A dialogue with Charles Jones. Here 
few days ago I left my comment on POST:
http://www.cronachelaiche.it/2010/05/dio-e-in-tutti-noi- creata-la-prima-forma-di-vita-artificiale/comment-page-1 / # comment-41089
posted by Graham Jones.
The result was a dialogue that I wish to use, uncluttered by other measures, so that it is more straightforward: Comment by Alexandra (later updated with that of this blog): One of my reflection.
will be interesting to see if these new artificial bacteria, capable of reproduction, genetic evolution will have a similar or different than natural ones. Cardinal Bagnasco spoke as God's gift of intelligence, probably referring to rationality '(which is often used by Christians, to say that God made man in His own image and likeness, just for rationality). If this were true, even the hypothetical artificial organisms descended from these bacteria should have, sooner or later, our very rationality. And here is not so much agree.
Antonio Damasio, one of the greatest living neuroscientists, he said, in one of his books translated into 19 languages, that the error di Cartesio è stato quello di non capire che la natura ha costruito la razionalità umana, non sopra la regolazione biologica, ma a partire da questa e al suo stesso interno. E la coscienza, ad esempio, si è evoluta gradatamente tramite tre tappe fondamentali (il Proto-se, la Coscienza nucleare e la Coscienza estesa. Vedi: http://www.ildiogene.it/EncyPages/Ency=Damasio.html). Per analogia, ogni evoluzione biologica, compresa la costruzione progressiva della RAZIONALITA’, per le proprietà trascrizionali scoperte da Eric Kandel (Vedi: http://www.psicoanalisi.it/psicoanalisi/neuroscienze/articoli/neuro4.htm), si deve evolvere con le esperienze e le interazioni con l'ambiente. Questo viene confermato dal fatto that many of the principles of quantum mechanics and Einstein's special relativity itself are not understood rationally, but accepts SUFFERED or better for both the mathematical formalism and is to be verified experimentally. Our rationality I had never experienced it, it does not understand them intuitively. The rational uses of mathematics and logic, but does not coincide with them.
It is possible that organisms that have had different experiences from us and our ancestors, to reach a different rationality able to intuit effortlessly the concepts of quantum mechanics, it will experience early.
This also rebut the presumption of many atheists. If the man has never experienced of God (if any) would like to understand the rationality (the result of progressive developmental experiences)?
atheists, unconsciously, assume that the rationality that is so you have both fallen from the sky (like the power of the Holy Spirit), and then seek to deny the existence of God with the same rationality. Not so. We have our own human rationality based on our particular evolution, which is always conditioned by the limited experience. Of course this means that you can not prove with our rationality nonexistence of God, as do many atheists claim to, but not threaten its existence. Assuming that
God exists, the vision of my school of thought is able to reconcile evolution and creationism, with its own theory: "God has designed the building blocks of the universe (strings) in a limited and particular, together with details of the physical laws such as the not local. This has meant that the evolution from the BIG BANG, largely by chance, had constraints. These constraints assumed that it was virtually certain that, sooner or later, one of 10 raised to 500 parallel universes (multiuniverso to 11 dimensions to M-theory) develop a biological organism endowed with intelligence and rationality. E'superfluo emphasize that even if the M-theory (that, today, most likely) was not confirmed, it would always be realistic the fact that the universe is composed of a limited number of sub-atomic particles, so the overall concept of our theory would not change. "
It follows that God has planned the individual changes or genetic mutations (now also ' man with his free will to change), but the man was the same in the project, very intelligent, God is a God who treats us like puppets or as part of a scheduled game, it does not seem so intelligent, and someone like Craig Venter could delude himself that he had replaced him, creating an artificial cell. But even the action of man in order to create new forms of living organisms always falls in the overall design of God and pass it anche le apparenti contraddizioni tra fede cristiana e biologia (vedi: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/77264).
Commento di Carlo Consoli del 23 Maggio; ore 23:05 Grazie Alessandra del dettagliato commento.
Devo dire che sono sorpreso, perché come ricercatrice e docente di queste materie hai sicuramente piena padronanza della materia e sappiamo benissimo che il raziocinio non è affatto un dono di Dio, ma il frutto di una specifica abilità del cervello, data dalle sue caratteristiche intrinseche di riconoscimento di schemi di percezioni e “convergenza” verso un risultato elaborativo.
Insomma, una rete neurale in grado di autoapprendere che si “autodefinisce” over the years. There is no trace of the experimental "gift of God" or of "divine" at the base of creation.
No, I say no experimental evidence.
And I'm frankly surprised that other researchers / scientists who are believers, when they say that behind everything is God, do not explain that this is a purely personal point of view, unsupported by any evidence sperimentale.Dio c ' is because we like to believe, not because we have found indications or evidence found in experiments repeatable.
The results of science are never allowed or suffered, verifiable and repeatable. Of course, it is necessary to understand scientific culture, but the fact remains that, with proper learning path, you can come to understand and verify.
Atheists do not assume that rationality at all (but then that means rationality?) Has fallen from the sky, indeed, they know that the mental faculties are the result of an evolutionary process of adaptation. We say that people who believe in the gifts poured from the sky, in the ranks of the atheists, there are very few.
I'm glad you talk about the multiverse and superstring theory (yet to be tested, though) here, these multiverses in the space of superstring in 10 or 11 dimensions, in the scriptures, not c’è traccia. Si parla chiaramente di cielo e terra, di sole e luna, senza riferimento alcuno a possibili mondi di altro genere. Sai benissimo che possono esistere pianeti o lune abitabili in orbita a stelle doppie. Di tutto ciò, nessun cenno nelle sacre scritture.
Un ateo come me, è stata proprio leggendo le sacre scritture che si è convinto che si tratta di pura invenzione. E già che siamo in tema di superstringhe, i testi “religiosi” più prossimi all’interprezione filosofica della fisica moderna non sono quelli cattolici, ma quelli induisti, taoisti e buddisti.
Per finire, ammesso che abbia un senso la parola “razionalità”, che non è una facoltà intellettiva but a collection of brain functions, the understanding of God through rationality is simple: God is born to calm compared to our terrible fear of death and, with this excuse, control the masses unable to build their own training and critical analysis. Explain the rationality of God with an impressive simplicity, if we have the courage to take off the slices of ham from his eyes: it is a human invention that is convenient to control people's minds, coupled to a personal interest, rested on superstition . Such and such is the superstition that even scientists and researchers clouded his scientific point of view in favor of "truth" puramente frutto di suggestione.
O, peggio, di comodo per far carriera nel contesto di riferimento. Commento di Alessandra del 24 Maggio; ore 3:23 @ Carlo,
sono capitata casualmente nel tuo blog, e la mia seconda risposta doveva essere indirizzata a Bobo e non a te; e di questo mi scuso. Poi, non vorrei affrontare un dibattito sulle cose che ho detto, visto e considerato che occorrono conoscenze più specifiche che non tutti possono avere; e anche perché ho sintetizzato notevolmente i miei concetti per ragioni di spazio; per cui si possono prestare ad inesatte interpretazioni.
Mi limito pertanto ad alcune precisazioni:
1) Dal sito: http://www.psicoanalisi.it/psicoanalisi/neuroscienze/articoli/neuro4.htm
we can know the conceptual framework of five points of Eric Kandel, and which carry the most significant:
"partial knowledge of how genes work generated two misconceptions: first, that biologists are convinced of the strict determination of the gene; the second is that genes have the sole function of transmitting hereditary information from one generation to another.
is necessary to define the two functions of the gene. The first is the model function (transmission), which provides copies to the next generation of all the genes present in the individual. The model can be altered only by mutations, rare and often random. This function is outside individual or social interference. The second is the transcriptional function that refers to the ability of a given gene to direct the production of specific proteins in a given cell. This function is also an adjustment sensitive to environmental factors. "... Etc..
From here, we understand that all evolution is rare for genetic mutations, but almost always to adapt to environmental experiences, and then in a very slow process. It follows that the RATIONALITY 'must follow a development environment for learning.
2) From the site: http://web.archive.org/web/20071103180127/http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/Mqfull.html Tiziano
Cantalupi confirms that:
"Although strongly opposed since its appearance (Einstein came to express his opposition to coin the phrase" God does not play dice ") Quantum Mechanics, is now universally accepted. It, as well as explaining the processes at the microscopic level as the stability of the atom or macroscopic processes such as superconductivity, recently received striking experimental confirmation: think about the inequality of Bell. Nevertheless, the degree of distrust of this matter - always hovering between Physics and Metaphysics - is left (as you also said just now) high. His recruits, to the point of absurdity, sorely prova le menti più aperte.
Anche nell’era dei computer superveloci, la Teoria Quantistica più che una scienza “accettata” si caratterizza per una scienza “subita”. E sono soprattutto gli studiosi di microfisica, i quali ogni giorno hanno a che fare con i suoi assunti filosofici e con il suo formalismo matematico, che più soffrono questo stato di cose.”
3) Ne approfitto per segnalare il mio blog: :-)
http://www.apiuvoci2.blogspot.com
Saluti.
Commento di Alessandra del 25 Maggio; ore 6:35 @ Carlo
Come potrà verificare leggendo il mio BLOG “:
http://www.apiuvoci2.blogspot.com
and the Blog and the site of Calantropio, we at some subjects we are interested in a long time, no depth and not incidentally just now. So I think that perhaps it is also useful to hear about our version of the phenomenology of religions and the concept of God
BIRTH OF CULTS and phenomenology of religion
When we speak of "God" or any other form of entity supernatural, we must be aware that it is a "concept" is not very precise and Gerardus van der Leeuw, in his book The Phenomenology of religion, it stresses that the lived religious experience refers to something different, surprising, that comes from ' ordinary. The
oldest belief is generated by empirical observations, and for most of the evolution of primitive religion, we must replace the image of God (conceived only in the last millennia), the simple notion of different, heterogeneous, extraordinary.
The supernatural, in whatever form, has power (or mana), and is not physical, but is revealed in the physical strength or any of the forces and capabilities possessed by humans. For example, a primitive hunter moves away from his camp in search of game, and the road is a stone "colored" very nice, picks it up and decides to take him home. By sheer chance and coincidence, from that moment of the episodes are very fortunate to be hunting, is back home with his wife and is in various other episodes. The hunter then becomes convinced that the stone has a power that sought (a MANA), which gives her good fortune: COSI 'SUPERNATURAL POWERS THAT ARE BORN DIFFERENT MAN GIVES THE OBJECTS, THE MOUNTAINS, LAKES, stars, etc..
From an anthropological point of view, recent studies place the australopithecines about five million years ago, to get the first hominids to three million years ago, but only beginning with the first 200,000 years ago, we found that the man acquires the reason and abstraction, the cult of the dead, ancestors and art (the first cave paintings).
In seguito nascono i poteri specializzati (ci si rende conto cioè che non tutte le potenze agiscono in tutti i campi, ma alcune agiscono solo in alcuni settori.
Tutte le religioni preistoriche e primitive, in ogni parte del mondo, nascono intorno alla figura dello SCIAMANO. Lo sciamano, a differenza del sacerdote o del re, non deriva da un’istituzione, ma ha base empirica, possiede facoltà innate o trasmesse e ha un comportamento di carattere estatico. Quando entra in trance è ponte fra le energie spirituali e quelle terrene, un canale della volontà divina e delle forze della natura che mette a disposizione dell’umanità.
Nei millenni, poi nacque la convinzione che la potenza era capace di rimanere attaccata agli oggetti (Eg to AMULETI) and several more bodies, this was coined the German word "Seelenstoff" (literally, matters of the soul). But also the sites, especially those consecrated by the rites, became centers of major importance. Later, in the Hellenistic-Christian idea of \u200b\u200bpower is presented to us as "the concept of pneuma" (as the universal soul, the driving force within all things) and hegemonikon (individual human soul).
