Nothing is describable to those void of understanding.
And it is the cell that is the house that “rebuilds itself”, not the DNA.
The DNA might be the engine, but it is not the car.
And without the car, it gets nowhere.
DNA expands from what it is, using itself to form proteins and amino acids. Every cell in the body, with the exception of the sex cells, contains the entire human genome. This makes cloning a possibility. DNA is both the engine and the car. It is the original this that becomes a that capable of making the distinction between this and that. It produces cell, organ, bone, tissue and endocrines, as well as brains, which are just another type of organ, albeit a supervisory one. In these progressions DNA remains the engine, the car and the conscious driver.
duplicate
DNA does not equal the molecules and cells and organs and organisms and experiences which ultimately arise as consequences of it.
You are making a fundamental logical error, you are confusing a cause with its effect. And you are forgetting that effects are also causes.
So the products of DNA are not DNA in other forms?
Why would each product contain the entire human genome, except for sperm & egg cells, which contain half?
Ierrellus, without the cell, the DNA cannot replicate itself, just like without wheels, gas tank, and so on, the engine cannot go anywhere. The cell not only establishes a protected environment, but also participates in creating the DNA’s resources so that it can replicate. The DNA does not produce the energy required to functionally grow, nor does it in effect “digest” materials into useful forms. A DNA molecule is not a cell and a cell isn’t a body and a body isn’t a living person. Take any one part away, and the whole no longer functions.
So no, a person is not merely a bigger DNA molecule. The person, the body, the organs, and the cells all perform functions that the DNA CANNOT do.
If I indicated anywhere that DNA is cell, etc., I was in error. DNA is the blueprint that develops the building. Without DNA there would be no amino acids, no proteins, no stem cells.
All I am trying to say here is that innate structuring provides the structure of thought.
I think that our issue is that there is a huge complex distance between the DNA efforts and the mental efforts. Mental efforts are provided for by the DNA structure, but guided by the affects upon that structure.
Look at the basic structure of a CPU in any computer. Does a word processor program have that same structure? The CPU allows for a program to exist and function. But something outside the computer gives that general ability a purpose and thus a direction. And in blending those, a structure for the program itself is formed (“thoughts” and “spirit”).
JSJ,
You seem to be with Ricouer in his insistence that a progression such as I propose is impossible because of the complexity involved in getting from there (genes) to here (neurons.) I see no lines of demarcation in growth and development.
MM,
I can play my piano because its structure and my structure are compatible. Why is this the case?
What does “compatible” mean? My “structure” is “compatible” with just about anything when it comes to striking an instrument to produce a tone. Or are you talking about training and expertise?
DNA does not play the piano. You do. Reducing to DNA you might as well keep going and reduce to individual nucleotides and the atoms that compose them. Why do you start at the DNA molecule itself? Because what matters is structure, the relations between things. And in the very same way those molecules and cells and organ systems that exist atop the DNA level are structures and relations that are primary to themselves in so far that they constitute thresholds of activity, their own laws and causal organizations, upon which are built still more far-removed things.
It’s rhizomatic, as Deleuze says; it’s tectonic. Your effort to reduce the huge depth and complexity and inter-dependency of organisms to a single level of it is misguided.
Huh?? … just because I used the word “complex”??
One device developing into a larger more complex device does not mean that everything the more complex device does was ONLY due to the simpler device.
You seem to be giving NO credit to the environment’s influence over structural development and growth. Again, the DNA can do nothing without the Cell providing a suitable environment. And a mind cannot produce structured thought without a suitable environment either. The environment guides and provides what the DNA initiates.
The third proposition of my OP concerns genes and memes. I thought it was a bit early in ther discussion to comment on the extrasomatic environment. I think we still have a discussion about structure and function in the soma. The ability to play my piano well is, of course a matter of practice. As a structured being, I can comprehend stucture as it exists in things and people.
I wholeheartedly agree!
There is so much more to an organism than DNA. What having a certain section of DNA does depends on a lot of external and internal factors, to the point that it seems strange to say that DNA is the sole cause of any biological trait.
If the human genome was more than G, A , C, T (U), I might agree with you. Why is the entire genome present in every cell, with the exception of the sex cells? Is it necessary that the blueprint be placed in the constructions?
I respect your argument Ierrelus but I think you are pushing it slightly too far or containing it too tightly. It is clearly an essentialist argument, which asks for lenience in the area of ontology. The Aristotelean laws are not ideal in such conditions, a Platonic approach is more to the point. Master-forms on top of a manifestational hierarchy rather than the laws of identity which separate all elements equally.
The DNA must be present in every cell as the cell is built at the command of the DNA’s requirements. The sex cells do not contain the full genome because - by definition whatever a cell does contain the whole genome, it does not allow for sexual reproduction. This half genome compensation mechanism seems to have occurred as a very long strain of aleatory damages and errors.
We can not limit an organism to its DNA, as the combination is at minimum DNA and habitat. This is of course obvious to you as well, and I wonder why you argue so monistically. A fish can not procreate successfully when it’s air-bound or on land. A man can not be born alive in outer space. The whole activity that recreates the DNA is not implicit in the DNA.
Reduction to a singular cause is usually not successful as a description of what is going on. Most of the time we require a ‘force’ and a ‘form’ aspect between which an difficult-to-grasp self-perpetuating self-identifier is found. DNA is a form that is commanding force. It is a dominant form, whereas many forms are passive, being commanded by force.
DNA is a ‘master form’ that attracts force and mass and uses it in its own image. It is really the God like aspect to our being, higher even than the forces that inhabit it - it is the residue of the most successful forces that ever worked on us. The forces themselves aren’t as special - though necessary to every equation, simple necessities and not exceptional products.
You do realize that biological organisms on Earth are a set of huge make-do constructions? The design of the human body is far from optimal.
Thanks, FC.,
I don’t feel that I can defend my position any more. Extensions of DNA are seen in opposition to their origins. I have no way of countering such assumptions. My Op merely stated that it is from our experience of being structured that we can apply structure to thought or inventions.
duplicate
I’ll try one last time to make sense of the OP.
Experiencing how cells work, we are aware of multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, action/reaction, duration, space, this is that, this does that to that, etc. etc.
Our video and audio “inventions” rely on our experiences with sight and sound. Computers are brain analogy. The media produces the messages. We create from what we are.