Protein flaws may be responsible for complex life

[Apech]

Since we have been discussing evolution quite a lot recently I thought this article was interesting - it points to a possible mechanism whereby complex life may emerge.

 

BBC web page

 

 

"We've tried to bridge the gap between protein structure and evolution and believe we've uncovered evidence that proteins develop mild defects in organisms with smaller population sizes, over the great divide from bacteria to unicellular eukaryotes to invertebrates up to us vertebrates," said Professor Lynch.These slight defects may decrease protein function even as they increase protein cooperation."

[Marblehead]

Yeah, natural selection explains some aspects of evolution but it is not even close to explaining all aspects, in my opinion.

 

I think that this work you pointed to adds to our understanding.

 

I have been hearing more recently about the role that the micro-organisms in the bodies of living creatures play in evolution as well.

 

My knowledge of biology is very limited but I do enjoy learning a little about it.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Taomeow]

John, my apologies in advance -- I am going to use your entry as a pretex to finally verbalize my position regarding the recent (and recurrent) evolution vs. creation debates in which I never made a peep... but after I've done so, I will also explain why I am not scientifically impressed by the defective proteins... so it's not completely tangential...

 

Here's the two-pronged path of our genesis I do believe in:

 

1. Co-creation

2. Intervention

 

While creationism presupposes we are some pathetic nothing, dust, clay, any random shit until we get to get created by someone/something bigger-better, evolution presumes we are, again, some pathetic nothing, monkeys, shmonkeys, until we get to evolve, from something less-worse, via getting better at cutting each other's throats than the average monkey.

 

Co-creation, a taoist (and also shamanic) concept, posits as our default state that we matter. We have never been any pathetic nothing. We are the creator-creation. We are the evolution, or rather, the unfolding (because "evolution" presumes "from lower to higher," another hierarchical pyramid scheme, while "unfolding" means "realizing your inherent aliveness to the fullest," "becoming what you already are all the way," or simply "being complete, whole, real.") Whatever you make of yourself is already made and yet not ready-made, you co-create what you are, who you are, you don't make yourself from scratch but nothing can scratch what you make of yourself off the face of reality. You are reality.

 

Intervention, an ancient myth that is being vigorously explored by some viciously marginalized alternative thinkers of today, presupposes that we have been disrupted, tweaked with, changed, modified, transmogrified. This information is not readily available and conclusions it leads to are not easily provable. I'm not going to try here and now. Suffice it to say that at this point it seems like the only explanation for the current and historic human condition that makes any sense at all to me.

 

So, in the light of these convictions, I assess any "new evidence," "new research," etc., from the point of view of "which paradigm it serves" -- I am not a believer in "innocent" science -- it lost its innocence thousands of years ago, and the science of today is a veritable whore -- for it sleeps with whoever pays and doesn't do its thing out of love anymore -- only for money --

 

so in the light of "which paradigm it serves," the defective proteins theory serves the paradigm designed to convince human beings that they are defective, a really pathetic creature with violence for the unconscious and 95% junk for DNA and so on ad nauseam --

 

and that's a sure sign to me that it can't possibly serve any other purpose than to whisper into our inner mind's inner ear once again, "you are defective, you are pathetic, unworthy, and powerless." Again and again I've heard this message from our "science" (as well as from our "religion" -- the same, absolutely the same!) Till one day I realized it's not "our" at all. It's "their" science...

[Sundragon]

John, my apologies in advance -- I am going to use your entry as a pretex to finally verbalize my position regarding the recent (and recurrent) evolution vs. creation debates in which I never made a peep... but after I've done so, I will also explain why I am not scientifically impressed by the defective proteins... so it's not completely tangential...

 

Here's the two-pronged path of our genesis I do believe in:

 

1. Co-creation

2. Intervention

 

While creationism presupposes we are some pathetic nothing, dust, clay, any random shit until we get to get created by someone/something bigger-better, evolution presumes we are, again, some pathetic nothing, monkeys, shmonkeys, until we get to evolve, from something less-worse, via getting better at cutting each other's throats than the average monkey.

 

Co-creation, a taoist (and also shamanic) concept, posits as our default state that we matter. We have never been any pathetic nothing. We are the creator-creation. We are the evolution, or rather, the unfolding (because "evolution" presumes "from lower to higher," another hierarchical pyramid scheme, while "unfolding" means "realizing your inherent aliveness to the fullest," "becoming what you already are all the way," or simply "being complete, whole, real.") Whatever you make of yourself is already made and yet not ready-made, you co-create what you are, who you are, you don't make yourself from scratch but nothing can scratch what you make of yourself off the face of reality. You are reality.

