@ThomasdelVasto's banner p

ThomasdelVasto

Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 May 20 19:37:18 UTC

Blogger, Christian convert, general strange one. https://shapesinthefog.substack.com/


				

User ID: 3709

ThomasdelVasto

Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 May 20 19:37:18 UTC

					

Blogger, Christian convert, general strange one. https://shapesinthefog.substack.com/


					

User ID: 3709

Absolutely is!!! I think it’s mostly a meaning or community issue frankly. But our medical system is not well designed for that sort of thing.

Yes, the government's total inability to meaningfully make life better anymore has cratered faith in every institution across the board.

The reasons are far beyond just blaming the government. There's the whole Meaning Crisis, death of God aspect as well.

Same! It's making me think.

For instance - I wonder what he could've gotten that would've appeased him?

Hmm you do have a point here. I suppose I see the Democratic party more as one undifferentiated blob, although that's likely my personal bias peeking in.

I think Trump does plenty to allow others to take the spotlight though - J.D. Vance has been doing the rounds quite publicly for a while, which Trump could easily put a stop to if he wanted.

Through a friend, and a coworker around the same time. I basically had a really difficult time with Buddhism, had been practicing off and on for years and got kind of wrecked by an insight into emptiness.

Happened to have some good Orthodox men around me who I leaned on a bit for support. The rest, as they say, is history!

I do find it interesting that Trump, for all of his self-vanity, does seem to genuinely care about leaving a legacy behind him and grooming successors. I suppose it could be an extension of his vanity, in an old sort of "having a grand legacy men will speak about for a thousand years" sort of way, but it strikes me as quite different from most other politicians that operate at the moment.

I love this, thanks for sharing. Very curious about your work now, if you want to DM.

Nobody even knows what 98% of the genome does, it was thought to be 'junk'. We know about as much about genetics as we know about the high-level structure of the universe, nothing of any significance. There too, 95% is 'dark'.

See I very much agree with both of these points. What I resent is scienctism salesmen claiming that we have cracked the code and are about to figure out how to print designer babies on command.

Hah, yes many are saying…

Not sure what to say other than I tried to write this a million times and finally decided to just post it. I hope to do the follow up soon.

Nope converts only ;P heh. Just kidding of course.

Mmm idk I feel sketchy linking this place given what some folks have said about it's reputation.

You should start one! I'd be happy to help edit or whatever.

Think about it in computer terms: I/O is not Read/Write; naïvely, mouse and webcam drivers are not alone sufficient to work with CPU and RAM. Empirical demonstration of the brain equivalent of Read/Write would be mind reading or mind control. If this were even weakly possible, the world around us would look very, very different than it does. You can induce subjective experiences by zapping the brain. You cannot predict behavior to any significant degree by reading the brain, and you cannot control behavior to any significant degree by manipulating the brain's matter directly.

You are very good at explaining this sort of thing! Do you write anywhere besides here? I'd love to quote you on my Substack hah.

Thanks for the reply! You're a doctor right?

It is not uncommon for patients with stories like yours to not be down with this.

Hah yeah, I do think some doctors mentioned it and I resisted. Not really their fault, it's more of a general societal problem where we basically don't have a coherent narrative or set of practices for mediated our emotional and spiritual lives.

Some doctors will take advantages of this because they have a research base stating that certain stuff they can bill for will work (and it can) but it also provides risks and has tangible financial costs. That doesn't mean it is the best thing for people (or the best use of resources).

Yeahhhh this is where it gets gnarly man. Had a lot of doctors insist I needed surgery to be able to work again, which is NOT the case! I'm back to basically 100% functionality with no surgery whatsoever. I shudder to think of the damage that could've been done to me by these uhhh well meaning but foolish medical professionals.

I have already gone through the psychiatrist/therapist rabbit hole, while it did help some, ultimately coming to Christ was the best thing I have done so far. I trust things will continue to get even better than they are now. :)

Read the article I linked by McGhilchrist if you want to understand more of what I'm talking about.

Okay, mea culpa!

LOL, not even close. I'm suggesting that biology is stuck in a mechanistic paradigm and needs to move beyond it to make progress. I'm not saying this "proves souls" or anything whacky, though I doubt we would be in the same ballpark of what we think "souls" are.

The broader points I'm making are:

  1. Modern sciency people tend to have axioms they don't quite realize.
  2. Biology is stuck in a mechanistic model of genetics and life, which holds it back.

Basically the whole point of the article is that they have been searching for these genes for 20 years and have only found more and more complexities.

What do these have to do with one another? Belief in genetic determinism seems entirely compatible with belief in non physical things like god or qualia. There is no reason that god could not have created a world in which genetic determinism is true.

Typically the standard materialist/scientific worldview sees most things as genetically determined, as far as I'm aware! That may be changing.

I agree that you can believe in genetics without necessarily adopting a materialist frame.

But you'd be insane to go full retard and deny the accuracy of the models that match observable gravity.

Just watch me.

No, but that's completely fair. I suppose they are proven that they replicate - what isn't proven is that there's a specific genetic mechanism that causes this replication to happen. That being said, I will admit I skimmed most of the sciencey part. I have a pretty strong bias in this area, if it wasn't obvious from the post.

I like this! I'm definitely a big fan of the idea that there is a separate "old" testament sent to all nations, that Christ fulfills. IMO it's a huge shame that the Western Church hasn't embraced that more.

I strongly disagree. Emotional Intelligence is like any skill - it can be used for good, and evil. I would say my priest, who is able to look at me and bring me to tears with a few well meaning questions, has strong Emotional Intelligence (in addition to the Holy Spirit.)

Just because you mostly see negative examples, doesn't mean positive examples aren't out there.

I want to talk about genetics. Scott Alexander has a new piece out about Missing Heritability, basically going through the issues with twin studies:

Twin studies suggested that IQ was about 60% genetic, and EA about 40%. This seemed to make sense at the time - how far someone gets in school depends partly on their intelligence, but partly on fuzzier social factors like class / culture / parenting. The first genome-wide studies and polygenic scores found enough genes to explain 2%pp1 of this 40% pie. The remaining 38%, which twin studies deemed genetic but where researchers couldn’t find the genes - became known as “the missing heritability” or “the heritability gap”.

Scientists came up with two hypothesis for the gap, which have been dueling ever since:

Maybe twin studies are wrong.

Maybe there are genes we haven’t found yet

He goes through a TON of research literature, basically describing how the entire scientific apparatus in genetics tried to figure out why twin studies couldn't be confirmed via actual genetics. To me, it sounds like an extremely robust way to prove that the twin studies were wrong. However, his ultimate conclusion appears to be:

So how heritable are complex traits, and why can’t different methods agree on this?

I think the twin / pedigree / adoption estimates are mostly right. They are strong designs, their assumptions are well-validated, and they all converge on similar results. They also pass sanity checks and common sense observation.

Although polygenic scores, GWAS, GREML, RDR, and Sib-Regression are also strong designs, they’re newer, have less agreement among themselves, and have more correlated error modes in their potential to miss rarer variants and interactions. Although it’s hard to figure out a story of exactly what’s going on with these rarer variants and interactions, there seems to be some evidence that they exist (again, see 1, 2, 3)15, and it seems easier to doubt this new and fuzzy area than the strong and simple conclusions from twin / pedigree / adoption work.

So... even though the twin studies can't really be proven, despite two decades of intensive, worldwide research focus and ungodly amounts of funding, he still argues they are "mostly right."

To me, this assertion is evidence of the glaring blindspot which materialist rationalists such as Alexander have - they assume that materialism / genetic determinism is right, and then reason backward in order to make their fundamental assumptions fit the data. While the genetic framework is clearly helpful and has had some limited success in new medical breakthroughs, it's beyond obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that compared to the hype in the early 2000s, the new branches of genetic science have been a massive let down.

Overall I'm very curious where the life sciences will go. Iain McGilchrist, author of The Master and His Emissary as well as other books, makes some interesting comments in a recent post where he excerpts his own book:

As David Bohm commented in the 1960s, it is an odd fact that, just when physics was moving away from mechanism, biology and psychology were moving closer to it. ‘If the trend continues’, he wrote, ‘scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is too complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism.’[9] He was not mistaken.

Nonetheless, in the first half of the twentieth century, many philosophically minded biologists, including such eminent British figures as John Scott Haldane and his better-known son, J.B.S. Haldane, as well as Conrad Hal Waddington, moved decisively, like the physicists, away from the machine model. Less renowned, largely by his own choice, but no less distinguished, was Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the great Austrian biologist and polymath who originated general system theory. In 1933 he wrote: ‘we cannot speak of a machine “theory” of the organism, but at most of a machine fiction’.[10]

Despite this encouraging development, a more or less abrupt reversion to the seventeenth-century Cartesian model came over the life sciences with the rise of molecular biology, and its language of ‘programmes’, ‘codes’, and so forth, in the twentieth century’s second half. According to Carl Woese, writing in 2004, ‘biology today is little more than an engineering discipline’.[11] And Woese was no embittered outsider. His pioneering work revolutionised mainstream biology; he was one of the most influential and widely honoured microbiologists of all time, described by a colleague as having ‘done more for biology writ large than any biologist in history, including Darwin’.[12] But he was disturbed by what he saw.

We'll have to see if biologists are actually able to move beyond the mechanistic model and into a more complex, realistic view of life. The obvious CW implications here are how the scientific/materialist worldview and the religious worldviews continue to interact. Right now, the Left seems to be mostly materialist, whereas the right is (nominally) religious. If we can work to merge these two views, we may find more political unity or at least a new set of combinations for our political approaches.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Yeah I remember reading some about this in my World Religions class way back in the day. Also, the book Christ the Eternal Dao goes into some of this proto-Christian theory which I find quite interesting.

@AlexanderTurok great writeup here!

Also side note, I appreciate your refreshingly different viewpoints on here. Don't let the haters get you down.

Also look up the "triple tradition." Confucianism, much like modern humanist atheism, succeeded because it was deeply embedded in the Buddhist and Taoist religious frameworks.