Intuitive Recovery day 1: additional notes
The point I came forward to disagree with began with the instructor stating that because we had eradicated smallpox, put a man on the moon, split the atom and various other marvels of science, that if there were a gene for addiction it would have already been found. There is a common misconception that science knows nearly everything and just a few dots need joining before we have the full picture. I imagine at most times in our history a similar arrogance in our understanding has been ever present. In truth we can only account for about four per cent of matter. We have no idea how flesh can think. We haven't a clue about the causes of mental illness. Francis Crick who along with Watson discovered the double helix pattern of DNA famously found himself at some social do pestered by a younger scientist. In frustration he asked the young fellow if he could explain to him what a gene was. Of course the young man could not, Crick informed him that he too didn't know what a gene was. So if our foremost minds on the subject don't know what a gene is yet. If they are still struggling to agree on whether specific genes are common to much more observable conditions like cancers. If they still haven't fully worked out what 97% of DNA passes on to the next generation, suggestions that because no gene has yet been found to indicate addiction has a genetic aspect delivering a predisposition to forming negative behavioural patterns means there isn't one is way too early. Rather than working from bottom up it may be smarter to work from top down. There has been no progress of consequence to reveal how this lump of grey mush inside our skulls forms consciousness. There is no biologically detectable material substance to falling in love, yet we all know this exists. Isn't it obvious addiction exists in some individuals but why some can take drugs without any problems and some become addicted remains a long way down the line.
Sent from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment