4 ms·

"...biology is a science, not a pseudoscience or protoscience (or magic)" I agree with your overall point but I take slight issue with this statement. I am no

"...biology is a science, not a pseudoscience or protoscience (or magic)" I agree with your overall point but I take slight issue with this statement. I am not biologically educated, but I am biological. I have no idea what my conscious is or why/how it works, even though I do know that I exist. And neither do you, nor anyone. To me, that is the classic definition of magic. This differs from eg electronics, physics etc, because I am biological. I have a personal perspective on it, in a manner that I could never with electronics, physics etc. Ie. I can readily understand how far away from understanding the biological process humanity is.

ethelward 8y ago
With the same idea, you're also made of physical particles, and we don't really understand how they actually work.
- laythea 8y ago
  Yes I do agree that there is a point we have to stop. However, how would you class yourself: - biological - electrical - chemical - etc It would be biological for me, although I know I am all the above.
  - robbiep 8y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. The layers don’t stop because you choose one: you are biological, because you’re chemical, because you’re physical (which is more like saying you’re electrical). Ie. Laws of physics govern the laws of chemistry and the first couple are chiseled in stone for the most part. Biology, that is to physics what psychology is to surgery (perhaps mathematics is a batter analogy). You can’t choose that you are ‘just’ biological because it is the emergent property of deeper systems of rules. Consciousness, now that is a debate for the philosophers.
mygo 8y ago
> This differs from eg electronics, physics etc, because I am biological biology has everything to do with physics and electronics (and chemistry etc). it’s just a frame of reference that decides what you choose to classify as one or the other. But the laws of nature are consistent no matter what you’re choosing to call it or which aspect of it you’re addressing.

ethelward 8y ago

With the same idea, you're also made of physical particles, and we don't really understand how they actually work.

laythea 8y ago
Yes I do agree that there is a point we have to stop. However, how would you class yourself: - biological - electrical - chemical - etc It would be biological for me, although I know I am all the above.
- robbiep 8y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. The layers don’t stop because you choose one: you are biological, because you’re chemical, because you’re physical (which is more like saying you’re electrical). Ie. Laws of physics govern the laws of chemistry and the first couple are chiseled in stone for the most part. Biology, that is to physics what psychology is to surgery (perhaps mathematics is a batter analogy). You can’t choose that you are ‘just’ biological because it is the emergent property of deeper systems of rules. Consciousness, now that is a debate for the philosophers.

mygo 8y ago

> This differs from eg electronics, physics etc, because I am biological biology has everything to do with physics and electronics (and chemistry etc). it’s just a frame of reference that decides what you choose to classify as one or the other. But the laws of nature are consistent no matter what you’re choosing to call it or which aspect of it you’re addressing.