News Flash! Materialists Caught in Denial!!!!

[Les Sleeth]

In a recent article just published (here) scientific materialists are shown to be in major denial about something that affects the very heart of their theory that the origin of life, and all on-going life processes now, can be accounted for by chemistry and physical processes alone (what I will refer to as chemogenesis). This debate began in Nautica’s thread “Religion disproving Evolution and proving Creation through Science???” I will reiterate the main points made there.

My claim is that chemistry cannot be shown to produce the particular sort of organization that is necessary for, and indeed central to, life. To reflect more clearly about the problem, I ask thinkers to separate the two concepts of 1) chemistry and 2) organization.

Regarding chemistry, there is no doubt it is the physical basis of life. Likewise, there is no doubt that the chemistry of life achieves incredible things; even when not technically alive, for instance, one can use cellular constituents in chemically sophisticated ways. Now, humanity has considerable skill with chemistry - - we work with it all the time. Let’s say we get to the stage one day were we can replicate every single bit of chemistry that goes on in life. Will we then have life? No, not quite yet because we need something more.

The “more” we need is for that chemistry to enter into what we might term progressive organization. Progressive organization is characterized by at least four traits:
1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something. That is, it is not just repetitive as in say crystal organization, but instead develops multipart characteristics which are aimed at the second trait, and that is . . .
2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions. Progressive system building actually uses resources from the environment to do a third thing, which is . . .
3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate. Finally . . .
4. Progressive organization persists perpetually. This is no small matter because it is that persistence which seems to have forced chemistry into “living” in the first place, and then what kept it going for billions of years through every hostility Earth’s violent ways imposed on it.

Okay, so we have the great potentials of chemistry, and we have the great potentials of organization. We know the two work together well because life demonstrates that. The claim materialists make is that the organizational profundity of life is derived from chemical and other physical potentials. And what is their evidence? Well, chemogenesis advocates routinely cite one marvelous bit of chemical capacity after another as though this answers the question.

They point to the spontaneous organizing behavior of crystals, polymers, or autocatalytic reactions. Some researchers see as more significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres.

Yet all of this fails to explain the organizational issue. No one, not ever, has reproduced in chemistry (or through any other physical means) a spontaneous-launching organizational process of the sort that that will: perpetually develop adaptive systems, build one hierarcally system on top of another, and with each new system support the survivability of the overall system.

So I say that if one cannot get chemistry to kick into progressively organizing gear, then why be so ready to believe chemistry can do it? And I don’t insist one has to achieve life from chemistry either; I mean prove progressive organization (as defined) is possible from chemistry and Earth’s physics. Isn’t that a reasonable request from a man of reason?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+ But I don't get it. These are cases of chemistry progressively organising. In RNA polymerisation, a feedstock of jumbled chemicals organises itself by joining together, forming longer and more complicated chains, which leads to the random assorted data that can then evolve. Amino acid synthesis is based on subjecting basic chemicals to the sort of conditions we find on early earth, and seeing them naturally combine and organise to make the stuff that can then join together, as before, to make life. Lipid globules show the sort of formations we seen with cell membranes, once thought a big barrier to abiogenesis, form out of their own in conditions common to those in certain parts of early earth. Gene triggering shows that slight changes in chemical production that can be easily triggered by random luck causing a further stage of self-organisation - sticking together into multi-cellular lifeforms. In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings.

FZ, I hope you don’t mind I moved your comment here, but it offered a good opportunity to make a point. Also, I know when you wrote it you hadn’t read the theme of this thread, and that you might have answered differently if you had (or not at all).

However, none your examples above are progressive organization (and we can eliminate gene triggering right off the bat because you’ve already got life-generated structure in the mix).

This argument you advance is the typical one, and what it does is under-evaluate the quality of organization present in life. It is like saying an invisible, never-seen symphonic orchestra heard in the distance most likely derives from frogs because a symphony is sound, and a frog makes sound.

I fully acknowledge that chemistry can self-organize to some extent, but that is not what has happened to form living chemistry. The organization necessary had to have been far more developed than that, as I listed above.

And if this statement is evidence of chemogenesis, “In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings,” then shouldn’t we expect life to be forming from chemistry on a regular basis? Plus, if chemistry is the organizer, then why when life “dies” should its chemistry rather quickly start loosing all it’s organizational capacity? I mean, the chemistry is still there isn’t it?

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I fully acknowledge that chemistry can self-organize to some extent, but that is not what has happened to form living chemistry. I think you have assumed too much on to what you call living chemistry.

I'm sorry, but when I look at the molecular functioning of cells, all i see is simple chemical interactions. There is no progressive orgnaisation like you describe it anywhere. There is just simple chemical organisation ontop of simple chemical organisation placed ontop of simple chemical organisation.

DNA copies because of its base pairing properties. RNA is made because of its base pairing properties. Proteins are made because of RNA's base pairing properties. Proteins interact chemically do do chemically enzymatic things. Lipids form bilayers because thats what they do.

Just because u have an incredibly well refined version of life in front of you doesn't mean that everything that could be considered living has to be like that. Besides, what seperates a large scale PCR reaction from a collection of living systems anyway? They are replicating aren't they? They are taking parts of their environment and orgasnising them (in the act of replicating)....what else did you want?

Let me guess: that doesn't count for some reason does it?

I have read over much of the other thread, and it just annoyed me more than anything. I took it seriously. I am not adverse to people questioning things that I believe. In fact, that is what I look for. (not that you would believe me) While I was reading over it, I knew that there was something wrong with it all. Something which I could say that would make it all understanable to you...but I am now pretty certain that there is nothing I can say. As I have found time and time again, this disagreement comes down to a difference in our brain function/Belief structure. No amount of reasoning on my behalf will change your thoughts, same from you for me.

You see, I look at life, i see chemistry in action. You look at life, you see 'life'. No matter how much i describe how there is only chemistry there, you will keep searching for the life element: The thing which seperates it from everything else. And no matter how much you tell me that my descriptions of chemistry haven't captured the life element, I will just continue to describe the chemistry (because I don't need a life element). See, I don't think life is different. I think life is another typical human creation, based on the obvious, but not actually representative of truth.

Anyway, end rant.

[Another God]

PS: If you can find a way to show me what i have missed, which will make me look at the topic your way, then tell me that. Telling me that chemistry can't do it won't work, because I can't see anything but chemistry.

PPS: I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio [:D], but i'm not overly fussed.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
PS: If you can find a way to show me what i have missed, which will make me look at the topic your way, then tell me that. Telling me that chemistry can't do it won't work, because I can't see anything but chemistry.

PPS: I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio [:D], but i'm not overly fussed.

AG, I'll tell you what I think LWSleeth is saying and see if that helps. LWS, If I haven't understood it then let me know.

To use a simple analogy, it seems to me that you are saying that when you look at a skyscraper and pull it apart, you see nothing but brick, glass, steel etc. etc. That's all it takes to make a skyscraper as far as you're concerned. And I hear LWS saying "show me brick, glass and steel that can build itself into a skyscraper." Seems like you aren't answering the exact question he's asking.

[Another God]

The sub-micro world is incredibly different to our Macro world. This analogy is meaningless.

Electronegativity is very different to gravity. Different forces at work, different considerations.

A more accurate analogy would be : I look at builders building a building and think "Yep, thats builders, taking in resources (Sand, rock, steel etc), and making things out of it, as builders will tend to do"


Builders (humans) act in ways which is typical of their behaviour, while chemicals act in ways which are typical to their behaviour.

I am sure someone will claim that 'Humans think' and that molecules dont: To which I reply: Show me a thinking human, and I will accept your reply [6)]

[Mumeishi]

The sky-scraper of biochemical systems is thought have built by natural selection acting on DNA, mRNA etc, AFAIK

[Royce]

Les,
One snide remark then I will get to my point. Your title to this thread is redundant. Materialism is denial and rejection!

To my knowledge there has never been found any evolutionary precursurs to life. There is no proto RNA or DNA, no proto cell the is almost alive but not quite.

We see in the cosmic clouds and in nature and the labs all of the building block, amino acids proteins etc, of life but it never takes the next step. It never starts to form more organized self replicating or more complicated molecules that would lead to life.

When faced with this fact most say well it all got ate up by life forms once it got beyound that stage. That may be true but if it autogenesis were the case then it would still be going on and we should be able to detect it happening now in nature or in the lab.

We create a garden of eden in a test tube and all we end up with is a soup of chemicals that never progress beyound a cetain point. The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.

There is no evidence that it ever did or does happen under any conditions. For hundreds of millions of years no life nor evidence of life and no indications of proto-life then life. Fully formed functioning life that immediately sets about terra forming the planet
to support more complex and advanced forms of life.

If any of you doubt that life has done this read Gaia by James Lovelock. You don't have to buy into his hypothesis but the reasons and support for coming to his conclusions is eye opening to say the least.

[FZ+]

And if this statement is evidence of chemogenesis, “In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings,” then shouldn’t we expect life to be forming from chemistry on a regular basis?
Because we have not actually said what life is!

Any set of objective criteria we try to set out - like your self-organisation one, inevitably runs into problems, and we always end up with an arbitary set of characteristic made to exclude other possibilities. For example, if we look at the ones listed:

1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something.
A crystal does acheive something - it sends a random mess into a body of high complexity, acheiving a minimalisation of potential.Ice crystals branch to produce snowflakes of infinite complexity. Fire acheives something - it reduces a set of raw materials into smoke and ashes. Everything acheives something, and life is fundamentally a repetitive process of cycles of breeding.

2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions.
Chemical REactions are a codification of adaptation. We say this word almost without thinking, but whenever we do mention a reaction, we are talking about adaptation taking place.

3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate.
This is untrue for the vast majority of life forms, which have truned out to be evolutionary dead ends. In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".

4. Progressive organization persists perpetually.
But it isn't. Not more than any form of chemical equilibrium. Life is ultimately driven by the almost eternal input of the sun, and once that goes out, the reaction of life will cease very quickly.

We must note that for each of these attempts to define, there is always a neccessary layer of vagueness to allow us to make distinctions. Without removing this vagueness, we cannot attempt to deny the possibility, at least, of chemogenesis.

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

But it isn't. Not more than any form of chemical equilibrium. Life is ultimately driven by the almost eternal input of the sun, and once that goes out, the reaction of life will cease very quickly.


Life can and does exist on earth without being driven by the sun. There is abundant life not only in the depths of the oceans floor but in the depths of mineral and oil deposits thousands of feet below ground. Life only needs energy whether from the sun, chemical or geothermal energy. It is lierally everywhere on earth flourishing in conditions that we previously thought impossible for life to exist. This is my main reason for not accepting autogenesis. Life is so aggressive and invasive that I would think that given the slightest chance to start on its own as in the lab experiments it would do so almost imediately or at the very least begin to take the next steps beyound relatively simple proteins and amino acids.

[selfAdjoint]

Life only needs energy whether from the sun, chemical or geothermal energy

Life also needs a free energy gradient, so it can exploit being an open system.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
. . . I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio [:D], but i'm not overly fussed.

The title was meant to stir up things a bit [!:)], but no insult intended [t)]. I assumed materialists could take a good-natured ribbing as well as anyone.

However, it's true that this thread is meant to taunt those who've assumed a philosophical position and then claim they are considering all the evidence objectively, when in reality they are ignoring relevant evidence (and the lack of it in their own theory), and only looking at that which supports their beliefs. Personally, I think true philosophers should seek the truth rather than wish to have their beliefs confirmed.

Originally posted by Another God
I'm sorry, but when I look at the molecular functioning of cells, all i see is simple chemical interactions. There is no progressive organization like you describe it anywhere. There is just simple chemical organization on top of simple chemical organization placed on top of simple chemical organization.

The question is, why is it you only see chemistry? Let’s put all the chemicals of life in one vat, and a living cell in another. Are you saying you can’t see a difference in what goes on organizationally? A single, simple cell is performing organizational tasks that are a zillion degrees ahead of anything a mere collection of the chemicals can do on their own. You got your chemistry, but you can’t make it spontaneously organize into life, nor can you get chemical organization to behave very progressively without considerable help from conscious manipulations.

Originally posted by Another God DNA copies because of its base pairing properties. RNA is made because of its base pairing properties. Proteins are made because of RNA's base pairing properties. Proteins interact chemically do chemically enzymatic things. Lipids form bilayers because thats what they do. . . . Besides, what separates a large scale PCR reaction from a collection of living systems anyway? They are replicating aren't they? They are taking parts of their environment and orgasnising them (in the act of replicating)....what else did you want?

???????????? Wow, and you don’t see the logic problem with your examples? Are we talking about chemogenesis or what DNA or PCR can do? So let’s see, you would feel it is logical to claim there is nothing to an automobile except mechanistic processes, right (i.e., and ignore the quality and functionality of it’s organization)? And because of that, you are logically justified in assuming the car most likely built itself through those very mechanistic processes that make it function as a system, right?

To make your case, you pull the car’s carburetor off, or take its engine out, or remove its transmission and then creatively hook them up to other mechanical systems and say, “See how they work 100% mechanistically apart from the car? That proves there is nothing but mechanics!” Now if you did that with a car, most people would suspect you didn’t want to acknowledge the element that organized the many parts which make a car function the way it does.

And if you continued to insist mechanical processes alone had self-organized the raw materials that make up a car, then reasonable people would say, “okay, show us how that occurs.” Maybe you’d say, “Here’s some evidence, look at a tumble weed, it is round and the wind blows it around, and hey, look at those two tumble weeds that got stuck on a stick, and are rolling together, just like an axle!” There you have it, because there are various mechanical processes which do spontaneously occur, it is logical to assume they can organize themselves into a car, right?

Similarly, you want to argue that some of the sophisticated chemistry DNA helps to achieve proves it’s just chemistry. But how did DNA get in that shape? Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA. No matter what caused that organization, SOMETHING did. And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.

Originally posted by Another God You see, I look at life, i see chemistry in action. You look at life, you see 'life'. No matter how much i describe how there is only chemistry there, you will keep searching for the life element: The thing which separates it from everything else. And no matter how much you tell me that my descriptions of chemistry haven't captured the life element, I will just continue to describe the chemistry (because I don't need a life element). See, I don't think life is different. I think life is another typical human creation, based on the obvious, but not actually representative of truth.

I do not see “life,” I see a quality of organization no one can demonstrate chemistry, all by itself, can do. The only reason I don’t accept your explanation is because it is unsupported by proper evidence.

Originally posted by Another God I have read over much of the other thread, and it just annoyed me more than anything. I took it seriously. I am not adverse to people questioning things that I believe. In fact, that is what I look for. (not that you would believe me) While I was reading over it, I knew that there was something wrong with it all. Something which I could say that would make it all understandable to you...but I am now pretty certain that there is nothing I can say. As I have found time and time again, this disagreement comes down to a difference in our brain function/Belief structure. No amount of reasoning on my behalf will change your thoughts, same from you for me.

Well, that seems an ironic thing to say since you are the one who has the belief, not me. What I have is doubt. I doubt the illogical, poorly-supported materialist explanation for how chemistry produced life; as far as I can see, it is materialist propaganda. If I were into blind faith I might close my eyes to the glaring holes and contradictions in the theory, but I just cannot abandon reason like that.

I don’t say it’s God because I don’t know what did it. But you say chemistry can do that to itself. I’ve never seen that, you’ve never seen that, no one has ever seen chemistry, on its own, self-organize like that . . . so why do you believe it so strongly if it isn’t to maintain a predisposed materialist philosophy? At least I am open to any explanation, including chemogenesis, that makes sense and which is supported by evidence.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The question is, why is it you only see chemistry? Let’s put all the chemicals of life in one vat, and a living cell in another. Are you saying you can’t see a difference in what goes on organizationally? A single, simple cell is performing organizational tasks that are a zillion degrees ahead of anything a mere collection of the chemicals can do on their own.


This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".


You got your chemistry, but you can’t make it spontaneously organize into life, nor can you get chemical organization to behave very progressively without considerable help from conscious manipulations.


Why not? It happened before.


???????????? Wow, and you don’t see the logic problem with your examples? Are we talking about chemogenesis or what DNA or PCR can do? So let’s see, you would feel it is logical to claim there is nothing to an automobile except mechanistic processes, right (i.e., and ignore the quality and functionality of it’s organization)? And because of that, you are logically justified in assuming the car most likely built itself through those very mechanistic processes that make it function as a system, right?


The "quality and functionality of its organization" are assigned by sentient beings (just like purpose is assigned). It doesn't amount to a hill o' beans as far as a dog (for example) is concerned.

Do you see what I'm saying? A car is a collection of parts that work together (the basic definition of any machine, including the cell), but there is no gestalt from this as far as any other creature is concerened...it is only the sentient creatures, who spend so much time assigning purpose, that believe there is "something more" to it.


To make your case, you pull the car’s carburetor off, or take its engine out, or remove its transmission and then creatively hook them up to other mechanical systems and say, “See how they work 100% mechanistically apart from the car? That proves there is nothing but mechanics!” Now if you did that with a car, most people would suspect you didn’t want to acknowledge the element that organized the many parts which make a car function the way it does.

And if you continued to insist mechanical processes alone had self-organized the raw materials that make up a car, then reasonable people would say, “okay, show us how that occurs.” Maybe you’d say, “Here’s some evidence, look at a tumble weed, it is round and the wind blows it around, and hey, look at those two tumble weeds that got stuck on a stick, and are rolling together, just like an axle!” There you have it, because there are various mechanical processes which do spontaneously occur, it is logical to assume they can organize themselves into a car, right?


First off, a car (or any other man-made machine) is a bad analogy to the workings of a cell. It may be very complex, but there are things that are less complex, that still replicate (like viruses), which can be considered "precursors". Besides, one needn't ever postulate that a whole cell could come into existence, but the chemicals can start coming together (over very long periods of time), and natural selection will maintain only the "good" ones; so, eventually, you will have a functioning cell.

Secondly, there is nothing spontaneous to the abiogenesis of the original cell, it probably took a very long time (as mentioned in the above paragraph).

Lastly, what is the suggested alternative to the picture that scientists have painted? You are pointing out supposed flaws in their argument, but do you have any replacement postulates?


Similarly, you want to argue that some of the sophisticated chemistry DNA helps to achieve proves it’s just chemistry. But how did DNA get in that shape? Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA. No matter what caused that organization, SOMETHING did. And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.


Again, it is complicated, but not in the same way that a car is. This is "proven" (I use the term loosely here) by the fact that cells can multi-task, while cars (which were designed) can only do what they were "made to do".

Anyway, "something" did cause the organization...natural selection.

People like to use the "if you left a million monkeys in a room with a million type-writers, they would never type a Shakespeare sonnet" rebuttal alot, which is what inspired a certain scientist (whose name I forgot) to create a computer program, that simulated the million monkeys with type-writers, typing random nonsense on the keys. The only thing he added was that any "good" result (such as an "a" in the correct part of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?") would be preserved (which is the function of natural selection). The result, he was providing lines from Shakespearean plays of about thirteen symbols apiece, one/90seconds. He composed an entire play in 4 days.


I do not see “life,” I see a quality of organization no one can demonstrate chemistry, all by itself, can do. The only reason I don’t accept your explanation is because it is unsupported by proper evidence.


You exist, don't you? Isn't that evidence enough?


I don’t say it’s God because I don’t know what did it. But you say chemistry can do that to itself. I’ve never seen that, you’ve never seen that, no one has ever seen chemistry, on its own, self-organize like that . . .


Of course no one has. Humanity has only existed for 6,000 years. Conditions on Earth now (abundant in Oxygen) are very bad for abiogenesis, but they were not that way 3 billion years ago, and that's when it's supposed to have happened.

Now, I'm not saying that this is "truth". But it is valid, IMO.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth


Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA.

You gotta deal!

Now, it took over a billion years while using the entire surface of the Earth as a laboratory for the random elements to combine in an effective replicating way. Since we'll be reducing the size of the sample considerably, to say ... a bathtub, it will take proportionally longer. That would be about a factor of 100 trillion. So, we should expect to see evidence of spontaneous life formation in about 10^23 years in our little experiment.

The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless.

Njorl

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Any set of objective criteria we try to set out - like your self-organisation one, inevitably runs into problems, and we always end up with an arbitary set of characteristic made to exclude other possibilities.

I agree, my list of what constitutes "progressive organization" does not perfectly define what I am talking about. I was trying to point to something which spontaneous-acting chemistry and physical processes cannot be shown to do. So when you say . . .

Originally posted by FZ+
A crystal does acheive something - it sends a random mess into a body of high complexity, acheiving a minimalisation of potential.Ice crystals branch to produce snowflakes of infinite complexity. Fire acheives something - it reduces a set of raw materials into smoke and ashes. Everything acheives something, and life is fundamentally a repetitive process of cycles of breeding.[/QUOTE

. . . I was aware such counterexamples could be cited, but I'd hoped you would see that the four traits of progressive organization were to be considered all together or not at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FZ+
Chemical REactions are a codification of adaptation. We say this word almost without thinking, but whenever we do mention a reaction, we are talking about adaptation taking place.

Agreed, but no spontaneously occuring REactions can be shown to become the sort of adaptation that continues on to build a self-sustaining system which, for instance, metabolizes, reproduces and continues to evolve for billions of years can it?

Originally posted by FZ+ This is untrue for the vast majority of life forms, which have truned out to be evolutionary dead ends.

Quite so. However, if the avenue for development is open, then life, so far, shows it will continue to evolve.

Originally posted by FZ+ In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".

Nonsense. If you are going to label anything that keeps on changing "life" then what's the point of calling anything biology? Anyway, the point is the quality of the organization in life. Continuing to cite elementary organization and change examples doesn't address that.


Originally posted by FZ+
We must note that for each of these attempts to define, there is always a neccessary layer of vagueness to allow us to make distinctions. Without removing this vagueness, we cannot attempt to deny the possibility, at least, of chemogenesis.


But FZ, I am not denying chemogenesis. It might be true, or it might not. I am questioning the degree of faith some people have in it. I also question the dubious logic and evidence given to support the chemogenesis theory. Their faith is so strong that they refuse to consider any explanation for the origin of life except chemogenesis, and try to make a case by exaggerating the potentials of chemistry to self organize spontaneously.

That degree of faith, I say, is the result of having assumed a philosophical position in advance of possessing the evidence a truly objective mind should have to proclaim such faith.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
We see in the cosmic clouds and in nature and the labs all of the building block, amino acids proteins etc, of life but it never takes the next step. It never starts to form more organized self replicating or more complicated molecules that would lead to life.

When faced with this fact most say well it all got ate up by life forms once it got beyound that stage. That may be true but if it autogenesis were the case then it would still be going on and we should be able to detect it happening now in nature or in the lab.

We create a garden of eden in a test tube and all we end up with is a soup of chemicals that never progress beyound a cetain point. The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.

Exactly. That is why I am at a loss to understand the lack of doubt in chemogenesis theory by the materialist. One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm. What's up with that? Are we getting real science here, or are we being propagandized to?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Exactly. That is why I am at a loss to understand the lack of doubt in chemogenesis theory by the materialist. One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm. What's up with that? Are we getting real science here, or are we being propagandized to?

Actually, LW Sleeth, as you are probably well aware, the theory of Evolution did stir up huge contraversy (and not, as many people think, among the Christians (they just jumped on the bandwagon, for some reason, which I'll never understand), but among the scientists...it persisted for quite some time, that any idea that resembled "Darwinism" was denounced without fair trial; sometimes without trial at all). As it is, there is mounting evidence for it, and scientists are biased towards evidence.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
AG, I'll tell you what I think LWSleeth is saying and see if that helps. LWS, If I haven't understood it then let me know.

To use a simple analogy, it seems to me that you are saying that when you look at a skyscraper and pull it apart, you see nothing but brick, glass, steel etc. etc. That's all it takes to make a skyscraper as far as you're concerned. And I hear LWS saying "show me brick, glass and steel that can build itself into a skyscraper." Seems like you aren't answering the exact question he's asking.

Yes, I am saying that. AG makes a minor point that your analogy should be the building process rather than the parts, but in the case of chemistry the process can't be shown by itself to build the parts either from scratch .

In all the (known) universe, there is only one thing that has ever been observed that is capable of progressive organization: consciousness. What does that mean? Well, it could mean progressive organization has some sort of relationship to consciousness. It doesn't have to mean it's God . . . it could be something no one has imagined.

The point I make here is to wonder why materialists don't notice that resemblence, and why they have such faith in a theory they cannot confirm. Is it denial? Is it due to being committed to the materialist explanation over discovering the truth?

[BoulderHead]

Let me see; Les it taunting, and Royce is making snide remarks….
Excellent ! [:D] (now I don’t have to feel so bad when I’m accused of being unfair and insensitive, hehe).

Les,
One snide remark then I will get to my point. Your title to this thread is redundant. Materialism is denial and rejection!
Are you taking this opportunity to mock all of materialism with your snide remark, or simply the genesis of life via chemistry belief? There is more to materialism than meets the eye, you dig?

The title was meant to stir up things a bit , but no insult intended . I assumed materialists could take a good-natured ribbing as well as anyone.
Why should materialists be any less touchy than idealists, when both are human?

However, it's true that this thread is meant to taunt those who've assumed a philosophical position and then claim they are considering all the evidence objectively, when in reality they are ignoring relevant evidence (and the lack of it in their own theory), and only looking at that which supports their beliefs. Personally, I think true philosophers should seek the truth rather than wish to have their beliefs confirmed.
I’m ok with taunting, but I would question the accuracy of the heading chosen for this thread. It would be, for example, nothing particularly special for an idealist to believe an immaterial god imagined the world (causing it to come into physical being) and yet also believe that life was born afterwards through strictly chemical processes. So, what I see being attacked in this thread is not materialism, but chemogenesis, which up until this point has not been able to create what all can agree to as being a living organism.
I would agree that until such time as a creepy-crawly forms from a laboratory experiment that there should remain room for doubt (seeing is believing). But what this means is the hunt for that magical spark of life must continue to go on. What I wouldn’t agree to is that chemogenesis will never be demonstrated to happen at some point in the future solely because it hasn’t happened up until now. Nevertheless, I confess dissapointment that traces of what we call life were not found on Mars, for example. For the time being, Earth seems to be the only known planet in the game, but the search is still in its infancy. For some this may form part of a proof, for others it is only a disappointment prolonging the inevitable.

At any rate, the problem with your consciousness scenario is that nobody has ever seen such a thing to exist independent of matter (is it in fact your belief that it may?). Our conscious mind seems to follow our cranium every place we go, is altered by chemicals (tying it to matter), etc. Materialism, as the theory that only physical entities exist and that so-called mental things are manifestations of an underlying physical reality has not been disproved here simply by the lack of a scientist to successfully produce a life form from ‘scratch’.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".

You are wrong about how a cell is defined. However, you have joined the group who wants to ignore the organizational quality present in a cell.

Originally posted by Mentat
Why not? It happened before.

Talk about arrogating a principle!

Originally posted by Mentat
The "quality and functionality of its organization" are assigned by sentient beings (just like purpose is assigned). It doesn't amount to a hill o' beans as far as a dog (for example) is concerned.

That's because a dog is too stupid to notice. We aren't.

Originally posted by Mentat
Do you see what I'm saying? A car is a collection of parts that work together (the basic definition of any machine, including the cell), but there is no gestalt from this as far as any other creature is concerened...it is only the sentient creatures, who spend so much time assigning purpose, that believe there is "something more" to it.

I didn't say a thing about "purpose." I simply am pointing to how the organizational effectiveness of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own. It doesn't take a genius to notice that (fortunately for me).

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, a car (or any other man-made machine) is a bad analogy to the workings of a cell. It may be very complex, but there are things that are less complex, that still replicate (like viruses), which can be considered "precursors".

Viruses do not from chemistry alone . . . they require remnant DNA which was once part of life. No virus has ever been observed spontaneously forming from raw materials.

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, one needn't ever postulate that a whole cell could come into existence, but the chemicals can start coming together (over very long periods of time), and natural selection will maintain only the "good" ones; so, eventually, you will have a functioning cell.

Okay, demonstrate that. Besides, I don't think a cell needs to come together all at once.

Originally posted by Mentat
Secondly, there is nothing spontaneous to the abiogenesis of the original cell, it probably took a very long time (as mentioned in the above paragraph).

Long time or not, the theory is that is physical conditions and chemical potential started it spontaneously (spontaneous is not the same thing as instantaneous).

Originally posted by Mentat
Lastly, what is the suggested alternative to the picture that scientists have painted? You are pointing out supposed flaws in their argument, but do you have any replacement postulates?

I might have, but right now I am questioning the faith materialists have in the theory. I say the faith we see them exhibit, and that they often recommend that others should have in chemogenesis theory, is exaggerated because they are pre-committed to a philosophical position. It taints their objectivity and makes them diminish or ignore the problems with the theory.

Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, "something" did cause the organization...natural selection.

Natural selection is how a living animal evolves, it is not how chemogenesis occurred.

Originally posted by Mentat
You exist, don't you? Isn't that evidence enough?

It certainly is. But we aren't debating what is enough, we are discussing if the chemogenesis theory holds water.

Originally posted by Mentat
Humanity has only existed for 6,000 years.

That's a strange thing to say Mentat . . . 6000 years?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, LW Sleeth, as you are probably well aware, the theory of Evolution did stir up huge contraversy (and not, as many people think, among the Christians (they just jumped on the bandwagon, for some reason, which I'll never understand), but among the scientists...it persisted for quite some time, that any idea that resembled "Darwinism" was denounced without fair trial; sometimes without trial at all). As it is, there is mounting evidence for it, and scientists are biased towards evidence.

I don't have any doubts about evolution. What started life is what I question.

[Royce]

I would say, yes, it is denial; but I am biased the other way. However, it is not just the auto-chemical-genesis of life that they cling to so desperately. It is vertually everything that can support materialism no matter how unlikely, illogicical or tenuous. They, like me only look one way and only accept one explaination and all others are fantacy, delusion and/or illogical. They in there way are just as biased, bigoted, narrow minded and dogmatic and any bible thumping creationist, as I am about my sets of beliefs. I think is is a human condition. And despite their faith in science and objectivity they too are only human.
The weaker a position the more firmly and desperately it must be defended and the higher and stronger must the walls be built until not only can no one see in but no one can see out either. Never can a crack be allowed to appear in the system in fear that it will all come tumbling down around them. Never can a fact or logical point be allowed to cloud the issue. This is not just materialist but any and all dogma.
Those who are strong and secure in their beliefs, the position do not built walls but walk around freely inviting open discourse and scrutenizing every idea, every thought of ther own and others.

Sound great doesn't it. Maybe some day I'll meet someone like that.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Njorl
You gotta deal!

Now, it took over a billion years while using the entire surface of the Earth as a laboratory for the random elements to combine in an effective replicating way. Since we'll be reducing the size of the sample considerably, to say ... a bathtub, it will take proportionally longer. That would be about a factor of 100 trillion. So, we should expect to see evidence of spontaneous life formation in about 10^23 years in our little experiment.

The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless.

Njorl

You assume life took a billion years to get going because you already believe in chemogenesis. For all you know, life could have formed within minutes after Earth's conditions were suitable.

And even if it did take a billion years, and it takes 10^23 years to produce spontaneous life formation in your "little experiment," that still does not excuse you from having to demonstrate the capacity of chemistry to spontaneously produce life before you proclaim to the world it is "most likely" how life began.

When you say, "The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless" . . . who is it meaningless to? To plenty of materialists it is meaningless because they are not open to being swayed by any explanation other than a materialist one. To me, as a man of reason, it extraordinarily meaningful. Why?

Because I want to know the truth, whatever that turns out to be. And when I see so-called "objective" researchers not particularly concerned that they can't get chemistry to even come close to entering into the progressive, self-perpetuating development it needs to in order to produce life, I start thinking I am being fed a bill of goods by materialist propagandists, rather than getting the unbiased opinions I long for from science.

[FZ+]

. . . I was aware such counterexamples could be cited, but I'd hoped you would see that the four traits of progressive organization were to be considered all together or not at all.
But I do mean that for each of these examples, all four characteristic, to an objective degree, are exhibited.

Case study: Crystals.
1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something.
Physically speaking, crystals are not in a state of stasis. Even when the system has ceased to grow, there is a continuous series of virtual particle exchanges, all in perfect balance to maintain the state of the crystal, which is can be considered as acheiving. When the crystal is growing, the formation of systems is self-evident. In the ice crystals, it is obvious that the process is non-repetitive. This is also true for all other crystals. Flaws enter, in the same way mutation occurs in DNA.

2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions.
The existence of crystals itself is an adaptation to a change in environmental conditions - ie. super-saturation. Like life, the crystal has some tolerance, but it will change with environment. It can melt, for example. Looking in detail, there is an infinite number of possible adaptations. And these adaptations alter the way in which it "metabolises" component compounds to sustain its growth, allows parts to break off and found new seed colonies, and evolves in being more suited to its conditions.

3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate.
The formation of the crystal neccessarily changes its environment. Its drawing in of components that make itself in generating diffusion gradients is analogous to the cellular machinery a DNA molecule surrounds itself with. From an initial seed crystal, that does not involve this, a higher complexity is built up over time. As we expand the scale, this gets ever more layered.

4. Progressive organization persists perpetually.
Crystals continue to form as long as resources are provided, often very aggressively.

Nonsense. If you are going to label anything that keeps on changing "life" then what's the point of calling anything biology? Anyway, the point is the quality of the organization in life. Continuing to cite elementary organization and change examples doesn't address that.
But why do you find it nonsense? What is this quality, when all objective criterias have been exhausted? I propose that this quality is a values choice, a subjective decision. Much like how in chemistry we devote special mention to "hydrogen bonding", when objectively speaking it is just another case of permanent dipole to dipole attraction. In both cases, other forces of attraction are not exactly like hydrogen bonding, but in order to separate them we must stick in an artificial, subjective choice.

