Re: Baumgardner
Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:00:17 -0800> This development in the theory of the genetic code implies
>a biological discovery of immense importance: not only are
>the processes of life directed by programs, but also in some
>extraordinary way the living cell produces its own program.
>Professor Longuett-Higgins sums this up from the biological
>point of view by saying that it results in the biological
>concept of the program being something different from the
>purely physical idea of a program. He says, 'We can now
>point to an actual programme tape in the heart of the cell,
>namely the DNA molecule.' Even more remarkable is the fact
>that the programmed activity in living nature will not merely
>determine the way in which the organism reacts to its
>environment: it actually controls the structure of the
>organism, its replication, and the replication of the
>programmes themselves. And this is what we really mean when
>we say that life is not merely programmed activity but self-
>programmed activity.
It is typically anthropocentric to suggest that the genetic mechanism of
the cell is "like a computer", since if anything, the computer is like the
genetic code, which obviously preceded the computer. But that aside, that
man can produce a computer which has features reminiscent of the genetic
code's abilities, should, I think, be taken as another powerful evidence
that a mind or Mind lies behind each. To suggest that a computer such as
the one on my desk is the result of a long chain of mindless, unsupervised
evolutionary processes borders on insanity. Yet the infinitely more
elegant and complex information laden machinery of the cell can be
considered the results of blind chance by those who consider themselves
rational, educated, intelligent beings, and these ideas can be foisted on a
society as "facts", and Truth that ought to be taught to first graders.
That is insanity.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu