Answers as to how DNA works to produce different organs and functions? Last time I checked we do.
Philosophy is dead...?
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
Answers as to how DNA works to produce different organs and functions? Last time I checked we do.
Let me ponder this.
Philosophy isn't dead.
I quite agree, I think that Hawking and others like Colin Blackmore are attempting to say that their respective branches of science can and will explain even the most fundamental questions of self, and existence and because of this philosophical questions are now the domain of science.
Of course we have yet to see the context of Hawking's statements away from the media interpretations.
Last edited:
Might I suggest you buy and read a book?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerys-Elements-Medical-Genetics-Mueller/dp/044307125X
No they how would explain that the why implies there is a method behind it rather than an inevitability.
No the what what?
But you can't check that inevitability without asking why. It might seem inevitable until you ask and see.
take
That is answered by "how did we evolve/the universe came into being/how life actually started etc", adding an extra "why" to it though means that the how is not enough and that there must be a "reason".
Soldato
That's not really how it works - there are 4 nitrogenous bases in DNA, which code for about 20 amino acids (which are the components of proteins) using a triplet code, which is to say every three bases codes for an amino acid (which you might notice gives us a grand total of 64 potential combinations - but in reality some combinations code for the same amino acids, and some are essentially used to say 'stop coding for this protein'). Then proteins are made of any arbitrary number and combination of amino acids (incidentally, each new amino acid causes the protein to 'fold' differently, which is to say gives it a different three dimensional structure, and hence function) - this implies that there is a very large number of potential proteins. Off the top of my head there are well over 10,000 different types of enzyme, which is just one sub-category of protein.
Caporegime
4 proteins? Do you mean 4 nucleotides? DNA codes for proteins*, it is not a protein nor is it composed of proteins. The way in which DNA contains the instructions* to build a 3 dimensional living, breathing, animal with the finite complexities of its organs and brains is through the action of proteins that modulate the expression of genes within the DNA which produces other proteins* and these proteins typically catalyse specific chemical reactions* in a combinatorial fashion that, collectively, produce subtle differentiation between cells* and thus form an organism. Developmental biology is actually surprisingly well understood in some organisms. The exact developmental history of every cell in the body of C. elegans, for example, has been mapped, including every one of its 302 neurons.
Er, no, I don't. Because, firstly, your whole 4 chemicals notion is hopelessly confused. And, secondly, as a quick glance around you should convince you, the ability for small, simple, uniform components to combine to produce incredibly complex behaviours is ubiquitous in nature (how many subatomic particles do you think go into making everything around you?). And, finally, unlike you, I've actually studied some biology and thus have some notion of how the brain actually works.
* - actually, it's a bit more complicated than that.
well there is with the universe, we just don't know or can't see it.
i'm not sure what you meant with inevitability now.
you shouldn't just say 'it's/we here'. i think we should ask 'why', on lots of levels.
What i'm trying to say is the how explain "how" everything came to be (the inevitability is just that say you hold a ball out it will always fall, and assuming everything else remains identical it will all ways fall in the same way) but then taking it further and asking "why" suggests there is a reason beyond the "these objects act like this in these circumstances we know this because XXXX etc".
There doesn't have to be some reason, some greater purpose, things happen because it is the only way they can happen.
Man of Honour
Philosophy isn't dead.
Long live philosophy?
Or philosophy's not dead, it's just resting.
I almost hesitate to suggest it but the cynic in me immediately thinks "author wants to drum up interest in a book - what better way than to be a bit controversial?". I'd be interested to read the book as I am with most of the books by great scientific minds that I've read but statements like that make me wonder how much self-aggrandisement is present although as mentioned it is, of course, not free from media bias in the way it has been presented.
Any discussion on the philosophical nature of the Universe will throw up religion or at the least theology, but I agree that it can muddy the discussion somewhat given some of the belief structures some possess.
Some might say that principles like Occam's Razor are heuristic tools, and dismiss the philosophical and in this case theological origins of such philosophies and principles of logic.
That is a bag of worms to be sure. I have often thought about how each of us perceive the world in which we live. As a thought exercise it could be forwarded that each individual perception is a separate universe on it's own. As for science, we have cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience which no doubt would claim to be able to quantify the processes behind perception and in time explain the why also, Prof Colin Blackmore said as much in a recent discussion with the Rabbi Sacks.
Agreed. A lot of people seem to struggle with the thought (although it's entirely possible that it's just an idea they don't want to believe) that there's no higher reason as to why we (humans, other animals, etc) exist, and that we are just the product of a chain of events.
Permabanned
You have to agree on what dead is before you can decide if philosphy is it.
Come back later?
Come back later?
I couldn't agree more.
And this is exactly why philosophy isn't dead simply because 'God is Dead'.
We need a change in perspective and need to learn an appreciation of things that do not come naturally to us. Philosophy, to this end is a great instrument in helping to light the way down such paths. If God is dead, where does that leave us? What do we do? Do we need meaning? Is there no meaning? How do we create our own meaning, and what should that meaning be?
These are all very philosophically loaded questions. The author the OP quotes is simply jumping the gun or genuinely does not have an accurate appreciation (much like many unamed members on these very forums) of what philosophy really is or what it can do. Philosophy will always be the conjecture before the scientific proof or falsification; that isn't going to change.
Caporegime
Going back to the OP. Philosophy has long since shown itself to be incapable of giving strong answers to the big questions, and a sorry alternative to science when it comes to seeking answers about the natural world while its steadily given ground to the empirical investigations of psychology when it comes to understanding how we think. It's also a discipline in which a lot of utter male-cow-droppings continues to fly.
However, this doesn't make it dead. The formal logic side of Philosophy continues to be an exciting field, more akin to maths than chatting about the life, the universe and everything; aesthetics is full of interesting ideas and is safely buffered from scientific reach; ethics is another area where philosophy remains relevant. And the rise of X-philosophy promises interesting work in the coming years.
However, this doesn't make it dead. The formal logic side of Philosophy continues to be an exciting field, more akin to maths than chatting about the life, the universe and everything; aesthetics is full of interesting ideas and is safely buffered from scientific reach; ethics is another area where philosophy remains relevant. And the rise of X-philosophy promises interesting work in the coming years.
Indeed, and that seems to be what Hawking is suggesting. The Universe is how it is because it is.
He says that because there is a law such as gravity, then creation of the Universe can be spontaneous, that the reason we exist is because the Universe exists in the way it does and requires no further explanation as to why, the how is all that is necessary to answer such questions, hence the Philosophy is dead quote.
Basically things are the way they are because they are the way they were. Frankly I am still trying to get my head around the spontaneous nature of existence and as I said in the OP, I don't necessarily agree with it.
The Guardian had a poll on this and the result was, to me anyway, surprising:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/poll/2010/sep/02/religion-hawking
Last edited: