Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Philocrat]

I agree up to this point, but I take issue with a couple of the statements made afterward:



But, if the concept of God were unfalsifiable and unprovable, then it would also be logically useless.

For havean's sake, stop pressurising and making me sweat. The Logical device that I devised was not to give an absolute guarantee of God's existence, but merely to preserve the idea. All it did was to make it penetratingly difficult for anyone from any discipline to completely dispose of the idea of God altogether. The device also made it possibe to exonerate God from any blame for all the errors in the causal and relational structure of the world.

 

[quantumdude]

Philocrat: That's why I have declared in all my writings that GOD is not only compatible with Logic but also analytically indestructible.

Mentat: But, if the concept of God were unfalsifiable and unprovable, then it would also be logically useless.

Philocrat: For havean's sake, stop pressurising and making me sweat. The Logical device that I devised was not to give an absolute guarantee of God's existence, but merely to preserve the idea.

First off, I for one have no idea of what "compatible with logic" means. I know what it means for two statements to be compatible (aka consistent), but logic is not a statement. Second, Mentat's objection should not be brushed aside: What do you mean when you say that the concept of god is "analytically indestructible". Does that mean that you can formulate a statement regarding god that is analytically true? If so, then what is the statement? And what's the point of formulating a noncontingent theory of god? I can easily formulate an "analytically indestructible" statement about cockroaches (eg: "That cockroach is either alive or it is dead."), but I don't find any philosophical value in it.

 

[Royce]

To address the original question, IMHO, everything physical may one day be described by physics. I don't think that it will be in the foreseeable future nor do I think that it will be reduced to physical law but the physics will have to expand to encompass all of physical reality.
There is however more to reality than the physical universe and that I am afraid is irreducible to any physical laws. Such simple mundane things as life, consciousness, mental activities such as memory, thinking and ideas as well as mental images and imagination are outside the purview of physics. Then there is the whole realm of metaphysics, the spiritual realm for want of a better term. These things are still considered in the realm of philosophy and not science. Maybe some day they will fall under the topic of science but that will only be because science expands to encompass them rather than they being reduced to science.

 

[balkan]

yes, but since all our measurements are subject to the uncertainty principles, we could only get complete accountability by a pure chance of luck...
since our measurements will inevitable be unprecise, so will our models... that was my basic message...

hmm.. would like some thoughts on this... are there people out there who think these problems somehow will be solved in the future?
personally i can't see how...

 

[Fliption]

I'm not real sure exactly what this thread question is asking. The title is:

"Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics? "

and the body of the post consistently ask the same question:

"How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim?"

But then the poll asks this question:

"Which other ways can the physical world be explained?"

These are not the same questions. The first question seems to get into the whole physical versus non physical debate. While the poll question(which changes the word "everything" to "physical" things) seems to be asking an epistomology question about whether we can completely know the physical world we live in. So I didn't answer the poll because my answer is different depending on which question is being asked.

As for the whole physical vs non-physical discussion, I really do wish we could all agree on what these terms mean. I think that everyone defines these things differently. I can agree with some people that everything is physical or I can agree with some that there is "something more" than physical. It all depends on how we choose to define these words. So I could agree with everyone in here but what do you know about my beliefs? Nothing. You only know this by learning how I define the word physical. Tom's last post seems to suggest that the definition changes. I think that the definition should not change but rather the things that fall under the physical classification should change as we gain knowledge. If we change the definition to encompass everything that we can prove to exists then the term really is meaningless because there is nothing else to distinguish physical things from.

What does it mean to be physical? I'll take a stab at it. I'll propose the distinction is not a property of the thing itself. But rather is a property of how we relate or gain knowledge about the thing. If something is exclusively unavailable for examination through the "objective" tools of science, then it is non-physical and there's no need to ask the question in the title. If you want to argue that such a thing does not exists, then why do we bother to call anything physical? The term is meaningless because everything would be physical.

 

[quantumdude]

If we change the definition to encompass everything that we can prove to exists then the term really is meaningless because there is nothing else to distinguish physical things from.

What about the distinction between concrete and abstract objects? We get a great deal of utility out of all kinds of the latter (numbers and letters, for instance).

 

[Fliption]

What about the distinction between concrete and abstract objects? We get a great deal of utility out of all kinds of the latter (numbers and letters, for instance).

I'm not saying it isn't useful. I'm saying that in order for it to be useful then we must believe that non-physical things do have a distinguished existence from physical things. Sounds like you think abstract things fall under this category. I'm fine with that. I'm just not sure everyone here agrees with that definition. Yet we debate physicalism versus "something more" as if it is something other than a semantic debate.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I would think that it means that, as we learn more, the definition of what it means to be "physical" will change. At one time, it meant that material bodies were infinitely indivisible. Later, it meant that they were made of indivisible building blocks called atoms, that should in principle follow Newton's laws. Later still, it was found that those atoms have a structure, and that the constituents behave according to an entirely different set of laws than we had originally supposed. Then, we got to look inside the nucleus, and saw that those constituents behave according to a different set of rules, and so on.

Sorry, I just saw your post.

I have to agree with Fliption's point of needing to distinguish between physical and non-physical. One difference I often see between physicalist and non-physicalist perspectives is which came first. I would guess your view would tend toward saying that first came the big bang, and then everything else followed from the potentials created by that event.

I don't know if you followed my thread on panpsychism (BTW, thanks for the intervention), but at one point I posted a short contemplation on "substance monism" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762&page=6&pp=15. It is a very common idea among non-physicalists that there exists some base substance (which I labeled illumination -- if you don't mind, I'll continue to use that term for the base substance), which was never created and cannot be destroyed, which is light-like in essence as well as possessing an energtic temperment, and which exists in an infinite continuum (illumination is not baseless speculation, there is some evidence). The idea of substance monism, then, is that everything is a form of this basic, most fundamental "stuff" of existence. In it is all the potentials needed to create a universe (out of itself) and everything we find in the universe.

Now, the physicalist will say the universe began with the physical event of the big bang, but he cannot explain what caused the big bang, nor where all the stuff composing it originated. He can explain how energy moves things, but he can't explain what energy is. We can quantify oscillatory rates, but cannot explain why particles are such determined oscillators. In the end, the answers to those questions (and lots more) for the physicalist seem to boil down to "that's just how it is."

Okay, return to the primordial illumination concept. There we only need to say "that's just how it is" about one thing: illumination (or whatever the base substance is). Ockham's razor! In terms of a theory, the final step is to infer that illumination is the potential for what is most prevalent in and necessary to the existence of the universe, and then try to figure out what illumination would have to be like in order to take the "form" of a universe.

So it seems to me your answer that the definition of physical keeps expanding will only work if we don't look before the big bang. Yet we do have two origination theories which adherents attempt to make reasonable (I'm discounting supernatural possibillities; also, if I could have my way I'd also eliminate any purely rationalistic argument or model unsupported by evidence). One origination theory puts a physical event first, the other puts something we might conservatively label "absolute potentiality" first. We cannot explain the origin of the big bang or the stuff of matter. But we don't need to explain the origin of illumination.

And it is also the case that consciousness exibits characteristics that are physical-like. Even if you are of the persuasion that consciousness or free will (or whatever you want to call it) is "in charge" in that it dermines our brain states, instead of the other way around, it is still the case whatever this nebulous thing is, it has a physical effect on material bodies. That makes it physical, too. Now the problem is to develop a physical model that accounts for it, which I think is what SelfAdjoint was getting at.

It is very true that consciousness affects matter, and is affected by matter. But if you can temporarily accept the substance monism concept, then one can say that there is no essential difference between the two. What is different, in that theory, is the conditions which define them. In the panpsychism model I used the analogy of how a mist sits on a warm lake at night. Right at the boundary between water and mist is some common point, yet there is also a point where water is liquid and mist is gas. So although identical in essence, conditions determine how H20's potentials will be manifested.

I don't think their (physical-consciousness) mutual influence must mean consciousness is physical; it could mean the physical, at the foundation, shares the same nature with consciousness and so allows a certain temporary compatibility (entropy ensures that it is impermanent). But if so then we still have the question of which is most fundamental, physicalness or consciousness.

Now the problem is to develop a physical model that accounts for it, which I think is what SelfAdjoint was getting at.

I agree that's what he is getting at, and I still maintain that is based on an a priori assumption about first cause. I've been trying to argue that it is actually easier to explain the universe if we have an uncaused first cause. Explanation "ease" also seems relevant to the question of which comes first, matter or consciousness? In the infinite ocean of illumination we are imagining, and considering the "hard problem" of consciousness, which would be easiest to first develop? Also, if consciousness developed first (and I don't mean some progeny of dogma, i.e., forever existing, all powerful, all knowing, supernatural, etc.), and we assume it has evolved far longer than the age of our universe, then doesn't that also add to the ease of explaining the development of our universe, especially when it comes to the evolution of life and consciousness?

The way I look at it, if neither the physical or non-physical side can offer convincing evidence of our origins, then all that's left is what most naturally accounts for the most unexplained things.

 

[Philocrat]

First off, I for one have no idea of what "compatible with logic" means. I know what it means for two statements to be compatible (aka consistent), but logic is not a statement. Second, Mentat's objection should not be brushed aside. Second, what do you mean when you say that the concept of god is "analytically indestructible". Does that mean that you can formulate a statement regarding god that is analytically true? If so, then what is the statement? And what's the point of formulating a noncontingent theory of god? I can easily formulate an "analytically indestructible" statement about cockroaches (eg: "That cockroach is either alive or it is dead."), but I don't find any philosophical value in it.

You may be right…I could be using these terminologies in a very naïve or misleading way. But for me, I used the term ‘analytically indestructible’ to merely indicate that I personally find one or two of the premises used in both the religious and scientific arguments inconclusive. That is, in religious terms, it does not allow the nature and existence of God to be ascertained and in scientific terms as well it does not allow the whole idea of God to be completely disposed of either.

Infact, some people have argued that one of the ways to analyse anything out of existence (including the cockroaches that you mentioned) is to render all the premises in the given argument completely false. Well, from my own detailed examination of both arguments (scientific and religious), some of their premises behaved so badly that they left God hanging in a logical space, neither fully proved nor disproved. Well, people, including Mentat, say that this leaves the logic behind it in a limbo. True, perhaps. I know you do not like me to use the term ‘Logic’, but I still wish to claim that God is ‘logically’ preserved when the direction of the argument about him/her is reversed.

On the issue of what the term ‘God is compatible with logic’ implies, well, this is my own opposite view to the general claim in philosophy that ‘God is incompatible with logic’, or in a very restrictive and non-technical sense, that God has no logical explanation. The phrase ‘God is incompatible with logic’ is just one amongst many similar phrases that usually fly by in public and classroom philosophy lectures, and all I did was pick this one out and reversed its declaratory and quantificational consequences by reversing the general approach to the interpretation of God.
Equally, you could say that I used this term merely as a heading of my invitation to scholars to start the inevitable process of converting some of the declaratory, existential and quantificational claims about God from past tense to present tense. Also, I am fully aware that many participants in this forum are versed in several branches of logic, and what I am saying here may not necessarily be about logical proofs, but mainly about consistency of reasoning and approach to directing the train of our thoughts and deeds, especially on issues of this monumental magnitude.

The key problem that I have about the entire enterprise of God is that when people make declaratory, existential or quantificational claims, they tend to dive straight into the so-called logical proof with little or no attention paid to the equally necessary element of consistency of reasoning and approach. Now consider these two sentences:

1) God created the world
2) God is creating the world.


The first sentence, loaded with so many presuppositions, created the impressions from outset that not only does God exist but also that God created the world and left it in its current problematic state (at least within the human frame of reference), and that the actual process of creation itself is complete. Done and dusted! It also gives the impression of a God that finished his/her duty and went on a very long vacation or permanent early retirement. And if you look all around you, nearly all the religious books ever written, all the sermons and public lectures ever given tend to always create and labour under these nightmarish impressions. If this is correct, I argue that this is the single fundamental source of all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in declaratory and existential claims about God. This first sentence gave philosophers of all ages the ammunition to launch intellectual onslaught and destructive arguments of all kinds not only against religious arguments but also against scientific arguments about the entire nature and existence of God.

For the purpose of simplicity and explanatory convenience, I have labelled this ‘The Principle of finished Creation’ (or 'The Principle of finished Business’, as one of my friends jokingly renamed it).

The second sentence on the other hand is based on what I call ‘The Principle of Unfinished Creation’ (equally jokingly renamed by my friends as ‘The Principle of Unfinished Business). But for the purpose of widening the scope of its meaning and increasing its declaratory and quantificational significance, I have renamed it ‘The Principle of Continuing Causation’. According to this principle, the slightest error or defect found in the structure and function of an outcome of any given action renders its inconclusive, therefore continuous both in substance and in scope.

If you accept this principle as it is so defined, then the naïve notion that God could create the world and leave it in its present chaotic and problematic state and walk away, soon becomes a pointless route to ply. Now the BIG question that will return to haunt the human conscience for a very long time to come is this:

How could God take an early retirement or go on a holiday when there is still so much work to be done to take the human race out of its misery?

This is the problematic question that the principle of continuing causation is attempting resolve. Therefore, the second sentence ‘God is creating the world’, quite rightly endorsed by this principle, does the following things;

1) It renders the Principle of finished creation incompatible with
the way things really are in the world.
2) It returns God from an early retirement back to work. Hence, when
Einstein once said; “God does not play dice with the universe”, I ague
that this should be taken to imply ‘God is in active service to the world
and to the wider universe.
3) It declares God blameless of all errors in the causal and relational
structure of the world.
4) And until further notice, God is happily and wholeheartedly working
towards bringing his/her creation to a safe and perfect conclusion.

 

[vanesch]

The two biggest obstacles to a 100% physicalist model are life and consciousness.

Life isn't an obstacle, if you understand by life its biological definition. We more or less know what life is, on the molecular level.

However, I think that you are right that consciousness IS the open question. For the moment, physics isn't there yet, and I think it is an open question whether consciousness will, one day, have a materialistic (hence physical) explanation or not.
The funny thing is that conciousness seems to play a role in the major difficulties in modern physics, namely the interpretations of quantum mechanics (it is at the end of the day the conscious observer who needs probabilities) and problems with the arrow of time. Of course this fact may mean several things: it might be simply indicating that the theories leading to these questions have to be modified ; or it might indicate that there is a physical role for consciousness. This is, I think, an open question as of today.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Life isn't an obstacle, if you understand by life its biological definition. We more or less know what life is, on the molecular level.

Hi Patrick. I realize we can explain much in the way of life's chemistry. But what I meant when I referred to life as an "obstacle" to physicalism is that we cannot explain the quality of its organization. By "explain" I mean demonstrate the truth of assertions about biological causes of life; it is not enough just to offer a theory in place of an essential "something" needed to complete a physicalistic life model.

I have argued the "organization quality" point many times here a PF, so I will make this as brief as possible. Let me try an analogy. Say you and a friend are aliens who accidentally stepped in a bubbling quantum fluctuation and were instantly transported to Earth. The two of you find no humans around, but you do find a car in perfect working condition and decide to see if you can explain what caused it. You take it apart, study all the relationships between the parts, come to understand combustion, the concept of a transmission, suspension, the electrical system, etc. Finally you declare to your friend that since you can explain how all the parts work to create a working car, you fully, 100% understand what causes a car. Your friend is skeptical. He wants to know how all those parts got organized that way. After pondering that question your answer is that since all the relationships between the parts are physical/mechanical, then it must be that physical/mechanical forces brought all that stuff together. Your friend says okay then let's put all the parts in a pile and see if they come together, and of course they never do.

Similarly, as deductionists we start with an intact system of life, and as reductionists we study it intrasystemically (I'm leaving out evolution for the moment since I am just pointing to systems). With chemistry you can get a little further than the auto theorists if you put life's constituent chemicals in a vat, but not much further before chemistry turns repetitive. What is missing is what I call "progressive" organization where we can observe chemistry kicking into the sort of organizational gear that will lead to essentially perpetual system building. The very furthest we've gotten is the Miller-Urey experiment, which only demonstrates my point: self organization only can be shown to occur for a few steps before turning repetitive (even PCR, impressive as it is, is merely repetitive, plus it starts out with materials already established by biology's organizational quality).

Some say, "evolution has taken billions of years to create life." Actually it took billions of years for evolution to shape life. Life itself apparently came into existence fairly quickly. But I am not even insisting we need to observe life created from chemistry; I would consider an abiogenesis theory reasonable if progressive self-organization could be shown to be possible in any circumstances (i.e., whether it leads to life or not). So long as it can't, I will continue to see life as a problem to any purely physicalistic model.

 

[vanesch]

Life itself apparently came into existence fairly quickly. But I am not even insisting we need to observe life created from chemistry; I would consider an abiogenesis theory reasonable if progressive self-organization could be shown to be possible in any circumstances (i.e., whether it leads to life or not).

I will just give my personal view on these matters, which are what they are, and are open to criticism. In fact, I also felt that there was kind of a problem: if the essential "spark" that got life started (whether it are replicating dna molecules, or replicating proteins before they "discovered" DNA, whether this happened on earth, or whether Earth was, in its early history, "inseminated" by exobiologic fragments, for example from another planet whose star underwent a supernova doesn't really matter here) was "easy" to reproduce, then the universe would be full of life and we don't seem to observe that. So it is kind of a hard problem if you consider life to have happened *by chance* because that probability is SO low that it shouldn't have happened in the visible universe.
However, inflationary cosmology gave me the idea that the antropological principle could have a meaning. Indeed, inflationary cosmology (and there seems to be more and more indications that inflation is true) makes the universe "much more infinite" than it already seemed to be: our observable universe is only a tiny bubble in an infinitude of bubbles. This enhances enormously the probability that a very improbable event, such as the development of life, can happen somewhere, in some universe. The reason why it is ours is then simply dictated by the anthropological principle.
The implication of this is that we should be alone in our visible universe, as living beings ; at least if life developed first on earth. If exobiology is true, it should then be confined to our "neighbourhood" of space, because the probability of having this extremely rare process to happen twice by chance is too small.

cheers,
patrick.

 

[Royce]

Life isn't an obstacle, if you understand by life its biological definition. We more or less know what life is, on the molecular level.QUOTE]

We know, to a degree, how life works, how it replicates and metabolizes. This however is not knowing what life is or knowing how it came about.

We can look at a living cell or being and know that it is alive and some of the chemical processes within it that keeps it alive; we can also look at a dead cell or being and know that it is dead and that nearly none of the life processes are at work; yet there is nothing that we can identify that is present in the living cell and absent in the dead that is life nor can we transfer this life from one living cell into another and make that cell live as we can do with DNA. We do not know what life is. We cannot tell what changes take place that causes the living suddenly to become nonliving. It just stops living. We can determine why it died but not what left it when it died other than an undetectable undefinable quality that is life.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Life isn't an obstacle, if you understand by life its biological definition. We more or less know what life is, on the molecular level.QUOTE]

We know, to a degree, how life works, how it replicates and metabolizes. This however is not knowing what life is or knowing how it came about.
...
We cannot tell what changes take place that causes the living suddenly to become nonliving. It just stops living. We can determine why it died but not what left it when it died other than an undetectable undefinable quality that is life.

This undervalues what we DO know about cells. Quite often we can tell what specifically is different in the killed cell, that apoptosis has operated or some protein has accumulated blocking metabolism or some other specific condition. This is all well known science; it is wrong to deny it.

 

[balkan]

We can look at a living cell or being and know that it is alive and some of the chemical processes within it that keeps it alive; we can also look at a dead cell or being and know that it is dead and that nearly none of the life processes are at work; yet there is nothing that we can identify that is present in the living cell and absent in the dead that is life nor can we transfer this life from one living cell into another and make that cell live as we can do with DNA. We do not know what life is. We cannot tell what changes take place that causes the living suddenly to become nonliving. It just stops living. We can determine why it died but not what left it when it died other than an undetectable undefinable quality that is life.

maybe you can't, because you wish to see "life" as something more that just neurological impulses and cells dividing...
it is quite possible to tell what has changed when something dies, the "life" you're talking about though, is a quality that you put there, and you recon that it has somehow left the body since the body is no longer moving...

the quality of life imo, is the experiences we gain through our lives, which is what makes us who we are (yes, yes, and of course our genetic code)... it is what governs the way we move, the way we act, and the look we have in our eyes... all those things shuts down along with the body, and that is why it feels like something has left it...
it is also because that living being had a place in your mind just before dying, and that is contrasted with the dead, stiff body...

of course, no matter how much the operation of conciousness, mind and life is proven to work by biological mechanisms, a lot of people will still believe that there "is something more"... perhaps because it is more comfortable to believe, and who are we to take that comfort away, really?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Quite often we can tell what specifically is different in the killed cell, that apoptosis has operated or some protein has accumulated blocking metabolism or some other specific condition. This is all well known science; it is wrong to deny it.

You are quite right that failed mechanisms kill the organism. Actually, I might have to revise my thinking and admit that a cell at least (i.e., non-nervous system life) could be functioning purely as a machine. My real objection is attributing the initial development of that living machine to mechanics alone. That is where physical processes cannot yet be shown to possesses sufficient self-organizing ability to lead to life. Because of that, I honestly don't understand physicalists' absolute faith in abiogenesis. It doesn't seem objective to me, but more akin to blind faith.

But even if life is purely mechanistic, there's still the problem of consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

maybe you it is quite possible to tell what has changed when something dies, the "life" you're talking about though, is a quality that you put there, and you recon that it has somehow left the body since the body is no longer moving...

Maybe so. But like in my car example above, even if the body is NOW a machine, no one can at this time demonstrate chemistry behaving with adequate self-organizing ability that would lead to a living system. Until that ability of chemistry can be demonstrated, physicalist theory is lacking an essential factor required to explain the origin of life. And that also leaves the door open to some other force besides physical processes.

of course, no matter how much the operation of conciousness, mind and life is proven to work by biological mechanisms, a lot of people will still believe that there "is something more"... perhaps because it is more comfortable to believe, and who are we to take that comfort away, really?

Well, there is something more to consciousness: subjectivity. Please, if you've found proof that physical processes can account for that I'd like to know about it. No one disputes biology is involved in making consciousness present here on Earth. The question is if there is something else there too. What is illogical with being open to that if physics seems unable to explain certain aspects of existence? Why can't existence be multifaceted?

Again, I really do not understand the apparent obsession to attribute everything to physics. Can anyone explain to me why that is important? Is it like being a Republican and so feeling one has to defend everything the party does?

 

[balkan]

Maybe so. But like in my car example above, even if the body is NOW a machine, no one can at this time demonstrate chemistry behaving with adequate self-organizing ability that would lead to a living system. Until that ability of chemistry can be demonstrated, physicalist theory is lacking an essential factor required to explain the origin of life. And that also leaves the door open to some other force besides physical processes.

Well, there is something more to consciousness: subjectivity. Please, if you've found proof that physical processes can account for that I'd like to know about it. No one disputes biology is involved in making consciousness present here on Earth. The question is if there is something else there too. What is illogical with being open to that if physics seems unable to explain certain aspects of existence? Why can't existence be multifaceted?

Again, I really do not understand the apparent obsession to attribute everything to physics. Can anyone explain to me why that is important? Is it like being a Republican and so feeling one has to defend everything the party does?

well, can you explain the (much more widespread) obsession about there being something more to conciousness? can you explain the obsession about Gods and religion? those are much worse obsessions in my oppinion due to the fact that they are irrational and impossible to disprove... why is it so bad to believe that we are here by accident, that there migth be other lifeforms than us in the universe and that there is no life after death?

it hasn't been proven yet, but i do not believe there is anything more than neurological impulses to our mind... and you migth as well admit that it wouldn't matter if there were proof... people would still say there has to be more, which would be impossible to disprove, cause they state at the same time that it cannot be measured and is out of this world ect.
why couldn't subjectivity be another function like memory and pattern recognition? it's a very subjectivestatement that it isn't, anyway ... cause you can't prove or back your theory up by anything but your own oppinion... me, on the other hand, i got lots of indications that my theory is the rigth one...

the general consensus amongst us pagan scientists is that life started as very simple molecules which through an incredibly long amount of time turned into single cell organisms and virus... which then evolved and so on and so on... the chemistry of life can be directly monitored and if we could efficiently build molecules atom by atom, we could copy this process as it is based on catalytical processes... where do you get the idea that these processes aren't understood?
anyway, we can't make living things yet, but we haven't had millions of years to do it, have we? we can on the other hand make self assembling molecules and molecular systems, so I'm afraid we're already halfway there ...

 

[Royce]

This undervalues what we DO know about cells. Quite often we can tell what specifically is different in the killed cell, that apoptosis has operated or some protein has accumulated blocking metabolism or some other specific condition. This is all well known science; it is wrong to deny it.

Yes, your right of course. I may not have made it clear enough. We can tell why the cell died, what was wrong or what was not happening to kill the cell; but, we cannot detect what it was that left or quit when the living cell died.
when life was no longer present in the cell. What property, characteristic, quality that is life changed the instant the cell or anything changed from living to dead other than everything stopped.

 

[Les Sleeth]

well, can you explain the (much more widespread) obsession about there being something more to conciousness?

Yes. You might want to do a Google search on the "hard problem of consciousness."

can you explain the obsession about Gods and religion? those are much worse obsessions in my oppinion due to the fact that they are irrational and impossible to disprove...

I agree. However, do you think everyone has to fall into one of two categories (physicalist or religious)? I am not religious in the slightest, can't stand the stuff.

There might be something which people in the past labeled "God," but it doesn't mean they or religion have anything to do with experiencing and therefore knowing it. It's like a witch doctor casting spells on a sick person to rid him of a disease. There really is such a thing as helping to heal, but the witch doctor isn't doing anything which brings it about. Do you say there is no such thing as healing simply because of the ignorance of the witch doctor?

why is it so bad to believe that we are here by accident, that there migth be other lifeforms than us in the universe and that there is no life after death?

Because it is contradicted by the facts. The "blindness" of faith unsupported by facts is probably one of the things you find distasteful about religion. But that is exactly what physicalists do when it comes to this question of accidents. They cannot, and aren't even close, to demonstrating the potential of matter to "accidentally" organize itself into life. Since that physical potential is not merely a peripheral requirement, but an absolutely necessary one for physicalist theory to work, it should, in an objective mind, raise a red flag about the theory. Does it? Nope. Why? Because they are already committed, in spite of facts, or lack of to physicalism. Now really, is that what you'd call "objective"?

it hasn't been proven yet, but i do not believe there is anything more than neurological impulses to our mind... and you migth as well admit that it wouldn't matter if there were proof... people would still say there has to be more, which would be impossible to disprove, cause they state at the same time that it cannot be measured and is out of this world ect.

You of course are entitled to your theory, but there are others just as interested in truth as you who have different theories. When you say "people would still say there has to be more," it seems you are generalizing and suggesting someone who suspects there is "something more" is just another member of the ignorant masses. You shouldn't assume that anyone who doubts physicalism is anti-science. I for one am not, and read posts by Hypnagogue or Fliption to see others who suspect something more but also yield to what science actually has proven.

why couldn't subjectivity be another function like memory and pattern recognition?...

Because you can't create subjectivity with artificial memory, recognition programming, or anything else mechanical. If you do, then you've got it haven't you. If not, the question remains a mystery.

. . . you can't prove or back your theory up by anything but your own oppinion... me, on the other hand, i got lots of indications that my theory is the rigth one...

I might have my own pet theory, but I don't "believe" it. Can you accept that an intelligent, thinking person might look at the physical evidence and conclude something is missing, and what's "missing" seems to possesses characteristics which are not physical? I agree there are lots of physical indiations of the physicalness of reality, including life and consciousness. My objection isn't to the indications physicalists notice, but the contraindications they ignore.

Tom suggests that maybe one day we will discover new physical potentials which will explain what now appears non-physical; the concept of emergence in consciousness studies is like that. But -- and here's where I claim to be more objective than you or Tom or selfAdjoint, or any dedicated physicalist -- as of now there are no demonstrated physical potentials to account for 1) the quality of organization which leads to a living system, or 2) consciousness. So isn't the objective stance one which acknowledges a non-physical explanation might be required to explain those two aspects?

the general consensus amongst us pagan scientists is that life started as very simple molecules which through an incredibly long amount of time turned into single cell organisms and virus... which then evolved and so on and so on... the chemistry of life can be directly monitored and if we could efficiently build molecules atom by atom, we could copy this process as it is based on catalytical processes... where do you get the idea that these processes aren't understood?

Of course it's the consensus among scientitsts; that's because for the most part they are physicalists. I am very familiar with physicalist abiogenesis theory; and we already can "copy this process as it is based on catalytical processes" with PCR. I never said such processes weren't understood . . . you miss the (or my) point. If a bunch of scientists use their consciousness to organize chemistry and create a living cell, that does not demonstrate that chemistry can self-organize itself! Consciousness has done the organizing, which is exactly what those who believe in God say is missing from physicalist creation theory.

anyway, we can't make living things yet, but we haven't had millions of years to do it, have we? we can on the other hand make self assembling molecules and molecular systems, so I'm afraid we're already halfway there ...

That is the common argument. Quite convenient don't you think? Let me ask you, is a cell, organizationally speaking, more complex than the Declaration of Independence? Yes it is. So, could we attach a pencil to a flexible mechanical arm, put it in a windy area, and expect that in millions or billions or trillions of years the Declaration of Independence would accidentally be written?

I realize that's not a proper counterexample except in one respect, which is that we don't have to wait for the Declaration of Independence to happen by accident because someone can sit down and reproduce it right now. Similarly, if you could demonstrate the sort of self-organizing quality that would lead to a living system, then as far as I'm concern you have the basis for a sound abiogenesis theory. So you don't need millions of years not only because we don't need to demostrate life (only the mysterious self-organizing quality), but also because we have something which serves to accelerate things expotentially . . . conscious intervention in the laboratory.

 

[balkan]

Yes. You might want to do a Google search on the "hard problem of consciousness."

1) I agree. However, do you think everyone has to fall into one of two categories (physicalist or religious)? I am not religious in the slightest, can't stand the stuff.

2) There might be something which people in the past labeled "God," but it doesn't mean they or religion have anything to do with experiencing and therefore knowing it. It's like a witch doctor casting spells on a sick person to rid him of a disease. There really is such a thing as helping to heal, but the witch doctor isn't doing anything which brings it about. Do you say there is no such thing as healing simply because of the ignorance of the witch doctor?

3) Because it is contradicted by the facts. The "blindness" of faith unsupported by facts is probably one of the things you find distasteful about religion. But that is exactly what physicalists do when it comes to this question of accidents. They cannot, and aren't even close, to demonstrating the potential of matter to "accidentally" organize itself into life. Since that physical potential is not merely a peripheral requirement, but an absolutely necessary one for physicalist theory to work, it should, in an objective mind, raise a red flag about the theory. Does it? Nope. Why? Because they are already committed, in spite of facts, or lack of to physicalism. Now really, is that what you'd call "objective"?

4) You of course are entitled to your theory, but there are others just as interested in truth as you who have different theories. When you say "people would still say there has to be more," it seems you are generalizing and suggesting someone who suspects there is "something more" is just another member of the ignorant masses. You shouldn't assume that anyone who doubts physicalism is anti-science. I for one am not, and read posts by Hypnagogue or Fliption to see others who suspect something more but also yield to what science actually has proven.

5) Because you can't create subjectivity with artificial memory, recognition programming, or anything else mechanical. If you do, then you've got it haven't you. If not, the question remains a mystery.

6) I might have my own pet theory, but I don't "believe" it. Can you accept that an intelligent, thinking person might look at the physical evidence and conclude something is missing, and what's "missing" seems to possesses characteristics which are not physical? I agree there are lots of physical indiations of the physicalness of reality, including life and consciousness. My objection isn't to the indications physicalists notice, but the contraindications they ignore.

7) Tom suggests that maybe one day we will discover new physical potentials which will explain what now appears non-physical; the concept of emergence in consciousness studies is like that. But -- and here's where I claim to be more objective than you or Tom or selfAdjoint, or any dedicated physicalist -- as of now there are no demonstrated physical potentials to account for 1) the quality of organization which leads to a living system, or 2) consciousness. So isn't the objective stance one which acknowledges a non-physical explanation might be required to explain those two aspects?

8) Of course it's the consensus among scientitsts; that's because for the most part they are physicalists. I am very familiar with physicalist abiogenesis theory; and we already can "copy this process as it is based on catalytical processes" with PCR. I never said such processes weren't understood . . . you miss the (or my) point. If a bunch of scientists use their consciousness to organize chemistry and create a living cell, that does not demonstrate that chemistry can self-organize itself! Consciousness has done the organizing, which is exactly what those who believe in God say is missing from physicalist creation theory.