 

Intervention, an ancient myth that is being vigorously explored by some viciously marginalized alternative thinkers of today, presupposes that we have been disrupted, tweaked with, changed, modified, transmogrified. This information is not readily available and conclusions it leads to are not easily provable. I'm not going to try here and now. Suffice it to say that at this point it seems like the only explanation for the current and historic human condition that makes any sense at all to me.

 

So, in the light of these convictions, I assess any "new evidence," "new research," etc., from the point of view of "which paradigm it serves" -- I am not a believer in "innocent" science -- it lost its innocence thousands of years ago, and the science of today is a veritable whore -- for it sleeps with whoever pays and doesn't do its thing out of love anymore -- only for money --

 

so in the light of "which paradigm it serves," the defective proteins theory serves the paradigm designed to convince human beings that they are defective, a really pathetic creature with violence for the unconscious and 95% junk for DNA and so on ad nauseam --

 

and that's a sure sign to me that it can't possibly serve any other purpose than to whisper into our inner mind's inner ear once again, "you are defective, you are pathetic, unworthy, and powerless." Again and again I've heard this message from our "science" (as well as from our "religion" -- the same, absolutely the same!) Till one day I realized it's not "our" at all. It's "their" science...

 

I think that the very idea that life is an "accident" or the byproduct of blind forces is nothing more than philosophical materialism. Ultimately we will likely never "know" in the way science seeks to know why life exists. We will all interpret the evidence in accordance with our own biases.

 

My bias is toward the co-creative idea.

 

I'm not averse to considering the possibility of interventionism but then we, in regards to the origins of life in general, have an infinite regress to the creators of the creators of the creators and so on and so on. No matter where life began, no matter on what world or galaxy I believe that it was the co-creative will of Spirit that life manifest as the Universe seeking to know Itself. The One gives birth to another so that it can see itself. It's an old principle.

[Marblehead]

Hi Taomeow,

 

Yeah, the article used the word "defective" but I think that this is an improper word to use with what they are talking about.

 

"They" think that protein should act in a specific manner and if it doesn't then it is "defective". I don't see it that way. I see protein with the ability to be flexible. There is nothing wrong with being able to do more than just one thing well.

 

Personally, I am not defective; I am exactly the way I am supposed to be. And so is each and every one of us.

 

Science and many scientists operate without full vision and emotions. They concentrate one one specific point and that is the wordl for them. This is not the way the real world works.

 

Granted that I am a materialist. But that is only where I place the majority of my attention. It doesn't mean that I or any other materialist can ignore the emotional aspects of life.

 

We are all exactly the way we are supposed to be at this very moment in time. Any flaws noted are only subjective valuations by ourself or others.

[Apech]

I am a non dualist. I see no problem with the equation matter=energy=spirit. We live in a kind of alchemical universe. It has physical processes which reflect this and the only problem with the scientific enquiry is that it is incomplete. They have matter=energy but not the last bit.

 

TM,

 

What is wrong with monkeys or dirt or shit or anything? What is wrong with part of the great dynamic interaction which is life on this planet? Why do we have to look down on some parts of nature? And what does the idea of alien intervention answer anyway? If there are aliens they are just as much part of nature as we are.

 

 

Marbles,

 

I agree with you ... you could substitute the words variations or changes for 'defects' and the idea still works ... small changes allow the generation of more diverse and complex life ... I like this idea.

 

Cheers

 

A.

[~9~]

One thing that I've had a hard time getting my head around evolution is... well it seems to me anyway. There must be some form of feedback from the environment (or stress upon a creature) which aids in evolution. I have a hard time with the "randomness" of it. It seems there is some influence from the environment which has some input into what the variations will be... but I've never heard of a mechanism of any sort which drives this. Any ideas?

[Marblehead]

One thing that I've had a hard time getting my head around evolution is... well it seems to me anyway. There must be some form of feedback from the environment (or stress upon a creature) which aids in evolution. I have a hard time with the "randomness" of it. It seems there is some influence from the environment which has some input into what the variations will be... but I've never heard of a mechanism of any sort which drives this. Any ideas?

 

Okay, first, let me say that I totally agree with you.

