Brain complexity: circadian controls (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 06, 2015, 14:52 (3119 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The quotes concerning cells as thinking beings and not machines were reproduced from the article on wound repair. I know you have your own strong opinion. Dawkins also has a strong opinion, and I'm sure he would also claim it is based on his scientific knowledge. But both of you must be aware that what you call “knowledge” is woefully incomplete, and your opinions simply skate over the gaps in that knowledge. The plea for open-mindedness is a plea to recognize that strong opinions are not justified by the current state of knowledge, and if a hypothesis has a 50/50 chance of being true, it should not be dismissed.-DAVID: If these cells I've mentioned ever varied in their approach to the way they solved problems, I'd agree with you, but the mechanisms are always the same, as if cast in stone. You are falling for hyperbole again, and again. Remember I'm the guy who presents these articles. I've added commentary recently because you are always looking for loopholes to protect your picket fence. In my opinion these articles always contain information that support my views, as I interpret the findings.-It's not a question of you agreeing or disagreeing with me. I am a non-scientist layman confronted with the opinions of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the subject. In their opinion, their research "contains information that supports their views as they interpret the findings". Their statements are unequivocal: cells are not machines but are living sentient beings. You call this hyperbole, but in the same breath you agree that there is a 50/50 chance of them being right. In my view, that is reason enough to keep an open mind, and to take seriously all the implications of both opinions.