I think that when this choice, this difference of quality cannot be reduced any further than to describe a precise set of phenomena itself and exclude those which do not follow it, we can conclude that this choice is merely arbitary. Bilogy hence only exists because of its usefulness, and commonness in our usual environment.

The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.
But it does. Very slowly, but it does. A test tube is also hardly a garden of eden - most phenomena are not scale invariant. DNA needs room.

And this "we don't see x stage happening is dubious". It is not realistic to expect such a full trajectory, and it does amount to a god of the gaps fallacy if you interpret each unfilled in gap as evidence of failure. We are filling in the gaps. Rather like firing a bullet - we see the bullet hit, and the bullet being fired, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume the bullet went through the intervening space. With molecular evolution, the lack of information comes from the process's slowness and fragility, but the case is the same.

One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm.
The fact that there exists a variety of hypotheses for such chemogenesis shows that the above is not true. Because we are in the process of choosing between them, it is self-evident that skepticism must be given to each and every possibility of chemogenesis. The assumption of the theory is in terms of relative values - once we eliminated all of these, then we have to get rid of abiogenesis. |But as yet, each of these hypotheses offers far greater fecundity for testing than non-material theories can in the forseeable future. We must remember that chemogenesis is incomplete. To continue work, we need to assume it may be worthwhile.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Why should materialists be any less touchy than idealists, when both are human?

I’m ok with taunting, but I would question the accuracy of the heading chosen for this thread. It would be, for example, nothing particularly special for an idealist to believe an immaterial god imagined the world (causing it to come into physical being) and yet also believe that life was born afterwards through strictly chemical processes. So, what I see being attacked in this thread is not materialism, but chemogenesis, which up until this point has not been able to create what all can agree to as being a living organism.

I am not attacking chemogenesis, I am criticizing the degree of faith believers have in it. I would be just as critical of idealist or creationist nonsense. What I see is a lot of exaggeration and, yes, denial when it comes to acknowledging the limitations of self-organizing chemistry in their theory.

It is that lack of acknowledgment that has me on their case. It makes me suspect them of propagandizing, and what I want is true objectivity.

Originally posted by BoulderHead


I agree, the search must go on. I also accept that chemogenesis might be demonstrated one day. I think your attitude is pretty balanced on the whole. I wouldn't put you my "denial" list.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
[BIAt any rate, the problem with your consciousness scenario is that nobody has ever seen such a thing to exist independent of matter (is it in fact your belief that it may?). Our conscious mind seems to follow our cranium every place we go, is altered by chemicals (tying it to matter), etc. Materialism, as the theory that only physical entities exist and that so-called mental things are manifestations of an underlying physical reality has not been disproved here simply by the lack of a scientist to successfully produce a life form from ‘scratch’.

Again, I agree with all that. And yes, I do suspect that consciousness can exist independent of matter. But even if it can, there is no denying that right here, right now we are dependent on matter for our conscious existence. I think all the research to discover exactly how we are linked materially is very valuable.

I also agree that materialism has not been proven wrong, it may indeed be correct. My objections have to do with objectivity, logical theorizing, and the willingness of researchers/theorists to look at all the evidence.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
[B]The sub-micro world is incredibly different to our Macro world. This analogy is meaningless.


No I don't think it's meaningless. It was not intended to mirror your view of the world. It was intended to demonstrate and try to clarify the disconnect that apparently exists between your view and LWS.



A more accurate analogy would be : I look at builders building a building and think "Yep, thats builders, taking in resources (Sand, rock, steel etc), and making things out of it, as builders will tend to do"


I agree that this is a more accurate reflection of your view.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".


Wow. Mentat you really need to find a way to increase your time online or decrease the number of posts. [:D]

[Njorl]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

When you say, "The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless" . . . who is it meaningless to? To plenty of materialists it is meaningless because they are not open to being swayed by any explanation other than a materialist one. To me, as a man of reason, it extraordinarily meaningful. Why?

It is meaningful to you because you are not good at math. Would you find it meaningful if you bought many lotto tickets and didn't win ten million dollars with each one? That is the kind of random occurance that you seem to expect to happen.


[q]

Because I want to know the truth, whatever that turns out to be. And when I see so-called "objective" researchers not particularly concerned that they can't get chemistry to even come close to entering into the progressive, self-perpetuating development it needs to in order to produce life, I start thinking I am being fed a bill of goods by materialist propagandists, rather than getting the unbiased opinions I long for from science.

This is just patently false. There have been many experiments verifying many of the individual steps of the abiotic generation of life. The complete process is not entirely understood, but the work progresses well. It has been experimentally under way for only 50 years.

1950's Miller and Urey perform experiment verifying Oparin-Haldene theory. They approximate pre-biotic conditions and form all 20 amino acids and other organic molecules (including sugars, lipids and ATP) from simple abundent chemicals.

Recently Fox et al demonstrated formation of polymers from simple organic molecules. The "Primordial soup" formed from the above experiment was applied to clay, and concentrated via evaporation. Spontaneous creation of polymers occurred. These processes formed proteins, polypeptides, more complex lipds, and nucleic acids.

Coacervates have been produced from the above listed molecules, though I don't know if they have been shown to be produced by naturally occuring processes as of yet. They are protobionts that are self-assembling membranous globes of proteins and lipids. They have selectively permeable membranes. When they take in a large enough supply of organic material, the split into two globes, and continue reproduction. They have differing "success" rates dependent upon their chemical composition. More successful compositions outproduce less successful variants, seizing all the best chemicals for themselves.

That's damn near life.

There is a very good slide show at this site.

http://www.ku.edu/~bio152/02/

Njorl

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Njorl
This is just patently false. There have been many experiments verifying many of the individual steps of the abiotic generation of life. The complete process is not entirely understood, but the work progresses well. It has been experimentally under way for only 50 years.
Njorl

I don't think anyone disagrees that the chemicals and basic building blocks necessary for life can be generated in a laboratory. I think the complex oganization of these parts is more the issue. While the results you mentioned are great things, they read as if we almost have it all figured out. Lets try an analogy to put them into perspective. If we're trying to explain the existence of a brick house let's say, then generating amino acids is like showing that a certain mix of chemicals can harden into concrete. BTW, I thought that geologists no longer believed earths early atmosphere to resemble the mixture in Miller's flask. I've read that best guesses about the atmosphere are that it was NOT the reducing environment the slides you posted claim. It was most likely a neutral mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Not a fertile environment for amino acids. But whether chemogenesis happened on earth or not is not so much an issue with chemogensis itself so I'll move on.

Also, I've read the polypeptides produced in the Fox experiments were superficial compared to the real thing. There are billions and billions of amino acid combinations to form proteins, most of them useless for life. So this would be like showing that sometimes this concrete mixture can accidentally harden into symetrical shapes that may be stackable. Now we have the burden of showing how these stackable shapes stacked themselves into the statistically unlikely way necessary for a house.

All the other things you mentioned simply build on these each with their own caveats. Let me be clear. I am not degrading these efforts. Not at all. I am simply saying that they are merely the highlights in this search and once you look at all the issues, these results aren't enough evidence to suggest that this is definitely the way life happened and thats it's now just a matter of connecting the dots.

I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.
You need to know what seperates life from non-living before sucha statement can make its full point. And when you try to define that term, you will probably come to realise that there is no difference between life and non life, and anyu distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line, attempting to seperate the things which are 'obviously alive' to those things which 'don't seem to be alive.'

Now, just because a car is less complex than life now, life that has been refined over at least 4 billion years, is pointless. Wait a thousand years and compare their version of a car to life. And then you will see how different the evolutionary method is to rational creation. A car has only been in existence for under 100 years, and already it has got as complex as it is (We just introduced a nervous system!)

As I said in my previous post, an analogy between the macro, and the sub-micro is POINTLESS, and as convincing=> neat as these analogies sound, they hold nothing. They are eye candy. The have no logical weight, they have no bearing on reality, and they don't make any point. Chemicals act in certain ways based on electronegativity. Car parts are heavy chunks of metal that do nothing which we don't make them do.

See, for me to pull bits out of a car and make them work: I have to do just that: MAKE them work. But if you mix DNA strands, then they will base pair of their own accord. The difference should be more than apparent between these analogies.

[FZ+]

BTW, I thought that geologists no longer believed earths early atmosphere to resemble the mixture in Miller's flask.
Nope. In fact, it's even better. Analysis of early rocks show that the conditions in some areas were even more favourably moderate to life than had been thought, and amino acids have been found in environments as extreme as asteroid. Many things previously thought an impedance to abiogenesis have been found to be in fact aiding the process, at least in the beginning.

If we're trying to explain the existence of a brick house let's say, then generating amino acids is like showing that a certain mix of chemicals can harden into concrete.
You seemed to have missed this one:

Coacervates have been produced from the above listed molecules, though I don't know if they have been shown to be produced by naturally occuring processes as of yet. They are protobionts that are self-assembling membranous globes of proteins and lipids. They have selectively permeable membranes.
This is analogous to saying that the hardened concrete is found to naturally form into the shape of a house. Pretty significant, eh?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.

Good point, and one that I should acknowledge.

I think a lot, probably most, people involved in trying to demonstrate chemogenesis do so because they are dedicated to their work. It isn't motivated by denial of more promising approaches.

Yet I still think that dedication at the very least tends to make them be overly enthusiastic about what has been achieved, and minimize what isn't working. This shows up especially when communicating to the public. From text books to TV specials we hear the scientific hopeful say, "It is most likely that life began . . . [plug in your favorite chemogenesis explanation]"

[FZ+]

I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.
I think that is misleading. It is more accurate to say that chemogenesis is the only theory we have at the moment. Science depends on theories.

Yet I still think that dedication at the very least tends to make them be overly enthusiastic about what has been achieved, and minimize what isn't working.
Is it realistic any other way?

Science's strength is not in eliminating this sort of bias, because in the real world, that cannot be removed. It's strength is instead in playing this bias off against each other - even as someone says x hypothesis is the best, someone else says y is better. This leads to competition amongst theories and hypotheses, and the best survive.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
You need to know what seperates life from non-living before sucha statement can make its full point. And when you try to define that term, you will probably come to realise that there is no difference between life and non life, and anyu distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line, attempting to seperate the things which are 'obviously alive' to those things which 'don't seem to be alive.'

AG, biology is not a subject with which I am needing to understand something so basic as the difference between living and non-living. So I cannot see your logic at all in saying ". . . there is no difference between life and non life, and any distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line . . ." If you are correct, then why have a term "life" and why have a field known as biology? Why not just refer to it as chemistry and be done with it?

I have a few dozen books on various areas of biology, and not one single one of them is ready to say life is no different from non-life. Please refer me to the experts which say this is how we should look at life, and that the distinctions we make are "arbitrary."

A favorite definition of life of mine is taken from a little book by John Maynard Smith, and Eors Szathmary "The Origins of Life." It says, "[living is] . . . any population of entities possessing those properties that are needed if the population is to evolve by natural selection. That is, entities are alive if they have the properties of multiplication, variation, and heredity (or are descended from such entities . . . ). . . . Why should we regard these three particular properties as defining life? It is because they are necessary if a population is to evolve all the other charateristics that we associate with life."

So a burning fire, which might be cited as an example of metabolism, or a crystal, which might be cited as an example of growth (thank you anyway FZ), cannot included as "living."

[i]As I said in my previous post, an analogy between the macro, and the sub-micro is POINTLESS, and as convincing=> neat as these analogies sound, they hold nothing. They are eye candy. The have no logical weight, they have no bearing on reality, and they don't make any point. Chemicals act in certain ways based on electronegativity. Car parts are heavy chunks of metal that do nothing which we don't make them do
.

All that misses the point. It doesn't matter about macro and submicro, at least to my point. I was talking about the way you are reasoning.

Originally posted by Another God See, for me to pull bits out of a car and make them work: I have to do just that: MAKE them work. But if you mix DNA strands, then they will base pair of their own accord. The difference should be more than apparent between these analogies.


I can't figure out if we are on the same planet. Why do you think it proves anything about chemogenesis if you take something life developed (DNA) and then show me how nicely it behaves organizationally? I am the one who is saying that is exactly what distinguishes the chemistry of life from normal chemistry -- its organizational elegance.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think that is misleading. It is more accurate to say that chemogenesis is the only theory we have at the moment. Science depends on theories.


Is it realistic any other way?

Science's strength is not in eliminating this sort of bias, because in the real world, that cannot be removed. It's strength is instead in playing this bias off against each other - even as someone says x hypothesis is the best, someone else says y is better. This leads to competition amongst theories and hypotheses, and the best survive.

But look at all the assumptions you have in place. You assume science alone can answer this question, one way or another. What if it can't? You are talking about competition among theories, but you only mean empirical theories. Since you aren't even open to "any other way," what is the point of asking if any of them might be realistic?

[FZ+]

AG, biology is not a subject with which I am needing to understand something so basic as the difference between living and non-living. So I cannot see your logic at all in saying ". . . there is no difference between life and non life, and any distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line . . ." If you are correct, then why have a term "life" and why have a field known as biology? Why not just refer to it as chemistry and be done with it?
Why not refer to it as maths and be done with it? Biological chemistry is the study of a very arbitaryly made set of chemistries that hold importance to us out of familiarity. Rather like we make a lot of organic chemistry - though carbon isn't magic, and its still chemistry, the great prevalence of carbon based compounds makes this a subject to study.

Please refer me to the experts which say this is how we should look at life, and that the distinctions we make are "arbitrary."
I don't think we need an argument by authority, do we? I'm sure you will find some if you look, but that is rather irrelevant.

A favorite definition of life of mine is taken from a little book by John Maynard Smith, and Eors Szathmary "The Origins of Life."
Yes. I have read an article of John Maynard Smith where he outlines his definition, and the reasoning with which he derived it. One of his first premises is that he cannot accept a definition system that allows fire or crystals to be alive. This sort of logic is rather arbitary...

And in the end, there are critical flaws as I have briefly outlined. His definition isn't scale dependent for one. Eg. he considers fire as unable to pass on characteristics to the next offspring fire, which is incorrect if you consider the impact the orginal fire has on the environment which allows it to pass on characteristics. He did not mention crystals, and I don't see how he can justify their exclusion.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.
I would actually accept that claim.

See, as I said in a post in the previous thread, the materialist assumption is the assumption of science. It is the primary assumption, and it is the assumption from which all that science has achieved flows. If you don't like that assumption, then deal with it. Go somewhere else and find your own ways of doing things: But until you show reason for the assumption to be dropped, science will continue using it because science is the first thing that Humanity has achieved that has produced anything at all progressive.

As such, chemogenesis is the most blatently obvious explanation of life available. With no evidence for God whatsoever, there is simply no other explanation available. We look at life, and there is nothing but chemicals. We look at the earth, teh atmosphere, water etc...ALL chemicals. Where else would life come from?

That is why Chemogenesis is accepted so readily. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be investigated. First thing to do, is to attempt to verify it. We need to be reasonably confident that it is reasonable. it is not until we are reasonably confident in it being true, that we can start to try to flasify it.

And that is what is happening. People are trying to simulate the conditions of early earth, people are hypothesising Clay origins, Crystal Origins, Hydrothermal vent origins...Trying experiments, looking at other planets...People are trying to prove this stuff. It isn't 'Just accepted' it is in the process of verification. But while it is in this process, it also happens to be accepted as the only possible explanation thus far.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Good point, and one that I should acknowledge.

I think a lot, probably most, people involved in trying to demonstrate chemogenesis do so because they are dedicated to their work. It isn't motivated by denial of more promising approaches.

Not that not having an alternative theory can ever be a counter argument, and so I am not trying to use it as such, but this comment forces me to ask: What alternative promising approaches????

[FZ+]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But look at all the assumptions you have in place. You assume science alone can answer this question, one way or another. What if it can't? You are talking about competition among theories, but you only mean empirical theories. Since you aren't even open to "any other way," what is the point of asking if any of them might be realistic?
If science can't, the whole thing falls to a matter of personal opinions (or revelations that are indistinguishible from opinions) and we don't get anywhere. I would believe X, you would believe Y, and it's all useless since if it isn't a theory, there is no way to criticise factually any of these ideals. It then becomes undecidable.

Whether that is any different from the current situation is left for the thoughts of the reader. [;)] Without empirics, you will never get agreement. Without agreement, it is all pointless.

[FZ+]

You are talking about competition among theories, but you only mean empirical theories. Since you aren't even open to "any other way," what is the point of asking if any of them might be realistic?
Food for thought:

We were just arguing about whether life has an empirical (non-arbitary) basis at all. Why did you insist that life did, if you did not believe that an empirical approach is the best way?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Njorl
This is just patently false. There have been many experiments verifying many of the individual steps of the abiotic generation of life. The complete process is not entirely understood, but the work progresses well. It has been experimentally under way for only 50 years.

1950's Miller and Urey perform experiment verifying Oparin-Haldene theory. They approximate pre-biotic conditions and form all 20 amino acids and other organic molecules (including sugars, lipids and ATP) from simple abundent chemicals.

Recently Fox et al demonstrated formation of polymers from simple organic molecules. The "Primordial soup" formed from the above experiment was applied to clay, and concentrated via evaporation. Spontaneous creation of polymers occurred. These processes formed proteins, polypeptides, more complex lipds, and nucleic acids.

Coacervates have been produced from the above listed molecules, though I don't know if they have been shown to be produced by naturally occuring processes as of yet. They are protobionts that are self-assembling membranous globes of proteins and lipids. They have selectively permeable membranes. When they take in a large enough supply of organic material, the split into two globes, and continue reproduction. They have differing "success" rates dependent upon their chemical composition. More successful compositions outproduce less successful variants, seizing all the best chemicals for themselves.


Baahhhhhh humbug! I know about all of it, and none of it gets going, and keeps going. Yours is just short of a straw man argument. I am not claiming chemistry can't be stimulated into a fairly long chain of organizing steps! What I say is that you cannot get that process to keep going on its own. No matter how long your feed it energy, at some point it gets merely repetitive. Will you admit it, or are you going to deny that?

The chemogenesis theory requires progressive change, not repetitive change, in order to explain how chemistry became evolutive.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Nope. In fact, it's even better. Analysis of early rocks show that the conditions in some areas were even more favourably moderate to life than had been thought, and amino acids have been found in environments as extreme as asteroid. Many things previously thought an impedance to abiogenesis have been found to be in fact aiding the process, at least in the beginning.


Ok then someone's literature is wrong. It could be mine.



This is analogous to saying that the hardened concrete is found to naturally form into the shape of a house. Pretty significant, eh?
Sounds like you got it all figured out. So what's all the fuss about? Why is it that nothing I read make such light of it as gets made on this forum?

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Please refer me to the experts which say this is how we should look at life, and that the distinctions we make are "arbitrary."

A favorite definition of life of mine is taken from a little book by John Maynard Smith, and Eors Szathmary "The Origins of Life." It says, "[living is] . . . any population of entities possessing those properties that are needed if the population is to evolve by natural selection. That is, entities are alive if they have the properties of multiplication, variation, and heredity (or are descended from such entities . . . ). . . . Why should we regard these three particular properties as defining life? It is because they are necessary if a population is to evolve all the other charateristics that we associate with life."

So a burning fire, which might be cited as an example of metabolism, or a crystal, which might be cited as an example of growth (thank you anyway FZ), cannot included as "living." Let me quote some Douglas Adams, because he expresses himself so much better than I ever could: We all know, when presented with any particular entity, whether it’s a bit of mould from the fridge or whatever; we instinctively know when something is an example of life and when it isn’t. But it turns out to be tremendously hard exactly to define it. I remember once, a long time ago, needing a definition of life for a speech I was giving. Assuming there was a simple one and looking around the Internet, I was astonished at how diverse the definitions were and how very, very detailed each one had to be in order to include ‘this’ but not include ‘that’. If you think about it, a collection that includes a fruit fly and Richard Dawkins and the Great Barrier Reef is an awkward set of objects to try and compare. When we try and figure out what the rules are that we are looking for, trying to find a rule that’s self-evidently true, that turns out to be very, very hard.
...
So, in the end, in the absence of an intentional creator, you cannot say what life is, because it simply depends on what set of definitions you include in your overall definition. Without a god, life is only a matter of opinion.

A speach which I hjghly recomend reading. It is very entertaining. (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)
And that is basically what I think of it too. You pick and choose your definition based on what you already preconcievedly think life is, just like everyone else. Why can't fire be alive? Seriously, give me one good reason why fire isn't alive, which doesn't come from your preconceived ideal of what is and isn't alive, and which doesn't come from some arbitrarily made up definition of life which necessarily fits in with your preconcieved ideas.

I am not targetting you: This is just a fact of defining life. The only thing we have which seperates living from non-living, is the human assumption that there is a difference. There is no evidence that there is a difference yet, but thats an accepted assumption that everyone is happy to leave unquestioned. (even if they want to base questions on it like: Where did this life thing come from?) Oh the irony.

All that misses the point. It doesn't matter about macro and submicro, at least to my point. I was talking about the way you are reasoning.But the reasoning is appropriate to the medium. As such, the analogy is meaningless. Of course my reasoning doesn't apply to cars: Cars are different. Inherently.


I can't figure out if we are on the same planet. Why do you think it proves anything about chemogenesis if you take something life developed (DNA) and then show me how nicely it behaves organizationally? I am the one who is saying that is exactly what distinguishes the chemistry of life from normal chemistry -- its organizational elegance. BUT DNA IS NORMAL chemistry. Completely normal. The fact that it has a role in life is irrelevent to the molecules behaving chemically.

[Another God]

Life from Astrobiology: The living universe (http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin06&tqskip1=1&tqtime=1125) :
All life ...Are Composed of Cells
...Require Energy
...Reproduce
...Display Heredity
...Respond to the Environment
...Maintain Homeostasis
...Evolve and Adapt

It is different from the Smith definition, so how do we decide which one is more right?

There is no way. Without God, life is only a matter of opinion.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
If science can't, the whole thing falls to a matter of personal opinions (or revelations that are indistinguishible from opinions) and we don't get anywhere. I would believe X, you would believe Y, and it's all useless since if it isn't a theory, there is no way to criticise factually any of these ideals. It then becomes undecidable.

Whether that is any different from the current situation is left for the thoughts of the reader. [;)] Without empirics, you will never get agreement. Without agreement, it is all pointless.

This is where our personal experiences make us believe different things. If you'd grown up in the desert, and never heard of how life can be on Hawaii, and if I tried to convince you tropical living is possible you'd have no experience by which to judge my statements.

From what you say, you are dependent on others' agreement to decide what is true. You know, I am not waiting for you or anyone else to agree with me about certain things. If it is to decide somthing which applies to everyone, ok.

But what about those things which only I can know? Like I asked earlier, how can you know if I love my wife? And really, why should I care if you know that? Clearly there is an inner knowing which does not reveal its veracity through objective methods.

Now let's take that a little further. What if there is an entirely subjective sort of expertise, which has wholly different standards for knowing than those of external knowing disciplines such as empiricism? Maybe people as long ago as 3000 years discovered things through that subjective method, but because you only accept objectively acquired knowledge as true, you reject anything which isn't that way

So here we sit, you judging everything there is by your objective standards, even things to which it doesn't apply. If any aspect of reality has come about in some way which can only be understood through that subjective discipline . . . well, forget about it because we can't talk and we can't share.

[Another God]

Originally posted by FZ+
One of his first premises is that he cannot accept a definition system that allows fire or crystals to be alive. This sort of logic is rather arbitary...

And in the end, there are critical flaws as I have briefly outlined. His definition isn't scale dependent for one. Eg. he considers fire as unable to pass on characteristics to the next offspring fire, which is incorrect if you consider the impact the orginal fire has on the environment which allows it to pass on characteristics. He did not mention crystals, and I don't see how he can justify their exclusion.
And this point is exactly what I was trying to make in my posts. Sorry that it becomes a little repetitive, but I am posting as I read them.
Gee, you go to sleep for a few hours and wake up 2 pages behind the thread!

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
I would actually accept that claim.

See, as I said in a post in the previous thread, the materialist assumption is the assumption of science. It is the primary assumption, and it is the assumption from which all that science has achieved flows. If you don't like that assumption, then deal with it. Go somewhere else and find your own ways of doing things: But until you show reason for the assumption to be dropped, science will continue using it because science is the first thing that Humanity has achieved that has produced anything at all progressive.


I would like to re-iterate my point from another thread. I agree with Tom when he says that science does NOT assume materialism. It can be practiced in the matrix as well.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God

There is no way. Without God, life is only a matter of opinion.

If this is true then exactly what is it that you think this theory of chemogenesis is trying to explain? How do you know what you are attempting to explain if you cannot define it?

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Now let's take that a little further. What if there is an entirely subjective sort of expertise, which has wholly different standards for knowing than those of external knowing disciplines such as empiricism? Maybe people as long ago as 3000 years discovered things through that subjective method, but because you only accept objectively acquired knowledge as true, you reject anything which isn't that way

So here we sit, you judging everything there is by your objective standards, even things to which it doesn't apply. If any aspect of reality has come about in some way which can only be understood through that subjective discipline . . . well, forget about it because we can't talk and we can't share. I think the interesting thing is, as true as it may be that there are subjective forms of inquiry or whatever it is that you mean, the objective method is beyond doubt applicable...and the process of this inquiry has shown us that our subjective is firmly attached to our physical brains. Objective research has also been able to trick people into believing/feeling/experiencing certain things by manipulating their physical brain. The mind can be split into multiple personalities. 'Religious experiences' can be made to be felt by electrical prodding. Blind spots can be made to appear in the visual field. People can be 'blind' and yet able to catch objects thrown at them. People can be made to find anything funny by having an area of their brain excited. People can lose their long term memory. People can lose their ability to form short term memories. People can be made to be unpleasant all of the time by losing an area of their brain. A woman recently suffered a stroke and woke up with a british accent (she is from the US, and has never been to UK).

The Point: You change the brain: The mind follows. The mind = The brain. You can do as much subjective stuff as you want, but if you let one of us objectivists come in and manipulate your brainm we'll be able to change your mind, whether you like it or not [;)]

Empirical research is the only trustworthy form of research. The brain isn't perfect.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
BUT DNA IS NORMAL chemistry. Completely normal. The fact that it has a role in life is irrelevent to the molecules behaving chemically. [/B]

[g)] [8)] [b(] [*(] [:(]

Again . . . (the planet thing).

Agreed, DNA is 100% built through normal chemistry. I've never denied it, I don't doubt it . . . for the record, I do NOT believe in anything supernatural (in case you think that is where I am coming from).

The kind of self organizing behavior needed for chemistry to achieve it all by its lonesome . . .that is has never been observed.
Is it that difficult to see my concern? Chemistry does not "keep going." It will for awhile, but then it turns repetitive -- every time. You have absolutely nothing more than that as evidence because every single instance of non-living self organization is precisely so.

But for now I'd settle for something less spectacular than perpetual progressive organization. If you say you can coax chemistry, from raw materials, into forming DNA, please give me that demonstration. I eagerly await!

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
If this is true then exactly what is it that you think this theory of chemogenesis is trying to explain? How do you know what you are attempting to explain if you cannot define it? I am explaining the complexity of the stuff around me. The stuff, which for the moment, I am more than happy to call life.

Just as I am typing on a 'computer', which is sitting on a 'table' etc, we need names to help us communicate. But this 'table' is nothing but wood, which is nothing but carbon etc. And this table also happens to be a 'door' bolted to my wall in a horizontal position. but people don't call it a door, because it isn't functioning as a door atm. In another life it may have [;)]. Names are arbitrary things made up by humans.

You know what we mean by life, but that doesn't stop life being nothing more than a chemical reaction, just like fire, The ozone layer, and the internal combustion engine.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I do NOT believe in anything supernatural (in case you think that is where I am coming from).never crossed my mind


Chemistry does not "keep going." It will for awhile, but then it turns repetitive -- every time. You have absolutely nothing more than that as evidence because every single instance of non-living self organization is precisely so.

But for now I'd settle for something less spectacular than perpetual progressive organization. If you say you can coax chemistry, from raw materials, into forming DNA, please give me that demonstration. I eagerly await!
But DNA is raw material....
It's just a polymerised form of nucleotides.

I don't know exactly how it goes 'repetitive', but assuming you mean that it just makes more and more of the same stuff, then maybe that is the first step (as I imagine it would be). you make tons and tons of the base units. The more units there are, the more likely the stuff is to polymerise. It is still unlikely (since there is a huge Energy of Activation to be overcome) but it will happen eventually. And then when things start randomly polymerising, and things depolymerise as is in the nature of a chemical system (equilibrium points and all that), you will randomly form catalysts which will affect the system.

blah blah blah. I'm sure you know all this. And this is pointless. I only think that Chemogenesis is a more than possible explanation of how it happened (in whatever form chemogenesis whats to take: Crystals, Thermal vents, RNA molecules, protein catalysis, whatever), and you think that it is an unlikely explanation that is given too much credit. Our opinions differ.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
I would like to re-iterate my point from another thread. I agree with Tom when he says that science does NOT assume materialism. It can be practiced in the matrix as well. I don't know the thread, or what you mean by the matrix.

Oh THE matrix, got ya. Um, yeah, I agree with that aswell, but I am using the term materialism here as I assume everyone else is using it: What we see, accurately represents what affects us. By changing it, we actually change something.

Meh..whatever, I don't think it changes anything. Science does assume that by studyin what we see, we are studying something meaningful, but in the end, it hardly makes a difference.

I could go into my whole lot of thoughts on this topic, but this topic is hard enough as it is. I don't think we really have a disagreement here.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
I am explaining the complexity of the stuff around me. The stuff, which for the moment, I am more than happy to call life.

Just as I am typing on a 'computer', which is sitting on a 'table' etc, we need names to help us communicate. But this 'table' is nothing but wood, which is nothing but carbon etc. And this table also happens to be a 'door' bolted to my wall in a horizontal position. but people don't call it a door, because it isn't functioning as a door atm. In another life it may have [;)]. Names are arbitrary things made up by humans.

You know what we mean by life, but that doesn't stop life being nothing more than a chemical reaction, just like fire, The ozone layer, and the internal combustion engine.

Using names like door, table, and computer in casual conversation is one thing. But if we're talking about a scientific field of study and a resulting theory (called chemogenesis) then I would think there is a working definition. Hmm maybe not.

My point is that whether something is considered life or not is not relevant. It hasn't stopped biology. The fact that you think there is no distinctive line and LWS does is simply the result of the main disagreement between you and LWS anyway. He is arguing that there are instances of "things" on planet earth who's origin cannot be explained by understood principles. He has called this thing "life". You claim that no such thing exists. So it's only natural that you cannot see the disinction between life and non-life. The real issue is the main point I've seen LWS make several times: His statement that chemistry doesn't behave in this perpetual self organizing way IS his distinction of life from non-life. So you can't debate him on the existence of this behavior by claiming that there is no distinction called "life" to begin with.

So the trick is to stay focused on the real issue. Address whether you believe that chemistry at it's most basic level has been shown to behave in such a way that it could eventually generate a squirrel. Notice the definition of life is not relevant.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Meh..whatever, I don't think it changes anything. Science does assume that by studyin what we see, we are studying something meaningful, but in the end, it hardly makes a difference.



It is interesting the biases that seem to come out without people knowing it. Why do you assume that something is not "meaningful" if it isn't material?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
I think the interesting thing is, as true as it may be that there are subjective forms of inquiry or whatever it is that you mean, the objective method is beyond doubt applicable...and the process of this inquiry has shown us that our subjective is firmly attached to our physical brains. Objective research has also been able to trick people into believing/feeling/experiencing certain things by manipulating their physical brain. The mind can be split into multiple personalities. 'Religious experiences' can be made to be felt by electrical prodding. Blind spots can be made to appear in the visual field. People can be 'blind' and yet able to catch objects thrown at them. People can be made to find anything funny by having an area of their brain excited. People can lose their long term memory. People can lose their ability to form short term memories. People can be made to be unpleasant all of the time by losing an area of their brain. A woman recently suffered a stroke and woke up with a british accent (she is from the US, and has never been to UK).

The Point: You change the brain: The mind follows. The mind = The brain. You can do as much subjective stuff as you want, but if you let one of us objectivists come in and manipulate your brainm we'll be able to change your mind, whether you like it or not [;)]

Empirical research is the only trustworthy form of research. The brain isn't perfect.

For the record, I have absolute faith in a properly applied objective method to reveal . . . external reality. It is its applicability to a specific aspect of the subjective realm that I doubt.

Regarding your points about the brain, it just means we and the brain are interdependent for now. Say soon after birth I were placed in a machine with a camera, and I became totally dependent on that camera to view reality (and the rest of the machine to move about). What I don't know is that video tapes can be fed into the system, replacing what I am viewing normally with something that does not reflect reality. I, of course, completely accept the new image since I can't even imagine it not being true.

Possilby the body is our machine,and the CSN our "camera," and in fact we are quite dependent on it to be here on planet Earth, in a human body. Our dependence starts at birth, and we know nothing other than how to depend on the human biological system for awareness, survival and happiness.

But there is a history of individuals who claim to have withdrawn from full dependence on the body. True, they a relatively rare, but still there are enough of them to study and observe certain common characteristics about this conscious phenomenon.

If you refuse to examine them, I say your understanding of human potetial and knowledge is incomplete. My studies have convinced me that there is something to it, and in fact what they experience might just help us to understand the nature of reality a little better.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
It is interesting the biases that seem to come out without people knowing it. Why do you assume that something is not "meaningful" if it isn't material? It was a flippant dismissive comment which I said purely because I couldn't be bothered discussing it. Sorry.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
The real issue is the main point I've seen LWS make several times: His statement that chemistry doesn't behave in this perpetual self organizing way IS his distinction of life from non-life. So you can't debate him on the existence of this behavior by claiming that there is no distinction called "life" to begin with.

So the trick is to stay focused on the real issue. Address whether you believe that chemistry at it's most basic level has been shown to behave in such a way. . . . Notice the definition of life is not relevant.

You've said it, the whole thing right there. Thank you! [:)]

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But there is a history of individuals who claim to have withdrawn from full dependence on the body. True, they a relatively rare, but still there are enough of them to study and observe certain common characteristics about this conscious phenomenon.

If you refuse to examine them, I say your understanding of human potetial and knowledge is incomplete. My studies have convinced me that there is something to it, and in fact what they experience might just help us to understand the nature of reality a little better. But the point is that people can be made, by external manipulations, to find a picture frame funny. The mind, no matter how 'withdrawn from the body' it seems, is just a brain doing brain stuff. While it may be interesting to study these people, there are infinitely many other things which are interesting to study, and for the moment my first goal is to immortalise my body so that I have enough time to study all these other things.

Until such time, your introspective thought guys will have to wait out on the fringes of my attention.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption

So the trick is to stay focused on the real issue. Address whether you believe that chemistry at it's most basic level has been shown to behave in such a way that it could eventually generate a squirrel. Notice the definition of life is not relevant.
Good point. Focus on the new thing: Organisational:

And this brings me back to my real point: There is no organisation which isn't a manifestation of the simple chemical interactions. Things come together and move appart as they do. Things interact and catalyse as they do. Some things form stable bodies, somethings turn into stable molecules, something get stuck in an area which is of determined size, unable to move outside of that area. Thats all that is needed for stuff to happen, which may lead to a replicative process prone to evolution as it is known in the terms of biology.

I think there is a form of evolution that applies to the entire universe. A more basic mathematical interaction of proportions and probablities that describe the way stable things tend to numerate. This sort of evolution would be the descriptor of this early chemical soup, which as soon as the first flickers of replication came about, started to be described by the natural selection model: That which numerates fastest/best/most, will numerate.

there is no organisation required there. Just mathematical relations.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
But the point is that people can be made, by external manipulations, to find a picture frame funny. The mind, no matter how 'withdrawn from the body' it seems, is just a brain doing brain stuff. While it may be interesting to study these people, there are infinitely many other things which are interesting to study, and for the moment my first goal is to immortalise my body so that I have enough time to study all these other things.

Until such time, your introspective thought guys will have to wait out on the fringes of my attention.

You can be made, by external manipulations, to find a picture frame funny too. Do you think you (or anyone) are/is immune?

But I respectfully submit that you don't know anything (by your own admission) about those who practice withdrawing from senses and mind. It is not unusual for the dedicated to spend decades practicing, and never tell another soul about what they have achieved in that respect.

I consider your choices about what to investigate or not a purely personal matter until, that is, you claim in a public forum "there is no evidence" of anything beyond what the objective methods reveal. Then, I say, you are speaking uninformed.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
Good point. Focus on the new thing: Organisational:

And this brings me back to my real point: There is no organisation which isn't a manifestation of the simple chemical interactions. Things come together and move appart as they do. Things interact and catalyse as they do. Some things form stable bodies, somethings turn into stable molecules, something get stuck in an area which is of determined size, unable to move outside of that area. Thats all that is needed for stuff to happen, which may lead to a replicative process prone to evolution as it is known in the terms of biology.

That is not the "organizational" we are speaking of AG. Geez, how many times do we have to acknowledge that nothing in the chemistry of life is not normal? When you talk about organization you are actually referring to the physical laws of interconnections.

What I and Fliption are pointing to however is SELF organizing. The self organizing you claim chemistry did to achieve life is what is in question . . nothing more! All else is quite normal. You keep pointing to all the normal stuff and saying, "see how normal that is."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
It was a flippant dismissive comment which I said purely because I couldn't be bothered discussing it. Sorry.

Of course it was. It is when we are least attentive that our biases tend to come out.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What I and Fliption are pointing to however is SELF organizing. The self organizing you claim chemistry did to achieve life is what is in question . . nothing more! All else is quite normal. You keep pointing to all the normal stuff and saying, "see how normal that is." Well obviously I don't get something here. What self organisation? What is being questioned????

The normal stuff is normal, and you agree with that... but you don't agree that the organisation is happening, yet all I have said is that this normal stuff, IS the organisation. Thats all that 'life' is. The normal stuff over and over again, layer upon layer upon layer. How it started is just a drawn out process of layering.

What else do you want?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Of course it was. It is when we are least attentive that our biases tend to come out. Whatever. You are just trying to antagonise me, when the fact is I have some very well thought through ideas on the Objective, the subjective, and why it is that I believe what i believe. Its just that this is not the place for it, andI couldn't be bothered anyway.

Just because you don't know why I believe what I believe, does not mean I don't know why.

Bias Shmias.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Just because you don't know why I believe what I believe, does not mean I don't know why.


I didn't mean to suggest that you don't have reasons for your beliefs. I seriously doubt you are bias free either. I was merely interpreting what I read. I could have misinterpreted though. I apologize if I did. Sometimes you can tell alot about why someone doesn't understand what appears to be simple by simply analyzing comments like that. It's just a habit of mine that has formed out of necessity when communicating in this very inferior form of communication.

Although, it might be more comfortable to believe I am antagonizing.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Baahhhhhh humbug! I know about all of it, and none of it gets going, and keeps going. Yours is just short of a straw man argument. I am not claiming chemistry can't be stimulated into a fairly long chain of organizing steps! What I say is that you cannot get that process to keep going on its own. No matter how long your feed it energy, at some point it gets merely repetitive. Will you admit it, or are you going to deny that?

The chemogenesis theory requires progressive change, not repetitive change, in order to explain how chemistry became evolutive.

That is no response. My arguement was a direct, cogent rebuttal of your claims. You dismissed it out of hand with no rationale. There is no point in arguing with you. Enjoy your beliefs.

Njorl

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Njorl
That is no response. My arguement was a direct, cogent rebuttal of your claims. You dismissed it out of hand with no rationale. There is no point in arguing with you. Enjoy your beliefs.

Njorl

You argument did not directly rebut my claim, and that and only that is why I dismissed your response out of hand.

You have made the exact same argument everyone else here, and what all materialists generally make over and over and over and . . .

To me it is like trying to debate it with a creationist who continually gives as a reason "the Bible says . . ."

The creationist and the materialist both share something in common, and that is each believes in something that has never been shown to be true. Supernaturalism is a fairy tale imagined by uneducated tribal peoples long ago, and carried into the present through religious dogma. The progressive organizaiton ability of chemistry is what materialists need to prove chemogenesis is possible, but so far it has proven to be just as big a fairy tale.

Now what is the materialist equivalent of "the Bible says . . . "? It is to endlessly cite all the ways chemistry can be made to form into necessary cellular constituents, which is exactly how you argued it.

Why do I say that is incorrect logic? First of all, no one has denied that life orginated in Earth's prebiotic soup, and no one disputes chemistry is the means by which life participates in existence. So it should be no surprise that cellular bits and pieces can be made to form through chemical manipulation.

BUT -- and it is a big but -- I am saying there is one more thing that went on, and still goes on in life chemistry, something which no one can demostrate non-living chemistry is capable of.

That "something" is that living chemstry "keeps going" and on its own. What you do in the laboratory is merely get chemistry "going" for some limited number of steps before, and this happens every single time, it gets repetitive.

Now if chemistry turns repetitive, how will it ever achieve the seemingly perpetual adaptibility that life needs to evolve? Since no can demonstrate what I am calling "progressive" organization (versus repetitive), that is why I say materialists are either not recognizing or downright ignoring something they need (to prove chemogenesis) but are no closer to than they ever were.

And what do they say to the world about this failure? It is not mentioned, and instead they continue to say chemogenesis is "most likely." I consider that to be a biased opinion, and a materialist fairy tale (at this point) every bit as unsupported by evidence as supernaturalism.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
Well obviously I don't get something here. What self organisation? What is being questioned????

The normal stuff is normal, and you agree with that... but you don't agree that the organisation is happening, yet all I have said is that this normal stuff, IS the organisation. Thats all that 'life' is. The normal stuff over and over again, layer upon layer upon layer. How it started is just a drawn out process of layering.

What else do you want?

I want you to demonstrate chemistry, from scratch, can enter into the perpetual laying process and not turn repetitive, but continue to adapt and evolve.

So far, you cannot show chemistry can enter into that sort of organization mode apart from life.

[Royce]

Once again, Les I must applaud you and your posts. The only problem is that you leave me with little to say or add. It would be redundant.
Once again the materialist avoid the main issue or point by arguing the words of the example. They deny that they don't know and haven't proved anything by saying that it is "most likely" yet reject any other hypothesis that is just as infitesimly "likely" as their hypothesis de jur. Good Job! Well done and good point well supported and defended. Wish I had something of substance to add but you are one of the few who leave me speechless.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
Well obviously I don't get something here. What self organisation? What is being questioned????

The normal stuff is normal, and you agree with that... but you don't agree that the organisation is happening, yet all I have said is that this normal stuff, IS the organisation. Thats all that 'life' is. The normal stuff over and over again, layer upon layer upon layer. How it started is just a drawn out process of layering.

What else do you want?

I want to amend what I said to the above point of yours.

You are right to say life is layer upon layer, and that chemistry is the mechanical basis for achieving that layering. You are also right to say that the chemistry involved through every layer and type of process is "normal."

But you would admit that the layering is not just repetitive stacking wouldn't you? Each layer is adaptive and normally helps the over all system of layers survive better. So, clearly the layering process is quite unsual in this physical universe where we have never seen anything like it outside of life.

Here is what the question is:

What is causing that virtually perpetual and adaptive layering? Is it chemistry itself?

If you say yes, and because you say this chemistry some billions of years ago began that perpetual, adaptive, layering process all on its own, then that means chemistry has to possess the inherent potential for perpetual, adaptive, layering self organization.

Demonstrate it.

The examples you and others give do not demonstrate that ability. Instead your examples show that chemistry can be made to head in that direction.

To that I say, well of course! Chemistry is fundamental to all life processes. Why shouldn't the chemistry of a planet where life is so abundant exhibit the potential to be formed into cellular components.

The problem chemogenesis theorists have is that they cannot get chemistry to keep on "going" by itself, without their help, or even very far with their help.

What does "going" mean? It means achieve the perpetual, adaptive, layering process without turning merely repetitive.

IT CAN'T BE DONE (now at least)! And you need to prove chemistry can do that, by itself, before you tell the world chemogenesis is the "most likely" cause of the perpetual, adaptive, layering process.

Until you do prove chemistry can self organize itself like that, it remains just as possible that another force/influence is responsible for the perpetual, adaptive, layering process that lead to life. [a)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Wow. Mentat you really need to find a way to increase your time online or decrease the number of posts. [:D]

What are you talkin' about? I was serious about that: He made the statement, "A cell is performing tasks that no mere collection of chemicals could perform" and I said that that was a non-sensical statement, since a cell is a collection of chemicals.

What's your beef?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are wrong about how a cell is defined. However, you have joined the group who wants to ignore the organizational quality present in a cell.


I'm not ignoring it's functionality, merely explaining that there is no gestalt from "complex chemical process" to "living cell".


Talk about arrogating a principle!


I apologize for having sounded too confident, but you haven't proved that this didn't happen, so I went with science on that one [:)].


That's because a dog is too stupid to notice. We aren't.


Or because we are assigning extra properties to things that don't really have them. My guess should be as good as yours, shouldn't it?


I didn't say a thing about "purpose." I simply am pointing to how the organizational effectiveness of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own. It doesn't take a genius to notice that (fortunately for me).


How can you say that the organization of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own, when science is postulating that biology is chemistry left on it's own. Aren't you "arrogating" just as much as I was? Your statement sounds like the creationists who say that the "complex elegance of the Universe is uncharacteristic of physics left on its own"; or the new-agers who say that "the consciousness is uncharacteristic of 'mere machines'".

What is the similarity? All three statements (yours and my two examples) require from the start that we seperate what they view as "special" from that which its definition, and all studies done about it, indicate that it is just another example of.


Viruses do not from chemistry alone . . . they require remnant DNA which was once part of life. No virus has ever been observed spontaneously forming from raw materials.


We've only been "observing" for a few decades, and under oxygen-rich (unpreferable to newly forming life) circumstances, looking for something that happened in utterly different circumstances, and took (probably) millions of years to happen.


Okay, demonstrate that.


I don't need to; it's a logically valid assumption, and science theorizes that that's exactly what happened billions of years ago. Logic allows it, science promotes it, and I don't see the flaw in it. Yes, common sense may dictate that it is impossible, but common sense is irrelevant to philosophical inquiry.


Besides, I don't think a cell needs to come together all at once.


What would it come from, then? You seem to think there is some synergy of the processes that the cell performs, that produces a **cell**, so how could it have come from any thing "less"?


Long time or not, the theory is that is physical conditions and chemical potential started it spontaneously (spontaneous is not the same thing as instantaneous).


Yes, and you have not disproved that theory. Spontaneous generation is the best theory (with the least assumptions, mind you) that we've come up with.


I might have, but right now I am questioning the faith materialists have in the theory. I say the faith we see them exhibit, and that they often recommend that others should have in chemogenesis theory, is exaggerated because they are pre-committed to a philosophical position. It taints their objectivity and makes them diminish or ignore the problems with the theory.


I think you mean "credulity", where you've put "faith", since faith in science is perfectly justifiable, while credulity would indeed be blinding us, as you indicate.

As I see it, you can either make an assumption (whether for chemogenesis or against it), or you can be scientific about it, and form "current assumptions" based on the empirical data.


Natural selection is how a living animal evolves, it is not how chemogenesis occurred.


Is that so? That doesn't seem to be what biologists think. After all, natural selection even works in the realm of memes, which aren't living animals. It also works at the level of planets (which is why all planets are round (since that is the most energy efficient configuration, and any planets that started out irregular, would right themselves, or else they would not hold together...simplistic example, but it seems to work)).


It certainly is. But we aren't debating what is enough, we are discussing if the chemogenesis theory holds water.


True. But it wouldn't be "enough" if it didn't "hold water", would it? That's what I meant to imply by "enough".


That's a strange thing to say Mentat . . . 6000 years?

A biblical thing...I was just giving it as a generalization; it could be 9,000 or 10,000, but it's in that ballpark.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't have any doubts about evolution. What started life is what I question.

I understand. As it is, I don't see the flaw with Science's current model (except that it is sometimes counter-intuitive, but that's not a flaw at all, and most of the better theories are counter-intuitive anyway).

[FZ+]

So what's all the fuss about? Why is it that nothing I read make such light of it as gets made on this forum?
Because this only illustrates the possibility of abiogenesis. We don't actually have evidence this is what actually happened. This examples shows that the behaviour in cells is not miles above "chemistry", but it is still argued over whether we used the same sort of concrete.

From what you say, you are dependent on others' agreement to decide what is true.
Actually, I think you misunderstand. Everyone has a personal conception of the way the world works. When we talk, our goal is to share and change our own conceptions. But if there are no empirics to agree on, no conception can have a real reason to change, so we do get nowhere.

But what about those things which only I can know? Like I asked earlier, how can you know if I love my wife? And really, why should I care if you know that? Clearly there is an inner knowing which does not reveal its veracity through objective methods.
This was the option I gave to you, when I talked about the neccessary vagueness of life's definition. Life, by that idea, is neccessarily a subjective entity - like the concept of love. It differs by opinion, and feeling from person to person, and there is no real truth one way or the other. It is only valid if we put the deciders in the frame: your love is not neccessarily the same as mine, or a biologists.

But you did reject this option consistently. Because you stated repeatedly that life must have an empirical basis as a real property that divides it from "chemistry", then this empirical property must neccessarily be found by empirical methods - ie. science. Even if not by chemogenesis, some sort of material entity must then be around to make the empirical life, and this being must be materialistic - it must leave a fingerprint.

If any aspect of reality has come about in some way which can only be understood through that subjective discipline . . . well, forget about it because we can't talk and we can't share.
We can talk, but we can't share - because there is no reason at all for me to agree. Suppose I say that I have found a deep and internal realisation that life arose by chemistry? How much does that help to compel you to agree?

[FZ+]

That "something" is that living chemstry "keeps going" and on its own. What you do in the laboratory is merely get chemistry "going" for some limited number of steps before, and this happens every single time, it gets repetitive.
Er... I thought I had shown this to be false. Biological systems are repetitive - the irregularity comes from changes in the external chemistry/physics, all come from chaos etc. Just as crystals/fire are repetive until flaws/mutations inevitably occur.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... I thought I had shown this to be false. Biological systems are repetitive - the irregularity comes from changes in the external chemistry/physics, all come from chaos etc. Just as crystals/fire are repetive until flaws/mutations inevitably occur.

Are they only repetitive? This argument is typical. Point to one similarity, and ignore what is utterly uncommon in non-living chemistry. A crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal . . . and always will be.

That first living cell . . .look at what it became. Are you really saying the change each is capable of is comparable?

[Les Sleeth]

It looks like this thread is just about over. It's subject is a contentious one, as a subject usually is when the parties involved in the discussion have strong opinions. My main focus has been about bias and objectivity.

But I do have an opinion about chemogenesis too, which is that it hasn't been achieved because that isn't how life began. But of course I don't know, so if chemogenesis turns out to be the way life began, then so be it.

I've argued that to verify the chemogenesis hypothesis, life has to form from scratch in conditions similar to Earth's billions of years ago. But I would liberalize the rules and offer another challenge.

Take every constituent of a cell, or billions of cells, or trillions --. their DNA, mitochondrion, ribosomes, all their chemicals, etc., make sure sources of energy are present, manipulate environmental conditions anyway one pleases -- and bring it all together.

Using the definition of life stated before (the ability to evolve by natural selection . . . so phages are not life) can we expect life to ever form? You'd think with a head start like that (especially the DNA), and if chemistry really is capable of organizing itself, it wouldn't take long for life to develop.

What happens instead? Chemistry, but not life. So until life does spontaneously arise out of chemistry, I will continue to believe it is possible another force/influence is present in life that is not present in non-living chemistry.

That belief in it being "possible" is what distingishes an open opinion from the biased opinion which refuses to consider any possibility that might interfere with one's belief system. [a)]

[FZ+]

That first living cell . . .look at what it became.
In general, the cell has remained a cell. It's colour and some other behaviour have changed, but that is akin the the crystal adopting different chemicals from its surroundings. So, what is utterly uncommon in "nonliving" chemistry?

So yes, it is comparable. Objectively comparable. The only problems come from the subjective vagueness...

What happens instead? Chemistry, but not life.
Isn't that rather presumptious? The "bringing it all together with adjusted environment" has been done. Scientists have created artificial viruses, and soon artifical bacteria, by that means.(Though their adjustment of the environment is rather more tight than I think you meant.) Earlier chemicals are thought to be almost certainly more hardy, and behave differently from current DNA.

Using the definition of life stated before (the ability to evolve by natural selection . . . so phages are not life) can we expect life to ever form?
Using the objective objections I gave, it already has again and again and again. It is different from the precise path we took, and we lack the subjective empathy to understand it - but by an objective definition given, it is life. So what is it to be? Invoke the subjective non-science method now?

What do you mean, phages aren't life? They do evolve, if HIV is any indicator.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First of all, no one has denied that life orginated in Earth's prebiotic soup, and no one disputes chemistry is the means by which life participates in existence. So it should be no surprise that cellular bits and pieces can be made to form through chemical manipulation.
...
Now if chemistry turns repetitive, how will it ever achieve the seemingly perpetual adaptibility that life needs to evolve? Since no can demonstrate what I am calling "progressive" organization (versus repetitive), that is why I say materialists are either not recognizing or downright ignoring something they need (to prove chemogenesis) but are no closer to than they ever were.
But the original reply, one which you are choosing to deny from your own personal bias, is that these attempts to demostrate it aren't given enough time or space. The earth, over millions of years, is significantly quantitatively different, to "a ditillation apparatus in a lab for a couple of years".

Besides, the lab scenario's cannot possibly include all of the variety of the earth. They don't have clay ground involved, with lava flows, lightning (something different to electrical shocks), the complete solar spectrum of radiation, heating, cooling, different types of rocks, different chemicals in different concentrations at different areas.

Just because someone sets up an experimentm, with very specific parameters and it goes repetitive (for the short period of time it is watched), does not mean that 'in the wild' it would stay repetitive with all of the change in scenery.




To be honest, having thought about the 'Science could be practiced in the matrix' point raised above, I have forgotten what the objection to materialism is. It is the study of how things appear to be. Isn't that what we are afterall interested in?

The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.
Your Conclusion: Materialism is not to be trusted because it doesn't consider the things which cannot be measured.
The materialist reply: Who cares about those things? They don't affect anything. (If they did, they would be measurable.

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn succseful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, lets get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

I don't get it at all.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

What is causing that virtually perpetual and adaptive layering? Is it chemistry itself?
I have a personal theory that answers this, and apparently my personal theory is also well published in various books. I don't know of its status as a scientific theory, but it seems incredibly logical to me, and so I will breifly describe it here.

The force that drives that perpetual adaptive layering, is the most fundamental force of the universe: A methematical logic princinple in essence. It doesn't really 'drive' the layering process, just as Natural selection couldn't be said to drive the adaptive process of evolution. Instead, it allows those which are adapted to proceed. So to with this mathematic principle, those things which 'make the cut' are able to proceed, while those which don't, fall to the wayside and remain unnoticed by beings such as ourself for eternity.

This process is present in every level of physical existence that we have measured (in my theory), and if I was a mathematician I would create a formula which expresses that the 'succesfulness' of a particular entity would be calculated by the availability of its constituents, plus the likelyhood that those constituents would come together in the way that forms the entity, plus the stability of that entity once it is formed. The more constituents there are, the more likely they are to form the entity, and the more stable the entity is: The more the entity will come to be and numerate throughout the universe.

A very simple mathematic truth (do you doubt it?) could be used to describe why Hydrogen is the most abundant Element in the universe (Heaps of Neturons/Protons/Electrons, it forms readily and it is incredibly stable. Of course there is tons of it) Whereas Oxygen has the same availablility of constituents, it is somewhat less easy to form, and (I think) a little less stable.

Anyway, the same mathematical principle would relate to the formation of protons, neutrons etc, and also to the formation of molecules, and the formation of molecular interactions.

But it is in the molecular world where things start tobecome interesting, because here, molecules may be formed by the effect of other molecules. And so now, it is no longer just about which entities are the easiest formed and most stable etc, it is also about those which are created the most regularly, or those which replicate the most readily. If a molecule happens to be created a lot, then it will numerate. If this molecule happens to replicate itself, then it will numerate far more than every other one.

Anyway, I am going into this further than I need to/should at this instance, because I know you have probably already dismissed it. Yes, this does lead to the theory of evolution. In fact, you could say that the whole thing is 'evolution' in one of its various forms.

You want a layering force? There is no force other than variety of interaction. The force is entropy. The progressive element: Is a mathematical relationship which in one form is known as Selection. That which is able to numerate, will. This will seem repetitive at first (I think from the first Hydrogen formation until today, the formation of Hydrogen has been a pretty damn repetitive process), but that is just part of the process.
Until you do prove chemistry can self organize itself like that, it remains just as possible that another force/influence is responsible for the perpetual, adaptive, layering process that lead to life. [a)] I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation. And then chemogenesis maybe won't quite get so much attention. It gets all this attention currently, because it is the ONLY likely explanation. Not because we have assumed its truth, and then denied all else.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

Take every constituent of a cell, or billions of cells, or trillions --. their DNA, mitochondrion, ribosomes, all their chemicals, etc., make sure sources of energy are present, manipulate environmental conditions anyway one pleases -- and bring it all together.
...
You'd think with a head start like that (especially the DNA), and if chemistry really is capable of organizing itself, it wouldn't take long for life to develop.

But in all likelihood, Life never started with those organlles present. Life started out of something much more basic. The chance of complex, relation dependent organelles self-organising is much less likely than having self-dependent chemicals self-organising themselves.

Once again: Just because we haven't got it done, doesn't mean it cant be done. We don't know the exact starting situation, we don't know what happened, how it happened, how long it took, or under what conditions. And here you are presuming what type of form it took when it started was something similar to what is present today.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
In general, the cell has remained a cell. It's colour and some other behaviour have changed, but that is akin the the crystal adopting different chemicals from its surroundings. So, what is utterly uncommon in "nonliving" chemistry?

So yes, it is comparable. Objectively comparable. The only problems come from the subjective vagueness...

Statements like this is what made me suspect "denial" in the first place. The first living, reproducing, adapting cell is what was able to evolve into all the life forms we see today. Unlike a crystal, which is still a relatively simple and utterly stupid rock, that first evolving cell had enough "evolving potential" to eventually lead to consciousness.

But if you want to continue to assert that the type of change present in life is no different than that of a crystal, then show me a reproducing, metabolizing, system-building, conscious crystal . . . I want to have a talk with him. I mean, we can assume crystals have been around long enough to achieve that can't we?

Originally posted by FZ+
Using the objective objections I gave, it already has again and again and again. It is different from the precise path we took, and we lack the subjective empathy to understand it - but by an objective definition given, it is life. So what is it to be? Invoke the subjective non-science method now?

What do you mean, phages aren't life? They do evolve, if HIV is any indicator.

Sure, why not call anything life that changes? As you pointed out earlier, everything that changes, in one way or another, is responding to the environment, so a glacier is alive, a fire is alive, clouds are alive . . .

A virus can't do anything, including evolve, until it becomes part of a living system. It is that living system which is providing the evolving power for that virus. The majority of biologists I read do not claim a virus is alive.

Again, I say what distinguishes life is its ability to keep on evolving in the right conditions. And let me add this, in the case of this planet, that evolution has the potenial to "keep going" so far as to attain consciousness. It is because no one can demostrate any non-living chemistry that keeps evolving sufficiently that I say it is premature for materialist thinkers to say chemistry is most likely the only cause of life.

[Mentat]

Forgive me if I sound pushy or impatient, but I was kind of hoping that you could counter my post, LW Sleeth - when you get the time, that is. You see, I don't settle on ideas "for sure", and so I'd like to see if this "current assumption" (my term for assumptions that I make in a debate, that I don't really "believe" in, but hold for the sake of debate) should be discarded.

[Fliption]

This post is a bit off topic but I must reply to it since I was heavily involved in the 17+ page thread mentioned. IMO, this post is filled with semantical problems.

Originally posted by Another God



To be honest, having thought about the 'Science could be practiced in the matrix' point raised above, I have forgotten what the objection to materialism is. It is the study of how things appear to be. Isn't that what we are afterall interested in?

My comment about the matrix was not an objection to materialism. And materialism is not a study of how things appear to be. It isn't a study of anything. It is a philosophical belief about the way things are. What you have descibed is what we call science. This was my objection in that antagonizing thread from zero. The definition that you choose for your philosophical beliefs is worded is such a way that it cannot be wrong. Who would deny a belief in a study of the way things appear to be? No one would rationally do this. So if you really must know what someone's objection to materialism is then you might want to know what they mean when they say materialism. Because I can almost guarantee it's not the same definition you're using.


The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.

This is what everyone is interested in. Has nothing to do with materialism.


The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn succseful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, lets get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

I don't get it at all. [/B]

And after my comments above, the view and attitude in these comments are really what drives most of the debates here. Lack of understanding, semantic problems etc etc. My comment about the matrix was attempting to make the point that science and materialism are not the same things. No objections; just definition corrections.

Also, LWSleeth has not citicized materialism. It is obvious to me that his biggest beef is with what he perceives as a dogmatic attitude of materialists. There is a difference. So again, I think we should stay focused on the issue being presented in this thread.

[FZ+]

But if you want to continue to assert that the type of change present in life is no different than that of a crystal, then show me a reproducing, metabolizing, system-building, conscious crystal . . . I want to have a talk with him.

I have shown this already... And you can't talk to someone who doesn't speak your language either - conclusion: foreigners aren't alive?

I think you are still stumbling into the same pit - that any life has to be life like us.

A virus can't do anything, including evolve, until it becomes part of a living system.
This is an inconsistent position. By that argument, the world's animals have all become non-living.

Let me repeat my central complaint:

You are exhibiting a contradictory argument.

On the one hand, you claim to strive for objectivity and unbias, against dogma subjectivity and faith. You attack strongly my proposal that the life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views of how we are, not as an actual physical materialistic difference. Ok enough, that is not an uncommon position to take.

On the other hand, you reject that argument that chemogenesis must be followed because it is the only emprical method of analysing it, and say that a subjective method that views life as a spiritual subjective entity is unfairly unused. Again, not an uncommon position.

But when you put them together, the two contradict each other. On the one hand, you constrain the possibilities into life only as an empirical property, and thus limit us to only science as a possibility for examining it. (Since even if we were to invoke a supernatural physics principle, it's evidence will eventually be found by further research into the only road of chemogenesis.) On the other, you say it is unfair that we only use science when the problem can clearly be treated subjectively!

In effect, you have created an impossible position...

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.
Your Conclusion: Materialism is not to be trusted because it doesn't consider the things which cannot be measured.
The materialist reply: Who cares about those things? They don't affect anything. (If they did, they would be measurable.

Nonsense! It is perfectly fine with me if science at least only concerns itself with what can be measured; it has proven to be quite a valuable way to research. But the notion that what cannot be measured cannot have any “apparent” effect or reality doesn’t follow. What if, for instance, string theory is true, yet can never be measured? Your statement should say, “if it cannot be measured, science has no way of definitively verifying whether it is true or not.” In the realm of theory development, one might inductively or mathematically develop an immeasurable theory that fits the facts, and allow time and the discovery of new facts to decide if the theory continues to account for stuff.

Originally posted by Another God
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn successful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, lets get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

So, materialism is merely reactionary?

Originally posted by Another God
And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

“People like me”? You and FZ have straw-manned me to pieces in this thread. When did I advocate the verification principle of "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH"? Where have I suggested we go back to deciding what is true by papal or emperor decree, by divining, through mystical visions, by holy books . . . ?

You know, there is a big difference between empiricism and materialism. I will explain what I mean in my next answer to FZ.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Forgive me if I sound pushy or impatient, but I was kind of hoping that you could counter my post, LW Sleeth - when you get the time, that is. You see, I don't settle on ideas "for sure", and so I'd like to see if this "current assumption" (my term for assumptions that I make in a debate, that I don't really "believe" in, but hold for the sake of debate) should be discarded.

I don't think I understand what your "current assumption" is. In your previous post I didn't feel any of your arguments addressed my point, which is that materialist leanings are affecting the objectivity of certain empiricial claims. If you read my next response to FZ, possibly that will answer your question.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
I have shown this already... And you can't talk to someone who doesn't speak your language either - conclusion: foreigners aren't alive?
I think you are still stumbling into the same pit - that any life has to be life like us.

I understand at least enough about the field to know that the definition of life is not that open to debate. This is why we have a discipline known as “biology,” why we can say something is “dead,” why we could state clearly after the Mars visit no life was found, etc.

Are we going to discuss life by the general definitions of science, or do you get to make up your own rules? The life we have here is the only life we know, and it may just be the only life in the entire universe. In fact, from what we actually know it is the only life (you are probably familiar with Ward and Brownlee’s book “Rare Earth – Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe”).

Life does a number of things, not just one, that are all necessary for it to be “alive.” So taking rocks or a single chemical process and showing the similarity to one life process does not make a rock or chemical process alive! Life is a system, not just a collection of stuff, that metabolizes, reproduces, and evolves . . . all of which allows it to participate in natural selection. The most primitive single cell can do that -- a virus alone or crystal cannot.

The chemogenesis question raised here was whether or not chemistry and physical processes alone can create the living system we call a cell AND (and regarding this thread, that is a big “and”) if those scientists who claim chemogenesis is the “most likely” origin of life are exaggerating when they make that claim.

Originally posted by FZ+
On the one hand, you claim to strive for objectivity and unbiased, against dogma subjectivity and faith. You attack strongly my proposal that the life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views of how we are, not as an actual physical materialistic difference. Ok enough, that is not an uncommon position to take.

On the other hand, you reject that argument that chemogenesis must be followed because it is the only empirical method of analyzing it, and say that a subjective method that views life as a spiritual subjective entity is unfairly unused. Again, not an uncommon position.

But when you put them together, the two contradict each other. On the one hand, you constrain the possibilities into life only as an empirical property, and thus limit us to only science as a possibility for examining it. (Since even if we were to invoke a supernatural physics principle, it's evidence will eventually be found by further research into the only road of chemogenesis.) On the other, you say it is unfair that we only use science when the problem can clearly be treated subjectively!

In effect, you have created an impossible position...

It is your description of my point that has “created an impossible position,” not me.

First, let me further clarify why I reject your proposal that the “life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views.” It’s because I consider your argument sophistry. It looks to me like a debating tactic you are using in order to blur the boundaries of life so you can then claim life is nothing unique. But for the reasons I gave above, and more, most biologists would not agree with you.

Molecular biologist Hahlon Hoagland in his book “The Way Life Works” lists 16 patterns of life:
1. Life builds from the bottom up
2. Life assembles itself in the chains
3. Life needs and inside and an outside
4. Life uses a few themes to generate many variations
5. Life organizes with information
6. Life encourages variety by reshuffling information
7. Life creates with mistakes
8. Life occurs in water
9. Life runs on sugar
10. Life works in cycles
11. Life recycles everything in uses
12. Life maintains itself by turnover
13. Life tends to optimize rather than maximize
14. Life is opportunistic
15. Life competes within a cooperative framework
16. Life is interconnected and interdependent

Apparently also more impressed than you with the uniqueness of life is Stephan Jay Gould who writes, “[Nobody knows] . . . any formula that can account for the amount of change and almost inexhaustible variety that have written life’s adventures all across our planet. That story is a mystery locked into deeps of time that are mostly beyond our reach. . . . Our life dwells at the interplay between supreme cosmic forces and the ever-changing history of chemical and physical events . . .”

Lynn Margulis says, “Islands of order in an ocean of chaos, organisms are far superior to human-built machines. . . . Life is a single expanding organization . . . It is matter gone wild, capable of choosing its own direction in order to indefinitely forestall . . . death.” (By the way, Margulis also agrees viruses are not alive saying, “In our view, viruses are not [alive]. . . . Biological viruses reproduce within their hosts in the same way that digital viruses reproduce within computers. Without an autopoietic organic being, a biological virus is a mere collection of chemicals . . .”)

Notice how she says “mere collection of chemicals”? And “expanding organization”? Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.

So no one knows what makes non-living chemistry become living chemistry. One theory is that chemistry shapes itself into life, or chemogenesis, but it isn’t the only theory. It is just the theory that materialist thinkers believe most because they are not willing to consider any evidence other than material evidence. There are empirical researchers who have non-materialist theories; not every scientist buys the chemogenesis theory.

Separate from the issue of one’s favorite theory is claims made about how likely some theory is true. Yes, I am of the non-chemogenesis persuasion, but I realize I cannot prove my theory is correct. Yes, you and others are of the chemogenesis persuasion, and you cannot prove your theory is correct either.

However, you don’t hear me telling the world in science documentaries, writing in text books, or in public interviews that my theory is “most likely” how life came about. I might say that, if asked, “in my opinion . . .” But there are scientists saying chemogenesis is “most likely” all the time, and not just to each other either, but to anybody who will listen. Do they have enough evidence for that “most likely” label? I say they aren’t even close to having it, and what they are doing is using the current popularity of science as a bully pulpit to preach the doctrine of materialism.

As I said to AG, there is a big difference between empiricism and materialism. The former investigates reality by way of a logical and experience-based method that hypothesizes with the expectation of observing what has been hypothesized. Ideally empiricism is a neutral practice and does not assume what cannot be discovered through it does not exist, but rather assumes it is simply unavailable to senses and or logical analysis. But the materialist goes further to assume that what is unavailable to senses and or logical analysis does not and cannot exist. Because the only thing revealed through the senses and logical analysis are material processes, the materialist concludes existence is purely physical.

Now, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. My objection is when materialist philosophy starts to influence empirical objectivity, so that the so-called “objective” opinions we are expecting really are tainted by the materialist faith in matter as God.

What do I want? I want scientists to acknowledge that chemogenesis is only a working hypothesis for some of them, to be 100% objective about how close they are to proving chemogenesis, to openly say what the difficulties are with the theory, and to stop saying chemogenesis is “most likely” until they can demonstrate non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry.

As of now, all they’ve managed to achieve is a “mere collection of chemicals.”

[Tom Mattson]

Pardon me for butting in. I've been reading along, and I am keen to see this answered:

Originally posted by Another God
I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation.


Well?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom Pardon me for butting in. I've been reading along, and I am keen to see this answered:

[Originally posted by Another God] “I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation.”

Well?

You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims? Similarly, am I required to offer an alternative explanation before I’m allowed notice chemistry’s lack of ability to get “progressive” outside of life, and consequently to wonder if some unrecognized force/influence is present in life? Such wonderings about unseen influences happen all the time, such as when the orbits of Uranus and Neptune did not behave as expected. If I were a scientist working in the field, I suppose I should be expected to predict what was causing the perturbations (Pluto). But what if I weren’t a scientist -- am I prohibited from noticing irregular behavior?

But then, possibly your “Well?” is a bit of indignation over the fact that a lot of dedicated people are working hard to understand how life works, and they are theorizing with the best information they have. While how life originated may not be understood, what has been discovered about life processes has contributed to humanity in many ways. I love all that, and I fully support the effort to figure out how everything works in the universe.

However, life’s origin and nature is not only a science issue, yet more and more materialist-oriented science devotees are claiming it is. I am just old enough to remember when behaviorists (e.g., Skinner, Hull, and others) were so sure they could explain all there is to explain about human psychology. What gave them that confidence? Well, behavior actually can reveal quite a bit of human psychology. The problem they had is a general one that arises when someone dedicated to a field of study comes to believe, prematurely, that they can explain every single thing with their favorite theory. The truth is, it takes several theories to explain human psychology, and I think life might as well.

So my main argument is really about objectivity, and to point out that if one only studies physical processes, using an investigative method which only reveals physical processes, then it is logical that physical processes is all one will find. I suspect your “Well?” means, “Well, what else is there but physical processes?” Because I wouldn’t expect you to believe or consider reasonable something you’ve not experienced, to your “Well?” I might say, “Well, how am I supposed to supplement your depth of life experience so that what I say makes sense to you?”

There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?). But let me try a small thought experiment.

We know experience is the basis of knowing, and that sense experience is what we rely on in empiricism. We are born with our senses working, so it is easy to use them. The senses are oriented “outward” and away from us . . . we don’t see or hear “inward.” That outward orientation reveals a physical universe.

Yet for the last 3000 years or so has been a class of researchers who decided, for whatever reason, to exactly reverse the direction of their attention. Not all the time, but for awhile each day. Behind the splitting of our sensitivity into our senses, they claim there is an area of human sensitivity that is undivided, whole, unified. By learning to develop how to use that unified sensitivity, they say, one can experience an element of reality unavailable to fragmented sense experience.

They claim that with this “conscious oneness,” one can experience an element of reality that is also one, or undivided, and that it sits beneath all the manifold aspects of reality. In fact, manifold reality rises up out of this oneness, and eventually will return to it. This is what Zen practitioner Sengtsan meant when he said “One thing is all things, all things are one thing.”

Ok, let’s return to life. I’ve claimed what is lacking in the current model is something that will pull together disparate processes into the unified whole we call “life.” Possibly what the inner practitioners learn to experience is an integrating influence that manifests when conditions are right.

But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what most materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky. They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice and uninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance. The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing. It is the experience, in my opinion, that should be studied, and not any of the personality, philosophical or cultural elements which so often seem to capture people’s attention.

If one believes that experience is the basis of knowing, and if one is after the truth, then I cannot see how any variety of experience can be overlooked as a possibility for helping us understand reality. Reality and our nature decides what we can know, and how we can know. What if there is no other way to know the unified aspect except to turn inward? Then it is not about fairness, it is not about how we wish it were . . . it is about reality dictating to us how it is. And for me, it is about wanting the truth no matter how it comes, or what I have to do to taste a little of it.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims?


No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.


There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?).


That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.


But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what the materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky.


Not religious, but subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.


They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice anduninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance.


The word I would use is, "skepticism". More below.


The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing.


How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

edit: fixed italics bracket

[FZ+]

FZ, please stop talking to me like I am ignorant. I am university educated, and one of my majors was biology, plus I’ve studied regularly since those days. I understand at least enough about the field to know that the definition of life is not that open to debate. This is why we have a discipline known as “biology,” why we can say something is “dead,” why we could state clearly after the Mars visit no life was found, etc.
But I'm not saying you are ignorant - I am saying that you are making the same mistake you are accusing materialists of. It's a judgement question, it's not a matter of quoting the beliefs of others.

Are we going to discuss life by the general definitions of science, or do you get to make up your own rules? The life we have here is the only life we know, and it may just be the only life in the entire universe.
I think you will find that people broadly disagree with that - that's why we have SETI, for example. It's not a matter of taking it as rote - do we understand the justification behind them? Is there a real empirical difference, or are these ultimately rooted in subjectivity? This is a question that deserves answering, not just brushed aside by selective quoting.

So taking rocks or a single chemical process and showing the similarity to one life process does not make a rock or chemical process alive!
I don't think you have read my posts fully. Let's have a reminder...
In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".


The chemogenesis question raised here was whether or not chemistry and physical processes alone can create the living system we call a cell AND (and regarding this thread, that is a big “and”) if those scientists who claim chemogenesis is the “most likely” origin of life are exaggerating when they make that claim.
Yes they can because as an argument of possibility, all cases of probability remain open until proved otherwise. And yes it is the most likely, as long as you think life is empirical in nature.

---

It’s because I consider your argument sophistry. It looks to me like a debating tactic you are using in order to blur the boundaries of life so you can then claim life is nothing unique.
It is merely an option, and an option that has not been closed. And making it a debating tactic does little to undermine any truthfulness, if that exists, in it.

Molecular biologist Hahlon Hoagland in his book “The Way Life Works” lists 16 patterns of life:
Look at the word, patterns here. That is the first critical distinction I make. We are not talking about patterns - anything has an infinity of patterns. We are talking about criteria, and whether they are arbitary. This is critical. Stuff like "use of sugars" are not only incorrect (sulphur digesting bacteria being a counter example), but are also irrelevant.

Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.
As I said, this is not an uncommon position. But look at the second automatic conclusion - the validity of science as the only method to plumb this mystery. In these cases then mysteries represent something we do not know - it is not that there is no formula, but we have not found it. By saying that life is unique and real, the hunt is on. Chemogenesis is most likely, as the materialist concludes that life is something to find, and chemogenesis is the first candidate. Gould also said:

"Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again."

There are empirical researchers who have non-materialist theories; not every scientist buys the chemogenesis theory.
I am assuming that the idea of materialist is that empirical is the same as material. In essence, even a special principle of life is materialist, as long as we continue to insist life is definitely empirical. Immaterial evidence, evidence like that you give for the idea of love for your wife, is only useful for subjectivism.

But there are scientists saying chemogenesis is “most likely” all the time, and not just to each other either, but to anybody who will listen. Do they have enough evidence for that “most likely” label?
You wanna name an alternative?

Ideally empiricism is a neutral practice and does not assume what cannot be discovered through it does not exist, but rather assumes it is simply unavailable to senses and or logical analysis.
I do not agree with this. Empiricalism claims the significance of entities depends on their influence, however indirect, on the universe. There is no use hypothesising an entity that does not do anything. The materialist defines reality by this method - as everything is observed by the effects it has, the two mesh together. Even a thunder and lightning God is materialist. If any evidence of process has some influence on the real world, it is a physical process. Even if it is currently unavailable, it is held off until it is. Hence the acceptance by materialists of string theory etc, as long as it can be assured that the extra dimensions actually make a difference.

My objection is when materialist philosophy starts to influence empirical objectivity, so that the so-called “objective” opinions we are expecting really are tainted by the materialist faith in matter as God.
Rather the reverse. God is matter.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it. It is about assumptions of what is worthy of evidence, and the dubious practice of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit one’s philosophy of knowledge. Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”? AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!

Originally posted by Tom Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

Do you blame someone who only reads the Bible if they come here and argue they only see creationism? Why is it an okay to insist that everyone be up on their science, but not any other area of human accomplishment which might have bearing on understanding reality?

In a marriage between two immature people, a common fight one often hears could be entitled “what about me?” With maturity, one detaches from one’s preferences and learns to be open to anything valuable anyone might offer. So, what has been the case here? Have I resisted the rules of logic, evidence and proof? Have I failed to study other perspectives? Have I argued from a biased point of view? Or have I argued for objectivity? Really, who is most on the side of the empirical standard?

Originally posted by Tom You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.

Why do I have to show that? I haven’t asserted chemogenesis theory. I’ve simply complained that awarding the “most likely” prize to abiogenesis is something materialists are overly eager to do. Plenty of others have reservations.

Originally posted by Tom That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.

You’ll have to wait for the book.

Originally posted by Tom Not religious, but [i]subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.

Sorry Tom, but objectivity (or pseudo-objectivity) can be just as unreliable. Check out all the advertising on TV, how politicians justify their actions, how attorney’s argue cases, and so on . . . What you see is people using other’s faith in objective standards to deceive.

You might say that those instances are not “true” objectivity, and you would be right. But if someone had only seen that sort of objective baloney, they might claim objectivity is “notoriously deceptive.” Similarly, there might be improper subjectivity and proper subjectivity. Further, as science is actually an advanced form of objectivity, there might also be an advanced form of subjectivity.

Regarding how subjectivity is “impossible to quantify and measure” . . . you are trying to evaluate ideal subjectivity by objective standards, and so again revealing your bias. Ideal subjectivity has its own standards. Do you care to know about that, or must this remain only what objective standards are about?

Originally posted by Tom How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

It is determined similar to how one determines things objectively. One experiences what is claimed possible, and then one allows the experience, or lack of it, to create one’s opinion.

You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience; and I am not saying the abiogenesis model is wrong. I am disturbed at what I see as materialists claiming they are most likely correct when there are plenty of intelligent people around who still want to leave the question a lot more open than that. I would be a lot more receptive to the abiogenesis point of view if I ever heard one abiogenesis devotee, JUST ONE, who had actually studied all perspectives with an open mind, and argued his/her case both informed and objective.

So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view. To me, that is bad philosophizing.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it.


For the first 55 posts in this thread, as well as for a good part of the thread thereafter, you were arguing on the basis of the available physical evidence. You were arguing that, since no one has ever created life in a vat of chemicals, there is no basis for claiming that it can be done. It was not until post 56 that you first mentioned other types of evidence (namely, that evidence obtained from introspection).

So, it is not difficult to understand that people are so keen to present pro-chemogenesis arguments to you. You have, after all, spent a great deal of effort arguing against it.

Actually, I thought that that part was the most viable part of your case.


It is about assumptions of what is worthy of evidence, and the dubious practice of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit one’s philosophy of knowledge.


I'm with you so far.


Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”?


Oh, now that's real constructive. You certainly have turned fault-finding into a fine art. Now if you can just become as good at explaining why others are at fault, you'll be getting somewhere.

That's the difference between a discussion forum and a soap box.


AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!


AG has openly rebutted your claim that introspection constitutes evidence by citing the fact that mental states can be affected by external stimuli.

Your response was along the lines of, "Well, if you won't look into it, then you are ignorant".

Sadly, this attitude has typified your posts in this thread.


Do you blame someone who only reads the Bible if they come here and argue they only see creationism? Why is it an okay to insist that everyone be up on their science, but not any other area of human accomplishment which might have bearing on understanding reality?


Other areas of human accomplishment will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. As for the specific example you mention, I reject the Bible because (among other reasons) it makes no predictions, only postdictions (eg: See the sun? God put it there.). That is of no interest to either the scientist or the philosopher.


In a marriage between two immature people, a common fight one often hears could be entitled “what about me?” With maturity, one detaches from one’s preferences and learns to be open to anything valuable anyone might offer. So, what has been the case here? Have I resisted the rules of logic, evidence and proof?


Yes, you have resisted them tooth and nail.

AG is not asking, "what about me?". You are, and AG is asking, "how can I know that the standard of evidence you are presenting is valid?". You seem loathe to answer this perfectly reasonable question because you have already decided that no one will listen to the answer.


Have I failed to study other perspectives? Have I argued from a biased point of view? Or have I argued for objectivity? Really, who is most on the side of the empirical standard?


You have not failed to study other perspectives. As for the rest of the questions, I cannot answer them, because you will not tell us why you think as you do regarding standards of evidence.


Tom: You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.

LW Sleeth: Why do I have to show that? I haven’t asserted chemogenesis theory. I’ve simply complained that awarding the “most likely” prize to abiogenesis is something materialists are overly eager to do. Plenty of others have reservations.



Ah, more constructive input.

I have already tried to explain to you that people who claim that chemogenesis is "most likely" do so because they do not see an alternative. AG has asked you twice for one, and I have asked you once. Since there is only one possibility in view, it follows that that one is "most likely".

To that, you respond with, "No, it is not most likely, and I am not going to explain why."


You’ll have to wait for the book.


Does that mean that you are coming up with the first alternative to chemogenesis? If not, then can you cite another one?


Sorry Tom, but objectivity (or pseudo-objectivity) can be just as unreliable. Check out all the advertising on TV, how politicians justify their actions, how attorney’s argue cases, and so on . . . What you see is people using other’s faith in objective standards to deceive.


You are comparing "TV spin" (which is by its nature deliberately deceptive) with the carefully scrutinized data taken by scientists (which is deliberatly neutral).

What am I supposed to say to that?


You might say that those instances are not “true” objectivity, and you would be right. But if someone had only seen that sort of objective baloney, they might claim objectivity is “notoriously deceptive.” Similarly, there might be improper subjectivity and proper subjectivity. Further, as science is actually an advanced form of objectivity, there might also be an advanced form of subjectivity.


OK, care to present it?


Regarding how subjectivity is “impossible to quantify and measure” . . . you are trying to evaluate ideal subjectivity by objective standards, and so again revealing your bias. Ideal subjectivity has its own standards. Do you care to know about that, or must this remain only what objective standards are about?


Why don't you just say what you mean, rather than vaguely allude to it?


It is determined similar to how one determines things objectively. One experiences what is claimed possible, and then one allows the experience, or lack of it, to create one’s opinion.


That is way too vague. How does one "allow the experience, or lack of it, to create one's opinion"? There has to be something more to it than that, because two people's expeiences can lead them do different conclusions.


You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience;


Yes, you are. You opened this post criticizing the fact that they do not consider ceratin forms of evidence valid. You specifically cited one of these forms of evidence as "inner experience", and have branded as ignorant those who do not consider it.

But rather than explain what you mean, you have been content to regard yourself as the only wise man around.


and I am not saying the abiogenesis model is wrong. I am disturbed at what I see as materialists claiming they are most likely correct when there are plenty of intelligent people around who still want to leave the question a lot more open than that.


You could help the others here leave it open by presenting an alternative.


I would be a lot more receptive to the abiogenesis point of view if I ever heard one abiogenesis devotee, JUST ONE, who had actually studied all perspectives with an open mind, and argued his/her case both informed and objective.


Come on, Les. There is no way anyone could study all the perspectives with an open mind. There are literally an infinte number of them. But I don't think that's what you really want, anyway.

What you seem to really want is for a "abiogenesis devotee" to consider *your* perspective ("What about me?") And right now, with not one iota of explanatin offered for it, your "inner experience" line is just as easily written off as "God did it."

An appeal to be "unbiased" is not enough. You can only get others to see your perspective by changing minds, and you can only change minds by convincing minds. Sitting on your hands and asking, "why should I have to convince you?" will not cut it.


So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view.


Well, what I see are FZ+ and Mentat making forgivable mistakes typical of people their age (16 years old). Those kinds of mistakes are a necessary part of their development.

I also see AG asking you to explain to him why he should accept inner experience as evidence, in view of the fact that inner experience is so easily manipulated by external influence, while the converse is not true.

And I also see you, on your high horse. When an explanation or an argument is called for, you offer nothing but criticism. You prefer to call someone "ignorant" than to show them why you think they are wrong. You seem to think that that burden does not rest on you, but remember *you* are the one who started this thread, with its dopey title that was obviously designed specifically attract attention. And now that you have people's attention, and are being presented with arguments, you don't want to actually *discuss* any of the points of contention. What really galls me is not the content of your position, but how puffed up your ego is. I've got news for you: you are the only one who thinks that your contribution to this thread is reasonable, unbiased, and in line with the rules of logic and evidence. If anything, you are just preaching.


To me, that is bad philosophizing.


Indeed!

The way I see it, you can either make a renewed effort to try to reach the goal of mutual understanding, or you can keep sitting there doing nothing, all the while thinking that you are the only reasonable person here. It's up to you.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom For the first 55 posts in this thread, as well as for a good part of the thread thereafter, you were arguing on the basis of the available physical evidence. You were arguing that, since no one has ever created life in a vat of chemicals, there is no basis for claiming that it can be done. It was not until post 56 that you first mentioned other types of evidence (namely, that evidence obtained from introspection).

So, it is not difficult to understand that people are so keen to present pro-chemogenesis arguments to you. You have, after all, spent a great deal of effort arguing against it.

Actually, I thought that that part was the most viable part of your case.

Your response was along the lines of, "Well, if you won't look into it, then you are ignorant". Sadly, this attitude has typified your posts in this thread.


Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not? Yes, and this is the whole crux of the matter, for without "introspection" one would never know.

Indeed, how can you "know" the truth of anything if you can't see it for yourself? At which point do you stop taking "someone else's" word for it? [;)]

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.


Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.
Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo

I have little time right now so this will be short for now. But in fairness to Les, I don't think you can judge the attitudes and approach from the context of this thread alone. This topic has been discussed in many other threads with the exact same participants. Much of the attitudes present here are carry overs from tactics and behaviour exhibited in those other threads. At some point everyone has to decide when they are casting their pearls before swine and move on.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?

However, I will admit to a couple of points you made. This thread hasn’t been exactly on subject, at least as stated, the whole time. It did start out as challenging chemogenesis (I am going to switch to the more accurate term “abiogenesis”), but that came about from frustration with what I see as denial. So the reason the “most likely” issue came up is because to me that characterizes my complaint. If you read some of my past posts, it has been my most repeated (and virtually only) complaint about the science community, so for me it isn’t just a way to pass the time, it really bothers me. Saying that means I also should also admit that I’ve debated here in a combative way at times, allowing my frustration to show more than I probably should.

In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding. I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.

Let me summarize why I don’t think I should have to present an alternative model, even if I do have one. As a thinking human being discussing ideas in a forum, I question inconsistencies in people’s propositions. But by your standards, I shouldn’t be allowed to question unless I can provide an alternative. How does that make sense? Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas? Don’t you ever say, “that doesn’t make sense” without feeling the need to develop a replacement theory?

My objection overall is not that there is an abiogenesis model, just like I don’t object to someone having a creationist or intelligent design model. My objection is to an attitude I run into with science-oriented materialist philosophy (I’ll just call that scientism). One way this attitude is reflected is in the statement “. . . there is no evidence.”

“Oh really,” I like to say. Now, the scientism devotees are the ones saying there “is no evidence,” not me. When I try to point them to where there might be evidence I am told they are not interested in looking; and the implication why they won’t look is usually because they do not consider it evidence.

That leads to a side discussion, which I usually argue by pointing out that experience is the basis of knowing, and therefore evidence too. I challenge the notion that sense experience is the only experience ever to produce knowledge about reality. That is why, I say, one must broaden one’s education if one is going to make the statement “there is no evidence.”

If there is such evidence, and I attempt to point to where to look, and no one listens, how is it my responsibility to get that evidence into their head? Even if I did come up with an alternative model, that resistance to any evidence except which scientism devotees deem acceptable is going to be challenged every step of the way.

And then comes the next step, and a further source of frustration. Now fully cloaked in scientism evidence, and shielded from any other possible sort of evidence, scientism devotees proclaim in public settings (like Discovery science specials, etc.) or in text books educating our children, that abiogenesis is “most likely.” But what should be said instead is that scientism’s theory is abiogenesis.

I dislike that “most likely” because I think the question is still very open. I would like to believe scientism devotees say it because they can’t see any better idea, but I read science and watch science specials incessantly, and I am always seeing an assumption in place of “we are right.” That same attitude shows up here too when someone demands that everything be subjected to empirical standards. The clear message is, if it doesn’t show up through empirical study, it doesn’t exist. Now, if you are a scientism devotee, that is pretty convenient isn’t it?

To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes), it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer; and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).

Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering? Now why does this all tend to ring a bell with me? Hmm ... Perhaps like Les, these are my own feelings of inadequacy speaking here? Or, perhaps not? I don't know, it just all sounds kind of familiar.

But then again I'm not as well spoken as Les, neither do I take the whole thing quite so seriously, so maybe I have no business butting in. However, I do know what it feels like to get run over by a truck, and it ain't a pretty sight!

[Fliption]

I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Fliption
I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be. [/B]

Yes, I agree. I presented the horse race analogy not to justify labeling the theory as "most likely correct", but to bridge the gap between AG and LW Sleeth. If you follow AG's discussion, you will see that that is what he means, as evidenced by his asking Les twice for an alternative model.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?


I didn't ignore any of your reasons for not answering my questions. I countered them by noting that the "other side" doesn't see another option, and that is why an answer is needed.

As for that "hammer", that was in response to what I saw in this thread. I see AG asking you to give him something to consider as a competitor to the model he considers most likely correct, and I see you not wanting to enlighten him, calling those like him ignorant for not being so enlightened, and complaining that he is not open to your perspective. When I see things like that, you can be sure I will step in and intervene. If you knock it off, then so will I.

In any case, I am glad you decided to be more forthcoming. I'll get to the rest of your post later.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
\Notice how she says “mere collection of chemicals”? And “expanding organization”? Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.Accepted, there is something different between 'living' and 'non-living', but I thought we had already covered this, and decided to move on from it. Life does having something more to it, but that doesn't stop it from being nothing more than chemicals (in a physical sense). It is just a fact about those chemicals, that they happen to be in a particular system that repeats a particular process that results in copies of itself (or something that gives rise to itself) to be created. (Where 'itself' is the system at large).

Life is just chemicals, but chemicals that acheives a particular system dynamic. There is no definite line that seperates these two ideas, there is no line that demarcates 'cyclical system that gives rise to offspring' and 'everything else'. We just happen to be able to easily observe when it does happen, and when it does not. When the line is blurred, (such as in the case of viruses) we debate pointlessly over a definition which isn't necessary.


the materialist goes further to assume that what is unavailable to senses and or logical analysis does not and cannot exist.
I wouldn't say that they assume that exactly. And if they do, then I am not a materialist, so whatever.

What I would say, is that what cannot be measured, is of no interest to anyone, and so may as well not exist. Materialism never claimed to be able to look at the workings of Heaven, or of hell, it's goal is to look at the reality that we experience.

Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist within our universe. It exists somewhere else, and it has no consequences on our lives. String theory is either untrue (for our universe), or it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then it is having no effect. If it has an effect, then it can be measured. Materialism concerns itself, with that which is measurable (empirically), and pays no head to that which cannot be. (For good reason)


Because the only thing revealed through the senses and logical analysis are material processes, the materialist concludes existence is purely physical.The materialist concludes, in their premise, that nothing other than the physical (ie: Everything measurable (Energy included)) matters to us. Whether there is something outside of that, is irrelevent.

It may be interesting, but the Philosophers are the only people who could possibly hypothesise about it: Not that any one hypothesis has any credit over any other. Outside of the interest factor, it is irrelevent.


What do I want? I want scientists to acknowledge that chemogenesis is only a working hypothesis for some of them, to be 100% objective about how close they are to proving chemogenesis, to openly say what the difficulties are with the theory, and to stop saying chemogenesis is “most likely” until they can demonstrate non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry.
Tom asks this in his next post, so I will have to keep reading (Sorry, been gone for the weekend, catching up), but in the absence of any other theory, considering that life is just chemicals doing something particularly specialised, and that there is some reason to think that it may have happened by organised chance interactions: Chemogenesis IS the most likely option.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding.
I quote myself:

Not that not having an alternative theory can ever be a counter argument, and so I am not trying to use it as such, but this comment forces me to ask: What alternative promising approaches????
there was nothing combative about that, but my very point, as TOM tried to point out, was that When there is only one horse, that horse is the most likely.
IF that horse had no legs, then you could easily argue a point, but this horse has legs, it is just possible that maybe one of them will break before he finishes the race. Nonetheless, we are still willing to bet that it will win (since there are no other horses.). It is still, even in light of your criticisms of the organisational structure of chemistry, 'the most likely'.

ALl you needed to do is present one other theory, by name, by concept, be reference alone, that was in the race, and then there would be some reason for us to start wondering if this horse wasn't the most likely horse.

Now that we all know you are writting a book on an alternative hypothesis, GREAT. I can't wait to read it (And I promise right here and right now that I will.) I am not opposed to having theories challenged, I just don't get into the habit of denying thoeries which are 'Most likely' at explaining the phenomenon.

See, I strongly believe Evolution is a FACT in the strongest sense of the word: But you show me an alternative theory which explains everything better: And you have a convert. Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.

If you ahve done a good job, then maybe it will have a challenger as the most likely theory very shortly.

I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.Hopefully you understand now, no one wanted to hear your theory necessarily, we just wanted to know that there was another horse in the race, and that it even might be able to keep up. You didn't show any hint at there being one.


Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas?
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.


To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes)
The base assumption, agreed. (Of course, assuming that you mean 'sense experience' as in "Measurable by something, which can report to our sensory perception")

it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer;
You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevent, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.

and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).
OK, I will accept this criticism whole heartedly. It has become common practice to exagerate Abiogenesis, but in the defence of all exageraters by my side: The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one....) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumour of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it.


Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with. You are justified in challenging it without an alternative model: The alternative model simply would have allowed your point to be made without necessarily breaking the horses leg.

Even if there is exageration as to how likely chemical organisation may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.

[Another God]

OK, i am finally to the end. Hopefully what I have just said has cleared things up a little though....???

An alternative is not required for you to present an argument, but since your argument is not conclusive (even if it raises a valid point), presenting an alternative will achieve your goal nonetheless.

You criticisms of the exageration is accepted, and in the future it would probably be easier to just point those out rather than critice 'Scientism' as a whole. I think my reasons for the exageration are reasonable, but you may want to reply to them still.

Looking forward to it.

[full-time-climb]

How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by full-time-climb
How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"

Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.

[Les Sleeth]

AG, I suspect that ultimately we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do appreciate your efforts in the last three posts to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

I am going to change the focus a little with this post to discuss what I see as the biggest communication problem we’ve been having at this thread. I hope you don’t mind that I am using your last posts as examples. I am not picking on you, but rather I think you generally reflect one side of the discussion we've been having.

I am sure you are familiar with the suffix –centric, and how it is sometimes used to describe human psychological traits, such as “ethnocentric.” I believe a lot of what you and others say here might be called empiricentric.

To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy. I was raised in a fundamentalist religious family, and when a bunch of them would get together to explain, say, the origin of the universe, the group had standards they agreed upon about what was acceptable as evidence. In the discussion, obeying the standards of evidence was more important than if the evidence was true. Further, one wasn’t allowed (as I would try to do) to challenge the standards; that was the ultimate crime against the philosophical stance they’d chosen as the “true” stance.

Similarly, those who’ve chosen empirically-supported materialism as the “true” philosophical stance (what I’ve referred to as “scientism”) have standards as well for what is acceptable as evidence. Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned. And me? Well, I commit the ultimate sin when I am in a setting where scientism belief is prevalent, and I challenge the very standards that define the scientism philosophical system. Let me see if I can clarify why am I am behaving like the proverbial tiny fly biting the big and powerful horse.

I believe the instant one assumes a philosophical stance that one claims reveals all revealable truths, one has stepped away from the truth. That’s because one now becomes more concerned with practicing, maintaining and defending the standards of the stance than one is concerned with truth finding. It’s been said that God is a jealous God, but I think the truth is even more jealous, and resists fully showing itself to any philosophy that claims it alone is the way to truth.

How specifically does assuming a philosophical stance interfere with truth finding? It acts as a filter which judges all reality by its standards, and then strains out anything which doesn’t meet the standards of the stance. Rather than creating an open objective mind, it narrows and opinionates and biases the mind. It makes one behave like (slightly adjusting an old business aphorism) someone who thinks that the only worthwhile tool is a hammer, and so goes around treating everything like a nail.

I will give a few examples before my conclusion.

You say, “Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist within our universe. It exists somewhere else, and it has no consequences on our lives. String theory is either untrue (for our universe), or it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then it is having no effect. If it has an effect, then it can be measured. Materialism concerns itself, with that which is measurable (empirically), and pays no head to that which cannot be.”

I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work. In empirical research to be used in technology, for instance, it really doesn’t matter if something exists or not unless it can be detected and utilized. It is a practical matter. If as a way of remembering one needs detectable, measurable data to proceed in empirical research, one says “Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist . . .” that is fine with me.

But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.

Here’s another statement: “Even if there is exaggeration as to how likely chemical organization may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.”

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved. Well, can anyone disprove that supernatural forces did it? God? Whatever? The responsibility for proof is on whomever makes the claim something is true. Then from that to conclude “So abiogenesis is still the most likely” demonstrates empiricentrism because to whom is it “most likely”? Not to me, and not to a few billion other people on the planet. It is "most likely" to scientism devotees and their standards, period.

Another example of empiricentrism is revealed in this statement, “The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one....) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumor of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it. . . . Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.”

To whom is God in doubt? To whom has abiogenesis been the “only reasonable theory presented”? Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?

You go on to say, “You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevant, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.”

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?

Finally, you say: “Materialism never claimed to be able to look at the workings of Heaven, or of hell, it's goal is to look at the reality that we experience. . . .

First you define reality as only that which sense experience reveals; that consequently relieves you of investigating any other sort of experience which might provide information; and that in turn allows you to discount everything that is unable to meet the standards of scientism philosophy.

Here’s what I believe would be the proper philosophical and objective attitude.

Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes. We are NOT justified in assuming that the failure of empiricism to reveal anything metaphysical means there is nothing metaphysical.

There are people who a great many of us believe have achieved something metaphysical. Their expertise has not been about physical processes. The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.

In life and consciousness, there clearly are monumental amounts of physical processes going on. But there are a few things which have not been accounted for by that. There are great many educated people who think something metaphysical could be involved in certain of those unknown areas. Further, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true just because scientists can’t measure it because the metaphysical influence might not be measurable that way. Therefore, scientism devotees cannot yet say those areas are “most likely” physical since they’ve neither proven that, nor is the rest of the world in general agreement with them. Scientism devotees consequently must be content to say these horrible words -- WE DON’T KNOW – and leave the question open to other possible explanations.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.


Well, I still haven't understood Tom's objections in this thread and seeing these words makes me feel even more strongly. I do now understand what you mean when you say "most likely" but I have to say that it is an "extreeeeeemely deceptive" choice of words. I'll repeat what I said before, to use those words assumes that the "truth" (how life actually started) is captured in a horse that we currently know about. When in actuality, science is full of instances where new horses just popped into the race out of no where because some brilliant scientist somewhere made a discovery. In fact, this almost always happens when the current horses all have limps. By your standards, the theory that the earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.

I'm arguing that this phrase is being used for more reasons than the fact that it is the only one we currently know of.

[Another God]

I think you underestimate me Les. I have never minded admitting that I don't know. I do it quite regularly. I don't even mind finding out that I am wrong. As long as it is actually shown to me, and I am not just accused of it.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy.
...
Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned.
...
I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work.
...
But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.
It is hard to express, so i will just try to say it again in another way, and hope you get what I mean: If something, anything, has any influence on our universe...it is measurable. Whether we actually can measure it or not isn't the point here, it is whether it is measurable or not. If it has an influence, it is measurable, and so it is within the scope of empiricism, within the scope of 'scientism'. So whether you want to talk about the existence of neutrons, strings, or personal experience: They are all measurable: They all have some impact on the universe. Just as I cannot see an atom, I cannot see that you love your wife: But the existence of an atom may be measured by weight, and the presence of your love may be measured by your actions, your words, and your brain activity. (And possibly something much more sophisticate in the future)

And thus I present my bias to you out in the open, no denying it: I want to say "For everything in existence, there is a direct interaction with something else, and we can either measure that first thing, the second thing, or something else down the track of causality which in turn may indicate the existence of the first thing. And thus EVERYTHING is measurable." But that isn't entirely true. I know that. The truth is that there are probably things which don't interact, and so aren't measurable. They exist nonetheless right? And this is the important part: It is not that anyone is trying to force a philosophy into absolute acceptance here, it is just that there is no point considering those non-interactive factors. They have NO role in our universe. So we can just ignore them.

No fault in doing that, it's just practicality. All of this, is practicality to the nth degree.

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved.
It's a progression. You want us to say "Oh, we can't be certain, we should stop assuming we know anything"? We have to work with what we have, and what we have so far, is the way things seem to us. And the way things seem to us right now, are all pointing towards Abiogenesis. If everything of our current world view is pointing towards abiogenesis, then we are going to assume there is a good reason for it. And at no time does it assume that it has to be disproved. It just needs to be replaced with a better model. Same with every other theory. Until it is either disproved or replaced with a better model, then it will remain the accepted model.

Remember: That was the whole point of me asking if there was another option outside of Abiogenesis: You could achieve your point without disproving it.

...not that you need to disprove it, but its just that as long as it is the only model, and everything in it is functionally possible, and there is no conclusive evidence either way, it will be accepted as 'the most likely', and will remain so until one of those 2 elements is broken: It becomes 'not the most likely' or 'it is not functionally possible.' It's all very simple really.

OK: I ahve to sorta step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.


The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubtSorry, i worded this terribly. I meant to say that it has been around since the single Creation event was put into doubt: ie: Since Lyel and his dynamic geology theories, and Darwin and the Origin of the Species. Of course these works were largely denied in the begining, because it didn't fit in line with the Bible world view, but the question was finally out there, and as long as a few people doubted creation, then the question was being worked on "Well, if God didn't do it, how did it come to be?"
[/quote][/b]
Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?
[/quote][/b]
You know, this is a good point, because the answer is exactly what you fear it would be: It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions (I'm sure that will get soments here...), and only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has acheived something.

Like the philosophy behind it or not, it is the human method, just refined a little.

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?I feel like this is another one of those questions just put in here to make me answer more. Something you could have answered for yourself if you had have thought about it, but you chose not too, because the more questions you ask, the more problematic my stance appears.

That which is useful, is apparent. It is clear. It doesn't need to be explained. You know what is useful, and I know what is useful. What is useless, is everything outside of that which is useful. These things can be considered on an individual level, or they could be considered on a global level, or on a community l;evel, whatever. But for each case something can be easily chosen as useful, or useless without me needing to sit here and explain it to you.


Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes.
And because material universe is all we are interested in, who cares about the rest?

The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.Metaphysical doesn't mean what you think it does: Materialism is a metaphysical theory. Metaphysics is the term used to refer to a philosophical world view. It comes from the naming of Aristotles books, and the book about his theories of 'how things really are' was chronicaled before his book on Physics: Hence 'Meta=physics', before physics.

Anything which is not-physical, has no role in the physical, and thus can't influence us. Since we are, physical beings. Yes, we have subjective minds, but that mind is nothing more than an emergent property of a physical body. remover the physical body and suddenly you have no subjective. Change the subjective, the physical changes. Change the physical, the subjective changes. 1 to 1 ratio all the way. We are physical, our unvierse is physical, and that which isn't physical, is of no regard to us.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
By your standards, the theory that the earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.

It is being used because all of the evidence thus collected points towards it. It is being used because it is logically coherent. It is being used because life is chemical, thus it makes sense that life should have come from chemicals. There is no other option presented. Chemicals, no option, had to come from somewhere....DAMN GOOD OPTION. MOST LIKELY OPTION. ONLY OPTION.

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, lets pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?

It is the Most Likely theory, because when u consider everything, it IS bloody likely. It is just not certain.

A better analogy than the flat earth one (because that was never a theory), would be the EArthcentric view. When Ptolemy made his solar model, it was most likely that earth was the center, and I will stand by that. It has since been proven 'Wrong', but that doesn't stop it from having been the most likely at the time. It was a good model. It was consistent, it explained everything reasonably well. It was only better by ...that guy with the steel nose. Copernicus worked under him for a while: He propossed that the sun went around the earth, and everything else went around the sun. That was a great model because it explained everything that they saw, and it had less premises than Ptolemys model did. So it was 'the most likely' for a while, but it also was wrong.

Abiogensis isn't certain. Nothing is. But when u look at everything, it is the most likely. The phrase is no more misleading than you try to make it. It means exactly what it sounds like it means: It is more than likely TRUE, but not certainly so.

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.
What assumption? Have you taken the LW Sleeth who has been participating in this thread, and replaced him?????

Since when did we assume it was a one horse race??? Haven't we asked, like..i dunno...10 times now for any nominations as a potential other candidate??? There are none.

Creation isn't a theory, its an empty claim. It explains nothing, and relies on nothing.

Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, lets pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?


I don't think you understand my objection. Let me say that I think it is purely semantic. I don't have a problem with anything you have said here. If it's the only theory we have then it is the best theory we have. That makes sense to me. But the words "most likely" don't mean that to me. It's probably just the way we define words and phrases differently, but to me "most likely" means this theory is the best theory of all theories that will ever be known. Again, to use it the way you have and say that it was most likely back then but it turned out not to be true makes that phrase a meaningless one. Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead? You accomplish the same thing without the semantic confusion.

BTW, whether flat earth was a theory or not is completely irrelevant to my point. That's why I wasn't picky with the example. Just want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.

I'm not necessaily a proponent of any of these theories you've blasted but where is the rule thats says the truth has to have immediate explanatory value? Perhaps the very loose guide of Occams Razor but that is all I can think of. The fact that these theories aren't testable is probably closer to the real reason why they aren't on your radar screen. Which really just takes us back to LWS's point.

[Another God]

Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead?
Fine we'll say that. Whatever.

This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.

I agree. People debating something that amounts to mere definition differences is a complete waste of time. Which is why I pointed it out. It is my opinion that the reason you rarely see progress made or minds changed in these topics is because this medium of communication is very weak in sorting out semantic problems. But that's why I'm here. PF Doesn't pay me to do this for nothing[:)]

Now if you meant that me pointing this out was a waste of time, then I think I have another theory as to why little progress is ever made.

[full-time-climb]

We talk as though the universe exists in a random state. If Albert E has taught me anything it is that "the multiverse exists in perfect harmony." Therefore if chemo genesis is "it" then not to worry as it will reveil itself as did E=MC^2.
In the mean time we need to cherish that "which is not" as it is the only thing that will lead us to "that which is"

I expect that "that which is" will also come from a "Dream state" and then be validated in the laboratory and not the other way around.

This discussion has not been a waste of time unless that is the meaning you give it.

John
"Canadian Idle"

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
OK: I ahve to sorta step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.

The reason I “push points” is because you seem unable to acknowledge that there might other points of view besides your own which are as valid. Then, at 20-something years old, you condescend to tell me I have a crusade complex (not to mention to explain metaphysical to me . . . give me a break AG). The theme of this thread wasn’t your idea you know, it was mine, and I started it to push the very points I am pushing.

Think about how I’ve debated you. I have never ever denied the validity of what science actually achieves. I believe in science, and love it dearly. I hope through it we are able to understand the universe and humanity much better. But I don’t think your attitude reflects good science, it reflects the materialist religion, cloaked in science; and I also think what you are doing is going on quite a bit in the science community.

I just about despise religion no matter what guise it comes in because in my experience it is never objective; thus you have the reason for this thread: to argue for objectivity in science claims. That’s it, no other motivation. NONE. It is precisely because I love science that I question how honest some scientism devotees are being in their claims, and how fairly they look at other points of views. I suppose “crusade” is how it sounds when I explain what I have to say a dozen different ways trying to connect, only to have you once again repeat your own views without the slightest acknowledgement you’ve understood me.

Because you think you have the only way to the truth, you don’t feel like you have to listen. Yet I know for a fact there is at least one other way to explore the universe besides through science, and just because you “aren’t interested” in and refuse to investigate that possibility doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Great tactic . . . “I won’t look, and it ain’t relevant anyway.”

And do I have evidence of your attitude? Why yes, you provided it yourself:

“It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions . . . only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has achieved something.”

Just in case you’ve forgotten, you are member of that stupid human race. And thank you for helping us all understand how to judge who’s “achieved something.” I now see that what is important to you to achieve is the standard for achievement the whole world should live by. I wish the Buddha were still alive so I could explain to him what he should have achieved instead of dumb, er stupid, ol' enlightenment.

[Mentat]

Cool it, Les. I don't want this thread to be locked yet; I'm enjoying the posts quite a bit.

[Royce]

To put it very simply, every craftsman knows that we must use the right tool for the right job. I do not use a thermometer to measure how much carpet I will need to cover my bedroom floor; nor, do I use a ruler to measure the temperature of my oven.
Why then do we attempt to use emperical measurement to measure that which is non-physical, subjective and or metaphysical (I use that term only in want of a better more acceptable term).

If I say that the most likely cause of life is the intent and will of God or any other consciousness in the universe, you will deny it and say there is no evidence of such a being or such a happening. There is also no evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, none; nor has even been shown that it is possible.

Why then is one highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support more likely than another highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support? The answer is bias. Your bias makes abiogenesis most likely because that is the only one you will accept.
My bias makes the will and intent of a creator most likely because science has not shown me any viable alternative.

Science refuses to concider or acknowledge any other alternative. Science then loses any veracity it may have had in this area and in this instance becomes no more an authority on the subject than the good revend Billy Joe Bob who at least has some evidence and support in his bible.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Cool it, Les. I don't want this thread to be locked yet; I'm enjoying the posts quite a bit.

Yeah, my temper got the best of me. I came back to delete that post before anybody read it, but I guess it's too late.

[Royce]

Science is a tool, only a tool and only one tool that we have to investigate the universe and reality. It is not the only way to know or learn something. Some one earlier said scientist out of nowhere come up with new ideas, solutions and hypothesis; and that new theories are popping up all of the time. They are then varified or disproven in the lab. Where do these things come from if not our minds? If our minds are capable of making such leaps in science why do we think that only in science are such leaps meaningful? If our minds are capable of logic and reason and capable of coming up with new ideas why is it only science and materialism that hold any reality.
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs. A metaphysical philosophy the discounts the metaphysical. A subjective idea that only the material and not the subjective are real. If we can only know anything by subjective perceptions in our minds Then how can we say that such subjectiveness has no reality?
As Les said you are a man with only one tool. The only tool that you really have however is not the hammer of science but your mind.
Our minds are not limited by nature to only the material objective reality. That is an artificial blinder that we put on ourselves.
The same is true of religion. Why do we limit ourselves?
Why do we refuse to consider any and all possibilities? How can we explore the unknown if the unknown is not allowed to exist?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Royce
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how subjective perspectives are the result of material processes but yet have no place in discovering truth because they cannot in principle be measured and assigned a truth value.

[Another God]

We are sujective creatures trapped in an objective world, and we have to deal with that. Nothing 'comes from' our subjective, our subjective is always the result of the objective. If you know the objective, you know the cause of the subjective. If you know the subjective, then that is all you know.

We don't use physical measurement methods to measure that which is non-physical. We only measure the physical because that is all there is to measure. Everything else is an intangible consequence of the physical.

What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way.... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.

I play the science game, as I see it. I am a philosopher and a scientist. I think for myself to the extent where I have decided up on my own metaphysics. I know what i beleive and why i believe it. I rationalise out every one of my beliefs because I don't accept any general belief system which gets handed to you by other people.

And yet, the whole time, whenever I try to explain to anybody why it is that I beleive what I do and how I rationalise the standpoint, my reasons are either ignored, or just mentally skipped over and replaced with the accepted typical 'scientism' reasons, which I am not sure if they even exist.

I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i beleive this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.

Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.

FFS, my signature is serious. PROVE ME WRONG. I am sick of people just accusing me of it, and never backing up their words with anything meaningful.

And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.

[Royce]

Okay I won't bash materialism anymore on this thread.
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.
It is pure speculation and as such has no more credence or validity than any other pure speculation that cannot be tested. I do not support the biblical creationist; nor any one theory or hypothesis.
My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen.
Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has pysical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.
Althought I am reluctant to speak for Les, I think that we both agree that the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explaination that has been thought up. It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.
This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.

To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that any one of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. Logic supports it. Occams razor supports it. Reasonablenes supports it.
There is no way to test it.If you can create life from chemicals, then you can show it (that is a test). If you can set up the individual steps that led to the formation of life, and let them happen by themselves, then you can show it (that is a test). If someone can show that life can be formed from non-life, then you can show it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested.
It predicts that there is nothing more to life than chemical organisation. But I can't be sure whether this was predicted and then shown, or known and thus part of the predicitons of Abiogenesis. It predicts that non-life, under the right conditions, can give rise to life eventually.

It has never been duplicated in the lab.
So the final clincher test hasn't been achieved yet. Doesn't mean it won't happen. There is goo dreason to believe that this fact is a result of incorrect initial conditions, not enough time, not enough material etc.

there is no way to measure it.
measure what? Non-lifeness and lifeness? This has already been discussed and agreed upon. this point is meaningless as far as I can tell.

It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely.So, so far we have the facts: Life is chemical in nature. There was a time when there was no life. We now have life. Life has been advancing the whole time, getting more and more complicated: it is as if it is advancing from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A => ? => C.... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B, but it must have happened somehow. yes, there is a degree of speculation, but saying 'pure speculation' and 'extremely unlikely' are just empty claims on your behalf which hold no weight.

Just because you have decided that I am biased towards material explanations..(Something which I am still unsure as to why that is a bad thing), doesn't mean an argument can't be rationalised out on logical ground. Don't let this decline into Claim - Counterclaim.

I do not support the biblical creationist; nor any one theory or hypothesis. I don't believe that for a second.


My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen. Bias or not, I can attempt to argue against this rationally, rather than just accusing you of being biased and ignoring your claims/arguments.

Life was started by intent? What intent? Where did this intent come from? How is it manifest? How does this intent interact with the Molecules that lead to life? How do you know life started with DNA? There are many reasons to suppose that life started out nothing like what we know life to be now, and if it was in any way similar, it would probably be RNA based.

If you know it is extremely unlikely, then why do you claim to think that it happened? Surely you can think of a much more reasonable method of life starting: Try cutting out all of the speculation, and look at what is staring you straight in the face, and work with that.

Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has pysical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.Oh I am sure science considers all, no matter how unlikely: Its just that if there is no REASON to investigate further, there is no point wasting time. Given reason, anything is worth investigating.

More to reality than the physical, like what? Sure, we have our 'minds', but they are inextricably linked to the physical, so much so that it is reasonably to think that they are an illusion of sorts, or just an emergent property of the brain. There is nothing more to them. They are isolated pools of 'seeming' in a world of brutal meaningless facts.

the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explaination that has been thought up. Well der. It isn't the job of a theory to be open minded about all possibilities. It is up to a theory to propose an explanation for some phenomenon as best it can. Abiogenesis does that, and people tend to agree with it.

it is up to people to be open minded that it might not be correct, but so far there is no conclusive evidence to make them do so. So far Abiogenesis is still possible, it is still logically consistent, and there is still no other alternative.

It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.
I am all with you in agreeence that Scientists need to be open to alternative possibilities, and that they should not be fanatical about anything. And I will claim right here and right now that I believe I am not. To be honest, I don't give a crap whether Abiogenesis is true or not: But I am still yet to hear one good reason why I should deny its validity. And that is the reason I am starting to find this all very very tedious. I hear lots of accusations and lots of bashing, but nothing practical. No reasons. No logic. No basis. No Evidence. Oh sure, lots of time is spent questioning the validity of the evidence that is accepted, but stop talking all airy fairy, and deal with the case at hand.

Using analogies, and talking in vague reference to concepts is useful at times, but now we are dealing with a very specific topic, that deals with a specific claim: Can't we keep it real? Talk about what we want to deal with?


This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.No fear, I tend to keep my self as much out of this as possible, and thank you. I have to ask you something though: Have you gone through a change recently? I recall having you arguing somewhat different several months back? I'm just curious, you know, wondering if I am still sane or just losing my memory.


To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that any one of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum. But what has been brought up? All i have noticed that has been brought up, is that there might be semantic confusion as to what 'most likely' means. Les has pointed out that no one has made it happen in a lab yet (not a conclusive argument against the theory: No one could measure the speed of light for many hundreds of years but it was still a likely theory that light wasn't infinitely fast for example...)...what else has been brought up?

No, i do not think that those two points are reason enough for me to admit that there is a valid claim against Abiogenesis. I don't believe Abiogenesis is Factually Established, but it is the most likely option available: Not just because it is the only horse in the race, but because it is a logically consistent, valid, reasoned explanation.

And that is my standpoint.

[Fliption]

Ever fall off a horse? Get ready.

Originally posted by Another God
What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way.... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.


I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows.


I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i beleive this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.


I hear you. Unfortunately I don't think you're as open as you think you are. I was not trying to nitpick you with semantics. I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood. This is all very simple. So why debate on abiogensis when we all agree on it's validity as a scientific theory? You keep demanding that someone give you a criticism of it and the only criticism is that it is NOT "most likely"(as that term is being used by most of us) But very well may be one day.


Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.


Realize that without semantic understanding, debate is meaningless. This is such a problem on this forum. I will keep beating this drum until either people get it or they get into their 30's LOL. Thank god the two usually go hand in hand.


And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.

I agree. I'd like to request that no one ever use the word materialism again in a thread until everyone has had a crash course explaining what it actually means.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
]Logic supports it. Occams razor supports it. Reasonablenes supports it.


Two out of the three are subjective tools and I'm assuming meaningless since subjectivity is useless.


It predicts that there is nothing more to life than chemical organisation.

It predicts more than this because no one here denies this I don't think.


It predicts that non-life, under the right conditions, can give rise to life eventually.


There we go. Probably requires something said about chance and natural processes but this will do.

So, so far we have the facts: Life is chemical in nature. There was a time when there was no life. We now have life. Life has been advancing the whole time, getting more and more complicated: it is as if it is advancing from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A => ? => C.... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B, but it must have happened somehow. yes, there is a degree of speculation, but saying 'pure speculation' and 'extremely unlikely' are just empty claims on your behalf which hold no weight.


So, so far we have the facts: My house is made of wood. There was a time when my house didn't exists. My house went through several stages of development getting more complicated; it is as if it was advanced from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A=> ?=> C ... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B but it either is the result of trees falling in bad storms in a perfect arrangement by chance or someone built this beautiful house.

Was this logic supposed to point us in a direction for what B is?


Just because you have decided that I am biased towards material explanations..(Something which I am still unsure as to why that is a bad thing)

Think about this. If you are biased in a certain direction, of course you aren't going to understand why that is a bad thing! That's what it means to be biased.


I don't believe that for a second.

Calling him a liar?[:)] I'm sure Mentat will come in now and tell you to knock it off. Unless, of course, he is biased toward materialists.[:D]


Try cutting out all of the speculation, and look at what is staring you straight in the face, and work with that.


I agree with this but I think it applies to everyone involved here. Your casual explanation for what life is, simplifying it to nothing but: 5: Attach simple process
10: Goto 5

is not consistent with anything that I have ever read on this topic. In all honesty, when I see words like yours I think that either you aren't educated on the matter or you only see what you want to see. I could be wrong on both counts. I'm just telling you what my thoughts are because I don't see this view of yours anywhere else but in this forum. I'm not suggesting that scientists don't think this is a theory with potential and worthy of research. But I see them honestly dealing with a theory that has some major hurdles to overcome. And none of them ever shrug off life's complexity with such little respect; as if the road to explanation is paved and clear. Now I still think that Les's point stands about how even though all these problems exist, there is little doubt in their minds that abiogensis is correct.


Sure, we have our 'minds', but they are inextricably linked to the physical, so much so that it is reasonably to think that they are an illusion of sorts, or just an emergent property of the brain. There is nothing more to them. They are isolated pools of 'seeming' in a world of brutal meaningless facts.

And here is a statement of fact about another area that has more questions then answers. I don't understand how anyone can be so certain about anything in this crazy universe and still have clear glasses on.


To be honest, I don't give a crap whether Abiogenesis is true or not:

I don't believe that for a second. (I just copied and pasted this[:)])


But I am still yet to hear one good reason why I should deny its validity. And that is the reason I am starting to find this all very very tedious. I hear lots of accusations and lots of bashing, but nothing practical. No reasons. No logic. No basis. No Evidence. Oh sure, lots of time is spent questioning the validity of the evidence that is accepted, but stop talking all airy fairy, and deal with the case at hand.

This relates to my previous thread. I say get your definitions consistent with all involved first and then deal with this other stuff. Either we are all talking a different language or everybody but you really is a dumba**.


Have you gone through a change recently? I recall having you arguing somewhat different several months back?

Wow! Someone at PF changing their mind? Is that allowed? [:D]


But what has been brought up? All i have noticed that has been brought up, is that there might be semantic confusion as to what 'most likely' means. Les has pointed out that no one has made it happen in a lab yet what else has been brought up?

Grrrrr


No, i do not think that those two points are reason enough for me to admit that there is a valid claim against Abiogenesis.

Good thing they weren't intended to.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows. Ironically, i have only ever used the term because of these forums. I don't really consider myself a 'materialist', I just have my beliefs. This has been explained several times, while you were present, and so I'd think you would know it by now. I don't care whether I really know what a materialist is or not, I just continue thinking the way I think, trying to rationalise out everything I can. I choose to use my perception of reality to do this, and no 'spiritual' claims.


I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood.
If knowledge is never certain, and we can never truely know anything, then every truth claim can only be accepted in degree's of likelihood. Abiogenesis isn't the most likely just because it is the only horse in the race. It is most likely also because it fits the facts thus far presented. Even in its most common usage of the phrase, Abiogenesis is still most likely.

And so, if we all agree on its scientific validity, and there might be a little contention as to its status as 'most likely', but in general we all agree it isn't impossible...What is this all about?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Two out of the three are subjective tools and I'm assuming meaningless since subjectivity is useless.We are subjective creatures. We have to use subjective methods. The key is to apply them to objective facts. In this case, they are.

There is no meaning without subjectivity. There is nothing to be made meaningful without the Objective reality.


So, so far we have the facts: My house is made of wood. There was a time when my house didn't exists. My house went through several stages of development getting more complicated; it is as if it was advanced from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A=> ?=> C ... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B but it either is the result of trees falling in bad storms in a perfect arrangement by chance or someone built this beautiful house.

Was this logic supposed to point us in a direction for what B is?That sounds like a great analogy, but the context is entirely different. In your example, the context is loaded, so that the obvious answer is that Humans built your house: but the very purpose of the original question is to find out where the humans came from. So your analogy doesn't help.

In the original example, there is nothing around which could 'create' stuff. There was only chemicals. And thus, the logic is made once again, much more apparent.


Calling him a liar?[:)] I'm sure Mentat will come in now and tell you to knock it off. Unless, of course, he is biased toward materialists.[:D]No I am not, but you already know that. I am just saying that he, like the rest of us, may occasionally post something in the heat of the moment, and then upon further reflection realise that that doesn't actually reflect their views.

Now I still think that Les's point stands about how even though all these problems exist, there is little doubt in their minds that abiogensis is correct. But even with problems to overcome, there is no reason to doubt that it happened. That is basically what it comes down to. Life wasn't there, it is now. It had to come from somewhere, and so somewhere down the path it self-organised. HOW EXACTLY it did that, is a challenging task, I agree with that, but I have no reason to doubt that it happened.

The strange thing that I find, is that people seem stuck on thinking of life as something similar to what we know it to be. I doubt ever so much that life was anything like what we think of life as for many millions of years. And I feel safe in thinking that the precursors for life were around for many millions of years too, doing their little 'not quite actually life' types of things that they do.

But how that happened, I have no real idea. I just know that there is nothing difficult to grasp about the idea. There is nothing unheard of that needs to occur in the process.


"All those problems" are problems of how to explain it, not problems of whether it actually happened.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
[/b]We are subjective creatures. We have to use subjective methods. The key is to apply them to objective facts. In this case, they are. There is no meaning without subjectivity. There is nothing to be made meaningful without the Objective reality.


Then I don't understand. How is the subjective tools you mentioned any better than the subjective tools that Les has mentioned?


That sounds like a great analogy, but the context is entirely different. In your example, the context is loaded, so that the obvious answer is that Humans built your house: but the very purpose of the original question is to find out where the humans came from. So your analogy doesn't help.


Actually, the analogy did exactly what it was intended to do. It was designed to expose the built in assumption that you apparently have that only humans can design things.


In the original example, there is nothing around which could 'create' stuff. There was only chemicals. And thus, the logic is made once again, much more apparent.


How do you know this? How do you know that an alien life form from a neighboring planet didn't exists? Granted, I'm not arguing that this is the case nor that there is evidence of such. I am merely suggesting that huge gaps of abiogensis needn't be ignored simply because it's the only theory available on the basis of the assumption that no creative entity existed before earth life. Because that assumption just might be wrong!


No I am not, but you already know that. I am just saying that he, like the rest of us, may occasionally post something in the heat of the moment, and then upon further reflection realise that that doesn't actually reflect their views.


True. But I don't think I've ever seen Royce being a victim of the "heat of the moment". As a matter of fact I would guess that this response of yours to him is more a candidate for that than his original comment.[:)]


But even with problems to overcome, there is no reason to doubt that it happened. That is basically what it comes down to. Life wasn't there, it is now. It had to come from somewhere, and so somewhere down the path it self-organised. HOW EXACTLY it did that, is a challenging task, I agree with that, but I have no reason to doubt that it happened.


It seems we are having semantic problems again. I'm not sure what others here would say but I agree with you that life came from non-life. So I agree that "it happened". But I don't think that's what abiogensis is. Even God in the book of Genesis created life from non-life but we don't call that abiogensis. So abiogensis is a theory on "how" it happened. So we aren't talking about explaining "how" abiogensis happens. We're talking about "how" life comes from non-life. And abiogensis is one of the answers to that. Abiogensis would answer "self organization". Now of course science goes on to learn "how" it self organizes but thats asking questions at a more detailed level. You seem to be interchanging these 2 levels and it seems a bit confusing.

So where you and I would part ways in your comments above is that I don't know that the "self-organized" part is as obvious as the rest. That really is the main issue being presented here by Les. I don't think that he would deny that life is made up of non living things. It's the method of organization that we all differ on. Not the beginning ingredients. Just so you know, I'm not saying that I believe abiogensis isn't true. I am simply saying that I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me it is either.


The strange thing that I find, is that people seem stuck on thinking of life as something similar to what we know it to be. I doubt ever so much that life was anything like what we think of life as for many millions of years. And I feel safe in thinking that the precursors for life were around for many millions of years too, doing their little 'not quite actually life' types of things that they do.


Not I. I am completely open to these ideas. In fact, they only make sense. But I don't see this as a relevant issue in defense of abiogensis.


But how that happened, I have no real idea. I just know that there is nothing difficult to grasp about the idea. There is nothing unheard of that needs to occur in the process.

Les is arguing that there are things unheard of that is required. This is a key issue.



"All those problems" are problems of how to explain it, not problems of whether it actually happened.

Again, the word "it" here is referring to life coming from non-life. Not abiogensis or self organization. That's where more proof is needed before you can say it "actually happened". I would say that life coming from nonlife actually happened. I can't say that about self oganization.

[FZ+]

Quick-read a hundred posts or so...

Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes. We are NOT justified in assuming that the failure of empiricism to reveal anything metaphysical means there is nothing metaphysical....
Further, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true just because scientists can’t measure it because the metaphysical influence might not be measurable that way.
Scientism devotees are already committed to explaining things empirically, and so refuse to look at anything not empirical.

Certainly not. Science doesn't make that presumption. Materialists make an alternative pronouncement - anything that has an influence is defined as physical. So, if we assert that an metaphysical entity created the universe/life, then to the materialist, we have merely extended the domain of physical to include that entity.

In short, materialism is not about denying that which prior physical evidence failed to show, but rather to extend the realms of the physical to include all neccessary possibilities. God, as creator, is not neccessarily a bad thing to a materialist. Just look at the Spinoza-esque ideas many scientists follow. A God creation theory is in the race, but there is no empirical evidence as yet at all to confirm it, and has low fecundity because we still have to explain where God came from, though as with chemogenesis it has both subjective "evidence" and no disproof as of yet. So, at present, it is behind in the race.

This applies equally to the matter of meditation, and so on. Let me, just point out that I do practice meditation myself, though I do not think of it as sensing but more with a goal of understanding. The point with meditation is that if it did have real meaning, then it would be by the materialist way of thought a physical process. Therefore, the idea of "scientism" ignoring non-empirical evidence is absurd, as all evidence is to the materialist by definition empirical. The issue is then whether meditation matters empirically, and in this the evidence is weak.

I am merely suggesting that huge gaps of abiogensis needn't be ignored simply because it's the only theory available on the basis of the assumption that no creative entity existed before earth life. Because that assumption just might be wrong!
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.

Firstly, if we accept LWSleeth's assertion that life is real, as far as the materialist is concerned it must be measurable. Measurable, or influence and reality are in materialist terms the same thing.

Secondly, we must accept abiogenesis is incomplete. Certainly, as a theory, there are gaps. But there is no reason to consider them unsurmountable. In scientific terms, clearly these gaps cannot be ignored, because finding and plugging the gaps is what science is about.

There is evidence to support abiogenesis. There is no conclusive evidence, that's all.

consequently must be content to say these horrible words -- WE DON’T KNOW – and leave the question open to other possible explanations.
I accept this fully. But people will always have opinions, and will always express that opinion. In sort, I agree completely that an absolutist statement on a scientific theory is an insult to the idea of science. I also think it is unfair to apply the label of materialist to those that do so, since they are simultaneously insulting materialism. Whenever anyone says that, try to subconciously add the phrase... IMHO.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
accept this fully. But people will always have opinions, and will always express that opinion. In sort, I agree completely that an absolutist statement on a scientific theory is an insult to the idea of science. I also think it is unfair to apply the label of materialist to those that do so, since they are simultaneously insulting materialism. Whenever anyone says that, try to subconciously add the phrase... IMHO.

Since you've posted this FZ, I assume it is obvious to you that few people here use the word materialism correctly or consistently with one another. I tried to show this in that "Bias against materialism" thread for over twenty pages but got no where.

Despite what AG has claimed a few post above, he most certainly HAS claimed himself to be a materialists. I remember reading it specifically. So the word materialism enters the debate usually because people are claiming it as their belief. And to the point about consistency, the people that are most active in claiming materialism in this forum would not agree with much of what you've said. There is no way Zero would allow materialism to be open to a creator. So I think that whenever you see people bashing materialism here, they are really bashing much of the shallow, dogmatic, idealism that generally comes from people in this forum who claim to be materialists.

So while people bashing materialism may be bashing the wrong label, I think the fault generally falls into the other camp for resisting the idea that they aren't labeling themselves properly or consistently.

[FZ+]

There is no way Zero would allow materialism to be open to a creator.
IMHO, I do not think you have understood Zero properly here. Zero, and most materialists oppose a theory of God on the connotation of undetectability. In effect, the god of gaps idea. In effect, you you reword the idea of God creating the universe to Giant Alien with super powers (and a beard [;)]) created the universe, then from purely materialist perspectives there is no problem. The idea may be rather forcibly rejected for other reasons, like there being no evidence such a giant alien exists, but it isn't materialistically invalid. Or the idea that a knowable, but not yet found fundamental law created the universe, which has in fact being the driving hypothesis of many materialist thinkers. In fact many very much materialist thinkers have dispensed with any distinction and simply called such universal codes God.

"God does not play dice."

The problem with many instances of God is that in many cases it is set up as a moving target - we get the additional assertion that God is not provable/disprovable by empirical, and so materialistically real, methods. In terms of materialism, such an entity, if considered real, is a contradiction in terms.

Why not ask Zero?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
IMHO, I do not think you have understood Zero properly here. Zero, and most materialists oppose a theory of God on the connotation of undetectability.


Then what you are telling me is that you agree with Zero's definition of materialism. Upon re-reading your post again, I see that your view does indeed resemble his. Unfortunately, this cannot be the proper definition of materialism. It's a little off topic here and we spent over 20 pages on it in that other thread but I will try to point out the obvious. If everything that is measurable and "can be shown to exists" then becomes physical and material by definition, why would anyone ever reject materialism? It is correct by definition. But sure enough philsophy is full of arguments for things other than the material. How can this be when you are defining materialism to mean the same thing as the word 'existence'? Could it be they are using a different definition? I suspect so. If something that exists is by definition material then why would anyone believe that something non-material actually exists when if it did exists it would be material by definition? Why would people believe in something that cannot exists?

Heusdens eventually joined in and agreed with me by explaining that there is a scientific definition and a philosophical definition of materialism and they are not the same. But no one would listen.


Why not ask Zero?

I understand Zero's position fine. I just didn't understand yours. Now I see they are the same.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Fliption
I would like to re-iterate my point from another thread. I agree with Tom when he says that science does NOT assume materialism. It can be practiced in the matrix as well.
But the Matrix is a strictly materialist metaphor.

LWSleeth

I think your problem with systems of life is the same as that which crops up all over in complexity theory, and it hasn't been solved.

“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman quoted in ‘Complexity' – Roger Lewin)

Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer

[selfAdjoint]

Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer

Sounds like god of the gaps to me. The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry. The problems if there are any with complexity will be solved not by speculation but by empirical investigation.

[Canute]

Perhaps you're right, but some people argue that there's a logical problem at the bottom of this, and two and two won't make five however much empirical investigation one does.

[FZ+]

If everything that is measurable and "can be shown to exists" then becomes physical and material by definition, why would anyone ever reject materialism?
Certainly, that is the view of the materialist. It seems generally absurd to talk about spiritual entities - materialists would be much more comfortable talking of unknown physical objects and such like. If they did not think this way, materialism would be wholly inconsistent with progressive science, and very few people will be materialist. Someone said once that materialist science has in fact found thousands of fairies and gods - they simply choose to call them Gravity, or Energy, or Relativity.

The idea that anyone would reject materialism is that they would reject the idea of the identicalness of:

influence = existence

For example, Iachuss rejects materialism because he sees existence as being something else, perhaps something in the world of ideas, or as a wholing subjective notion, with influence being a subsidiary consequence rather than the precise moment the thing became real.

If something that exists is by definition material then why would anyone believe that something non-material actually exists when if it did exists it would be material by definition? Why would people believe in something that cannot exists?
And thus these people consider that something can exist without doing anything, or that the material should be bounded somehow not to include some things. In short, they do not agree with the definition, or indeed the axiom of what it means to be real, or to be material.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Canute
I think your problem with systems of life is the same as that which crops up all over in complexity theory, and it hasn't been solved.

“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman quoted in ‘Complexity' – Roger Lewin)

Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer

Yes, that is what I see. I see the scientism devotee adding up all the parts and processes of life without feeling a concern about what brought all those parts and processes together in the incredibly effective form they are in.

Besides, you know who declared vitalism dead don't you? It certainly wasn't the majority of people on this planet. It was, quite conveniently, scientism advocates. Their claim was made with the confidence that they could explain life with physical principles alone.

That's why you hear things like a medical biologist (Lewis Wolpert) claiming in the first chapter of his book on how embryos develop (The Triumph of the Embryo): “I will show that there is no ‘master builder’ in the embryo, no vital force.” Did he? No he simply ignored the issue of what pulled all that chemistry together, and what makes it function such an unusual organizational way. Because he only looked at and described "the parts," he made the stupid claim he'd shown there was no vital force. With that logic, I could take a brilliantly composed painting, break it down to all its component parts, and thereby prove no artist was necessary for such a paining.

So, so far scientism's hope of explaining life has proven to be bravado. And that means declaring vitalism dead was premature.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Sounds like god of the gaps to me. The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry.

"God of the gaps" is that "empiricentric" thing again, reflected in the typically reductionist statement " The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry." [g)] That's right, the more you take it apart, the more all you see is its constituent parts, which is chemistry. But what pulled it together, and keeps it working together as life? If it is just the parts, then why not disassemble every single bit of chemstry of some cell, throw it in a vat, and have it reassemble into life?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint The problems if there are any with complexity will be solved not by speculation but by empirical investigation.

Maybe so, but in terms of complexity being the answer either to life or consciousness, no one has demonstrated it yet have they? Just like chemistry apart from life, all you get complexity to do is continue on for awhile. It never attains that perpetually-evolving, metabolizing, reproducing condition so common to life.

Lewin's statement at least acknowledges the possibility that there might be "something more" which reductionist/empirical investigation may be incapable of revealing. I don't hear a peep about that out of most scientism devotees. Their attitude is that if science can't reveal it, then it must not exist. That's empiricentric if you ask me.

[Canute]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Maybe so, but in terms of complexity being the answer either to life or consciousness, no one has demonstrated it yet have they?
Very true. Surprisingly nobody knows (scientifically speaking) what in what order complexity, life and consciousness go in, or what gives rise to what. There are supporters for every possible permutation.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
"God of the gaps" is that "empiricentric" thing again, reflected in the typically reductionist statement " The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry." [g)] That's right, the more you take it apart, the more all you see is its constituent parts, which is chemistry. But what pulled it together, and keeps it working together as life? If it is just the parts, then why not disassemble every single bit of chemstry of some cell, throw it in a vat, and have it reassemble into life?

This is an old criticism based on old lab procedures of in vitro analysis. To use the famous example, if you take a watch apart and spread the parts on a table, they won't tell time. Is that evidence for a mysterious property of "Chronalism" that inhabits the intact watch? No, it just means you have to reassemble the watch carefully in order to make it work.
What's going on in life research now:
1) Artificial viruses have already been created. Years ago a virus was dissolved, the DNA extracted and put into another flask with an amino acid solution in it. The DNA all by itself recreated the virus just like the original.

2) in about a year or so Craig Venter is going to slip the DNA out of a simple bacteria and replace it with artificially constructed DNA. He hopes by this to obtain tailored bacteria with commercial potential. I have some hope of seeing before I die (I am 70) the analogous thing done with a multicellular organism; perhaps a yeast, or maybe even possibly a worm like some species of Caenorhabditis, that's how fast things are moving. Within your lifetime artificial creatures that live and breathe. And no lightning bolt required.

3) Modern in vivo techniques like tMRI enable scientists to study cellular reactions in the LIVING organism, and they find - more chemistry. It's a lot more complicated than the watch, in even the simplest organsims, but the principle holds. Everything can be explained by interacting chemistries.



Maybe so, but in terms of complexity being the answer either to life or consciousness, no one has demonstrated it yet have they?

Once again with the god of the gaps. Anything not yet completely pinned down is taken as evidence for vitalism. Bad logic.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This is an old criticism based on old lab procedures of in vitro analysis. To use the famous example, if you take a watch apart and spread the parts on a table, they won't tell time. Is that evidence for a mysterious property of "Chronalism" that inhabits the intact watch? No, it just means you have to reassemble the watch carefully in order to make it work.


First of all, I didn't say have a disassmbled watch tell time to prove chronalism, I said get that watch to assemble itself.

Then you go on to make my point for me by saying " you have to reassemble the watch carefully in order to make it work." My criticism all along has been that no one can demostrate enough of an "assembling process" that will lead to life; plus, that in spite of that failure scientism advocates are claiming abiogenesis is "most likely," or in the past that "vitalism is dead." I say, make your case properly first before making such claims.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What's going on in life research now:
1) Artificial viruses have already been created. Years ago a virus was dissolved, the DNA extracted and put into another flask with an amino acid solution in it. The DNA all by itself recreated the virus just like the original.

2) in about a year or so Craig Venter is going to slip the DNA out of a simple bacteria and replace it with artificially constructed DNA. He hopes by this to obtain tailored bacteria with commercial potential. I have some hope of seeing before I die (I am 70) the analogous thing done with a multicellular organism; perhaps a yeast, or maybe even possibly a worm like some species of Caenorhabditis, that's how fast things are moving. Within your lifetime artificial creatures that live and breathe. And no lightning bolt required.

3) Modern in vivo techniques like tMRI enable scientists to study cellular reactions in the LIVING organism, and they find - more chemistry. It's a lot more complicated than the watch, in even the simplest organsims, but the principle holds. Everything can be explained by interacting chemistries.

You probably think it must because I don't know about those developments that I doubt abiogenesis. Well, I do know about those developements, and all of it, every bit of it, is just more examples of how you can for some number of steps get chemistry to get organized, get more complex, but you CANNOT get it to come alive.

Viruses are not alive, and when you start out with DNA it isn't exactly proving anyway that even viruses can self organize from raw chemicals. Let's see you get DNA to spontaneously form. All the molecular biologists so proud because they take former life parts and hook them to chemistry are conveniently failing to mention they have no clue about how chemistry can, from raw materials, form into something so elegantly capable of directing chemical programming as DNA.

And then in your second example, you are going to replace a living cell's DNA with artificially manipulated DNA, but just like a virus, that DNA ain't gonna do it's thing without a living system to work in.

Is it that hard to see that one is not demonstrating chemistry can shape itself into life just because one can fool around with life process and life's former parts?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Once again with the god of the gaps. Anything not yet completely pinned down is taken as evidence for vitalism. Bad logic.

I don't think the gaps are evidence for vitalism. I don't know at this point what the gaps mean. It is the scientism devotees' failure to properly acknowledge the gaps, to so arrogantly declare "vitalism" dead, to exaggerate the meaning of what they can achieve through molecular biology that bothers me.

I am still open to a real answer, and there is nothing wrong with the logic that is telling me I am being propagandized to by those who are overly eagar for life and consciousness to turn out to be materially derived. It may be, but no one is nearly as close to showing it as they are pretending to be.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
In short, they do not agree with the definition, or indeed the axiom of what it means to be real, or to be material.

This is exactly my point. This is what I've been trying to say since that "bias" thread started. The major driver for disagreement in this forum is not a disagreement on what actually "is" i.e. whether materialism is true or not. It is a disagreement on what words like materialism and existence actually mean. No progress in discussion can be made until these semantic issues are resolved. My point goes further then to say that this semantic issue is not the case in the world of philosophy.

There is a distinct line between materialists, idealists etc etc. They disagree on what "is" and not on what the word materialism means. This is where discussions here need to move to.

We shouldn't go into much detail here but your definition sounds like the "scientific" definition and not the philosophical definition.

[FZ+]

There is a distinct line between materialists, idealists etc etc. They disagree on what "is" and not on what the word materialism means. This is where discussions here need to move to.
I do not see this. Clarify?

What I see is LWSleeth repeating that "life may not have come about by a physical process", to which my immediate reactions is... what is the alternative? What is a process, but something that is physical?

Suppose say vitalism was true. Or that God created life. Or whatever What stops the materialist/scientist from pinning on the label and calling it a physical process, as we have done for the gods of time, space and matter? At what point must we say that x is not a physical process, when to the materialist, the extent of physical processes are infinite?

If we toss away this, we just have the question, is the beginning of life solvable by current knowledge, and current, apparently well established principles. To which the answer is... wait and see.

On a side note, I am doubting whether materialism, idealism, dualism and everything can ever be true or false, but are just ways of thinking, different eyes through which to see an universe of nonsense.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
I do not see this. Clarify?

What stops the materialist/scientist from pinning on the label and calling it a physical process, as we have done for the gods of time, space and matter? At what point must we say that x is not a physical process, when to the materialist, the extent of physical processes are infinite?


Exactly! Do you not see that this is the very same question I am asking? I think you see the same situation I do but it doesn't appear that you understand what point I'm making with the observation. You are simply saying that anything that we discover to be true would then become materialism. You are asking for an example of something that can be found to be true and yet not be physical because you can't see how such a thing exists. And this is exactly what I'm saying. With the definition of materialism that you are using, non material things cannot exists. By definition!

Yet, there are philosophers who consider themselves dualist which means they believe that something non-material does exists. How can this be when we know by definition that it cannot? It is because they are using a different definition of materialism. The definition of materialism that you, Zero, and others here use is not the philsophical definition that is being used when we talk about Materialism/Idealism. It was pointed out in the "bias" thread that confusion is common among scientists and non-scientist because they assume the science definition of materialism applies to the philosophical debate that has been going on for years. When it does not.



On a side note, I am doubting whether materialism, idealism, dualism and everything can ever be true or false, but are just ways of thinking, different eyes through which to see an universe of nonsense. [/B]

I agree with you, if you're using your definition of these things. But the philosophical definition is a much better one that makes it easy to distinguish between material and non-material. When the semantics are clear, the views are either true or they aren't.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
I do not see this. Clarify?

What I see is LWSleeth repeating that "life may not have come about by a physical process", to which my immediate reactions is... what is the alternative? What is a process, but something that is physical? . . .

I am doubting whether materialism, idealism, dualism and everything can ever be true or false, but are just ways of thinking, different eyes through which to see an universe of nonsense.

What I see so much is everyone in a hurry to have a philosophy, concept, belief, etc. that gives one an answer for the deep questions.

But why not leave all the issues open? You could say, "with the evidence we have today, reality looks like . . . " (i.e., whatever the evidence indicates). If you get new evidence tomorrow, then let whatever it is reshape your concept. Why do you have to settle on the truth of anything ever? I don't. At any given time I only have that which is most supported by my experience, that which is most supported by evidence, and those interesting areas which are supported by my experience and by evidence but yet somehow seem at odds with each other. I usually pay special attention to that.

Of course, with that approach, it requires me to be open to all types of evidence, not that which only supports my favorite theory. It is to trust the truth to reveal itself without any controls, or promotion, or censorship by me.

[Canute]

Re: Definitions

As Sleeth says, the terms materialism, phenomenalism, physicalism, idealism, dualism etc have so many different meanings that confusion is inevitable. I suspect it's because however you define them objections arise, so people keep wriggling aroung trying to find subtle variations on them that are plausible. Even the term 'exist' is in dispute. I'm beginning to think it's better to discuss the issues without using these words.

[FZ+]

It is because they are using a different definition of materialism. The definition of materialism that you, Zero, and others here use is not the philsophical definition that is being used when we talk about Materialism/Idealism.
Pop quiz, then. What do you think is material? What I think is at materialism's core is the insistence there is no division between "spiritual" and "material" - spiritual either does not exist, or is just a subset of the other.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism
"Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism
"Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of or relating to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the physical part of man."

You could say, "with the evidence we have today, reality looks like . . . "
I agree completely - that is what science, or anything, can only ever say. If we accept the people involved are not breathlessly arrogant, and that they are still working in the field of science, that is probably what they meant. Hell, constantly rewriting your thoughts as evidence tears them down is what science, or "scientism" is about.


It is to trust the truth to reveal itself without any controls, or promotion, or censorship by me.
But the truth bearly ever reveals itself. You need to look. Sometimes people look too hard.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Pop quiz, then. What do you think is material? What I think is at materialism's core is the insistence there is no division between "spiritual" and "material" - spiritual either does not exist, or is just a subset of the other. Spirits do exist by the way, and I base everything I say about materialism versus spiritualism upon this. I know that they exist, and hence a spiritual world as well, because it's something I experience all the time. So you can call it what you will, but that's not going to change whether they exist or they don't exist (except in people's minds).

So the hardest part it would seem, is finding a way to explain it in such a way that other people can understand which, ain't all that easy. [;)]

[selfAdjoint]

And then in your second example, you are going to replace a living cell's DNA with artificially manipulated DNA, but just like a virus, that DNA ain't gonna do it's thing without a living system to work in.

You take the chromosome out of a bacteriaum, and what do you have? A dead bacterium. Mortal remains. You put your own handmade chromosome in, and BING! it comes to life. This is not creation from scratch, but it is a much stronger result than you try to make it seem. Dead matter is made to live, not again, but anew, with new chemical reactions happening instead of old.

I am sure you will boast that science can't make life until they manufacture an artificially generated living human from a pile of chemicals on the floor, and even then you won't admit it's really so. You talk of science being locked in a pattern and it's you who won't wake up and smell the coffee.

[Canute]

Report of speech given by neurosphysiologist Karl Pribram.

‘One can no more hope to find consciousness by digging into the brain than one can find gravity by digging into the earth’s centre’. His solution to the mind/brain problem is, much like Thompson, to reject the assumption of an inherent division and instead to regard the brain as but part of a larger web of causations impinging upon each instantiation of consciousness, including social systems and culture. He concluded by invoking a spiritual dimension to the quest for human understanding; not the kind of spiritualism one suspects Honderich had in mind, but rather a kind of ‘pervading consciousness’ which partakes of patterns that seem to be an intrinsic part of nature and human experience, including ‘quantum mechanics, organic chemistry, history, interpersonal interactions, or religious beliefs’ – all touched on to some extent in this wide-ranging presentation.”
Robert Peperell ‘Between phenomenology and neuroscience’ A report of the ‘Towards a Science of Consciousness’ Conference, Prague, July 2003) - Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 10 No 11 2004 p 87
.

[selfAdjoint]

And this proves nothing except that spirituality is important to Pribram. Marxism is important to Lewontin and he has written a long book asserting that genome research will go nowhere, because it is contrary to dialectic (he doensn't put it that way, of course). Any individual scientist can well be "mad nor' nor' west", it is the work of scientists as a community that makes progress.

[Canute]

Quite agree, except that you're confusing spirituality with an rational ontological hypothesis. I don't think much of what scientists generally have to say on this matter either. I was just illustrating that on this matter any scientific 'orthodoxy' is an illusion.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
You take the chromosome out of a bacteriaum, and what do you have? A dead bacterium. Mortal remains. You put your own handmade chromosome in, and BING! it comes to life. This is not creation from scratch, but it is a much stronger result than you try to make it seem. Dead matter is made to live, not again, but anew, with new chemical reactions happening instead of old.


As I've said, I freely grant top cleverness honors to scientists achieving such things. I am in awe, I think it is wonderful (even if I am not convinced the bacterium will be entirely dead when the new chromosomes are put in).

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I am sure you will boast that science can't make life until they manufacture an artificially generated living human from a pile of chemicals on the floor, and even then you won't admit it's really so.

Why the sarcasm? I am arguing you straightforwardly, and not playing games (even if I do get a little hot under the collar).

Possibly you joined this thread late and haven't read the original post along with the various debates that ensued. In case that is so, then I will remind you my point is that I say scientists cannot demonstrate the potential of chemistry to become "living" when left all on its own. To prove chemistry alone organized itself into the first life form, you have to show chemistry has that self organizing capability.

I don't think it does. I think the abiogenesis theory still needs a specific kind of organizing principle which chemistry hasn't yet been shown to have.

You think it does. Prove it. Afterall, the burden is on you to prove, and not me to disprove. Every example you and others give are not proofs, but rather evidence. Fine, I accept it as evidence. But, again, when you speak to the public about what is "most likely," you shouldn't act as though it is an objective statement of science when really it is a statement of materialist belief.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
You talk of science being locked in a pattern and it's you who won't wake up and smell the coffee.

What coffee is that exactly? YOUR coffee? Or am I allowed to search for THE "coffee" that satisfies my objections to the abiogenesis theory?

Do you think I am religious, or believe in creationism? Supernaturalism maybe? Do you think I am conducting a vendetta against legitimate science? (You'd be wrong on all counts.) What assumptions are you making about my reasons for objecting to abiogenesis?

My reasons are a lot more objective than yours appear to be. I see an important missing capability of chemistry to do what abiogenesis enthusiasts claim chemistry did to form life. I want the truth, and I am open to that truth from any source it might come. How about you?

You know, just because you and every other scientism devotee believe chemistry did it doesn't mean that qualifies as a proper proof. It's not democracy, the will of the majority, might makes right . . . proof has a standard separate from all that. I'm sorry, but I genuinely see a huge gap in the abiogenesis theory right where I have been pointing. And no one is going to bully me into accepting materialist hopes and dreams as good science or a proper proof!

[selfAdjoint]

You say that chemistry must have a "something else" to be able to organize itself into a living organism. I say the best evidence to date, though incomplete, strongly suggests that it can do that by itself. I am the one backing the more parsimonoius model: there is nothing there beyond chemistry.

You are the one with less parsimony: some unknown factor beyond chemistry will be required. As I see it the burden is upon you to characterize your unknown factor and show its necessity. I have nothing to do but to watch the march of chemical knowledge and verify or reject my inference based on that. Of course if you can construct a rigorous and empirically testable version of your required force I will be glad to attend to that.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
You say that chemistry must have a "something else" to be able to organize itself into a living organism. I say the best evidence to date, though incomplete, strongly suggests that it can do that by itself. I am the one backing the more parsimonoius model: there is nothing there beyond chemistry.

You are the one with less parsimony: some unknown factor beyond chemistry will be required. As I see it the burden is upon you to characterize your unknown factor and show its necessity. I have nothing to do but to watch the march of chemical knowledge and verify or reject my inference based on that. Of course if you can construct a rigorous and empirically testable version of your required force I will be glad to attend to that.

Parsimony? Does this even apply in our universe anymore? No cosmologist I know of would put much stock in it after all thats been learned in recent years.

What's interesting about all this is that physicists and biologists generally don't agree on this matter. Physicists argue that chemistry behaves a certain way and life in some form is inevitable while biologists see it more as an amazing statistical oddity that would probably never happen again. So which is it? Both branches of science use parsimony I would think. Which of these does parsimony suggest? I'm just curious.

I think this will be my new signature: Don't worship a rule of thumb. Don't forget to think for yourself.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint You say that chemistry must have a "something else" to be able to organize itself into a living organism. I say the best evidence to date, though incomplete, strongly suggests that it can do that by itself. I am the one backing the more parsimonoius model: there is nothing there beyond chemistry.

I have to agree with Fliption on this one. The Nova special I watched a couple of weeks ago on string theory shows thinking that is anything but parsimonious, and yet which seems to explain more stuff because of it. I agree that if the theory you have is explaining things just fine, then why stick on superfluous elements. Outside of that, I can’t see how parsimony should be given precedence over simply investigating, accepting and, if necessary, hypothesizing how complex reality might turn out to be.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint You are the one with less parsimony: some unknown factor beyond chemistry will be required. As I see it the burden is upon you to characterize your unknown factor and show its necessity. I have nothing to do but to watch the march of chemical knowledge and verify or reject my inference based on that. Of course if you can construct a rigorous and empirically testable version of your required force I will be glad to attend to that.

An example I cited earlier in this thread was how perturbations in the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter had astronomers believing another planet was orbiting the sun out there. They could not actually see Pluto, and yet the behavior of what they could see convinced them they needed to add a new component, unparsimoniously, to the model.

My anti-parsimoniousness is due to the same sort of observation. Since I have no philosophy to stick up for, no concerns for whether or not creation turns out to be purely material, or if consciousness might somehow be involved, or if something I haven’t even imagined yet is part of things . . . because of that I am free to notice and acknowledge any anomaly there might be.

What I notice is chemistry behaving anomalously in one specific way. I do NOT claim the individual interactions between life’s chemical processes violate the norm. So far, you and others arguing against my assertions keep responding like you think that is what I am saying. That’s why I get list after list of all the “normal” chemistry that goes on behind/in various organic processes.

So what is the anomaly I notice? It is the organizational quality of life’s chemistry. Earlier you gave an example of how taking a watch apart doesn’t reveal any “chronalism,” and then you went on to say that all one has to do is assemble those parts and one has a time-keeping watch. But if you had all those parts laying around on a table, and they were to assemble themselves into a watch, wouldn’t you consider that an anomaly? And what if the watch developed it’s own solar-powered battery, reproduced another of itself, and came to adapt to the environment?

Even if you could bounce around the table enough to get the parts to fall into place, that still isn’t analogous to what abiogenesis theorists say happened with life. To really recreate analogous conditions you’d have to put the raw materials of the watch on the table, like bits of metal, and they would have to first shape themselves into springs, wheels, hands, etc., and then all would have to fit together rather perfectly to actually function as an effective timekeeping device.

Well, the first metabolizing, reproducing, adaptive cell, no matter how primitive, was a major organizational event. And to this day, we have never, ever – not once – observed another an organizational event of that quality from chemistry. In order to get chemistry to perform more steps than it would if left strictly to its own devices, you have to consciously manipulate it. Hmmmmmmm. In fact, the only time we see anything close to the sort of organization found in life is when consciousness has been involved. Yet you say that in an ocean full of the right chemicals and conditions, and given enough time, life could come about spontaneously.

So, like that disturbance in Jupiter’s orbit, I look at the chemistry of life and see something in its organizational quality that is atypical. You wonder why I am open to other explanations besides chemistry itself to account for that anomaly. I wonder why all the abiogenesis advocates can’t bring themselves to even acknowledge the anomaly, much less admit there might be an unrecognized influence at work in life. That is why I attached the term “denial” to this thread . . . because I suspect the lack of acknowledgement is due to the fear that might open the door to metaphysical propositions for that influence. It’s what materialists dread most. [o)]

[Canute]

Well said.

I'm unclear on one relevant question. How many times is life considered to have started on this planet?

[Royce]

Yes, Les, well said. One other thing not yet brought up in this thread is that life, at least locally, violates the laws of thermodynamics both in organization and in energy use. I read somewhere long ago that pound for pound the human body radiates more energy than the sun.
While they deny it all, there is something special about life that is unknown and unexplained, as you say.
We have, as I have said before, found no evidence of proto-life or simpler life forms. Virus do not count as they must have de-evolved from a higher state with the ability to reproduce themselves and later as hosts became available to do that for them they lost the ability to reproduce themselves. Either that or they evolved later after life had already established itself in abundance here on earth.
There is no way that virus can be an evolutionary step as they would never be reproduced.
Again as I have said in other threads, all known life on earth in of the same form. From the simplest fungi to human beings we share the same DNA and it is interchangable. This may be evidence that life only happened once on earth or it may be that it was designed this way. By whom or what or why I can't say other than my personal beliefs.

[selfAdjoint]

life, at least locally, violates the laws of thermodynamics both in organization and in energy use.

Oh no, are we going to get off on that phony thermodymaics argument again?

This is the fact. Neither life nor evolution violates thermodynamics is any way shape or form. This is the opinion, not of the biologists alone, but of the thermodynamicists. There is an excellent discusion of this over on the Talk Origins Archive (http://talkorigins.org/) .

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Pop quiz, then. What do you think is material? What I think is at materialism's core is the insistence there is no division between "spiritual" and "material" - spiritual either does not exist, or is just a subset of the other.

How do you know whether there is a division between material and spiritual if you cannot define what material means? I do not know what the definition of material is as it is being used here. This is the very question I was asking in the other thread. How can I decide whether I agree with materialists or not if I don't know what it means to be material? This is why I was asking the question in that other thread.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism
"Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism
"Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of or relating to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the physical part of man."


These definitions are poor. Material means to be physical? What does physical mean? I wouldn't use a dictionary to define philosophies. It's better to get these from acedemic texts. The philosophical disinction between material and non-material is based on whether something is of the mind or not. Whether it is "mental stuff" or not.

The following website discusses these two construals of the term "material".

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html

[Canute]

Yeah, materialism has been around so long it's gathered all sorts of sub-meanings. Would 'physicalism' be a better term as shorthand for 'only phsyical things exist'.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Oh no, are we going to get off on that phony thermodymaics argument again?

This is the fact. Neither life nor evolution violates thermodynamics is any way shape or form. This is the opinion, not of the biologists alone, but of the thermodynamicists. There is an excellent discusion of this over on the Talk Origins Archive (http://talkorigins.org/) .

Technically you are correct, and probably the word "violate" isn't the best term to apply. I think anomaly might be better. In any case, I hope Royce doesn’t mind if I argue what I believe his overall point is a little more. The way life “violates” the rule of entropy is similar to this analogy:

A boulder rolls downhill . . . gravity is obeyed. The rolling boulder hits a smaller boulder, is sent flying through the air, comes down . . . gravity is obeyed. The boulder rolling down the hill encounters a deep, dried up, meandering creek bed; the boulder slides into the creek bed and is seen traveling in a meandering way down the mountain . . . gravity is obeyed.

All over the universe just such rolling boulders can be found. Sometimes the creek beds are incredibly twisted and complicated, and therefore so too is the path the boulder takes. Nonetheless, all of the behavior of the boulder can be explained as obeying the law of gravity in relatively straightforward ways.

Then you stumble upon a planet where boulders roll down the mountain unlike any other way observed in the universe. Each time before they roll down the mountain, they roll up the mountain a bit first. With each downward roll, they do overall descend down the mountain a little more, but what explains that upward roll first?

And they don’t just roll up, they roll up in such a way that they seek out smaller rocks and crevasses which help slow down their backward roll. And they don’t just seek out ways to slow down their backward slide, they actually create rocks and crevasses for slowing down. And then, before they roll all the way down the mountain, they spit in half and leave behind another boulder to continue where they left off.

Overall, the boulder was always rolling a little more downhill, so overall the rule of gravity was not violated. But if a group of observers had objectively looked at all the other rolling boulders in the universe, and then after seeing this new behavior you tried to suggest nothing unusual had happened because, after all, the rule of gravity hadn’t been violated . . . don’t you think the rest of the group might suspect you had some personal motive for refusing to acknowledge what was genuinely different about that rolling boulder?

[FZ+]

Ah sorry, that wasn't clear.

The second quote is the definition of "physical".

f there is indeed a coherently conceivable distinction between minds and material bodies, we must reject the view that materialism, understood as entailing mind-body identity, is conceptually, or analytically, true
The link you gave seem to back up my view - that the core assertion of materialist is not that effects seen as spiritual do not exist, but that there is no distinction between them in terms of types of reality.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
The link you gave seem to back up my view - that the core assertion of materialist is not that effects seen as spiritual do not exist, but that there is no distinction between them in terms of types of reality.

That is but one sentence in a long discussion. There are other comments disagreeing with your view for the same reasons that I have pointed out. This link was an honest discussion about how these terms should be defined. Don't lose sight of the fact that it does eventually choose a definition and then proceed to define all of the different types of materialism. All being derivations of the mind/matter distinction.

[FZ+]

Maybe I'm blind or something, but I still don't see. LWSleeth and most other attacks still seem to be concentrated on what the article calls eliminative materialism, what's more, an extreme form of that. I do not consider any value for a large scale blanket "Materialists in Denial" statement.

There are other comments disagreeing with your view for the same reasons that I have pointed out.
Er... which ones?

As I said before, the question seems to be what it means to "is".

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe I'm blind or something, but I still don't see. LWSleeth and most other attacks still seem to be concentrated on what the article calls eliminative materialism, what's more, an extreme form of that. I do not consider any value for a large scale blanket "Materialists in Denial" statement.

I suppose I should explain what I mean by materialism.

I have used the term in the way described in the opening paragraph of the link Fliption gave. It says, “Materialism is a general view about what actually exists. Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.” After that, there might be some dispute among thinkers about what material processes achieve.

Possibly something non-material can emerge from the material, for instance, as P.W. Atkins seems to suggest in his book The Creation, “Atoms are only loosely structured into molecules, and explorations of rearrangements resulting in reactions are commonplace. That is one reason why consciousness has already emerged from the inanimate matter of the original creation. If atoms had been as strongly bound as nuclei, the initial primitive form of matter would have been locked into permanence, and the universe would have died before it awoke.” In this case, the process of emergence from the physical might have caused consciousness to take on non-material qualities.

Or one might say every single trait that exists can be explained as physical processes, including consciousness. That is, nothing new has happened with the appearance of consciousness, we can reduce it all to known physical principles.

There are other distinctions materialists make among themselves, but they all share the belief (or suspicion) that all existence is wholly material, and whatever exists now which looks “different” has somehow been derived from materiality. I am not referring to those who say all we can observe is materiality, and so as a practical matter that’s all we have to work with; it is to go further and assume the ontological position that there is only materiality/physical processes (although often defended with the argument “because that’s all we have observed”).

And what is material, or “matter”?

Matter is anything with mass, and ordinarily exists in one of three physical states: solid, liquid, or gas. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology provides an interesting way to think about matter: “[matter is] The substance composing bodies perceptible to the senses. The distinguishing properties of matter are gravitation and inertia. Any entity exhibiting these properties when at rest is matter. . . . All material bodies have mass, which is a measure of inertia; every material body near the Earth’s surface has weight, which is a measure of the Earth’s gravitational attraction for the body.”

Fundamentally, matter is atomic and atomic derived.

One problem for many non-materialists is that because matter is clearly temporal, it looks like something preceded matter which is more basic. In other words, atoms are not fundamental enough. We know atoms deteriorate and we know they had a beginning. Where did the “stuff” which composes atoms originate, where does it go to when atoms decay? Is consciousness really a product of matter, or does consciousness merely co-mingle with matter?

Materialists, already committed to an ontology, must find ways to explain everything as material. That, I say, can lead to bias, nonobjectivity, putting “spin” on all facts so that they can explain things with material principles. So when scientists who are materialists put a spin on science, such as what I accuse them of doing with the “most likely” claim, I object to it. Yes, empirical research only exposes materiality, but all that points to for certain is what the limitations of empiricism is. Yes, all one can observe with the senses is materiality, but all that tells us is what the sense can do.

Is there other experience besides sense experience? If so, does the experience reveal something non-material? The answer of the committed materialist seems to be, we are only going to trust our senses, we are only going to examine things empirically, and when we conclude from that sort of investigation we’ve found nothing immaterial, we are going to proclaim to the world that matter is “most likely” the origin and basis of all existence.

[Canute]

Nice post. On 'emergence' you might like this. It comes at the issue through the 'spatiality' of consciousness. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... which ones?


The last sentence of the first paragraph says

"This portrayal of materialism is attractively simple, but may be unilluminating."

It then starts a new paragraph with the words

"The problem is..."

and ends this paragraph with

"but further explanation, without conceptual circularity, will then be needed."

It then changes the discussion to the definition dealing with the distinction between mind/matter as an alternate without the conceptual circularity.

In my mind conceptual circularity means building your conclusions into your assumptions which is what I've been saying all along about your definition of materialism.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Canute
Nice post. On 'emergence' you might like this. It comes at the issue through the 'spatiality' of consciousness. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html

Thank you for the link, I loved that article. Coincidentally, I have come to the same conclusion that we need a new understanding of space in order to make sense of both physics and consciousness. Because of the continuing talk about materialism his this thread, I thought I would post this excerpt from McGinn's paper:

". . . There are, historically, two main lines of response to the problem, commonly supposed to be exclusive and exhaustive. One response denies a key premise of the problem, namely that mind sprang from matter. Instead, mind has an autonomous existence, as independent of matter as matter is of mind. Perhaps mind has always existed, or maybe came about in some analogue of the origin of matter, or owes its existence to a direct act of God. In any event, mind is no kind of out-growth of matter but an independent ontological category. Thus we have classical dualism, Descartes' own position. In effect, dualism takes the space problem to be a reductio of the emergence hypothesis. Mind and matter may causally interact (let us not inquire how!) but it is absurd, for dualism, to suppose that mind could owe its very being to matter. That is simply metaphysically impossible, according to dualism. You can no more derive the unextended from the extended than you can derive an ought from an is.(9)

A second response questions what we have been assuming so far, namely that consciousness is inherently non-spatial. We may grant that we ordinarily conceive of it in this way, but we should insist that that mode of conception be abandoned. Here we encounter, it may be said, yet another area in which common sense misconceives the true nature of reality. In fact, conscious states are just as spatially constituted as brain states, since they are brain states - neural configurations in all their spatial glory. Thus we have classical materialism, the thesis that consciousness is nothing over and above the cellular structures and processes we observe in the brain.(10) Since these admit of straightforward spatial characterisation, so, by identity, do conscious states. The case is analogous to the following: to common sense physical objects appear solid, but science tells us that this is an illusion, since they are really made up of widely spaced particles in a lattice that is anything but solid. Somewhat so, the materialist insists that the appearance of non-spatiality that consciousness presents is a kind of illusion, and that in reality it is as spatial (even solid!) as the cell clusters that constitute the brain.(11) It is Descartes' assumption of unextendedness that is mistaken, according to materialism, not the emergence hypothesis.

Now it is not my intention here to rehearse any of the usual criticisms of these two venerable positions, beyond noting that both have deeply unattractive features, which I think we would be reluctant to countenance if it were not for the urgency of the problem. These are positions we feel driven to, rather than ones that save the phenomena in a theoretically satisfying way. My purpose is to identify a third option, and to explore some of its ramifications. The point of this third option is to preserve material emergence while not denying the ordinary non- spatial conception of consciousness. The heart of the view, put simply, is this: the brain cannot have merely the spatial properties recognised in current physical science, since these are insufficient to explain what it can achieve, namely the generation of consciousness. The brain must have aspects that are not represented in our current physical world-view, aspects we deeply do not understand, in addition to all those neurons and electro-chemical processes. There is, on this view, a radical incompleteness in our view of reality, including physical reality. In order to provide an explanation of the emergence of consciousness we would need a conceptual revolution, in which fundamentally new properties and principles are identified. This may involve merely supplementing our current theories with new elements, so that we need not abandon what we now believe; or it may be - as I think more likely - that some profound revisions are required, some repudiation of current theory. Consciousness is an anomaly in our present world- view, and like all anomalies it calls for some rectification in that relative to which it is anomalous, more or less drastic. Some ideal theory T contains the solution to the space problem, but arriving at T would require some major upheavals in our basic conception of reality.

I am now in a position to state the main thesis of this paper: in order to solve the mind-body problem we need, at a minimum, a new conception of space. We need a conceptual breakthrough in the way we think about the medium in which material objects exist, and hence in our conception of material objects themselves. That is the region in which our ignorance is focused: not in the details of neurophysiological activity but, more fundamentally, in how space is structured or constituted. That which we refer to when we use the word 'space' has a nature that is quite different from how we standardly conceive it to be; so different, indeed, that it is capable of 'containing' the non-spatial (as we now conceive it) phenomenon of consciousness. Things in space can generate consciousness only because those things are not, at some level, just how we conceive them to be; they harbour some hidden aspect or principle.

Before I try to motivate this hypothesis further, let me explain why I think the needed conceptual shift goes deeper than mere brain physiology, down to physics itself. For, if I am right, then it is not just the science of matter in the head that is deficient but the science of matter spread more widely.(12) A bad reason for insisting that the incompleteness reaches down as far as physics is the assumption that physiology reduces to physics, so that any incompleteness in the reduced theory must be reflected in the reducing theory. This is a bad reason because it is a mistake to think that the so-called special sciences - geology, biology, information science, psychology, etc - reduce to physics. I will not rehearse the usual arguments for this, since they have been well marshalled elsewhere.(13) If that were the right way to look at the matter, then physics would be highly incomplete and defective on many fronts, since all the special sciences have outstanding unsolved problems. But it is surely grotesque to claim that the problem of how (say) the dinosaurs became extinct shows any inadequacy in the basic laws of physics! Rather, the intransitivity of problems down the heirarchy of the sciences is itself a reason to reject any reductionist view of their interrelations. So it is certainly an open question whether the problem of consciousness requires revisions in neurophysiology alone, or whether those revisions will upset broader reaches of physical theory. It depends entirely on what is the correct diagnosis of the essential core of the problem. And what I am suggesting is that the correct diagnosis involves a challenge to our general conception of space. Given the fact of emergence, matter in space has to have features that go beyond the usual conception, in order that something as spatially anomalous as consciousness could have thereby come into existence. Somehow the unextended can issue from matter in space, and this must depend upon properties of the basis that permit such a derivation. It therefore seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the requisite properties are instantiated by matter prior to its organisation into brain structure. The brain must draw upon aspects of nature that were already there. According to our earlier speculation, these aspects may be connected to features of the universe that played a part in the early creation of matter and space itself - those features, themselves pre-spatial, that characterised the universe before the big bang. Consciousness is so singular, ontologically, and such an affront to our standard spatial notions, that some pretty remarkable properties of matter are going to be needed in order to sustain the assumption that consciousness can come from matter. It is not likely that we need merely a local conceptual revolution"

[FZ+]

LWS:
The substance composing bodies perceptible to the senses.
This is, IMHO, the most important part of it.

Fundamentally, matter is atomic and atomic derived.
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that philosophically speaking. All of science has gone beyond the atom - even matter itself in modern physics is being considered in terms of waves, fields and further, unconventional entities. I find deeply impractical any idea of materialism that denies the existence of, say, light.

Possibly something non-material can emerge from the material, for instance, as P.W. Atkins seems to suggest in his book The Creation, “Atoms are only loosely structured into molecules, and explorations of rearrangements resulting in reactions are commonplace. That is one reason why consciousness has already emerged from the inanimate matter of the original creation. If atoms had been as strongly bound as nuclei, the initial primitive form of matter would have been locked into permanence, and the universe would have died before it awoke.” In this case, the process of emergence from the physical might have caused consciousness to take on non-material qualities.
The idea of emergent behaviour seems to be a prevalent idea amongst materialists. I do not consider it to be a case of non-material arising from material, but that at large scale levels materials interactions being interpreted in terms of non-material values.

Flipton:
In my mind conceptual circularity means building your conclusions into your assumptions which is what I've been saying all along about your definition of materialism.
Yes, I accept that. But I do not see it as a flaw, but as part of the essence of the matter. IMHO, materialism is not justifiable logically - it is, in effect, simply a single coherent system by which to view the universe. Ultimately it's core assumptions, or axioms, or definitions or whatever cannot be shown by any evidence and you cannot say whether it is true or false.

[Canute]

Some relevant comments.

“This brings us to…the claim of materialistic science that matter is the only reality and that consciouness is its product. This thesis has often been presented with great authority as a scientific fact that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. However, when it is subjected to closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that it is not and never was a serious scientific statement, but a metaphysical assertion maquerading as one. It is an assertion that cannot be proved and thus lacks the basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis, namely testability.”

Staislav Grof – The Cosmic Game – 1998 State University of New York p240

“The system of shared experience which we call the world is viewed as building itself out of elementary quantum phenomena, elementary acts of observer-participancy. In other words, the questions that the participants put – and the answers they get – by their observing devices, plus their communication of their findings, take part in creating the impressions which we call the system: that whole great system which to a superficial look is time and space, particles and fields.”

John Wheeler (from Martin Rees ‘Before the Beginning’ Simon and Schuster 1997 London)

“The idea behind modern phenomenalism would be that neither the transcendental object not subject exists in any concrete sense. Instead, one would postulate various possible combinations of phemomenal objects, the most coherent, complex and structured of which could be viewable as constituting emergent conceptual minds such as our own. In this case, the universe could be seen as fundamentally rooted in phenomena or mind.”

Edward Barkin - Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 10, No. 8 p5

"FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE."

THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+

Yes, I accept that. But I do not see it as a flaw, but as part of the essence of the matter. IMHO, materialism is not justifiable logically - it is, in effect, simply a single coherent system by which to view the universe. Ultimately it's core assumptions, or axioms, or definitions or whatever cannot be shown by any evidence and you cannot say whether it is true or false.

So it appears that I am correct. If this is true then it is pointless to have a philosophical discussion about materialism.

Why philosophy texts are full of this topic is only a clue that perhaps your understanding is not consistent with others.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that philosophically speaking. All of science has gone beyond the atom - even matter itself in modern physics is being considered in terms of waves, fields and further, unconventional entities. I find deeply impractical any idea of materialism that denies the existence of, say, light.

Of course there are other aspects to materiality besides atoms, and I haven't "denied" that any of them exist. But atoms -- how they interact, radiate, change under pressure and/or heat, etc. -- by far surpass anything else in determining the substance and physical potentials for the universe. Think about it, there would be much of anything if the space opening up from the big bang had not formed hydrogen. No matter, no stars, no light, no planets, no black holes, no gravity (probably), no life. Atoms are the heart and backbone of materiality.


Originally posted by FZ+ The idea of emergent behaviour seems to be a prevalent idea amongst materialists. I do not consider it to be a case of non-material arising from material, but that at large scale levels materials interactions being interpreted in terms of non-material values.

Again, you are arguing against something I didn't say. I said that there are some materialists who allow for the possibility that emergent phenomena might possess qualities atypical of normal physical processes, and might even exist and behave in an immaterial way. But, as materialists, they would still be claiming that the immaterial existence and behaviors had arisen from physical potentials. Whether or not you would allow for such a possibility is a personal thing.

Originally posted by FZ+ Yes, I accept that. But I do not see it as a flaw, but as part of the essence of the matter. IMHO, materialism is not justifiable logically - it is, in effect, simply a single coherent system by which to view the universe. Ultimately it's core assumptions, or axioms, or definitions or whatever cannot be shown by any evidence and you cannot say whether it is true or false.

I just don't understand the logic of assuming as true what you are trying to find out if and how it is true. I think this is part of what Fliption (correct me if I am wrong Fliption) objects to. People often claim they have the "truth" but when you question them they can't properly justify why they believe what they do. An answer you might get is "I just believe it."

In this debate a justification you seem to rely on repeatedly is that you have assumed apriori the truth of materialism, and now all questions are answered as "this is the materialistic belief."
Of course it is your right to believe anything you want. It just seems to me that it is impossible for someone to objectively seek the truth, or argue objectively in a debate, if they accept a belief before they know for certain it is true.

[selfAdjoint]

Again, you are arguing against something I didn't say. I said that there are some materialists who allow for the possibility that emergent phenomena might possess qualities atypical of normal physical processes, and might even exist and behave in an immaterial way. But, as materialists, they would still be claiming that the immaterial existence and behaviors had arisen from physical potentials. Whether or not you would allow for such a possibility is a personal thing.

In what way can people who believe in immaterial causes*, however produced, be called materialists?

*I assume you do not mean by this things like light, physical fields, spacetime curvature, etc.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
In what way can people who believe in immaterial causes*, however produced, be called materialists?

*I assume you do not mean by this things like light, physical fields, spacetime curvature, etc.

I did not say "immaterial causes." If you look carefully at what I said (or am trying to say -- maybe I wasn't clear enough), I said that I've seen a certain catagory of materialism that is open to the possibility that emergent phenomena (e.g., the idea that consciousness might "emerge" from matter), could be a new variety of physical existence, might obey a whole new set of physical laws, and which might even even appear to be immaterial. However, according to this idea, since that emergence is from matter in the first place, even if it does take on new and unusual characteristics, its "causes" still must be reckoned to be material in nature.

And so yes, these particular emergent traits would not mean ". . . things like light, physical fields, spacetime curvature, etc."

[Royce]

I have said these things before in other threads.
Matter, material is an effect not a cause, whether you believe in God, the Big Bang or both. In my opinion materialist are looking at reality from the wrong end. They start from the material and try to see reality as a result of matter. It is, in my mind the other way around. By the way while atoms are composed of particles, fields ,waves, quarks, strings etc, matter as an organized identifiable reality begins at the atomic levels. this is where we can identify an atom as an element not a collection of generic bits and pieces.
One of my problems with materialism is reducitionism. Reducing everything to its common components loses it unigueness. It is no long identefiable as the thing that you were studing in the first place, again basically Platoism vs Aristotlism.

[Canute]

Reductionism is ok as long as it's honest. Things do after all reduce.

But by reduction matter is nothing. It can't be anything else. What does this mean? It means that the non-dual explanation of existence is correct. In this case reality is one thing. In which case all reductionist regressions end in something that can only be understood holistically.

You arrive at the same destination whether you look at the world holistically or by infinite reduction. What doesn't work is partial reduction, which is what supporters of materialism usually practice.

[FZ+]

Why philosophy texts are full of this topic is only a clue that perhaps your understanding is not consistent with others.
Maths is based on axioms. But there are maths textbooks. To say whether maths is true, or false is rather pointless, though number theory etc investigates how the whole thing walks at the lower levels.

Materialism is like maths, to an extent. We cannot determine if it represents a fundamental truth, or if it is just a convenient way to think of things. The latter is what it is, at a minimum - certainly no one can deny the effectiveness of materialism in terms of consistency and so on, right?

Of course there are other aspects to materiality besides atoms, and I haven't "denied" that any of them exist. But atoms -- how they interact, radiate, change under pressure and/or heat, etc. -- by far surpass anything else in determining the substance and physical potentials for the universe.
You can apply that sort of thinking to anything. How about quarks? Or strings? Or guage bosons?

What I'm sorta trying to get a handle on is what you see the divide between material and immaterial as being.

It just seems to me that it is impossible for someone to objectively seek the truth, or argue objectively in a debate, if they accept a belief before they know for certain it is true.
It is impossible to argue about anything without accepting what our eyes, hands etc tell us is to some degree the truth. It is impossible for us to justify this belief.

What I am hypothesising materialism to be is simply an eye, from which to look at the world, a world which we assume is the same one, sensed by any of our other senses. The eye may not be true or false, it just presents a particular picture of the world.

[Royce]

Reductionism is okay as long as we use it as a tool and not an end; and, if we never lose sight of what we are reducing to better understand it.
As an example: The perverbial forest is made up of, among other things, trees. Trees are made up of cells. Cells are made up of molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles which may be made up of quarks, fields, strings etc.
We don't know and as of now can only speculate, guess and make inadequate models that explain nothing in themselves. Matter does not really exist as we use to think of it.
Meanwhile as I enjoy a walk in the woods, I know that the woods and I exist and are part of a greater whole. My spirit is lifted and sometimes in awe of the beauty and wonder of the forest. I am in harmony with nature and my mind is at ease and for the moment free of worries or cares. It is the forest not the quarks or field of which it may or may not be made that has value and meaning whether intrinsic or assigned.
The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.

[BoulderHead]

Matter does not really exist as we use to think of it.
I certainly agree with this.

Meanwhile as I enjoy a walk in the woods, I know that the woods and I exist and are part of a greater whole.
I don’t understand the assumption of a greater whole. Greater in what respect?

My spirit is lifted and sometimes in awe of the beauty and wonder of the forest. I am in harmony with nature and my mind is at ease and for the moment free of worries or cares. It is the forest not the quarks or field of which it may or may not be made that has value and meaning whether intrinsic or assigned.
I feel the same way.

The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.
If you apply this way of thinking to the death of the human body what do you suppose you’ll get?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Maths is based on axioms. But there are maths textbooks. To say whether maths is true, or false is rather pointless, though number theory etc investigates how the whole thing walks at the lower levels.

What I'm trying to communicate to you is that the way you are using the word "materialism" is not consistent with any academic use that I am aware of. For if you accept these acedemic definitions then materialism is nothing like math. Math is not a "view" of anything. Math does not have an opposing view. Materialism is a view of reality that falls under the the topic of philosophy. There are other philosophical views that disagree with materialism. No one here is denouncing math and recommending non-math.


The latter is what it is, at a minimum - certainly no one can deny the effectiveness of materialism in terms of consistency and so on, right?


Materialism is simply a view of how reality might be. It is not effective in any way if you understand what it means. But I am not really here to tell you this as much as I am trying to point out that there are textbooks filled with opposing views of materialism and yet your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view by definition. So how can these two things be? I'm suggesting that your definition is not accurate. I'm not looking for you to defend materialism. That's another topic. I'm just pointing out the two inconsistent facts above and asking for a reconciliation. How is it possible for materialism to be defined as everything that exists and yet there are still philosophers who hold a view that isn't materialistic? Why would anyone except this definition of materialism and then say they are not a materialists? They would be admitting that they believe in things that do not exists. Surely centuries of texts are not written to waste paper debating such an issue. Surely your definition is wrong.

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

I don’t understand the assumption of a greater whole. Greater in what respect?
At the very least, without going into metaphysics, the greater whole would be the earth and ultimately the universe. going into spiritualism, the greater whole would be all the above within the ultimate reality of the One, God.


If you apply this way of thinking to the death of the human body what do you suppose you’ll get?

The soul or spirit that is nonmaterial, eternal.

[BoulderHead]

The soul or spirit that is nonmaterial, eternal.
Well, I don’t know your grounds for believing this, but from your statement;
The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.
It would seem to me that all which is human experience will then be lost, along with any assigned meaning. This sounds like many materialist assertions.

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, It would seem to me that all which is human experience will then be lost, along with any assigned meaning. This sounds like many materialist assertions.

Nothing of value is lost. All that is lost with the death of the human body is the material part of us; and, as I have said before, the material is the illusion not the ultimate reality from which all else springs. All that has value and meaning is carried along with our soul or spirit. All that we have learned and experienced is already part of our reality and cannot and will not be lost but are a part of us forever.
I do not want to subvert this thread, which I have been following with interest and ,as now, occasionally make a few comments which some may or may not find relevant or agree with. It also annoys a few, which is not all bad.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
I do not want to subvert this thread, which I have been following with interest and ,as now, occasionally make a few comments which some may or may not find relevant or agree with. It also annoys a few, which is not all bad.
Alright, as I see definitions still seem to be the subject, whereas what you are talking about is something entirely different.

[Royce]

I am trying to show that there is more to reality than material, matter. That there is the mental realm of the mind and the spiritual realm of reality, the soul.
That there is more to life than chemistry. That by reducing life, or anything else for that matter, to its simplest form we lose sight of what we are studying or talking about, life not chemistry. Yes life uses chemistry but that does not mean that life is simply chemistry.
I use a computer and I use food but I am neither a computer nor food much less chemistry. I operate with the laws of physics also that does not make me either a physist or an quark.
That reductionism is as invalid and shortsighted as an end as is materialism.
In the light of relativity, QM and QED materialism does not stand up.
If matter is the result of energy fields and waves how then can matter be the source of anything? How can anyone say that all is physical matter or the product of physical matter when physical matter is the result of, or product of energy, waves or fields?
Is life energy? I would say absolutely. Life is some form of energy that we have yet to define as is consciousness. Does that make me an energyist vs materialist?

[BoulderHead]

To be honest, I draw more of a distinction between Physicalism and materialism than I see going on here. What I also see happening is you criticizing one metaphysical hypothesis for your own, with an assumption made that yours is correct, and that is my beef.

[Royce]

I do not know what physicalism is nor the difference between physcialism and materialism.
We are, or where, debating or discussing materialism and more specifically abiogenesis.
Why do you and others get annoyed when I, and others, criticize materialism and its assumptions. That is what debate and or discussion is. Of course I tout my viewpoint and minimize my assumptions just as other tout their viewpoints and minimize their assumption. If we all agreed on everything there would be no point to this or any other forum other than a mutual admiration society.
I could of course continue to put in "IMO" and "IMHO" but by now I thought that this was understood and a given. That is after all what all of us are doing is giving our opinions.
Possibly you think that I am butting in and intruding on a discussion of which I am not a participant and not wanted with opinions that are not relevant; but then that would be your opinion wouldn't it?
Maybe its because I'm right and you can't think of any way to counter my arguments. [:))] [!:)] [:D] That always annoys me too.

[BoulderHead]

Why do you and others get annoyed when I, and others, criticize materialism and its assumptions.
I already explained what bothers me and it isn’t, as you say, criticism of materialism and its assumptions. It is accepting your own assumptions as if they were a given while criticizing the assumptions of the materialists. You speak of God, spirit, and soul, then turn around and blast materialism for basically amounting to a belief system (as if yours wasn’t).

I could of course continue to put in "IMO" and "IMHO" but by now I thought that this was understood and a given. That is after all what all of us are doing is giving our opinions.
I am actually not as opposed to many of the things spoken against ‘materialism’ (whatever that means) as you might think, but if materialism cannot produce strong enough evidence of life coming solely via chemistry than likewise neither can you produce evidence of spirit, soul, or God. As I said, that is my beef.

Possibly you think that I am butting in and intruding on a discussion of which I am not a participant and not wanted with opinions that are not relevant; but then that would be your opinion wouldn't it?
No, I think you have made contributions, even a good number I find favorable to my own way of thinking.

Maybe its because I'm right and you can't think of any way to counter my arguments. That always annoys me too.
Well, if you’d really like to be blasted you should know I’ll be happy to oblige, haha [:D]
But then you might begin talking like this again;
I do not want to subvert this thread…
Which was my reason for not attacking more forcefully, not because I am ill-equipped to do so as you joked about.

Do you understand my beef now, and is it justifiable?

[edited]
Posted edited for my own vain reasons (Actually, I feel I've been too critical and deleted some things). Nevertheless I'm prepared to demonstrate a kind of pot-calling-the-teakettle-black behavior that idealists are often guilty of.

[FZ+]

Why would anyone except this definition of materialism and then say they are not a materialists? They would be admitting that they believe in things that do not exists. Surely centuries of texts are not written to waste paper debating such an issue. Surely your definition is wrong.
Because they do not accept the additional definitions that materialism takes for granted. Like the equality of undiscovered-material and non-material. Like the insistence that all attempts to find a division is futile, and ultimately useless. That is something to disagree with. Or that reality is based solely on influences. In short, you can accept this definition of materialism as "belief in the following definitions/axioms", but if you accept the following definitions/axioms themselves, you are already a materialist.

Rather like some say that theology must make the presumption of God's existence, whilst philosophy of religion can examine the beliefs externally. There's a definite line between accepting Buddhism as a system of supposedly self-evident principles and assumptions, and accepting those principles and assumptions.

Perhaps maths was a bad analogy. But even with maths, there is argument between those who hold maths to be the fundamental state of the universe, and those who consider it to be a simple tool. There are also alternatives to maths - most philosophers barely use maths at all, but still attempt to understand the same universe.

There are other eyes through which to see the universe, which brings in their own scheme of colours, their own set of shapes. If all you have is two eyes to compare, you cannot say which is the correct eye.


EDIT: Though there may be a difference between me and most such texts. In such texts, definitions of materialism are present in correspondance to a debate, or an argument to conclude whether (or not) materialism is correct. For such cases to happen, it is then obvious neccessary to attempt to remove as many assumptions as possible, to obtain a "cleansed" and almost scientific hypothesis. (in terms of being falsifiable) IMHO, then these attempts are generally failures, as we still cannot say whether materialism is right or wrong - nor are we any closer.

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I already explained what bothers me and it isn’t, as you say, criticism of materialism and its assumptions. It is accepting your own assumptions as if they were a given while criticizing the assumptions of the materialists. You speak of God, spirit, and soul, then turn around and blast materialism for basically amounting to a belief system (as if yours wasn’t).
I have always said that God, spirit and soul are my believes. That I cannot prove or support those beliefs in any meaningful way to another. My beliefs are based on my personal experiences and observations. I do not mean to state them as fact, again I thought that that would be understood and a given. Materialism is also a belief system that is not always presented as such.

[QOUTE]
I am actually not as opposed to many of the things spoken against ‘materialism’ (whatever that means) as you might think, but if materialism cannot produce strong enough evidence of life coming solely via chemistry than likewise neither can you produce evidence of spirit, soul, or God. As I said, that is my beef.[/QUOTE]

You are right here. I can produce no evidence of God etc or that life began solely by the hand of God; but then, I don't make the unsubstantiated claim that it is the "most likely" either. Neither Les nor I have made any claim except that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely, unproveable and has no right to the title of "most likely simply because no other possibility is considered.

[QOUTE]
No, I think you have made contributions, even a good number I find favorable to my own way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I do appreciate your saying that. We often agree and/or think alike.


Well, if you’d really like to be blasted you should know I’ll be happy to oblige, haha [:D]
But then you might begin talking like this again;
Which was my reason for not attacking more forcefully, not because I am ill-equipped to do so as you joked about.


Maybe I should apologize for that; but, I just couldn't resist it. I was sure you would appreciate the humor and not be offended. I don't think that I would stand much of a chance if you really wanted to get down and dirty. I have seen you in action. For that I readily admit that I am not prepared.
Do you understand my beef now, and is it justifiable?

[QOUTE]
[edited]
Posted edited for my own vain reasons (Actually, I feel I've been too critical and deleted some things). Nevertheless I'm prepared to demonstrate a kind of pot-calling-the-teakettle-black behavior that idealists are often guilty of. [/QUOTE]
I do not consider myself an idealist; and, am very aware of the shakey ground on which I stand. I object (and I think Les does too; which is I think the point of this thread) to the very same things that you are objecting to but from the other side of the fence. It is the name calling and mud slinging as well as the arrogance of those who know that they are right and everyone else is wrong that I object to. After all it has long been said that people who think that they know everything are a constant annoyance to those of us who do.

[Fliption]

FZ, I'm not clear on what you're point is at all. It sounds like you are admiting that your definition is not consistent with academia but I can't be sure. It seems you are complicating this with your view of materialism so let's forget about the views of materialism. Let's just stick with what the words "material" and "non-material" mean in philosophical discussions. So now we don't have to worry about whether some ism is true or not. We'll just deal with the semantic issue of making a distinction between material and non-material. Clearly, a person who claims that a non-material thing exists would know it if he saw it. Right? Clearly this person would be able to make the distinction. How else could they claim that non-material things exists if they can't explain what makes that thing non-material?

So I ask it again: How can there be established philosophical views that claim that non-material things do exists if there is no way for them to make this distinction? Just so we're clear, I'm claiming that there IS an established distinction in academia. Not sure if you were disagreeing with that either.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
I do not consider myself an idealist; and, am very aware of the shakey ground on which I stand. I object (and I think Les does too; which is I think the point of this thread) to the very same things that you are objecting to but from the other side of the fence. It is the name calling and mud slinging as well as the arrogance of those who know that they are right and everyone else is wrong that I object to.

I don't think you are an idealist either Royce. The only real idealist I've ever debated was booted from this site. I liked his spirit and devotion, but because of his definition of "real," I found it impossible to find any grounds for discussion with him. In an importance sense, the debate in this thread has been about what is "real."

This thread was meant to be a bit of a taunt (like my other infamous thread at the old PF "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly"). I did so because of what I perceive as a lack of breadth and depth of education by many materialists. That is, after having only studied that which supports material explanations, they then boldly claim materiality is all that's significant.

So my objection overall has been they've never looked into non-materiality properly. To say "properly" means there is a way to investigate inner stuff, and it isn't with "outer" investigative methods. On the other hand, non-materialists make the same mistake when they try to understand for all of reality using non-material investigative methods.

I think this issue is important enough to be isolated for a separate discussion, so I will try to find time to start another, more focused thread to discuss why materialists and non-materialists disagree.

Originally posted by Royce
After all it has long been said that people who think that they know everything are a constant annoyance to those of us who do.

Very funny! I have to remember to use that with my friends and, of course, my wife.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This thread was meant to be a bit of a taunt (like my other infamous thread at the old PF "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly").

This kind of behavior seems to me dangerously close to trolling and trying to start a flame war. What do others think!

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This kind of behavior seems to me dangerously close to trolling and trying to start a flame war. What do others think!
I complained about the title of this thread in my first post.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't think you are an idealist either Royce...
I think Royce accepted my definition of the term “idealist” in another thread. That definition was someone who places primacy of consciousness over matter (perhaps I am mistaken, Royce?). This is the demarcation point I accept as suitable for distinguishing idealists from materialists, and it doesn’t matter to me that there are a myriad of sub classifications that follow under each category. This is simply “the line”, if you will, that I prefer to use. There seems to be no general agreement between our members as to definitions and so arguing in this thread isn’t likely to be productive, which is why I shall more often be found in the Masturbation thread (where everyone understands each other, haha). [:D]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This kind of behavior seems to me dangerously close to trolling and trying to start a flame war.

I don't think so. First of all, I am at a site where materialism, in one form or another, outnumbers all other philosophies. I don't think I am going to "flame" the majority! If anyone is risking being flamed, it is me. And, by the way, I have taken it many times here at PF for trying to argue the exact point of this thread.

To me, it is an act of courage to take on the prevailing view . . . not an attempt to stir up trouble. I say that because of how I've debated. I've gotten mad, but I have not resorted to insults, mudslinging, emotional arguments, or any other of the tactics people use when they just want to flame. I have debated with evidence and logic, and I challenge you to show where I departed significantly from that approach.

You are just "inflamed" that someone has a some degree of ability to challenge what some materialists are doing. And that is catching them at presenting themselves as objective when really they've already decided what the "truth" is and are putting every bit of spin they can on every discovery and fact to make it look like there is no other evidence but material evidence. At least I admit I am still trying to figure it out.

[FZ+]

So I ask it again: How can there be established philosophical views that claim that non-material things do exists if there is no way for them to make this distinction? Just so we're clear, I'm claiming that there IS an established distinction in academia. Not sure if you were disagreeing with that either.
Okay, I think we are approaching the crux of the matter. IMHO, a core materialist creed is that there is no real, significant distinction. To say a non-material entity exists is to say either a logical fallacy, or to imply that the non-material is also material. If you try to make a distinction, you inevitable lead to arbitary decisions.

Consciousness, if it exists, is either an undiscovered physical principle (atoms of consciousness, perhaps), misinterpreted existing physical principle (as proposed by Dennett et al), or it doesn't exist.

It sounds like you are admiting that your definition is not consistent with academia but I can't be sure.
Sort of. I am (ever so slightly) arrogantly claiming that my definition is better than theirs because their definitions are made to attempt the impossible - to turn materialism into something that is empirically verifiable.

So in the end they come up with a definition that is either vague (sufficiently to be interpreted as my definition), or is just plain wrong. IMHO, if the materialist accepts a material-nonmaterial distinction, then he cannot be a materialist as this would undermine the reason WHY a materialist believes existence is purely material - with the admission of a conceptual non-material entity, there is no reason or value to maintain the materialist assumptions.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I complained about the title of this thread in my first post.

Yes you did. But since Socrates is one of my role models, I decided to be that fly on the horse's ***.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think Royce accepted my definition of the term “idealist” in another thread. That definition was someone who places primacy of consciousness over matter (perhaps I am mistaken, Royce?). This is the demarcation point I accept as suitable for distinguishing idealists from materialists, and it doesn’t matter to me that there are a myriad of sub classifications that follow under each category. This is simply “the line”, if you will, that I prefer to use.

Well, I thought you guys were referring to the formal definition of idealism. In that definition, idealism is the belief that (relying a philosophy source book) ". . . what is real is in someway confined to or at least related to the contents of our own minds."

Lifegazer was a true and, to be sure, radical idealist claiming each individual's mind was the only reality that exists. The universe, he was heard to say, was a shared dream by all the minds that live there. There is no "external" reality, only an internal one.

To believe that consciousness (and not necessarily any variety of consciousness we are familiar with) might have played a role in the shaping of the universe doen't make one an idealist, especially if one can demonstrate that including consciousness in a creation model helps explain things and is practical.

String theory is just such an inclusion. Utterly unsupported by evidence, it nonetheless (if true) explains so much it has attracted lots of supporters. Now, if those strings had to be conscious to fuctions so effectively, what do you think would happen to all the materialist string theorists?

I say, there is an almost absolute resistance (by scientism devotees) to allowing anything non-mechanical into models for fear one might have to acknowledge the practical value of including consciousness as part of creation's development.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
There seems to be no general agreement between our members as to definitions and so arguing in this thread isn’t likely to be productive, which is why I shall more often be found in the Masturbation thread (where everyone understands each other, haha). [:D]

Well, that is why I offered to start a new thread, and if I do I will define things more clearly up front. As to whether or not the masterbation thread is more productive, I'll leave that decision in your capable hand . . . er, hands.

[Royce]

BH,
Yes, I did accept you definition of idealism as a good working if not classical definition. By any or either definition I am not an idealist; and I think idealism has as many problems as materialism. Materialist are aware of these problems and so they keep expanding their definitions to taken more and more immaterial things that they cannot deny exists but redifine them as either material or the product of material. Thus life has become abiogenesis. Energy in any form has become equivelant to matter. Consciousness has become an emergent phenomena of increasing material complexity. Thermodynamics has been redifined from what I learned in high school and college as has the word entropy. Thought or mind is the result of a physical process. The non-material cannot interact with the material by edict and definition not evidence nor observation. I liken it to playing a game with my grandson who begins changing the rules as soon as he sees he is losing.
The ground on which I stand may be shaky but I still stand on it not wiggle and squirm trying to make it fit better.
I think that both Les and I, whenever thing get a bit dull and too quite around here, enjoy a little materialist baiting now and then. Nothing like it to got the blood flowing and the dander up and it is alway sure to get a number of heated responses. Just look at this thread. One little taunting statement and its already 17 pages long and still going strong with spin offs in the offering. God! I love it! Its better and easier than picking an argument with my wife.[;)]

[Fliption]

God I'm gettig dizzy going in these same circles.[g)]

Originally posted by FZ+
Okay, I think we are approaching the crux of the matter. IMHO, a core materialist creed is that there is no real, significant distinction. To say a non-material entity exists is to say either a logical fallacy, or to imply that the non-material is also material. If you try to make a distinction, you inevitable lead to arbitary decisions.


Thanks again for simply restating my point. Your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view which is not consistent with established philosophy. We're not debating reality here FZ. All we're doing is assigning meaning to words. The words material and non-material are meant to try to make a distinction between peoples views. There is no doubt that people have differing views on this. The words you are using are useless for the purposes of making this distinction. This is what words are for. Making distinctions. Not to make truth statements.


Consciousness, if it exists, is either an undiscovered physical principle (atoms of consciousness, perhaps), misinterpreted existing physical principle (as proposed by Dennett et al), or it doesn't exist.

By your definition this is true. You're simply restating my point yet again. But this makes the word materialism meaningless and useless in language.

Material MUST be distinguishable from non-material in it's definition or there is no need for the word material or materialism.



Sort of. I am (ever so slightly) arrogantly claiming that my definition is better than theirs because their definitions are made to attempt the impossible - to turn materialism into something that is empirically verifiable.


They are attempting to make materialism emprirically verifiable? Which definition of materialism are they trying to make verifiable? Don't you see the circularity of your view? In order to accept the academic definition you have to drop your definition entirely. Obviously 2 different definitions aren't going to be logically consistent with one another.


So in the end they come up with a definition that is either vague (sufficiently to be interpreted as my definition), or is just plain wrong.

Only truth statements can be inherently wrong. Definitions cannot be inherently wrong. Definitions of words are what they have been established to be. The only way they are wrong is if you are using them in a way that is inconsistent with the way everyone else is using them. And that's what you're doing. Definitions can change if the established use of the word changes. Definitions are for communication; not truth.


IMHO, if the materialist accepts a material-nonmaterial distinction, then he cannot be a materialist as this would undermine the reason WHY a materialist believes existence is purely material - with the admission of a conceptual non-material entity, there is no reason or value to maintain the materialist assumptions. [/B]

Once again you are explaining what is wrong with definition B because it is inconsistent with Definition A. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You have to drop your defintion entirely. If you chose not to do that then you'll just have to drop the entire concept because it is meaningless. Either way, I don't see how you can keep this word with this definition.

[FZ+]

Your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view which is not consistent with established philosophy.
Uh... Double negative? Wha?

The words material and non-material are meant to try to make a distinction between peoples views. There is no doubt that people have differing views on this. The words you are using are useless for the purposes of making this distinction. This is what words are for. Making distinctions. Not to make truth statements.
Material MUST be distinguishable from non-material in it's definition or there is no need for the word material or materialism.
What I am saying is that materialism denies that distinction, or at least says that distinction is meaningless - one is an arbitary part of the other.

Let's try analogies again. Suppose we have a bunch of fruit. Some are apples, some are oranges. The "fruitist" (the materialist in this case) considers the whole lot to be just a bunch of fruit - whether or not it is an apple, or an orange doesn't matter, and is just meaningless words. Or perhaps even that oranges are just a type of apple. He does not say that oranges don't exist. The dualist says that apples and oranges are distinct and exist distinctly, and that the fruitist are wrong to think they have anything in common on a significant, non-fudged level. Thus the dualist, whilst accepting the description of what the fruitist/materialist believes, find a fully reasonable system to oppose it. There may be other systems.

When a materialist talks of material, he really means all that exists. If materialists get their way, there would indeed be no need to use the worlds material or non-material - saying that something IS is good enough.

Which definition of materialism are they trying to make verifiable?
Any of them. When they talk about "conceptual circularity", they are essential trying to justify, or unjustify that which has nothing to do with justification.

The only way they are wrong is if you are using them in a way that is inconsistent with the way everyone else is using them. And that's what you're doing.
Is it? I propose that they are inconsistent with the real thoughts of most materialists. If they try to find a concrete distinction, they render such things as "scientific materialism" essential oxymoronic. IMHO, materialism with acceptance of a material/non-material distinction must contradict itself.

You cannot draw a dividing line without generating the existence of another side. To fundamentally disallow the other side, materialists must disallow the line.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
IYou are just "inflamed" that someone has a some degree of ability to challenge what some materialists are doing.

Pooh. Crummy ad hominem chep shot.

And your pompous self justification (which I zapped) doesn't.

Scientific materialism can show (A) a stedy advance of ever more powerful abilities in biology. and (B) a future direction which (being future) has not been achieved but which you do not seem to disagree with. That directed arrow points to the in vitro creation of life.

What does the other side show? People's opinions, squabbles over definitions that just show the ideas aren't well defined, and NO PROGRESS.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Uh... Double negative? Wha?


Eh? Where?


Let's try analogies again. Suppose we have a bunch of fruit. Some are apples, some are oranges. The "fruitist" (the materialist in this case) considers the whole lot to be just a bunch of fruit - whether or not it is an apple, or an orange doesn't matter, and is just meaningless words. Or perhaps even that oranges are just a type of apple. He does not say that oranges don't exist. The dualist says that apples and oranges are distinct and exist distinctly, and that the fruitist are wrong to think they have anything in common on a significant, non-fudged level. Thus the dualist, whilst accepting the description of what the fruitist/materialist believes, find a fully reasonable system to oppose it. There may be other systems.


You keep explaining you're definition when I understand it perfectly. What I'm telling you is that it isn't the established definition in philosophy. Again, I'm not trying to change you're belief system. I'm just saying you need a new word to describe it.

Also, the analogy is misleading because, totally separate from the orange versus apple discussion, fruit can be distinguished from non- fruit. Your definition of materialism cannot be distinguished from anything. It is a useless term.


Is it? I propose that they are inconsistent with the real thoughts of most materialists.

But they ARE the materialists. It is the established philosophical definitions that you're talking about. It doesn't make sense to say that philosophy texts aren't consistent with materialists because that's who the materialists are! They are the philosophers writing those texts.


If they try to find a concrete distinction, they render such things as "scientific materialism" essential oxymoronic. IMHO, materialism with acceptance of a material/non-material distinction must contradict itself.


I think I may have mentioned earlier in the thread that the word material from a scientific perspective has a different meaning than the philosophical definition. This causes much confusion as this discussion is showing. Why this never seems to sink in I haven't figured out.


You cannot draw a dividing line without generating the existence of another side. To fundamentally disallow the other side, materialists must disallow the line. [/B]

I just don't get this at all. You are fusing the topics of communication and semantics with those of truth. This is just bad philosophy. Just because we have a word and a definition for god means that god exists? I don't get it.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What does the other side show? People's opinions, squabbles over definitions that just show the ideas aren't well defined, and NO PROGRESS. [/B]

Since I'm involved in a discussion about semantics then I'm going to assume this comment is partly directed at me. First of all I'll be clear and say that I have not claimed any "side". My whole point is that I get frustrated when I see people debating over whether something is true or not when no one even knows how to define what that something is. I can't even figure out what the materialism debate is all about because I don't have a clue what makes the 2 views different. No one has been able to clarify it either. When called upon to give definitions, I usually get this unusable definition that simply means there is no other view. Which is mighty convenient to say the least. FZ even admits that the term materialism is useless. Yet it is being used and debated constantly. Given this, how can anyone deny that confusion exists with this term? And if he admits that there is confucion, it isn't surprising that it is "everyone else" that is confused.

If I were in charge here I would not allow any more threads on materialism until everyone is clear on what it means.

As to abiogensis, Les has also not claimed any side as truth either. His main point in this thread is that we do not have enough evidence to justify the certainty shown by many posting here. So there is no progress that needs to be shown. Let's read carefully.

[Canute]

I don't understand some of the criticism of idealism here. Most philosophers up to the beginning of the 20th century were idealist, and many still are. Outside of academaia virtually all of them are.

The reason this for this is not that they were or are stupid. Idealism is a perfectly defensible position, with no inbuilt logical contradicitions and no evidence against it.

That doesn't make idealism true of course. What makes it likely to be true is the illogic of all views based on the idea that only physical things exists. This hypothesis works well at an everyday classical level and even, just about, at a quantum level. However any deeper philosophical analysis shows up paradoxes and self-contradictions. As it is philsophers rather than scientists who explore the depths of these issues, now that scientists have given up doing metaphysics, it is philosophers who tend to be idealists rather than scientists. Idealism flourishes among philosophers not because they don't know the evidence as well as scientists, but because they know it better.

As to whether the immaterial exists it is generally accepted that consciousness has no extension. Thus if consciousness exists then the immaterial exists. If not then we don't know.

[Royce]

Canute,
My problem with idealism, at least as I understand it, is the belief that all can be known by the mind alone. I assume that this means that it is our individual human mind that we it is talking about and that all can be known through reasoning and logic.
I don't think that we can know or understand everything with our mind alone. If we include the mind of God and/or the collective mind of the One or the universal consciousness, then I may not have a problem with idealism as I think that all is known by God and through him we can know all that we can or may know.
There is, however the material world and it is here for a purpose. It is this material world in which we live. By studying and exploring this material world using scientific experimentation and observation, using reason and logic, we can better understand the physical world and our physical selfs thus better know and understand the mind of God.
We are spiritual, mental and physical beings, of this I am sure. It behooves us to study and learn all that we can about all of what we are not just one aspect of our being. This is why I am not a materialist nor an idealist. Both limit our view of reality. These limits are self-imposed and artificial.
The material world is real. why would I ignore it? The mental world is real. Why would I ignore it? The spiritual world it real (in my mind it is the ultimate reality and the source of all of the rest), Why would I ignore it?
I do not know it there is a philosophical term or name for my beliefs or position nor do I care. It is true that naming something forever limits it. It is the limits that I abhor. They are artifical, unnecessary, hindering and so......limiting.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
It is true that naming something forever limits it. It is the limits that I abhor. They are artifical, unnecessary, hindering and so......limiting.
like....materialism? haha [:D]

Seriously,
I want to respond to some things going on in here, but I'm too lazy at the moment. We need another thread defining terms. I do not just automatically assume that idealism is anything more than what I already described. By the same token, my use of the word materialism is only the flip side and nothing more.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Royce
Canute,
My problem with idealism, at least as I understand it, is the belief that all can be known by the mind alone.'
Idealism does not necessarily mean that. It means simply that mind is ontologically prior to matter, and also, usually, that consciousness is prior to mind. Whether we can know all this by exploring our consciousness is a matter of opinion among idealists.

I assume that this means that it is our individual human mind that we it is talking about and that all can be known through reasoning and logic.
As far as I know no idealist view says that we can know the ultimate truth through reasoning or logic alone. Usually the claim is that ultimately we must know it through experience, or else that we can't know it.
I don't think that we can know or understand everything with our mind alone. If we include the mind of God and/or the collective mind of the One or the universal consciousness, then I may not have a problem with idealism as I think that all is known by God and through him we can know all that we can or may know.
Idealists tend to claim that our consciousness, our 'self', is one aspect of a fundamental cosmic consciousness, a spark from the fire or a drop of water from the lake, but generally this is not said to be God.

There is, however the material world and it is here for a purpose.
It is here, but whether it's here for a purpose is another question.

It is this material world in which we live. By studying and exploring this material world using scientific experimentation and observation, using reason and logic, we can better understand the physical world and our physical selfs thus better know and understand the mind of God.
By studying the world we can understand the world, and perhaps also something of reality. However it seems unlikely that we can understand the mind of God, or any consciousness that underlies the phenomenal world, without studying our own. We need to compare like with like.

We are spiritual, mental and physical beings, of this I am sure. It behooves us to study and learn all that we can about all of what we are not just one aspect of our being. This is why I am not a materialist nor an idealist. Both limit our view of reality. These limits are self-imposed and artificial.
Depends how you define the terms.

The material world is real. why would I ignore it? The mental world is real. Why would I ignore it? The spiritual world it real (in my mind it is the ultimate reality and the source of all of the rest), Why would I ignore it?
Doesn't that make you an idealist? Idealists don't say that the physical world doesn't exist. They assert only that it's not fundamental.

[Loren Booda]

How does the original post's biological model account for the living/nonliving interface, and how one assimilates the other?

[Royce]

Then, Canute, in light of your post above, for which I thank you, I am more of an idealist than I thought I was. This does not, however, do away with my pragmatic or spiritual sides.
Whether is be cosmic of universal consciousness, it is my belief that it is just one more aspect of God as God is the sourse of all and all that is is of God, IMHO.
I would say that the spirit is prior to consciousness, consciousness is prior to mind, mind prior to matter but all are interconnected, indivisible and interactive. But, as I say this is only my opinion based on my beliefs based on my I understanding of what I have been shown, given and observed via meditation and living.
Thanks again for the information and clarification. I would like to hear your definition of materialism.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Pooh. Crummy ad hominem chep shot.

Exactly what was ad hominem about pointing to your apparent outrage at me challenging the claims of scientific materialism? And how would you catagorize the statement " your pompous self justification"?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Scientific materialism can show (A) a stedy advance of ever more powerful abilities in biology. and (B) a future direction which (being future) has not been achieved but which you do not seem to disagree with.

Right, no problem with any of that.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
That directed arrow points to the in vitro creation of life.

I say, to YOU and other committed materialists that is what the arrow points to, but all I see is the ability of science to understand and work with biology. I do not YET see a demonstration of the potentials of matter and physical processes which show they have what is needed to produce life. Of course, that doesn't stop the scientific materialists from claiming they all but have it figured out does it? In fact, that is exactly what you appear to be doing.

What if you nor anyone else ever demonstrates that non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry? Are we then justified in saying materialist philosophy has been proven wrong? No we are not; we are justified in saying that abiogenesis has not been replicated. Conversely, if a man is able to create images on a photo negative with his mind, are spiritualists justified in saying it proves spiritualism? No, we are only justified in saying mind can impress photo negatives somehow. If you can work with and manipulate biology through it's chemistry, are you justified in saying chemistry is all there is to life? No, you are justified in saying biology can be manipulated through its chemistry.

And then comes the question, of why someone lacking proper evidence would jump to the conclusion which just so happens to support their personal philosophy. Are we to trust them when they say, "but, but, but . . . we are objective scientists, and therefore incapable of being materialist propagandists"?

You are so confident science is going to do it. Good! Keep at it and maybe you/science will. But no one had done it yet have they? And until you can do it, why not wait to publically state matter/physical processes are "most likely" the basis of life?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What does the other side show? People's opinions, squabbles over definitions that just show the ideas aren't well defined . . .

I haven't tried to control the side debates in this thread, although I did take the time to define what I meant by materialism hoping that would help. I can't speak for that, but I can speak for myself.

As I said before, I have tried to make my point with evidence and logic, and I challenge you to show where I departed significantly from that approach. What about you? Did you bother to read the arguments I advanced for why I believe there isn't enough evidence to support the public claims of materialists? Have you refuted even one? Really, who is debating here, and who is being pompous?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
. . . and NO PROGRESS.

Well, whose values are we going to use to determine what progress is? I have friends who think progress is having their kids read Tolstoy and do algebra by age 4; and I have other friends who believe a happy, emotionally healthy child at age 4 is better progress.

What if we figure out how to create life and discover every other secret of the universe, but we are still discontent and unhappy? We live longer, but just to become miserable old farts who don't believe in anything. All our technological skills give us new abilities to blow each other up. We understand how everything "works" but the resulting one diminsional perspective produces little wisdom.

Progress -- for those of us fortunate to live in a free society, we each get to decide those things we consider progress, and we get to decide what priority we give each type of progress.

[Royce]

And, thank God or who-whatever. Amen! or Right on, Les!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
How does the original post's biological model account for the living/nonliving interface, and how one assimilates the other?

It is a fair question, but it isn't really what this thread is about. Fliption said it above, and I'll repeat it.

My point has been that at this time there isn't enough evidence for those of the materialist persuasion to be claiming to the world that abiogenesis is "most likely" how life began. If you read through the thread, you will see I do say exactly where I believe crucial evidence is lacking, and why I believe it is crucial.

[Canute]

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a big assumption built into it, namely that there is a clear line between living and inanimate matter. Not something we've managed to prove yet. Abiogenesis imples speciation. Seem to me that there isn't even any evidence of speciation yet.

[FZ+]

Also, the analogy is misleading because, totally separate from the orange versus apple discussion, fruit can be distinguished from non- fruit.
And fruit and non-fruit can be encapsulated within the overall idea of matter.

Your definition of materialism cannot be distinguished from anything. It is a useless term.
My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful. It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to. One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?
What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life, when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.

It doesn't make sense to say that philosophy texts aren't consistent with materialists because that's who the materialists are! They are the philosophers writing those texts.
People writing definitions of science (like Popper, Kuhn, and others) have consistently disagreed with each other. A single benchmark cannot be regarded as absolutely authoritive.

How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.

Just because we have a word and a definition for god means that god exists?
In a way. Weak atheists who accept the idea of divinity must accept that there is a possibility that God exists. Strong atheists who deny even the possibility of God existing deny the idea of divinity itself.

Canute:
What makes it likely to be true is the illogic of all views based on the idea that only physical things exists.
Wha?? Perhaps you might want to define physical here.
As to whether the immaterial exists it is generally accepted that consciousness has no extension.
I do not think that is true.

Royce:
Materialist are aware of these problems and so they keep expanding their definitions to taken more and more immaterial things that they cannot deny exists but redifine them as either material or the product of material.
IMHO, that is the strength of materialism, not its weakness. Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard.

[Canute]

Originally posted by FZ+
My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful.
That's fine. You're a materialist, as you've every right to be. But you should realise that this is not a scientific position, it is a conjecture or a belief. Apologies if I posted this before but..

“This brings us to…the claim of materialistic science that matter is the only reality and that consciouness is its product. This thesis has often been presented with great authority as a scientific fact that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. However, when it is subjected to closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that it is not and never was a serious scientific statement, but a metaphysical assertion maquerading as one. It is an assertion that cannot be proved and thus lacks the basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis, namely testability.”

P240 Stanislav Grof – The Cosmic Game – 1998 State University of New York


It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to. One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?
Yes, but what if it can't? As Max Planck said:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery in nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we try to solve.”

What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life,
It would be very useful indeed if it leads to a better theory.

when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.
No. Most scientists believe in a sort of 'materialism of the gaps'.

How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.
If you think everything is physical then you're a physicalist, unless you want to add some provisos.

Canute:
Wha?? Perhaps you might want to define physical here.
Anything that isn't immaterial.

I do not think that is true.
I think it's accepted. Try http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html

Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.
It denies the distinction by denying that there is anything that is not material. That is an assertion about reality, not just a play of words.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard. [/B]
I doubt it, from the sound of it. I think you'd probably use Kant's get out clause, which does actually work...

“ in whatever way the Deity should be made known to you, and even … if He should reveal Himself to you: it is you … who must judge whether you are permitted to believe in Him, and to worship Him.”

Kant – as quoted by Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974)

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Canute
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a big assumption built into it, namely that there is a clear line between living and inanimate matter. Not something we've managed to prove yet. Abiogenesis imples speciation. Seem to me that there isn't even any evidence of speciation yet.

Canute, you've mystified me on this one. My experience has been that materialists try to blur distinctions between living and inanimate matter by arguing there is nothing unusual about living chemistry.

Then, why does abiogenesis imply speciation?

Finally, I don't understand why you say there isn't any evidence of speciation yet. There are millions of species, so clearly speciation happens; and we've observed speciation in a few generations, with finches for example.

I suspect I've not understood what you are saying. I'd like to understand your points.

[Canute]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Canute, you've mystified me on this one.
My fault. I was a bit cryptic.

My experience has been that materialists try to blur distinctions between living and inanimate matter by arguing there is nothing unusual about living chemistry.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it in that way. Materialists usually have a defintion of life that distinguishes the living from the inanimate. This raises the problem of abiogenesis. I was suggesting that maybe there is a continuum from humans to bacteria to electrons.(see 'microphenominalism' for instance) In this case abiogenesis never happened. Maybe it's our definition of life that leaves us scratching our heads as to how it arose.

Then, why does abiogenesis imply speciation?
Well, I'm off my patch here so might get this wrong. Abiogenesis, and current evolutionary theory, suggests that life started once, (or at least with one type of entity) and that all species arise from one genetic source. This requires speciation.

Finally, I don't understand why you say there isn't any evidence of speciation yet. There are millions of species, so clearly speciation happens; and we've observed speciation in a few generations, with finches for example.
There is no conclusive evidence for speciation as far as I know. No intermediate species have been found to show that the process occurs. Galapagos finches, long used as an example of speciation, are now considered by many specialists to be all one species. They have been shown to interbreed successfully, if a little reluctantly.

[selfAdjoint]

Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

Royce:

IMHO, that is the strength of materialism, not its weakness. Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard.
What you see as strength as a materialist, I see as a weakness. Mainly because by claiming that everything is material even the sujective and immaterial then the term material becomes meaningless as does the term materialist. With that blurring there is no difference between materialist and my type of pragmatic idealism, to coin a phrase. A materialist then becomes a everythingist or universalist, to coin more phrases; i.e. a materialist now believes in everything but believes that matter is prior to everything. I believe in everything but believe that spirit is prior. Essential we both believe in everything but disagree in which way the arrow points.
I am still at a loss how someone cam believe that matter which is clearly an effect or final result of the Big Bang can be the primary form of reality and all else is the effect or product of physical material processes. Blurring the distinction between matter and energy is no help as once matter is formed it takes very special circumstances and the input of huge amounts of energy to convert matter back into energy. It is not as simple as freezing or heating water to change its state.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]And fruit and non-fruit can be encapsulated within the overall idea of matter.


Matter? What's that? Do you mean matter as opposed to something else? What is this something else? If there is nothing else then matter means nothing to me. Useless word.


My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful.

I know what you're definition is. I just don't believe it is the correct definition of the word. At least I haven't been able to find any credible usage of it in the form "material=everything".


It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to.


No, it is not useful. We already have words that do that. Namely, "universe", "everything", "existence", "reality". We don't need another word to mean this. As a matter of fact, continuing to use and enter debates in this forum on this word is very much like debating with people who believe in the existence of things that aren't included in "everything". It's a silly position. To debate someone like this is just debating for the sake of debating. Why use a word that obviously has so much confusion attached to it when it is not needed? (I still argue your definition is wrong)


One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?

This is loaded with assumptions. You are continuing to criticize the idea of developing a definitional distinction based on you're own definitions. It doesn't make sense to me to criticize definition A because it is inconsistent with definition B.

To clarify, why do you assume that a distinction has anything to do with what science is capable of if you aren't assuming something about what that definition is? For example, if I say that from now on "material" means solid things only and immaterial means liquid and gaseous things only, what is the implication of this distinction for science? There is none. They're just words for communication purposes. Now we can say "immaterial" when referring to these things instead of "liquid and gaseous" things. Minor verbal convenience.

While this example is not very useful and no one would agree with these definitions, it is an example of what must be done here. We must come to agreement on what the distinction is and only then can we say whether these distinctions actually exists! As my example above illustrates.


What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life, when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.


I think Les' primary point has been that the evidence doesn't warrant the certainty. You claim that science doesn't feel a law of life is required "yet", but Les' point has been to suggest the insufficient evidence to justify this certainty that is being advertised is misleading and is itself reason to doubt that science would "ever" consider a law of life even if the time did come to consider one.



How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.


I'm going to try to make this clear once again. I am not talking about your beliefs. I've already said that I'm not trying to change your belief systems. I'm suggesting that you need a new word to describe it. You tell me what you believe about reality without using words like matter and materialism and I'll find a label.


In a way. Weak atheists who accept the idea of divinity must accept that there is a possibility that God exists. Strong atheists who deny even the possibility of God existing deny the idea of divinity itself.

They deny the idea of what? Divinity? What's that? How can I deny something if, by the very fact of denying it, there is no concept to deny? This is related to the quotes below.


Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.


At the risk of being offensive I have to say this view is completely ridiculous. Not only does it not make any sense but this fusion of language/truth is an extremely unproductive idea for a philosophy forum. If this is what people really think then I might as well resign my handle now and move on.

[Canute]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)
Thanks for this. I'm no biologist but I feel it highlights the problems much as answers it. But that's just me.

However I thought that there was still a strong minority of professionals who feel that speciation has not yet been proved. Is that wrong?

[Canute]

Royce

None of my business but I think Fliptions right. Your definition of 'material' would be very confusing if people started using it.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Canute
Materialists usually have a defintion of life that distinguishes the living from the inanimate. This raises the problem of abiogenesis. I was suggesting that maybe there is a continuum from humans to bacteria to electrons.(see 'microphenominalism' for instance) In this case abiogenesis never happened. Maybe it's our definition of life that leaves us scratching our heads as to how it arose.

Okay, I see what you mean.

Originally posted by Canute
Well, I'm off my patch here so might get this wrong. Abiogenesis, and current evolutionary theory, suggests that life started once, (or at least with one type of entity) and that all species arise from one genetic source. This requires speciation.

True. I suppose I haven't questioned whether speciation happened, or even that life was formed orignially in Earth's early pre-biotic soup. I don't know if it did or didn't, so I just accept as a reasonable hypothesis that it did. What I question is the ability of chemistry, or any sort of quantum manuevering, to spontaneously shape itself into a life form. It looks to me as if there is another force/principle at work in life missing from non-living matter.

Originally posted by Canute
There is no conclusive evidence for speciation as far as I know. No intermediate species have been found to show that the process occurs. Galapagos finches, long used as an example of speciation, are now considered by many specialists to be all one species. They have been shown to interbreed successfully, if a little reluctantly.

After reading the article selfAdjoint recommended I realized I wasn't as up on this subject as I thought I was. The evidence does appear sketchy, depending on how one defines "species."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Royce
Mainly because by claiming that everything is material even the sujective and immaterial then the term material becomes meaningless as does the term materialist. With that blurring there is no difference between materialist and my type of pragmatic idealism, to coin a phrase. A materialist then becomes a everythingist or universalist, to coin more phrases;

Thank you! I've been saying this for pages now.


i.e. a materialist now believes in everything but believes that matter is prior to everything. I believe in everything but believe that spirit is prior. Essential we both believe in everything but disagree in which way the arrow points.


And this is the result. FZ(and others) are using a definition that doesn't allow for anyone to really know exactly what they disagree on. The above quote is Royce trying to make the distinction because he knows there is one. I don't have a clue what FZ thinks Royce is up too since he thinks there is no distinction.

We need some serious realignment on definitions before the debate can continue. I say go back to abiogensis topic for now and deal with materialism in a new thread.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Canute
Thanks for this. I'm no biologist but I feel it highlights the problems much as answers it. But that's just me.

However I thought that there was still a strong minority of professionals who feel that speciation has not yet been proved. Is that wrong?

Canute, I would use that site as a possible source for more links or references but I wouldn't take any of the actual editorial writing there seriously. I have found the writing there to be very "focused" on an agenda. While some may argue that their agenda is to rebutt untruths, too much energy for a cause can be bad. A cause against a familar enemy can lead to bitterness. Bitterness can be blinding and breed bias and the tone at that site seems a bit poisonous to me.

I actually agree with the cause and the views for the most part but the tone is telling.

I'm not talking about this article specifically, just Talkorigins in general.

[BoulderHead]

Physicalist philosophers believe mind-states are nothing more than brain-states within the cranium and central nervous system. There is a subtle but important distinction made between the act of thinking involving a neural process and actually being a neural process. I’ve noticed identity theory expressed in topics here covering the mind. In this philosophy the existence of an immaterial mind is an utter impossibility, and to argue for such a thing is fruitless because it will never be accepted, and as with everything there are versions of this line of thought.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Physicalist philosophers believe mind-states are nothing more than brain-states within the cranium and central nervous system. There is a subtle but important distinction made between the act of thinking involving a neural process and actually being a neural process. I’ve noticed identity theory expressed in topics here covering the mind. In this philosophy the existence of an immaterial mind is an utter impossibility, and to argue for such a thing is fruitless because it will never be accepted, and as with everything there are versions of this line of thought.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what happens. Are we usingn neuronal processes, or are we neuronal processes? And if we are using them, the who/what is the "we" that is using.

[BoulderHead]

I see a topic relating to this has been created. I will post over there but possibly not for a week or two as I'm preparing to engage myself in an annual event that will take me away from the computer. I want to compose my thoughts on the matter first, too.


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11352

[Royce]

Originally posted by Fliption
Thank you! I've been saying this for pages now.

Your welcome; but, I wasn't posting to support your argument. The discussions merged to This common point. I do not have a definition of materialism but have been using and debating the definition of others. I don't even know what the classical definition of materialism is; but, then I don't think that many here do either or care. As usual Fliption, we think alike and agree on many points comeing from different place for different reasons. It is a measure of another man's intelligence how much he agrees with you. You obviously are very intelligent.


And this is the result. FZ(and others) are using a definition that doesn't allow for anyone to really know exactly what they disagree on. The above quote is Royce trying to make the distinction because he knows there is one. I don't have a clue what FZ thinks Royce is up too since he thinks there is no distinction.


I don't think that Royce has any idea what he is up too either. I am at a complete lost at how the term material or materialism can be perverted to mean everything. The only way that this could be so is the absolute unreasonable dogma that nothing but material exists and the absolute refusal to consider the possiblity of anything else, immaterial or non-material, to exist much less debate about it.
This is the closed mind in absolute denial of any or all other possiblitites that Les and I are talking about. Les's point has been made and validated by the definition that FZ+ and others are using.
FZ+ has been hoisted on his own petard by his own posts and definition. To be consistant, of course, he can never see it much less admit it.


We need some serious realignment on definitions before the debate can continue. I say go back to abiogensis topic for now and deal with materialism in a new thread.

Oh no! Not another Materialism vs non-materialism thread!
Trying to come up with a workable definition I can see.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Royce
Oh no! Not another Materialism vs non-materialism thread!
Trying to come up with a workable definition I can see.

Yes I meant a thread on definitions. We need to be clear that there is a difference between debating what is true versus what the meaning of a word is. Some people don't seem to understand the distinction. I've run into this before.

[Les Sleeth]

I tried to write an epitaph for this thread several pages ago, but it seems to have been premature. I am guessing once again this beast is dead, and so here’s some new closing words.

I did not, as selfAdjoint accused, start this thread to “flame” materialists. I admit to taunting, but the taunt has absolutely nothing to do with materialism. My taunt was meant to confront a certain attitude I see in scientific materialists. That attitude could be present in any philosophy, including spiritual philosophy, in which case I’d confront it there too! My perception has been that in debates, some scientific materialists (i.e., not all) are not objective about the evidence we have concerning life’s origin, and what life itself really is. Further, that lack of objectivity, in my view, is being presented as science, when really it is over-eager materialists trying to bolster the probability of their philosophy.

So my aim was to confront this element that increasingly is showing up in science presentations, from school books and TV science specials, to debates at science forums. In my opinion, it is not science promoting abiogenesis, it is materialism. A BIG difference. Science is neutral, materialism is not. Science discovers what it can, and doesn’t discover what it cannot. Materialism is a belief, and these days science is providing lots of facts with which materials can argue their case.

Why did I use the term “denial” in my thread title? It is because of two things that went on with scientific materialists in this thread almost (thank you Boulderhead) without exception. One was to deny there is the slightest unusual thing going on in life, and the other was to deny that materialist belief is affecting science objectivity in making claims about the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Regarding the “unusual thing going on in life,” all physical activity tends toward disorder, and in our universe the vast majority of delays heading in that direction (such as, for instance, that found in the organization of solar processes) are relatively simple. But the delay toward disorder found in life forms is incredibly atypical of inanimate physical processes because it is exemplified by layer after layer after layer, etc. of interdependent organizational complexity which, with each layer, becomes more operationally effective as a system. Once we factor in emergent phenomena such as consciousness, living organization can be seen as truly and astonishingly different from all other types of physical aggregating.

Then add this fact in. A living form “dies,” and all that systemic organization breaks down like a house of cards. It goes fast, really fast. Yet all the chemistry is there, all the chemical potentials are present. Why does it fall so much faster into disorder? If you kill me without harming my organs too much, say by lethal injection, then one moment I am alive, all my chemistry is operating cooperatively to sustain possibly the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the universe. The next moment it is all collapsing, rotting. At that moment of death something is lost, and the effect of that loss is so dramatic it is hard to see how anyone can’t notice and wonder about it unless, that is, their objectivity has been compromised.

Which brings us back to the main point of this thread. I don’t know how life got started, but with the evidence we have now I am not ready to say it was abiogenesis. If you are a materialist, then maybe you believe in abiogenesis, which is perfectly fine with me.

But if you are going to use science to make your case for abiogenesis, then I ask you to abide by the rules of proof, and to objectively present to the world what evidence supports abiogenesis, and what evidence is lacking. What I don’t want to hear is someone posing as an objective scientist trying to advance materialist philosophy by claiming abiogenesis is “most likely” when what they should say is, “I personally believe . . .”

I still plan, after the holidays, on starting another thread on “Why Materialists and Immaterialists Disagree.” It will not be a “taunt” this time, and so maybe a couple of people writing about supposed vitalist nonsense and non-material denial will have a chance participate in an open minded way. It’s not materialism I have a problem with, it is propaganda disguised as objective opinion, and dubious debating tactics.

[Canute]

Les

Well said. It is a perfectly well known fact that materialism is a metaphysical theory. However we teach it to kids as if it was true. Not in so many words, but disguised in everything else we teach them. In England it is embodied in the National Curriculum and taken for granted by everyone who doesn't think about it. I presume it's much the same in the US.

Worse still, even where there is debate about it tends to be based on a naive opposition between theism and physicalism, with no recognition of the real complexity of the issue.

Increasingly we base our attitude to life, social structure and personal behaviour on a materialist metaphysic. Yet for all we know it could be complete nonsense.