 

I think the word "random" is used because there is not enough information available regarding the causes of the evolution of a species in order to define these causes. Absolutely the environment and weather (what the atmosphere does) are very important in the equation. Can there ever be a satisfactory equation established to explain evolution? I highly doubt it because there simply are way too many unknown variables.

 

But then, I think it would be wrong to suggest that evolution is structured and following a predetermined process.

[Taomeow]

I am a non dualist. I see no problem with the equation matter=energy=spirit. We live in a kind of alchemical universe. It has physical processes which reflect this and the only problem with the scientific enquiry is that it is incomplete. They have matter=energy but not the last bit.

 

The problem with scientific inquiry as we are conditioned to understand what "scientific" means is not that it takes the spirit out of the equation -- I'm a taoist and therefore I don't believe that "spirit" and "matter" are different things, only different phases of the same cosmic qi-process (in other words, spirit is matter, energy is an attribute of both, and there's no clear-cut cut-off lines anywhere, body IS mind, not a container for the mind but mind itself, while mind IS body, not a filler for the body but body itself... and so on. Dualism is not the problem, it's a manifestation of the process, basically the source of energy... this, for another topic though.) So scientific inquiry as we are told to believe it "should" happen affects the spirit exactly as much as it affects the matter, and any of its empirical interventions into our material existence are interventions into our spiritual life, make no mistake, when you take, in the form of a pill, a bunch of designer molecules scientifically created in the lab, you are changing your mind and your spirit and your energy and ultimately your destiny, not just your material body... but don't let me digress.

 

The real problem with what we are told is "scientific" is threefold:

1. It pretends that there's such a thing as "objectivity," i.e. it pretends that the scientist himself is not there and does not affect what he is doing, and

2. It is on the payroll of the parties whose real goals have nothing whatsoever to do with "inquiry" and everything with "keeping the slaves obedient, profitable to keep, and manageable."

That's the problem. Not some developmental flaw that will be overcome as this science of ours gets bigger-better. No, it's fundamentally off from the inception, and

3. Its lack of a unifying theory (to compare, in taoism such a unifying theory exists, in the form of the taoist fundamental cognitive basics -- yin-yang, qi, wuxing, ganying -- which allow taoist sciences to unify biology and cosmology, technology and morality, matter and spirit, the human and the universal, rather than fragment it into a trillion bits of "information" none of which communicate very successfully with any of the other trillions of bits of "information" thus produced). No unifying theory = fragmentation of knowledge = schizophrenic sciences. (Linus Pauling was in agreement with this view far as it concerned "modern medicine," asserting it's not a science at all because it lacks a unifying theory of what health is. But of course it is not limited to medicine only. It's everywhere...)

TM,

 

What is wrong with monkeys or dirt or shit or anything? What is wrong with part of the great dynamic interaction which is life on this planet? Why do we have to look down on some parts of nature? And what does the idea of alien intervention answer anyway? If there are aliens they are just as much part of nature as we are.

 

 

Nothing is wrong with monkeys in nature, everything is wrong with the way we practically treat them based on our understanding of what they are, the understanding created and promoted by creationism and darwinism alike. Nothing is wrong with the great dynamic interaction which is life on this planet, everything is wrong in our assumption that eliminating all species that are in the way of our "progress" (currently at the rate of about 200 daily) is what this interaction is legitimately about -- without even noticing that that's what we are doing, oblivious mass murder in the name of... what?.. Why do we have to look down on some parts of nature... "we"? You mean someone doesn't who is currently interacting with nature the way we currently interact with nature?.. Well, it's obligatory to pay lip service to how it is not to be looked down upon, but if "we" really didn't, the way tribal peoples didn't, then there's no way we could use pesticides, cut down the forests, poison the rivers and the oceans and the air and encroach upon life with massive assaults of mass destruction -- you think lip service to the magnificence of nature and/or its parts somehow justifies the actual deeds our theoretical concepts are allowing us to do to it? What does an idea of alien intervention answer anyway? It answers the question "why are we behaving as aliens toward our own planet." Why we are doing to nature and all its creatures great and small and to each other what we have been doing since we've become, um, "civilized." If aliens exist they must be part of nature as we are? Sure thing. When Native Americans, Australian aborigines, etc. etc., were invaded and 90% depopulated and the rest robbed blind, the people who did this were part of nature, not some semi-artificial archons... or were they?..

