<1>
This is not a very timely response, but the subject is timely as ever.
I find much in your paper which corresponds with some ideas in 'Philosophers
of Consciousness', by Eugene Webb, published by Univ. of Washington Press
- Seattle, London, 1988.
One idea I particularly like is: '...in one's quest for objective understanding,
one comes up against the irreducibly subjective: when one discovers human
existence not as an object but as constituted of one's acts.' I had been
reading quite a bit about 'materialism', 'reductionism' etc., and found
the debate stimulating.
--------------------------
<2>
Thinking of consciousness and brain-states, chemicals, electrical currents,
neuro- transmitters and the like, one begins to wonder: 'What is material
and what is not, what is it we call 'information'?'
These are questions I find puzzling. I used to take information and matter
for granted. What can humans 'believe' about being, self, internal and external
reality? We follow a reductionist path to quantum mechanics, quarks, strings,
and a mega-path to a 14 billion light-year system which commenced with a
very big bang: Photons, which have been hurrying toward us for 14 billion
years, impact our telescopes giving us knowledge that fits neatly into the
prevailing scientific narrative of our time. It is amazing that these tiny
entities have traveled at the speed of light for such a long distance and
for such a long time without being deflected by other objects, or without
disappearing into black holes.
<3>
But back to the subject... What are genes? Genes are codes/ instructions/
patterns which denote. They operate by means of chemicals in living tissue,
seeds or spores. Similar to blueprints for new buildings they function as
'blueprints' for new life. I think of blueprints as information, and transfer
from one host to another as communication. Genetic instructions can be symbolized
as letters, stored, retrieved, cloned, and can direct, in explicit detail,
the structure of new organisms.
<4>
Normally, information seems to be separate from that which is 'informed',
but the process of morphgenesis (for me) seems to blur such a distinction.
That which is 'not-spirit' and not supernatural must be matter. If I understand
correctly, the genetic code is not matter, but a recipe which can be written,
or at least changed, by genetic scientists. This recipe, these symbols,
can be written and stored until needed to cook up something new and different.
Then the code will instruct matter to grow into the prescribed form. So
if I think' merely of the genetic code, it has no mind and' no matter, perhaps
it is spirit or soul.
<5>
However, If I think of the genes as chemicals residing in a living body,
they are tissue, something material. Such scientific activity may lead to
a new philosophical approach in the new millenium, M3.AD. It would supersede
the two main philosophical themes of M2.AD:
1) Man as a child of God, and, following 'The Origin of Species',
2) Man as superior primate, the ultimate ape.
This approach would lead to:
3) Man as the self-created product of genetic engineering.
-----------------------
<6>
Not directly related to the subject, but of interest to me, is the Dawkins/Pinker
debate of last February (1999) which I found at:
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html
-----------------------
Hugh Bone
e-mail <hughbone@worldnet.att.net>