe you were a dung beetle in a previous life.

[Cito di Pense]

Ah, OK, Charlie. Personal insults at twenty paces. Don't tempt me.

[Cito di Pense]

I suppose it's something that individuals have to experience for themselves.

...every. word you write on your own account is bullshit, through and through...The bullshit pile gets deeper and smellier:

Bullshit.

...Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Yet you keep reading my posts. Why? Your masochistic tendencies are noted. Or maybe you were a dung beetle in a previous life.

I quote your bullshit back to you. It's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

You're not contesting that the indicated statements you made are pure, unadulterated bullshit. Yet you keep publishing more and more pure, unadulterated bullshit. Why?

Is churning out agitation and fabulism necessarily a bad thing?

So why don't you make an effort to defend what you admit is agitation and fabulism?

You'll look pretty silly trying to justify it in the name of stimulation of discussion. You're not interested in discussion; your narcissistic screed is pure broadcast and no reception, illustrated in every non-response you churn out. You're as much as admitting to what amounts simply to trolling, now.

The only disagreement I have with paper you linked to is that it implies that increases in complexity is totally governed by blind chance. In my opinion the increase in complexity inherent in living processes is a fact which can't be denied.

Considering that life started from absolute simplicity, and pre-biotic organic chemistry before that, and all the chemistry yet before, noticing an increase in complexity is first of all a "captain obvious" moment, a dunce-cap moment for someone purporting to ask probing questions about life and the universe, and second of all, a boilerplate agitation of creotardism that's been tried and failed over and over again for a long time.

Fond flagellar memories of tales being spun in sites like this. The helix is a wonderful winding form existing in the micro molecule, cochlear curves in floral phyllotaxis and in gargantuan galaxies in the depth of space. Seemingly screw has a more mundane meaning with possible roots in porcine procreation.

You wrote this as a crude joke, because you dig crapping on rational discourse.

You spew crap like this over and over again and seem to hope (not in this case!) you're writing perceptive and elegant poetic prose exposing insights. This is stupid shit showing off a crude smattering of vocabulary used inappropriately. You're not a communicator, Charlie, because your writing style is florid, turgid and leaden.

[Cito di Pense]

A plant seed with its cotyledon is functional living whole as are the growing shoots and roots, and the mature plant with roots, leaves and flowers. It is a functioning whole throughout its development. An object such as a bicycle is not formed in the same way. It is built up from external parts that are added and cannot be said to be a whole functioning unit until all the essential parts are put together. The frame prior to the assembly of wheels, pedals etc. is non functional.

Yeah, man, I get it: You're fascinated by living processes, but in an obviously, disgustingly prurient way. Here's a thought experiment for you, though: Suppose this planet is the only one in the entire universe on which living processes take place. Does that mean life is a miracle, god-created? Is life (or this planet) special in some way? Sure, but only to the narcissistic musings of human beings and possibly other sentient species. Maybe the dinosaurs were sentient. They were wiped out, and birds are all that are left of their line. It's plain that your screed is all about life being special in some way. Sure, it's special. To a few messy human minds contemplating it. Does that mean that human minds see beyond the physical and evidentially-supported? No, it manifestly does not. To prove otherwise, bend a fucking spoon.

[CharlieM]

Ah, OK, Charlie. Personal insults at twenty paces. Don't tempt me.

Apologies if you feel I've insulted you. Feel free to respond in kind, I can take it.

I've spent my working life in an environment where there was a lot of banter and exchanges which may have seemed over the top to many outsiders, but it was all done in a friendly spirit. I hope you can take my comments in the same way.

[Fenrir]

People are not reacting to the friendliness of your spirit but its honesty

[Cito di Pense]

Ah, OK, Charlie. Personal insults at twenty paces. Don't tempt me.

Apologies if you feel I've insulted you. Feel free to respond in kind, I can take it.

I've spent my working life in an environment where there was a lot of banter and exchanges which may have seemed over the top to many outsiders, but it was all done in a friendly spirit. I hope you can take my comments in the same way.

I find neither friendliness nor unfriendliness in your words, and know nothing of the "spirit" in which they're given. What I find is a display of abysmal self-absorption. As in the above: another story about yourself which is neither here nor there. It's an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data. I don't care what you say about yourself, but rather, examine your behavior in general. As Fenrir (just above) does, I judge your personal anecdote to be dishonest. It speaks neither to your friendliness or otherwise, but only of your inclination to talk about yourself when your bullshit runs dry. I take your insults at face value, a response to what you experience when others don't genuflect in the direction of your evasion and flighty bullshit

[CharlieM]

Yet you keep reading my posts. Why? Your masochistic tendencies are noted. Or maybe you were a dung beetle in a previous life.

