[MD] Do genes experience?

[Peter Corteen]

Ham,

when you labelled me a 'reductionist' I replied that it was 'aimed to make
me feel small'; it doesn't make me feel small though - it was only a play on
words.
I take your supplied definition of reductionism to mean that a reductionist
would believe that everything will be understandable; I'm not claiming that,
but I am saying that natural selection shows us how species evolve and so
that man was not placed on this planet as he is now.

You said ' the absolute Source of existence is not subject to the finite
limitations of time and space, therefore needs no prior creator'. Although
it makes grammatical sense I don't see any rationality there. Just because
you use the words 'absolute Source of existence' doesn't mean there is one.
Time and space are conventions invented by man. The statement is nonsensical
to me.

You said that I am 'participating in a philosophical forum whose goal is to
explain the nature and origin of your "fish tank". You are the one who
believes in a creator so you are the one in the experimental fish tank not
me. I told you I read popular science books, and I've read both of Pirsig's
books several times; that shows I am interested in the 'reality beyond
finite existence'; I can't see the individual blood cells when I bleed but I
know they are there. If we,as humans, manage to solve the problems presented
by over population and global warming it will be through science; your "God"
will have no part in that.

You said 'I'll be most happy to answer any of your questions', but you have
already avoided one: I asked you 'What would be the advantage to me' of
believing in a creator?

Judging by the content of your email I won't be tapping along to
essentialism.net.

Peter