clynch wrote:
> Barry,
>
> In light of the current thinking on prions, I wonder if you might want to
> rethink the statement of
>
> <BS> Having worked long and hard with biologists it
> has become clear to me that the
> continuant/occurrent distinction is the most well
> entrenched of all the joints in nature (the
> distinction between anatomy and physiology, for
> example, is very old, and has not been threatened
> one iota by recent developments in, e.g. cellular anatomy>/BS>
>
> I think this does in fact break the long held distinction between anatomy
> (structure) and physiology, in that the only difference in the infectivity
> (physiology) of the protein is in its morphology (anatomy). (01)
That infectivity is determined by morphology does seem to me break the
barrier between anatomy and physiology. And also, any microorganism
that is infectious is so in virtue of its having a particular structure,
I do not find this applicable to prions only. Furthermore, you should
probably not reduce the physiology of prions to their infectivity. If
we can talk about the physiology of prions at all; Physiology is the
study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of *living
organisms*. (02)
vQ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|