[Apech]

The problem with scientific inquiry as we are conditioned to understand what "scientific" means is not that it takes the spirit out of the equation -- I'm a taoist and therefore I don't believe that "spirit" and "matter" are different things, only different phases of the same cosmic qi-process (in other words, spirit is matter, energy is an attribute of both, and there's no clear-cut cut-off lines anywhere, body IS mind, not a container for the mind but mind itself, while mind IS body, not a filler for the body but body itself... and so on. Dualism is not the problem, it's a manifestation of the process, basically the source of energy... this, for another topic though.) So scientific inquiry as we are told to believe it "should" happen affects the spirit exactly as much as it affects the matter, and any of its empirical interventions into our material existence are interventions into our spiritual life, make no mistake, when you take, in the form of a pill, a bunch of designer molecules scientifically created in the lab, you are changing your mind and your spirit and your energy and ultimately your destiny, not just your material body... but don't let me digress.

Science is supposed to be an objective exploration of nature tested empirically by experiment. But actually most scientists start with a set of assumptions about the nature of what they are looking at which makes them blinkered. Not blinkered in terms of results of experiments but in terms of interpretation of those results. For instance they are completely wedded to a kind of dead universe view which does not allow for any kind of conscious interaction, will etc.

The real problem with what we are told is "scientific" is threefold:

1. It pretends that there's such a thing as "objectivity," i.e. it pretends that the scientist himself is not there and does not affect what he is doing, and

2. It is on the payroll of the parties whose real goals have nothing whatsoever to do with "inquiry" and everything with "keeping the slaves obedient, profitable to keep, and manageable."

That's the problem. Not some developmental flaw that will be overcome as this science of ours gets bigger-better. No, it's fundamentally off from the inception, and

3. Its lack of a unifying theory (to compare, in taoism such a unifying theory exists, in the form of the taoist fundamental cognitive basics -- yin-yang, qi, wuxing, ganying -- which allow taoist sciences to unify biology and cosmology, technology and morality, matter and spirit, the human and the universal, rather than fragment it into a trillion bits of "information" none of which communicate very successfully with any of the other trillions of bits of "information" thus produced). No unifying theory = fragmentation of knowledge = schizophrenic sciences. (Linus Pauling was in agreement with this view far as it concerned "modern medicine," asserting it's not a science at all because it lacks a unifying theory of what health is. But of course it is not limited to medicine only. It's everywhere...)

 

When I said science in incomplete I meant both in terms of being an unfinished journey with unfinished theories about reality and also lacking a complete view ... which would include consciousness/spirit.

 

Nothing is wrong with monkeys in nature, everything is wrong with the way we practically treat them based on our understanding of what they are, the understanding created and promoted by creationism and darwinism alike. Nothing is wrong with the great dynamic interaction which is life on this planet, everything is wrong in our assumption that eliminating all species that are in the way of our "progress" (currently at the rate of about 200 daily) is what this interaction is legitimately about -- without even noticing that that's what we are doing, oblivious mass murder in the name of... what?.. Why do we have to look down on some parts of nature... "we"? You mean someone doesn't who is currently interacting with nature the way we currently interact with nature?.. Well, it's obligatory to pay lip service to how it is not to be looked down upon, but if "we" really didn't, the way tribal peoples didn't, then there's no way we could use pesticides, cut down the forests, poison the rivers and the oceans and the air and encroach upon life with massive assaults of mass destruction -- you think lip service to the magnificence of nature and/or its parts somehow justifies the actual deeds our theoretical concepts are allowing us to do to it? What does an idea of alien intervention answer anyway? It answers the question "why are we behaving as aliens toward our own planet." Why we are doing to nature and all its creatures great and small and to each other what we have been doing since we've become, um, "civilized." If aliens exist they must be part of nature as we are? Sure thing. When Native Americans, Australian aborigines, etc. etc., were invaded and 90% depopulated and the rest robbed blind, the people who did this were part of nature, not some semi-artificial archons... or were they?..

 

You said "evolution presumes we are, again, some pathetic nothing, monkeys, shmonkeys, until we get to evolve" ... I would say ... evolution is a science of change and transformation which are key ideas in Taoism (or any mysticism). Nothing wrong with monkeys. All evolution is pointing to is that the orders of creatures grow in complexity and ability to function as they evolve. Our bodies are cells working together - so if we all evolved from simple cells then that's a wonder and a kind of miracle rather than a way of saying we start as nothing shmothing whatever.

 

I don't get the alien thing. True we are alienated ... even Marx said so ... but what does it answer to suggest we have some kind of alien tampering effect going on? We are what we are , nos sommos aquilo que nos sommos, lets deal with that.

[Birch]

One thing that I've had a hard time getting my head around evolution is... well it seems to me anyway. There must be some form of feedback from the environment (or stress upon a creature) which aids in evolution. I have a hard time with the "randomness" of it. It seems there is some influence from the environment which has some input into what the variations will be... but I've never heard of a mechanism of any sort which drives this. Any ideas?

 

Far too many ideas to begin very well. But "will" most likely comes into things. "Randomness" implies to me that there is none. If everything in the universe has a "will" of some kind (whether that be to live, die, procreate, destroy, imagine, to do/be whatever - I guess that is "path" of each of the "10,000 things") and all of those feed back into each other...

 

I get a sense of it sometimes and then, nope, lost it....

[Birch]

"I'm a taoist and therefore I don't believe that "spirit" and "matter" are different things, only different phases of the same cosmic qi-process (in other words, spirit is matter, energy is an attribute of both, and there's no clear-cut cut-off lines anywhere, body IS mind, not a container for the mind but mind itself, while mind IS body, not a filler for the body but body itself... and so on. Dualism is not the problem, it's a manifestation of the process, basically the source of energy... this, for another topic though.)"

 

About time for that topic

[doc benway]

 

The real problem with what we are told is "scientific" is threefold:

1. It pretends that there's such a thing as "objectivity," i.e. it pretends that the scientist himself is not there and does not affect what he is doing, and

2. It is on the payroll of the parties whose real goals have nothing whatsoever to do with "inquiry" and everything with "keeping the slaves obedient, profitable to keep, and manageable."

That's the problem. Not some developmental flaw that will be overcome as this science of ours gets bigger-better. No, it's fundamentally off from the inception, and

3. Its lack of a unifying theory (to compare, in taoism such a unifying theory exists, in the form of the taoist fundamental cognitive basics -- yin-yang, qi, wuxing, ganying -- which allow taoist sciences to unify biology and cosmology, technology and morality, matter and spirit, the human and the universal, rather than fragment it into a trillion bits of "information" none of which communicate very successfully with any of the other trillions of bits of "information" thus produced). No unifying theory = fragmentation of knowledge = schizophrenic sciences. (Linus Pauling was in agreement with this view far as it concerned "modern medicine," asserting it's not a science at all because it lacks a unifying theory of what health is. But of course it is not limited to medicine only. It's everywhere...)

 

I'm not an -ist of any sort, although my work is in the scientific arena and my philosophy/psychology/cultivation in the Daoist arena. That said, I feel obligated to address the above as I think they mis-characterize Western science and Daoist "science."

 

1. Science has recognized interdependence and the lack of objectivity since Heisenberg in 1925. This has served as the foundation for Quantum mechanics and some of the most important advancements in the 20th and 21st centuries. Certainly this effect is often intentionally ignored as it is often not significant enough to effect outcomes and results. Pretending there is objectivity, as you assert, is not a limitation in scientific advancement - I think that's pretty clear by the results. On the other hand, I agree in the importance of acknowledging the spirit in my own life but it is not measurable in such a way as to incorporate it in the Western scientific method currently. There are plenty of Western scientists exploring this area, however, such as Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, and many others.

 

2. I think it is inaccurate to say the "science" is on any payroll. Certainly dollars play a critical role in many of those using the scientific method and enormous corruption exists. Nevertheless, the method itself is effective when properly implemented and I think it is unfair to accuse the entire discipline of corruption. There are many people devoting their lives to real scientific inquiry with intentions as pure as the purest Daoist sage. I have worked with many personally.

 

3. The scientific method is so rigorous that no unifying theory has yet to be found. Nevertheless, the scientific method is damn effective (for better or worse) and that is beyond reasonable challenge. The lack of a unifying theory does not negate the method - to the contrary, it reinforces its validity, consistency, and integrity. The unifying theory in Daoism would not qualify as a theory in terms of the scientific method. It works in the realm of Daoist thought, metaphysics, cultivation, ritual, and so on but is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It cannot be submitted to observable and reproducible experimental design therefore it is empiric and experiential. Comparison of Western scientific methods and Daoist methods is meaningless - apples and oranges. In fact, I believe that the universe will forever elude a unifying scientific theory. I don't think that the human mind and it's methods of classification and communication are capable of capturing the nature of reality in an equation. That said, string theory is pretty damn interesting stuff.

