We all look through small conceptual windows, mostly square, and only see what these limiting mental frameworks can show us.  For example, I was educated in the humanities and much exposed to the way Plato and Aristotle think during my philosophical and theological training.  It seems obvious to me that information is by definition immaterial,  and the material  acids A,C, G and T in the DNA are carriers of immaterial messages.  Not, that is, in the way a load of potatoes or wood is carried in a cart, more as the scratches I make with my pen when I write a letter are saturated in the meanings of which they are the medium.  Nevertheless there is a difference between the material ink marks and the immaterial ideas I want to express. These ideological messages in the DNA are, for me, infused into the amino acids and via them into the proteins,  and finally unified into the indivisible soul of the body that the proteins compose.  But this is not how many of my friends, brought up the Anglo-Saxon scientific tradition, see it.  For them it is obvious that the whole process is material,  and the information is injected into the proteins much as a gas might be projected by a piston from the compression chamber into the engine.  Who is right?  Generally speaking it has never occurred to any of the scientists to look at the amazing process of the transmission of life (at least we can all agree it is amazing) in the way I do.  It has certainly occurred to me to try and look at it as they.  But I find it almost impossible to do.  Who is right?  Perhaps it is a question impossible to answer.  But at least we should try to broaden our windows.


Related Posts

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>