Preface
In Unification Thought, “the reciprocal relationships of the dual characteristics" is an extremely important concept, and the “relationships of things" are commonly recognized in general. If the reciprocal relationship is regarded as one of the general relationships, logic follows that the reciprocal relationship may be considered as just common sense or just one of many theories. However, the essence of the “reciprocal relationship" is completely different from the concept of relationships generally talked about. This paper discusses the reciprocal relationship in comparison with the coincidence and inevitability to elucidate its essence.
Coincidence, Inevitability and Reciprocal Relationships
It is a generally accepted view in the scientific field to regard the natural phenomena to be dominated by coincidence and inevitability. The phenomenon, which cannot be explained as an inevitable result of a certain cause, is interpreted as a phenomenon which took place by coincidence. When you look at the real world, however, I would like to elucidate that this view cannot explain all phenomena. Modern science uses an observed fact as a base to establish a hypothesis, and attempts to explain observed facts by the hypothesis, and by doing so, it tries to verify the hypothesis and clarify the cause of the observed facts. Material to establish a hypothesis maybe classified into either coincidence or inevitability, and therefore, the consequential explanation naturally comes to either coincidence or inevitable result.Even though the explanation may remain imperfect, scientists tend to feel no contradiction since they explain things to their maximum ability, so they will never realize a different way of looking at the possibility.
Then, let us ponder on coincidence and inevitability here once more.
“Inevitable means things cannot help but become so without fail, and a natural inevitability means the natural phenomena is under the control of a cause and effect relationship. On the other hand, coincidence means there is no co-relationship of cause and effect, so that an unexpected thing can happen."
(Definition by Kojien, a Japanese dictionary)
Coincidence does not require any explanation, and whatever cannot be explained well has been altogether treated as “coincidence." But even a coincident matter requires some possibility for the matter to take place, probability for the coincident matter is to be discussed.
Going back to the original theme, if there is an event, which is not an inevitable matter, and if it is without any probability, it is neither inevitable nor a coincidence. Then almost everyone will say, nothing can happen if there is no probability, but a probability comes into existence under a certain condition. In other words, a probability means that one of the phenomena, which are anticipated in advance with a possibility to take place, takes place. If you cast a dice and hit “1" 100 million times consecutively, it is still feasible in terms of the probability, there is no problem that such a thing may be interpreted as coincidence. A case such as a base sequence of a gene becoming a different base sequence as a result of mutation so that a differently appearing organic body is born, is feasible in terms of probability, so that whatever shape a living organism is generated to be may be explained as coincidence.
If, on the other hand, a living organism which has another base sequence corresponding to the organic body is born, there is a condition of matching, which cannot be explained as coincidence.
This example can be best illustrated in the example of generative organs. A water flea (daphnia pulex) normally repeats parthenogenesis and only the female water flea increases, but when they face a crisis for survival, male water fleas are born, and fertilized eggs with durability are made through the sexual intercourse of male and female. It is easy to assume that the survival rate improved because the fertilized eggs have more durability. But the question is why the male genetic organ has a shape enabling it to have a copulative relationship with a female water flea. If you assume that the water flea is a relatively advanced creature, and a copulative relationship was feasible before the water flea, we can trace back to the first living organism which does both parthenogenesis and forms a copulative relationship of male and female. Prior to that first living organism, there was no copulative relationship of male and female, so reproduction was conducted by female creatures alone.
There may be a chance that the creature was very close to being able to have a copulative relationship. Such a creature might have become extinct already. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the First creature, which had a reproduction system of male and female, existed, as it had been realized in the case of the water flea. Otherwise, the reproductive system of the water flea could not come into being. But there is no difference to the fact that they could not make a copulative relationship.
Therefore, the only conceivable explanation making a copulative relationship feasible is that by mutation, the female changed its shape to be able to match the shape of the female. Moreover, when we recall that coincidence means that one of many possibilities, which are available from given conditions, just happens to take place, then, the original female shape did not have any prior condition to be able to have a copulative relationship, so there was a prior possibility for a male to possess a shape enabling the male to have a copulative relationship. In other words, it was not a coincidence.
Nevertheless, it was not a matter of inevitability. The shape did not derive itself from any prior cause. Whether the survival rate will become higher or not can be discussed only after a copulative relationship is made and a fertilized egg is formed. You cannot discuss the survival rate change at the stage of not having found yet a matching shape for the copulative relationship.
Consequently, the copulative shape in this case is neither a result of coincidence nor inevitability.
In this manner, there are things in the existing mode in nature that neither coincidence not inevitability can explain. It contains a factor of matching, which allows two objects to possess complimentary conditions to face each other. Matching means there is no alternative. It has an absolute relationship. This is what the Unification Thought calls, “Reciprocal relationship." Moreover, coincidence and inevitability are the mode of how certain phenomena take place, and phenomena are the result of certain reciprocal relationships. Then, the reciprocal relationship is the premise of mutual interaction, so that it can be regarded as the basic premise of all coincidence and inevitability. You cannot explain the establishment of the existing world without this reciprocal relationship, so that the reciprocal relationship is the fundamental principle of the existing world, and it is the universal principle which entirely penetrates all phenomena in the universe.
The “reciprocal relationship" is outside of the subject of research in modern science, and yet without it, none of the phenomena can be explained. It contains a factor of matching, which assumes the existence of a designer, that the reciprocal relationship was intended, designed and given by the designer of the existing world, namely, an absolute being, which makes it the inevitable relationship by having the absolute being the cause.
Conclusion
The fundamental difference between relationships spoken of in general and the reciprocal relationship discussed here is that the former is a result brought about by either coincidence or inevitability in the natural field, and the latter is not brought about by coincidence or inevitability in the natural world, nor it is included within the explanation of coincidence or inevitability. We have now recognized that reciprocal relationships must preexist prior to any phenomena either by coincidence or inevitability. In other words, the reciprocal relationship is an undeniable principle. The existence of reciprocal relationship proves the existence of the causal being of this, namely, the absolute being.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Selfish Gene
The following is an E-mail I sent Prof. Richard Dawkins last week.
It contains my questions about his book ‘The Selfish Gene’.
I have not received any answer yet .
from Yoshihiko Morita
to richard.dawkins@oum.ox...
date Jun 10, 2008 6:28 PM
subject I have some questions about ‘The Selfish Gene’.
Dear Prof. Richard Dawkins,
I have read your book titled 'The Selfish Gene'. It was very interesting and I have learned many things. I do, however, have some questions.
I would really appreciate it if you answered the following questions.
1. On page 15, you mention the birth of the replicator.
The problem here is that not only affinity adsorption but also breakdown is necessary to create copies.
The replicator cannot be constructed unless these 2 events occur in sequence.
If each building block only has the property of affinity, it would only be able to adsorb another building block but not break it down.
Because they are molecularly stable, the blocks will permanently exist in this attached state.
Therefore, I think that there is a discrepancy in your explanation regarding the existence of only an affinity property.
Further, I think that the existence of the replicator requires the simultaneous existence of the Splitter which splits them into the state that they existed in prior to adsorption.
What are your views in this regard?
2. On page 19, you mention that'Other replicators perhaps discovered how to protect themselves, either chemically or by building a physical wall of protein around themselves. This may have been how the first living cells appeared'.
Considering that only the chemical reaction occurs, the following statement holds true.'The first survival machines probably consisted of nothing more than a protective coat'.
However, the presence of a protective coat would require extracellular interaction, and it would be impossible for replicators to replicate and multiply.
In the existing cell model, the cell membrane is closely associated with the intracellular functioning of the cell.
Without these functions, the protective coat would result in the death of the replicators, and the evolution process would have been terminated.
Therefore, from a scientific point of view it is clearly impossible for a structure like a cell, to form only as a result of a chemical reaction, as you say.
What are your views in this regard?
3. On page 21 it is mentioned that 'The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the latter case we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA'.
I do not quite understand the sudden association with DNA in the present context.
Please can you clarify this?
4. On page 23 you mention that 'This brings me to the second important thing DNA does. It indirectly supervises the manufacture of a different kind of molecule-protein'.
Further, you add that 'Making proteins may seem a far cry from making a body, but it is the first small step in that direction'.
I think that there is a large gap in this logic because synthesizing foreign object, e.g. protein, does not contribute to replication directly.
At the very beginning, when proteins were first synthesized, the replication efficiency may have decreased; therefore, the DNA that was responsible for synthesizing these proteins may have been destroyed.
Therefore, it is practically impossible for DNA to synthesize proteins.
What is your opinion on this?
5. On page 23 you say 'The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection'.
However, this statement is misleading because natural selection cannot be used as an argument unless reference is being made to the development of the manufacture of bodies.
On page 24 you say 'Now, natural selection favours replicators that are good at building survival machines, genes that are skilled in the art of controlling embryonic development'.