 

All that said - I would agree with your co-creation leanings.

I respect the power and value of science and I despise how it is exploited for profit and power.

I respect the power of Daoist cultivation and investigation (and Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish as well) and I similarly despise how they are exploited for profit and power.

The spirit or soul or whatever we call it are real and experiential and cannot be captured by experiment.... yet.

That's OK, it doesn't lessen science or the spirit.

[unmike]

"Junk DNA" is an incredible and disappointing misnomer. Instead of being worthless filler, the truth is that the bulk of our code is actually storing data constantly. Research has found that it possesses grammar and syntactical structure akin to our present languages.

[Birch]

I'm not an -ist of any sort, although my work is in the scientific arena and my philosophy/psychology/cultivation in the Daoist arena. That said, I feel obligated to address the above as I think they mis-characterize Western science and Daoist "science."

 

1. Science has recognized interdependence and the lack of objectivity since Heisenberg in 1925. This has served as the foundation for Quantum mechanics and some of the most important advancements in the 20th and 21st centuries. Certainly this effect is often intentionally ignored as it is often not significant enough to effect outcomes and results. Pretending there is objectivity, as you assert, is not a limitation in scientific advancement - I think that's pretty clear by the results. On the other hand, I agree in the importance of acknowledging the spirit in my own life but it is not measurable in such a way as to incorporate it in the Western scientific method currently. There are plenty of Western scientists exploring this area, however, such as Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, and many others.

 

2. I think it is inaccurate to say the "science" is on any payroll. Certainly dollars play a critical role in many of those using the scientific method and enormous corruption exists. Nevertheless, the method itself is effective when properly implemented and I think it is unfair to accuse the entire discipline of corruption. There are many people devoting their lives to real scientific inquiry with intentions as pure as the purest Daoist sage. I have worked with many personally.

 

3. The scientific method is so rigorous that no unifying theory has yet to be found. Nevertheless, the scientific method is damn effective (for better or worse) and that is beyond reasonable challenge. The lack of a unifying theory does not negate the method - to the contrary, it reinforces its validity, consistency, and integrity. The unifying theory in Daoism would not qualify as a theory in terms of the scientific method. It works in the realm of Daoist thought, metaphysics, cultivation, ritual, and so on but is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It cannot be submitted to observable and reproducible experimental design therefore it is empiric and experiential. Comparison of Western scientific methods and Daoist methods is meaningless - apples and oranges. In fact, I believe that the universe will forever elude a unifying scientific theory. I don't think that the human mind and it's methods of classification and communication are capable of capturing the nature of reality in an equation. That said, string theory is pretty damn interesting stuff.

 

All that said - I would agree with your co-creation leanings.

I respect the power and value of science and I despise how it is exploited for profit and power.

I respect the power of Daoist cultivation and investigation (and Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish as well) and I similarly despise how they are exploited for profit and power.

The spirit or soul or whatever we call it are real and experiential and cannot be captured by experiment.... yet.

That's OK, it doesn't lessen science or the spirit.

 

Steve F, your head should be ballooning right about now

Great post!

i have some questions about it.

 

1) If this is the case, why does "scientific" reporting continue on what seems (to me anyway) to be the old school "true objectivity" paradigm? Even if the effect is "very small", shouldn't it be mentioned consistently? I don't think one can expect non-scientists to include that caveat every time they see a published result (if they ever see any, I figure they see articles and opinions about results and nothing else)

 

2) Can one distinguish the "science" from the "scientists"? If cash is involved (or reputation, or advancement etc) then how much of that would play into the scientists' application of the scientific method? Could scientists unwittingly be designing experiments with very specific blinkers (as Apech put it) on? If those blinkers have dollar signs painted on the front, does it make this effect stronger?

 

3) I'm interested in ritual in science - but that's maybe just me

[Apech]

There is a huge reputational risk to a scientist to propose anything other than standard model solutions to problems. Also peer group pressure and fear of ridicule work to make science and kind of closed community. However I would say most scientists are genuine seekers after truth. Science is a very powerful way of looking at the world and yields extraordinary technologies which have and are transforming the world ... and this is only because their ideas work ... they are effective.

 

Its all about interpretation of facts. For instance in this article the scientists talk about small 'defects' in proteins which may have extraordinary results. This is rather like chaos theory where tiny changes transform whole patterns of matter/energy. The interpretation comes in saying are these 'defects' or are they something like small changes in energy/matter. Maybe they are in some sense deliberate or willed. Maybe there is some force or process which wills more complex and sophisticated inter-relationships in nature? Maybe this is part of the 'way' ... the mystery creating the 10k things ... maybe ...

Edited May 20, 2011 by Apech
bad typing

[Taomeow]

"Science works because it produces technologies that work and transform the world."

 

Right, my point exactly.

 

The world untouched by this kind of science lives, the one transformed by it dies, slowly at first, then faster and faster.

 

That's why I believe that this kind of science serves the interests of whoever is working on transforming this world from alive to dead.

 

That everybody is OK with it and sees the process of transformation as good and its practical outcome, our world dying, as irrelevant,

proves to me that this "everybody" must have been scientifically tampered with.

 

I have met people who have un-tampered themselves and also I've read their opinions (e.g. in the taoist classics), and have un-tampered myself myself, to the extent I could, and it has complicated my life. For all I know, some proteins may have repaired themselves when I un-tampered myself, but it didn't make my life simpler -- rather, it complicated it... What complicates a life is a lack of a death wish. In particular, a death wish transmitted into the world and its individuals via science and technology.

[doc benway]

Steve F, your head should be ballooning right about now

Great post!

i have some questions about it.

 

1) If this is the case, why does "scientific" reporting continue on what seems (to me anyway) to be the old school "true objectivity" paradigm? Even if the effect is "very small", shouldn't it be mentioned consistently? I don't think one can expect non-scientists to include that caveat every time they see a published result (if they ever see any, I figure they see articles and opinions about results and nothing else)

 

2) Can one distinguish the "science" from the "scientists"? If cash is involved (or reputation, or advancement etc) then how much of that would play into the scientists' application of the scientific method? Could scientists unwittingly be designing experiments with very specific blinkers (as Apech put it) on? If those blinkers have dollar signs painted on the front, does it make this effect stronger?

 

3) I'm interested in ritual in science - but that's maybe just me

 

Thanks Kate - yup, a small fissure is now forming just above Bai Hui - I thought it was opening due to successful cultivation but methinks it's just cranial swelling...

 

Apech's last post does a pretty good job addressing your questions but I'll add a bit more.

 

1. I agree that scientific reporting does not consistently and explicitly address the Heisenberg effect and that's for a few reasons - a. in science, something that is a basic principle and universally agreed upon is not restated with each new experiment. It is assumed that everyone recognizes this principle to be in effect and affecting all experimental results

- b. To my knowledge we have not really figured out how to deal with the observer influence effect entirely. Depending on experimental design there are some very elegant solutions and in other systems they are just there. The bottom line is, as Apech emphasized, that the scientific method still works and gives reproducible, predictable, measurable, and applicable results.

 

2. Excellent point and I do think there is a lot of truth there. I see it every day. And in the medical profession, there are very strong measures in place to try and identify any time someone is receiving any financial support from any commercial source. This is disclosed at every gathering of researchers and in every peer reviewed journal. And of course it still has an effect on what people study and the results. We'd be blind and foolish to claim otherwise.

 

Every human being is affected by influence, whether it be external or internal. Money is a potent influence as is prestige, self-expectations, and job security, and so on. I agree with Apech that the majority of scientists are truth seekers and try hard to limit distraction and corruption in their work. Some will always be present and some are very prone to it. Similarly, Daoists and other followers of empiric and experiential methods are equally likely to be affected by external and internal influence. At least in the scientific world it is usually easily recognizable and often measureable as in junk science (Immortal4life is an expert on this) and large scale corruption (ie big Pharm and the US Congress). Sadly, it is often much more harmful in this arena.

 

Daoists and other empiric "scientists" on the other hand, have absolutely no way of measuring, testing, or demonstrating their discoveries in an "objective" fashion - that is, a demonstration that is independently verifiable, reproducible, and having predictive properties as in the requirements of the scientific method. All internal experience could be a product of our imagination or an implant from an alien or communication with spirits, ancestors, immortals, etc... It cannot be verified for or against. It is a gratuitous assertion. If you think that our expectations, hopes, and dreams are not reflected in our internal experience during Daoist meditation (and any other method) then you are kidding yourself. That doesn't mean these experiences are not "real" or valuable but everything we see and experience and cultivate could simply be a product of our expectations - no way to tell yea or nay. My Daoist meditation teacher forbids his students from discussing their progress with each other early in their training for just this reason. This prohibition is loosened as time and skill progresses. And just like in science, Daoist methods produce results, even though the methods have all the weaknesses I mentioned.

 

"Science works because it produces technologies that work and transform the world."

 

Right, my point exactly.

 

The world untouched by this kind of science lives, the one transformed by it dies, slowly at first, then faster and faster.

 

That's why I believe that this kind of science serves the interests of whoever is working on transforming this world from alive to dead.

 

That everybody is OK with it and sees the process of transformation as good and its practical outcome, our world dying, as irrelevant,

proves to me that this "everybody" must have been scientifically tampered with.

 

I have met people who have un-tampered themselves and also I've read their opinions (e.g. in the taoist classics), and have un-tampered myself myself, to the extent I could, and it has complicated my life. For all I know, some proteins may have repaired themselves when I un-tampered myself, but it didn't make my life simpler -- rather, it complicated it... What complicates a life is a lack of a death wish. In particular, a death wish transmitted into the world and its individuals via science and technology.

 

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. Many of our technological advancements have the ultimate effect of throwing nature out of balance and changing human kind, mostly for the worse, in my opinion. Sure, our lives are easier, we have more food, less disease, live longer, and so on. But is this really human? We are anxious, poisoned, neurotic, and physically weak. We are overfed and underactive. We work ourselves literally to death for a goal that we never quite reach. The earth is so dramatically out of balance that it takes all of our resources to try to maintain this imbalance (ie overpopulation fed by engineered food and water sources which cause further imbalanced overpopulation and so on - a vicious cycle).

 

So I agree with you completely on this point, Taomeow. And many of my colleagues and friends do as well. I think many of us see this and are making positive changes in our lives to address it. It can only be addressed on an individual basis and perhaps some day a critical mass will be reached and real, large scale change will occur. And perhaps not. Our world truly is sick and dying and I don't believe technology can save us. I think it is more likely to destroy itself - an example of nature policing herself and restoring balance.

 

This is why my current favorite quotation comes from Jiddu Krishnamurti and I'll paraphrase it -

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to such a profoundly sick society.

[Birch]

Hey Steve F.

 

Thanks for the reply. See, here's yet another reason (for me) to spend some time on TTB's.

 

Still. I have a question about "It is assumed that everyone recognizes...". While the assumption seems sensible, what happens if it turns out that not everyone recognizes... (and the "why" they don't is yet another question)?

 

In other words if one were to take the time to explain to people every time what the "scientific method" involves and implies, what consequences would those discussions (because I guess there might be some kickback) have?

 

And why the "assumption" that "everyone recognizes..." in the first place?

 

Before anyone asks me what point I'm trying to make, I ought to admit that I'm not trying to make any in particular. I'm interested in understanding why a very precise method would allow what seems like nebulous conceptual edges around itself.

[~9~]

Okay, first, let me say that I totally agree with you.

 

I think the word "random" is used because there is not enough information available regarding the causes of the evolution of a species in order to define these causes. Absolutely the environment and weather (what the atmosphere does) are very important in the equation. Can there ever be a satisfactory equation established to explain evolution? I highly doubt it because there simply are way too many unknown variables.

 

But then, I think it would be wrong to suggest that evolution is structured and following a predetermined process.

 

An idea can to me just now - stesses upon the system (the biological system which is an organism) may "decrease protein function even as they increase protein cooperation" and continue to do so until the stress begin to subside. This would move random variations or trial & error efforts from an iteration with in generations to a much quicker cycle (like days or weeks).... things that make you go hum!

[Marblehead]

An idea can to me just now - stesses upon the system (the biological system which is an organism) may "decrease protein function even as they increase protein cooperation" and continue to do so until the stress begin to subside. This would move random variations or trial & error efforts from an iteration with in generations to a much quicker cycle (like days or weeks).... things that make you go hum!

 

Excellent observation, I think. I don't have enough knowledge to speak to this but if we relate it to our own personal life I think we can see a similar process. (I was going to use the word 'pattern' but that would not have been correct.) Hopefully we evolve instead of becoming extinct.