In article <71ioga$ks6 at ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>"Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes:
>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gkgt$ibc at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>In <71cqlh$gol at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>>Poor metaphore. How about this one (it has its own flaws, but at least
>>>it is different): is the cell like a computer "using" DNA like a
>>>program? or is the program "using" the computer? (Not QUITE the same
>>>question as "is a chicken an egg's way of making another egg?", but
>>>reminds me of it...)
>>As a professor of computer science, Neil may enjoy your computer story but I
>>doubt it. It is too close to the notion that the software is the mind and
>>the computer the brain.
>Software prescribes the actions of a computer far more precisely than
>does DNA prescribe the actions of a cell.
Yep, kick them on the balls, those high priests
of falalistic materialism!
>>>(Bytheway: just what IS his point, anyway? In 50 words or less.)
>>Possibly politics. He is much taken by Rose (and Lewontin?), Marxists both.
>>(Please, Please! I have absolutely nothing against Marxism, however DNA is a
>>dirty word to some.)
>Ah yes, the old "it must be politics" argument. It is always easier
>to make such accustions, than to actually address the important
>issues.
These cunts, calling themself scientists and "do gooders",
preaching morals of "good", still have to resort to the same
old tricks
[of discarding something, purely on the basis of the
common prejudice of a ruling creed,
manipulating "evil" programming in the programmed brains
of bio-robots]
Ugly shit.
Lowest grade.
To come talk about loving one another and then use this
as an argument is nothing, but a foundation of a whitch hunt.
>No, I am not a Marxist, and I do not consider DNA a dirty word. I
>happen to like science to be accurate, and not just a set of "Just
>So" stories.
[invented by the fat cat
to suck the blood of everybody underneath]