I quote your bullshit back to you. It's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

You're not contesting that the indicated statements you made are pure, unadulterated bullshit. Yet you keep publishing more and more pure, unadulterated bullshit. Why?

I'm not contesting the fact that you believe my words are bullshit. I think you've made that pretty obvious.

Is churning out agitation and fabulism necessarily a bad thing?

So why don't you make an effort to defend what you admit is agitation and fabulism?

You'll look pretty silly trying to justify it in the name of stimulation of discussion. You're not interested in discussion; your narcissistic screed is pure broadcast and no reception, illustrated in every non-response you churn out. You're as much as admitting to what amounts simply to trolling, now.

I am very interested in discussing life in its finer details. But I also like to keep any confrontations friendly. I try not to take to heart what others say against my words. We can agree to differ without things turning nasty.

The only disagreement I have with paper you linked to is that it implies that increases in complexity is totally governed by blind chance. In my opinion the increase in complexity inherent in living processes is a fact which can't be denied.

Considering that life started from absolute simplicity, and pre-biotic organic chemistry before that, and all the chemistry yet before, noticing an increase in complexity is first of all a "captain obvious" moment, a dunce-cap moment for someone purporting to ask probing questions about life and the universe, and second of all, a boilerplate agitation of creotardism that's been tried and failed over and over again for a long time.

Did life start from absolute simplicity? Could it possibly have started from relative simplicity? The relative chemical simplicity at the beginning might have come about by means of the condensation of a higher state which is more field-like than physically molecular. Human senses are more adapted to comprehending physical substance than they are to comprehending fields. This does not mean that field type forces are not all around us. They are!

And that idea is the reason why I was drawn to the research of Michael Levin which I think is a step in the right direction.

Fond flagellar memories of tales being spun in sites like this. The helix is a wonderful winding form existing in the micro molecule, cochlear curves in floral phyllotaxis and in gargantuan galaxies in the depth of space. Seemingly screw has a more mundane meaning with possible roots in porcine procreation.

You wrote this as a crude joke, because you dig crapping on rational discourse.

You spew crap like this over and over again and seem to hope (not in this case!) you're writing perceptive and elegant poetic prose exposing insights. This is stupid shit showing off a crude smattering of vocabulary used inappropriately. You're not a communicator, Charlie, because your writing style is florid, turgid and leaden.

It wasn't meant as a crude joke. I was winding my way towards a point. I did give a few links to sources I'd used as here: https://languageofcarpentry.com/languag ... -say-screw, where Dejah Leger writes:

I had heard rumours about where this word comes from before, and I refused to believe it. It seemed too outrageous, too convenient. It also seemed strange that the French word for screw, which is vis, is totally unrelated to the word screw. Considering that, so far, the majority of our tradeswords come from a Gallo-Latin and Norman root, this added to my confusion. So before I tell you where the word screw comes from, let me say that I went down a lot of rabbit holes to put my doubts to rest, so in this one glorious instance, the rumours were true.

Pig dicks.

That’s it. That’s where the word screw comes from. Pig. Dicks.

In the linked article Dejah Leger goes on to explain how he arrived at that conclusion. Also noting that the French word "vis" has its roots in "vine". (Is that telling us something about the difference between the way the French and the English see the world? )

These are examples of how much our words and our inspiration is taken from nature.

You have inspired me to move this discussion along, so thanks for that.

[Cito di Pense]

Did life start from absolute simplicity? Could it possibly have started from relative simplicity? The relative chemical simplicity at the beginning might have come about by means of the condensation of a higher state which is more field-like than physically molecular. Human senses are more adapted to comprehending physical substance than they are to comprehending fields. This does not mean that field type forces are not all around us. They are!

More craphounding, Charlie. A minute before that you were vacuously whacking away at increases in complexity. Relative simplicity or not, increases in complexity are inevitable, relative even to "relative simplicity". Fuck off with that kind of sophistry. This isn't even about biology or chemistry, but your fapping at semantics. Good thing there's still a modern presence and fossil evidence of relative simplicity against which to measure increases in complexity.

[CharlieM]

A plant seed with its cotyledon is functional living whole as are the growing shoots and roots, and the mature plant with roots, leaves and flowers. It is a functioning whole throughout its development. An object such as a bicycle is not formed in the same way. It is built up from external parts that are added and cannot be said to be a whole functioning unit until all the essential parts are put together. The frame prior to the assembly of wheels, pedals etc. is non functional.

Yeah, man, I get it: You're fascinated by living processes, but in an obviously, disgustingly prurient way. Here's a thought experiment for you, though: Suppose this planet is the only one in the entire universe on which living processes take place.

