Some mysteries in the sciences

the status of statistical explanations in psychology and sociology, or the physics-chemistry relation in philosophy of chemistry… simultaneity for philosophy of physics; individuation of species and ecosystems for the philosophy of biology

While I’m game to dive into any, I intuit “there be dragons” in the philosophy of biology to a conspicuous degree (thus I predict lots of veil arists as well).

First thing I want to note is the pride of the biologist. They have an air about them like they Know the Truth. Are they wrong? I think they’re right in some sense. And they’re right to be proud that they have this Eye on reality. You just see me as a demon, I know it.

This is an interesting title isn’t it?

Sadly, biology, like other sciences, is a victim of the modern leveling plot, and explanation is taken as akin to “mansplaining”. This is how our Maoists see mathematics at the end of the day too. “Shut up, you’re not allowed to be too good” is the gist.

The dismal reality is that most people are purely biological beings and CAN be explained through biology alone. This is one of the meanings of the term nigger. The implication is that a given being is nature more than it is humanity proper. Blind, yet directed, forces that drive automata to act.

When I talk about CRISPR I’m hinting that I think that, paradoxically, it’s possible to manipulate biology in order to make a being less a creature of pure biology. If a woman is injected I expect a fog to be lifted that she never even knew was there. This is the state of automata- eternal fog. It’s because biology is doing most of the work. Only a minority of humanity has second-order biology known as consciousness which arguably isn’t biology technically. Theology probably explains consciousness better than biology.

In other words, I agree with those biologists who reduce people to physiology with the EXCEPTION that SOME can’t be placed into that reduction.

We’re all carrying thousands of years of the baggage of our ancestors. The ones in charge of humanity throughout that great expanse of time probably took many steps to reduce the automata level, and they could only do so much. The automata were needed to get to our present, and now it’s a question of what to do with them. My proposal is to try to make them less like automata, and the ones that can’t be helped should be confined from political life.

Zooming out you might notice that biologists have a privileged view of things in the sciences. Physicists and mathematicians reduce reality in a way that isn’t as meaningful to us. With biology we’re speaking directly about life. You might say well chemists can reduce us similarly, and what you mean to say is BIOchemists can do something similar.

Philosophy has to be proud of its children

It was only much later, in the seventeenth century, that physics finally established itself as a discipline distinct from philosophy, followed in the late eighteenth century by chemistry, and, as we will argue in the next chapter, by biology as late as 1859

We obtained these “nice things” so recently! and we’re losing them so soon…

What I mean to say is that once the west is purely biological (which is the path it’s on) these sciences won’t be able to be utilized optimally, or in the worst case scenario, utilized at all.

Don’t you like how I take the god’s-eye-view perspective here, looking at the sciences as MY own personal children? Someone has to be that delusional, don’t they? This is why I like Laruelle, because he tries to one-up the god’s-eye-view.

Ah confirmation that it isn’t just me who sees it as privileged

It is well known that many people reject the findings and theories of natural science in favor of other beliefs, often religious ones, and often with the accompanying claim that some facts of the world are forever beyond the reach of science. No science is more often met with claims of this sort than biology.

The question of feminism is a veiled biological debate. Just like I’ll momentarily stand as the representative of philosophy, I also will do that for men and say, yes we kept you as purely biological beings, and that’s the problem we’re dealing with now. Just because people treat you as not a purely biological being now doesn’t mean you stopped being that way.

Anyway I’m just trying to give you a glance at this subdiscipline

How we eventually answer these questions will turn on what meaning we agree to confer on terms such as “life,” “purpose,” “progress,” “complexity,” “theism,” “genetic program,” “adaptation,” and so on… philosophy addresses the questions raised by the sciences—at least in part—by clarifying the concepts on which these questions hinge.

I look at those words in quotation marks and just say Yes. Life’s purpose, the complexity of progress, looks like Kant. That’s where the genetic program and adaptations should lead, to being someone like him. The direct opposite of a purely biological being.

Beings need to evolve to be interested in climbing the Everest in Aristotle and then examining the children sciences that he spawned. There are also Everests in the arts to climb. This is the real clarification of concepts that biology deals with.

evolution is descent with modification, the notion that all organisms are modified descendants of a common ancestor

Can the purely biological beings modify themselves to climb such mountains?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: