Chris:
I think this is where it is seen to apply MOST. I can't think of any
biological system where it is not a major factor (of course, I did just get
up, so my mental "search engine" isn't working well yet). Can you think of
even one biological system where it doesn't apply? I'm not sure it's even
possible for a biological system to be a non-self-organizing system; I'll
ponder that one at breakfast.
>Kevin wrote:
>>>Again, "atheists" accept that these "imperfections" do have purpose,
>>>because their research has demonstrated that. Concepts like death and
>disease >>are accepted as natural consequences of living systems, and are
>investigated as
>>>such, rather than as aberations that must be explained away. In fact, it
is
>>>the creationist position that death and disease are aberations rather
than
>>>part of natural "design".
>
>Chris Wrote:
>>Death and disease do not always have a purpose, but they do seem always to
>>have naturalistic explanations. That is, as Kevin suggests, we can
predict,
>>from the principles of evolution that "organisms" will die and that they
>>will get diseases, diseases of at least these types: Those from simple
>>malfunction and degradation, those resulting from "infemes" that have
>>overall survival value but which have some disease as a side effect, those
>>resulting from parasitic "infemes," and those caused by other "organisms."
>>("Infeme" is my term for the information stored in genes, memes,
>>self-reproducing computer programs, etc. It is a chunk of information
>>"seeking" to perpetuate itself. Genes are "selfish," as Dawkins says, but
>>their selfishness is secondary to the selfishness of the infemes they
carry
>>by means of their structure. ALL evolution is PRIMARILY the evolution of
>>information-survival, or of infeme-survival.) Memes, computer programs,
and
>>genetic organisms, not to mention automobiles, watches, and societies, are
>>all evolutionary and they can all "die" and they can all get "diseases."
>
>Bertvan:
>Since science can only address that phenomena which it can measure., do
you
>anticipate finding way to measure "information," "memes", "selfish genes",
>"infemes", etc., bringing them into the realm of science?
Chris:
Well, we DO measure genes, memes, and infemes, and information, and in a
number of different ways, at that. I'm not sure what you mean by "measure,"
because there are many different kinds of measurement, and different units
of measurement.
>A materialist philosophy claims science can measure everything. Would you
>insist a materialist philosophy be imposed upon everyone?
Chris:
No. Would you insist that a non-materialist philosophy be imposed on
everyone? Why do you ask?
I think materialism, in a very broad sense, is true (I think the BME --
Basic Material of Existence -- is MERELY a "dumb" material of some sort),
and that immaterialists have a huge burden of proof that they've failed to
carry (to show that there is or can be anything with a primary ontological
status equal to that of the BME but immaterial, mystical/magical), but I
don't remember saying anything that would suggest that I would, or that we
should, IMPOSE a materialist philosophy on ANYone, let alone EVERYone.
Reality, in a sense, imposes materialism on us, because non-materialism, as
such, has nothing to offer that has a strong cognitive basis and that is not
already present or available in or to materialism.
--Chris