SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (51600)4/2/2014 8:46:36 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
What Has Atheism Done for You Lately?

As atheism has been gaining adherents and prestige pious believers have been dismissed, disparaged and discounted. Among the cognoscenti the long knives have been out for religion.

Of course, it isn’t all that clear what it means to adhere to atheism. Perhaps you can believe fervently in nothing, but, dare I say, it isn’t self-evident.

You can, for example, believe in Reason, but that feels like recycled idolatry. Isn’t Reason the Greek god Apollo?

Today’s atheists would not shy away from this form of paganism. To their minds, anything is better than God, especially the Judeo-Christian deity.

The late Christopher Hitchens famously declared that religion poisons everything, but for someone of surpassing intelligence, the statement is an embarrassment. It conflates all religions and it’s an overly broad generalization. To refute it you need but show that religion is good for something. You might even demonstrate that the irreligious among us are handing out their own mental poison.

If we ask what religion has done for anyone lately, Byron Johnson and Maria Pagano respond that, in the world of drug and alcohol abuse, it offers distinct and measurable benefits.


Their forthcoming article in the Alcohol Treatment Quarterly will show that young people who believe in God and religion are less likely to become alcoholics or drug addicts. If they are already addicted, religion will facilitate recovery.

They explain:

Young people who regularly attend religious services and describe themselves as religious are less likely to experiment with alcohol and drugs, a growing body of research shows. Why? It could be religious instruction, support from congregations, or conviction that using alcohol and drugs violates one's religious beliefs.

Moreover, frequent involvement in spiritual activities seems to help in the treatment of those who do abuse alcohol and drugs. That's the conclusion of many reports, including our longitudinal study of 195 juvenile offenders that will be released in May in Alcohol Treatment Quarterly.

What psychological trait draws a young person to alcohol and drugs? It is anomie:

The problem is more fundamental than missing church on Sunday. Young people in our study of juvenile offenders seem to lack purpose and are overwhelmed by feelings of not fitting in.

The psychosocial distress of not belonging to a group and having no purpose in life, no direction, no hope for the future… leads children to self-medicate.


Belonging to a religion seems to be an effective solution to anomie.

Led by psychiatry our culture sees the human brain as a biochemical soup that needs psychopharmacological spicing up. It sees biochemistry as the best way to solve all psychological problems.

The debate is as old as Alcoholics Anonymous. Many psychiatrists have happily directed their patients to AA, but others have been offended by the fact that it relies on God or a higher power. Some psychiatrists have been especially upset because AA meetings are free.

Given their druthers, most psychiatrists believe in a biochemical solution to the problem of addiction.

Obviously, AA does not work for everyone. It works best for those who keep with the program. But, the same is true of any treatment. If you do not take you antibiotics and do not get better, no one will say that treatment is ineffective.

Worse yet, from the standpoint of those who believe in science, AA was not discovered by scientists working long hours in laboratories. It was cobbled together by two drunks in Akron.

The basis for AA also contradicts one of the articles of therapy faith. It tells patients not to engage in a mental struggle against their impulse to drink.

It tells them that they will never be strong enough to control the impulse, and should rely on a higher power, one that is strong enough.

In practice, this means, among other things, learning to help others. It’s a simple idea: instead of getting lost in your mind, you should reach out to other people. Telling someone to get over himself is better than telling him to get into himself.

It’s impossible to beat alcoholism on your own, with your own resources.

Johnson and Pagano explain:

Those who help people during treatment—taking time to talk to another addict who is struggling, volunteering, cleaning up, setting up for meetings, or other service projects—are, according to our research, statistically more likely to stay sober and out of jail in the six months after discharge, a high-risk period in which 70% relapse.

Worse yet, those who had abandoned their irreligion in favor of religion also did much better:


Our study showed daily spiritual experiences predicted abstinence, increased social behavior and reduced narcissistic behavior. Even those who enter addiction treatment without a religious background can benefit from an environment where they are encouraged to seek a higher power and serve others.

Nearly half of youth who self-identified as agnostic, atheist or nonreligious at treatment admission claimed a spiritual affiliation two months later. This change correlated with a decreased likelihood of testing positive for alcohol and drugs during treatment.

Religion, through AA programs provides:

a deep sense of purpose, opportunities to provide help to other people, connections with others, and the chance to make a difference in the world. This reduces self-absorbed thinking, something AA cites as a root cause of addiction.

Admittedly, none of this proves that God exists. It does not prove that God doesn’t exist, either. But it does demonstrate that religion and spirituality contain something of value, something that, if you have an addiction problem, might be of great value.

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-has-atheism-done-for-you-lately.html



To: Brumar89 who wrote (51600)4/5/2014 1:39:35 PM
From: Solon  Respond to of 69300
 
DNA is not a language

I think I should clarify this considering how pervasive the claim is. The claim "DNA is a language" is probably the result of pop-science, which tries to reduce concepts to simple single words or phrases. That’s how the myth "you only use ten percent of your brain" started (Complete nonsense. The confusion arises because only 10% of brain cells are neuronal, the rest are glial cells like oligodendrocytes and astrocytes). It is also how the Second Law of thermodynamics became reduced to "everything progresses towards disorder" with the result that many creationists are confused about thermodynamics, and labour under the delusion that entropy can never decrease in a system. Nonsense, again. But it does reveal troubling ignorance about science, a few names, some general concepts, that’s it. The claim "DNA is a language" is a meaningless allusion, even if construed as metaphorical. DNA is no more a language than a telephone book is a computer. DNA is a cipher, that is to say that it is a direct substitution representation of the sequential structure of another unbranched polymer, polypeptide (some DNA, however, codes for RNA genes), constructed of a different monomer class, amino acids. The order of the amino acids will determine the structure and function of the final product for which the DNA codes, the protein. In this regard, DNA does not function, even analogously, as a language, it is a substitution cipher. A substitution cipher is one in which one set of functional expressions is replaced with another. For example:

A=1

B=2

C=3

D=4

E=5

F=6

Etc

If I transcribed this to write: 85(12)(12)(15)=HELLO, which was then decoded by another conscious being with the same understanding, then it would become a language. This does not analogously occur in DNA. The DNA is a substitution of DNA bases grouped in to codon triplets, which are transcribed and translated to make functional polypeptides. This is not a language. A substitution cipher per se does not qualify as a language.

In this case, each amino acid is read as a triplet group of nucleotides called a codon, with other codons dictating the stop and start of translation. As shown in this table, DNA is a substitution cipher like so:

GCA

GCC

GCG

GCU

AGA

AGG

CGA

CGG

CGU

GAC

GAU

AAC

AAU

UGC

UGU

GAA

GAG

CAA

CAG

GGA

GGC

GGG

GGU

CAC

CAU

AUA

AUC

AUU

UUA

UUG

CUA

CUC

CUG

CUU

AAA

AAG

AUG

UUC

UUU

CCA

CCC

CCG

CCU

AGC

AGU

UCA

UCC

UCG

UCU

ACA

ACC

ACG

ACU

UGG

UAC

UAU

GUA

GUC

GUG

GUU

UAA

UAG

UGA

Ala

Arg

Asp

Asn

Cys

Glu

Gln

Gly

His

Ile

Leu

Lys

Met

Phe

Pro

Ser

Thr

Trp

Tyr

Val

Stop

A

R

D

N

C

E

Q

G

H

I

L

K

M

F

P

S

T

W

Y

V




However, DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstracts represent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has "meaning" to an entity which can understand what "5" means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not "understand" that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide "understand" that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA "understand" that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.

"Physical reality" isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes "non-physical explanations" because the very notion of "non-physical explanation" is contradictory.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/11799



To: Brumar89 who wrote (51600)8/31/2014 8:06:29 AM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Your claim DNA is a language is like your other fantasies, just meaningless allusions & deflections, its a substition cipher, what editorializing nonsense you keep coming up with.

The claim "DNA is a language" is probably the result of pop-science, which tries to reduce concepts to simple single words or phrases. That’s how the myth "you only use ten percent of your brain" started (Complete nonsense. The confusion arises because only 10% of brain cells are neuronal,the rest are glial cells like oligodendrocytes and astrocytes). It is also how the Second Law of thermodynamics became reduced to "everything progresses towards disorder" with the result that many creationists are confused about thermodynamics, and labour under the delusion that entropy can never decrease in a system. Nonsense, again.

But it does reveal troubling ignorance about science, a few names, some general concepts, that’s it. The claim "DNA is a language" is a meaningless allusion, even if construed as metaphorical. DNA is no more a language than a telephone book is a computer. DNA is a cipher, that is to say that it is a direct substitution representation of the sequential structure of another unbranched polymer, polypeptide (some DNA, however, codes for RNA genes), constructed of a different monomer class, amino acids. The order of the amino acids will determine the structure and function of the final product for which the DNA codes, the protein. In this regard, DNA does not function, even analogously, as a language, it is a substitution cipher.A substitution cipher is one in which one set of functional expressions is replaced with another. For example:

A=1

B=2

C=3

D=4

E=5

F=6

Etc

If I transcribed this to write: 85(12)(12)(15)=HELLO, which was then decoded by another conscious being with the same understanding, thenit would become a language. This does not analogously occur in DNA. The DNA is a substitution of DNA bases grouped in to codon triplets, which are transcribed and translated to make functional polypeptides. This is nota language. A substitution cipher per sedoes notqualify as a language.

In this case, each amino acid is read as a triplet group of nucleotides called a codon, with other codons dictating the stop and start of translation. As shown in this table, DNA is a substitution cipher like so:

GCA

GCC

GCG

GCU

AGA

AGG

CGA

CGG

CGU

GAC

GAU

AAC

AAU

UGC

UGU

GAA

GAG

CAA

CAG

GGA

GGC

GGG

GGU

CAC

CAU

AUA

AUC

AUU

UUA

UUG

CUA

CUC

CUG

CUU

AAA

AAG

AUG

UUC

UUU

CCA

CCC

CCG

CCU

AGC

AGU

UCA

UCC

UCG

UCU

ACA

ACC

ACG

ACU

UGG

UAC

UAU

GUA

GUC

GUG

GUU

UAA

UAG

UGA

Ala

Arg

Asp

Asn

Cys

Glu

Gln

Gly

His

Ile

Leu

Lys

Met

Phe

Pro

Ser

Thr

Trp

Tyr

Val

Stop

A

R

D

N

C

E

Q

G

H

I

L

K

M

F

P

S

T

W

Y

V




However, DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes,such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has "meaning" to an entity which can understand what "5" means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA.

When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not "understand" that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide "understand" that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA "understand" that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition.

All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factorswhich terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.

"Physical reality" isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes "non-physical explanations" because the very notion of "non-physical explanation" is contradictory.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/11799