>”But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with >natural law!”
Excellent! This means that you will be able to do one of two things: 1) You will be able to pinpoint the computer, where it lies, and explain how it works; OR 2) You will be able to provide a laboratory demonstration/simulation/proof outlining Tom’s (Ozzie) explanation just posted. I await your account with eager anticipation! Thanking you in advance J sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 6:03 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement Stephen - YOU consider that "You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with natural law. " But I don't agree that the existing model is broken and inconsistent with natural law! So, as usual, you and I continue to disagree. As for our species being heavily based around learning - yes, but our innate capacity for reasoning and logic enables us to learn. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au> To: 'Edwina Taborsky' <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> ; 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:50 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement Edwina, I hope we can avoid returning to the innate-vs-NOTInnate controversy, as we have zero chance of agreement there J No, I’m not reducing causality to only one... far from it. I started writing out a spiel of exceptions and interpretations and realized that it would culminate in a blather that no-one would want to read. So for the sake of brevity, I have left out a lot. I assumed that most of us here are sufficiently well-versed on the topic that we don’t need to labour over the detail. But yes, strictly speaking, you are correct, of course there ARE other causalities. So what is it that you are suggesting about how a tree develops from a seed into a tree? Is it in the DNA? We both agree, I assume, that DNA is very important. All I am doing is suggesting that there is something else going on, and it is not the infotech theory of DNA. It CANNOT be the infotech version, impossible, because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. I could, however, be persuaded if someone showed me the computer that processes the tree’s DNA software. >”Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to >do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily >focused around learning.“ I get a baaaad feeling about this. Innate-vs-NOTInnate... nooooooo! Edwina, all I’m trying to do is, in the spirit of brainstorming, to introduce the question into our narrative. I’m not even proposing definitive answers. You’re putting up blocks based in pre-existing narratives that are in inconclusive, and an existing model that is broken and inconsistent with natural law. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015 2:35 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement Stephen - I disagree; you are reducing causality to only one - efficient causality (i.e., proximate). A tree doesn't 'know how to be' merely and only if it is growing next to another similar tree. Furthermore, societal forms, such as the type of work you do, have nothing to do with genes but with learning - and our species is, by definition, heavily focused around learning. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au> To: 'Peirce-L' <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 7:34 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Show us the computer - reasons for DNA entanglement List, The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA entanglement). The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, there is nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream life-science community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then they need to be consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in violation of the principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), it is impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in nature? Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. SHOW US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric paradigm). It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in semiotics, because ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA function are semiotic in character. In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after an initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a sort of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a macroscopic level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons utilize the quantum information to synchronize.” Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in which correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the DNA molecules within the neurons . Other similar experiments in biophysics arrive at similar or analogous conclusions. And the most common question raised among researchers in quantum biology, including Pizzi et al above, is along the lines of... how do mechanisms within the cell utilize entanglement? I would suggest that they have their reasoning back-to-front. It is not the mechanisms that utilize entanglement, but entanglement that is the source for the mechanisms, properties and predispositions. And this reframes the problem as one that relates principally to semiotics. As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s one of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, enables the body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be informed by it. In this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in knowing how to be. This would be analogous to how our telecommunication technologies provide every person in a city with immediate access to the city's options, to inform its people on how to be. For example, people growing up in working-class or middle-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be tradesmen, shopkeepers, nurses, police or the unemployed, while people growing up in upper-class suburbs are more likely to know how to be professionals, investors, office-workers or, simply, the idle rich. This interpretation would be consistent with how stem-cells develop, contingent on their location within the organs of the body. A stem-cell has to know how to be before it can become a productive cell with its role in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s proximal/local context is what teases out its predispositions, in order to define its ultimate purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with aspects of David Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is also analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he regards the DNA molecule as analogous to a receiver (antenna).] In summary, proximal context (face-to-face or synapse-to-synapse) is what teases out both the neuron’s AND the human’s nonlocal predispositions, to define their ultimate trajectories. Anyone else interested in exploring this further? There seems to be a reluctance for people to step beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps for fear of ridicule. But in any interdisciplinary endeavour, this needs to be done. We are ill-served when we allow The Establishment to dominate with a broken genocentric narrative. At the very least, these ideas merit brainstorming. sj Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117. Retrieved August 2, 2015, from http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf _____ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