Further, you say that 'The same old processes of automatic selection between rival molecules by reason of their longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity, still go on as blindly and as inevitably as they did in the far-off days'.
How do longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity lead to the evolution of genes involved in the control of embryonic development?
The characteristics of longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity are totally unrelated to the control of embryonic development.
Therefore, controlling embryonic development cannot be explained by natural selection.
What is your opinion on this matter?
6. On page 69 you mention the evolutionarily stable strategy.
Here, I think we have to pay attention to the fact that 'A "strategy" is a pre-programmed behavioural policy'.(p.69)
All of the examples of strategy written in this book are 'pre-programmed'.
On the basis of the definition of 'pre-programmed', I cannot but say that the strategies had been devised before the process of natural selection began.
What are your views on this?
Yours Sincerely,
Yoshihiko Morita
It contains my questions about his book ‘The Selfish Gene’.
I have not received any answer yet .
from Yoshihiko Morita
to richard.dawkins@oum.ox...
date Jun 10, 2008 6:28 PM
subject I have some questions about ‘The Selfish Gene’.
Dear Prof. Richard Dawkins,
I have read your book titled 'The Selfish Gene'. It was very interesting and I have learned many things. I do, however, have some questions.
I would really appreciate it if you answered the following questions.
1. On page 15, you mention the birth of the replicator.
The problem here is that not only affinity adsorption but also breakdown is necessary to create copies.
The replicator cannot be constructed unless these 2 events occur in sequence.
If each building block only has the property of affinity, it would only be able to adsorb another building block but not break it down.
Because they are molecularly stable, the blocks will permanently exist in this attached state.
Therefore, I think that there is a discrepancy in your explanation regarding the existence of only an affinity property.
Further, I think that the existence of the replicator requires the simultaneous existence of the Splitter which splits them into the state that they existed in prior to adsorption.
What are your views in this regard?
2. On page 19, you mention that'Other replicators perhaps discovered how to protect themselves, either chemically or by building a physical wall of protein around themselves. This may have been how the first living cells appeared'.
Considering that only the chemical reaction occurs, the following statement holds true.'The first survival machines probably consisted of nothing more than a protective coat'.
However, the presence of a protective coat would require extracellular interaction, and it would be impossible for replicators to replicate and multiply.
In the existing cell model, the cell membrane is closely associated with the intracellular functioning of the cell.
Without these functions, the protective coat would result in the death of the replicators, and the evolution process would have been terminated.
Therefore, from a scientific point of view it is clearly impossible for a structure like a cell, to form only as a result of a chemical reaction, as you say.
What are your views in this regard?
3. On page 21 it is mentioned that 'The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the latter case we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA'.
I do not quite understand the sudden association with DNA in the present context.
Please can you clarify this?
4. On page 23 you mention that 'This brings me to the second important thing DNA does. It indirectly supervises the manufacture of a different kind of molecule-protein'.
Further, you add that 'Making proteins may seem a far cry from making a body, but it is the first small step in that direction'.
I think that there is a large gap in this logic because synthesizing foreign object, e.g. protein, does not contribute to replication directly.
At the very beginning, when proteins were first synthesized, the replication efficiency may have decreased; therefore, the DNA that was responsible for synthesizing these proteins may have been destroyed.
Therefore, it is practically impossible for DNA to synthesize proteins.
What is your opinion on this?
5. On page 23 you say 'The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection'.
However, this statement is misleading because natural selection cannot be used as an argument unless reference is being made to the development of the manufacture of bodies.
On page 24 you say 'Now, natural selection favours replicators that are good at building survival machines, genes that are skilled in the art of controlling embryonic development'.
Further, you say that 'The same old processes of automatic selection between rival molecules by reason of their longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity, still go on as blindly and as inevitably as they did in the far-off days'.
How do longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity lead to the evolution of genes involved in the control of embryonic development?
The characteristics of longevity, fecundity, and copying-fidelity are totally unrelated to the control of embryonic development.
Therefore, controlling embryonic development cannot be explained by natural selection.
What is your opinion on this matter?
6. On page 69 you mention the evolutionarily stable strategy.
Here, I think we have to pay attention to the fact that 'A "strategy" is a pre-programmed behavioural policy'.(p.69)
All of the examples of strategy written in this book are 'pre-programmed'.
On the basis of the definition of 'pre-programmed', I cannot but say that the strategies had been devised before the process of natural selection began.
What are your views on this?
Yours Sincerely,
Yoshihiko Morita
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)