|
Tim,
I am no expert in biology (the understatement of
the 3rd millennium) but tackled a bit the question of procaryotes in the aspect
of 'complicating' the living structures. Corrections accepted.
The procaryotes are - if not necessarily the
smalles - the simplest creatures considered 'alive'. Citoplasm and cell
membrane. With most chemical procedures of cell life. Lynn Margulis (frmr Mrs.
Carl Sagan) developed the theory of symbiotic associations - as far as I
read not extended down to prokaryotes, which I did: Assuming that there were
several of them "meeting" and "cooperating" when the 'social'
contract started: the conglomerates of the
diverse cells separated the functions and all 'worked' together for the
community. Then - by permeability of the cell membranes - some slipped inside
others - keeping the functions from the inside, some became mitochondria, others
the cell nucleus. At this point the eucaryotes were evolved, our
stuff.
The procaryotes "did not die" their simple
functions did not include senescence, they underwent mitosis, divided into two
similar ones and (renewed) kept on living. All on environmental impact. They
could be destroyed by outside brute forces, not by aging. This was before the
invention of the biological clock.
Which brings me to the question I wanted to
raise for awhile, but procrastinated:
Did RR develop a conclusion of death? Lately a
friend wrote an article about "soul, that remains after death" (not a religious
theory, he is an astronomer and did not identify an 'eternal soul') just the
accumulated experience bothered him - as energy - how and where can it go when a
person dies?
I have a different opinion (as always<G>)
about the phenomenon of living, we call: dying. The living structure functions
in its adjusted complexity, certain secondary failures are repaired, yet when
some substantial component gets busted, the complexity does not function
together anymore. Everything is there - almost - just some essential factor
stepped out. Now the experience: it is not some sort of 'mental energy' as the
reductionistic science imagines which can be accounted for in some 'equilibrium'
inventory. It is a process of 'experiencing' in the atemporal mindfunction and
the act of 'remembering' is not to scratch out a stored contraption which
represents the past event, rather a 'second look' at it within the ever changing
conditions of the world (and the brain). This accounts for 'forgetfulness' and
'shaping' of memories, unknown in computers, where the memory is frozen into
matter. Erazing such frozen memory IS an energy-application, while the
"inability to take a second look" is not.
I wonder how Rosen adjusted the idea of 'death'?
also I would appreciate opinions to the question. Please do not include
the eternal soul which goes into heaven and plays the harp: it can be very
boring after the first 30,000 years playing the same hymns.
Apologizing for the moribund
question
John M
|