I could suppose that, or I could suppose that physical life is present everywhere in the universe. I don't know which it is, and I'm happy to reserve judgement and wait for any evidence which will shed more light on this question.

Does that mean life is a miracle, god-created? Is life (or this planet) special in some way? Sure, but only to the narcissistic musings of human beings and possibly other sentient species.

From what I can tell this planet is special within the solar system as it is the only one known to have higher physical life forms on it, and especially life forms that can ask these questions. Further afield than that I'm as clueless as everyone else.

Maybe the dinosaurs were sentient. They were wiped out, and birds are all that are left of their line. It's plain that your screed is all about life being special in some way. Sure, it's special. To a few messy human minds contemplating it. Does that mean that human minds see beyond the physical and evidentially-supported? No, it manifestly does not. To prove otherwise, bend a fucking spoon.

I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs were sentient. In my opinion nervous systems are a sure sign of sentience.

Any time we contemplate mathematical truths, platonic solids, ideal polygons; we are looking beyond the physical.

I bent a spoon just the other day. I was pushing it into a block of solid ice-cream that I'd just taken out of the freezer, and, what do you know, it bent right in front of my eyes! They don't make spoons like they used to.

[Rumraket]

The only disagreement I have with paper you linked to is that it implies that increases in complexity is totally governed by blind chance. In my opinion the increase in complexity inherent in living processes is a fact which can't be denied.

Considering that life started from absolute simplicity, and pre-biotic organic chemistry before that, and all the chemistry yet before, noticing an increase in complexity is first of all a "captain obvious" moment, a dunce-cap moment for someone purporting to ask probing questions about life and the universe, and second of all, a boilerplate agitation of creotardism that's been tried and failed over and over again for a long time.

Did life start from absolute simplicity?

We know life started much simpler than even the simplest extant life. We know this partially from phylogenetic reconstruction of earlier stages in the evolutionary history of life. As for how simple (in an absolute sense) it started depends partially on at what point you want to call it life, and the stage before it non-life.

Could it possibly have started from relative simplicity?

Question is too ill-defined to be meaningful. What is "relative" simplicity, and what is "absolute" simplicity? If we go back far enough there was only the simplest feedstock molecules for organic synthesis, like CO2, N2, H2 etc. But we can presumably agree that at that stage it isn't life. Those are just gases.

The relative chemical simplicity at the beginning might have come about by means of the condensation of a higher state which is more field-like than physically molecular.

You're free to speculate however you please, but at some point your speculation has to come into contact with physics and chemistry. We know from geology and astronomy, again, that life must have begun from the simplest chemicals because if we go back far enough, that is all that would have existed. The geological and astrophysical processes that create more complex compounds and processes simply had yet to occur.

Human senses are more adapted to comprehending physical substance than they are to comprehending fields. This does not mean that field type forces are not all around us. They are!

Yeah but the fields are measurable with instruments. You can build an antennae to pick up radiowaves for example. Gravitational fields produce forces of attraction and curvature of space, etc. etc.

Were "fields" involved in the origin of life? Of course, all the known forces of nature produce various fields that govern the behavior of matter. But there's a difference between saying that the origin of life involved, say, the field of electromagnetism surrounding an electron or proton, in a chemical reaction, as opposed to postulating some entirely new and hypothetical, yet-to-be-observed field.

I don't know what kind of field you're thinking of, but if it's different from the ones currently described by physics you have a massive problem: Evidence for the existence of your new field has not shown up in particle accelerator experiments.

[CharlieM]

People are not reacting to the friendliness of your spirit but its honesty

That could have been written by Johnny Blade depending on which way you look at it.

[CharlieM]

Ah, OK, Charlie. Personal insults at twenty paces. Don't tempt me.

Apologies if you feel I've insulted you. Feel free to respond in kind, I can take it.

I've spent my working life in an environment where there was a lot of banter and exchanges which may have seemed over the top to many outsiders, but it was all done in a friendly spirit. I hope you can take my comments in the same way.

I find neither friendliness nor unfriendliness in your words, and know nothing of the "spirit" in which they're given. What I find is a display of abysmal self-absorption. As in the above: another story about yourself which is neither here nor there. It's an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data. I don't care what you say about yourself, but rather, examine your behavior in general. As Fenrir (just above) does, I judge your personal anecdote to be dishonest. It speaks neither to your friendliness or otherwise, but only of your inclination to talk about yourself when your bullshit runs dry. I take your insults at face value, a response to what you experience when others don't genuflect in the direction of your evasion and flighty bullshit

"Genuflect". Isn't that a favourite word of the blue butterfly? A search here brings up 878 hits and he seems to feature in quite a few of them.