In conclusion, in any religion or cult of primitive human, the attribution of power to an object, a star or another has always been an empirical fact and often random.
A confirmation of the above occurs with Australian Aborigines, lived for more than 50,000 years isolated from the rest of the continents, and had not, before the advent of other populations, neither the concept nor the concept of God and of the property. They are the ones that belong to the territory in which they live, and not vice versa.
see: http://www.psicoanalisi.it/psicoanalisi/osservatorio/articoli/osserva40.html
Comment by Charles Jones of May 25, @ 11:10 Alessandra: I ask the courtesy of not can copy and paste content from sites, simply add the link, so it's more agile read. That is, if you have the content fresh and wrote this yourself now put it well, written legacy can be easily linked.
said, it's definitely interesting to hear the opinions of those involved in the matter for some time. It 'also important to stress however that the scientific approach has never made confirmation settings mystical / religious.
From the standpoint of science, religion and superstition are actually the same thing.
Comment by Alessandra on May 25, @ 11:50 Charles
meanwhile I would like to stress that the psicomatica is taught in universities:
BOOKS ON LINE OF THE CHAIR OF PSYCHOSOMATIC UNIVERSITA 'DI TORINO:
http://www.sicap.it/merciai/psicosomatica/badjob/Luca.pdf
http://www.sicap.it/merciai/psicosomatica/badjob/Salese.pdf
And that the European co encyclopedia holistic:
http://www.globalvillage-it.com/enciclopedia/ index.htm
Then, for the majority of scientists (certainly not all those mentioned in the link above) religion and superstition are done the same, I help PROVE that religions are born "empirically" and not to control people's minds, coupled to a personal interest, rested on superstition or fear of the afterlife (And if some exploit this, it is another matter). Of course those who believe in astrology or the magic does not do it for fear of the underworld.
I am a Christian, though not Catholic, I do not believe in metaphysics the Hellenistic period, but I think in another philosophical system, which is separated from the oil well, from reductionism and relativism.
Religious experience is always a personal matter, and statistics to hand over 506 Nobel laureates of science (medicine, physics and chemistry), only 6 were openly declared atheists. The rest, or a believer or agnostic.
AT THIS POINT POST Chronicles of laity was strangely closed, and Charles Jones, in his email, told me he thought he had sufficient dialogue so, referring everything to the next occasion. So I just have to refute some points that I intend to do next and I thank the anonymous comment that you leave the No.1, which I share.
In reference to the anonymous comment, I must emphasize that my creations are very close to that of Einstein who coined the famous phrase "God does not play dice", and indeed mine is a creationism that accepts that God also play dice. So I consider myself in good company :-).
goes without saying that I do not believe that the biblical events are real, but only allegorical. And I say I am Christian because I believe that the evangelical Christian morality coincides with the moral human bioethics. See my post:
http://apiuvoci2.blogspot.com/2010/01/il-bene-e-il-male-rev-1.html
addition to the fact that Christ 2000 years ago spoke of the resurrection of the dead in flesh and spirit, as if she knew the experiment with the DNA of the bacterium created on a computer (with regard to the conservation of the DNA code and the spirit I refer the theory of Calantropio).
affirmation of Charles Jones "There is no trace of the experimental" gift of God "or of" divine "at the base of creation. No, I say no experimental evidence. ", was precisely the point I wanted to highlight in my first speech, on the limits of our reason:
IF YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW IF THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS PHYSICALLY CAN EXPLAIN with a theory of everything still to be discovered, if we do not know what dark matter, we do not know if there is a Higgs boson, if we never made direct experience of God, we would like to know if there are his experimental evidence?
conclude by confirming the highest regard for the agnostics, but they do not understand atheists who presume to say that surely God does not exist. Perhaps he is right in his commentary on the anonymous No 1 of this post, not all atheists, but for a good part of them. Alessandra