9) That is the common argument. Quite convenient don't you think? Let me ask you, is a cell, organizationally speaking, more complex than the Declaration of Independence? Yes it is. So, could we attach a pencil to a flexible mechanical arm, put it in a windy area, and expect that in millions or billions or trillions of years the Declaration of Independence would accidentally be written?

1) well... technically, people would fall into the two categories: physicalists and "there is something else"... I'm not just talking about religion... you can't be both...

2) the mind is a powerfull thing...

3) It really isn't contradicted or anything... i mentioned it as a posibility, and you say I'm contradicted by facts? i didn't say there were any facts or that i believed there to be... chemical systems can "accidentially" organize themselves into a lot of incredible structures... you are aware of this, aren't you?
by your standards, nothing is based on physics... we don't have proof of how gravity, energy quantization or wave propagation works either... we only have indications... so let's just attribute that to "something else"... we have to, otherwise we're not being objective by your standards...

4) I'm not implying anything... at all... lots of brilliant people believe in god... if you have low self esteem, don't take it out on me...

5) you can't yet... a random number generator is mechanical aswell... and most of what you probably attribute to "something else", phychologists would attribute to a lot of other things, mechanical processes, that "seems" like an act of individuality and a free mind... our mind is not anyway near free from mechanical processes, it is loaded with them... unless of course you want to argue with the field of psychology aswell...

6) yes of course... you are on the other hand ignoring the fact, that a lack of facts isn't a proof of anything either...

7) of course I'm open for the option, but rigth now the evidence points in the direction of physicality, so I'm betting my money on that horse...

8) so what you're saying is: you're not thrilled about the physicalist idealism, cause scientists cannot demonstrate self assembly yet... but if they could demonstrate self assembly, it would be due to "something else"... okay, why are you having this discussion if you have already made up your mind about not being convincable?

9) a flexible arm wouldn't move... the universe is constantly moving towards a higher entropy, and self assembly of systems happens all around us...
it is a very good argument... you're demanding us to demonstrate something that has been million years in the making, and you want it now! and like you said yourself, if we could demonstrate it to you, it would "prove" the existence of "something else" to you anyway... now that is what i call "not being objective," and that is also why i said "no matter how much we prove it, how many indications we find, people will still find more comfort in the existence of "something else""...

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm not implying anything... at all... lots of brilliant people believe in god... if you have low self esteem, don't take it out on me...

I don't have much time now . . . I'll answer your points later. But I wanted to apologize if I came off weird. In trying to make my points I get intense just to help me get my thoughts out, and then when someone reacts I am always surprised. I'm enjoying the debate.

 

[balkan]

I don't have much time now . . . I'll answer your points later. But I wanted to apologize if I came off weird. In trying to make my points I get intense just to help me get my thoughts out, and then when someone reacts I am always surprised. I'm enjoying the debate.

that's allright... i'll make a mental note about it and not take those things too serious then... it's a fun debate, although it's all just basically a matter of opinion...

 

[Nereid]

Coming late to this thread, much catching up to do (begging indulgence and patience from readers).

[can] everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone?

In the sense of, for example, accounting for the ecology of the Delaware delta in terms of eigenstates of up and down quarks (plus the behaviour of the odd lepton or two), it'd be a pretty tiresome task.

But the thread early on put this quibble - and others such as laws, chaos, determinist predictions, the definition and scope of physics, etc - firmly to bed, and moved on as these thread are won't to do to

explaining the basis of life and consciousness/

and

No one disputes biology is involved in making consciousness present here on Earth. The question is if there is something else there too.

So, if romantic love can be explained as drug addiction, why should we expect that one day consciousness could not be explained in terms of (something like) brain chemistry too? Goodness, maybe 'spirituality' and 'belief in gods' has a solid (meta) brain chemisty explanation too?

then the universe would be full of life and we don't seem to observe that.

Depends what you mean by 'life' - the overwhelming quantity of life on Earth is bacteria, and always has been. What observational evidence is there that bacteria are not common in the warm, wet bedrock of most 'terrestrial' planets?

So it is kind of a hard problem if you consider life to have happened *by chance* because that probability is SO low that it shouldn't have happened in the visible universe.

With a sample size of just 1 (and close to zero knowledge about life on any other planet or moon) it's kinda hard to use observational data to argue the case one way or the other.

Can you accept that an intelligent, thinking person might look at the physical evidence and conclude something is missing, and what's "missing" seems to possesses characteristics which are not physical?

... and what if, 200 years or more from now, the fine details of just how this intelligent, thinking person came to reach what to her are these 'conclusions' are well understood in terms of brain chemistry (and, similarly, why a different intelligent, thinking person concludes otherwise)?

 

[Imparcticle]

Yes, your right of course. I may not have made it clear enough. We can tell why the cell died, what was wrong or what was not happening to kill the cell; but, we cannot detect what it was that left or quit when the living cell died.
when life was no longer present in the cell. What property, characteristic, quality that is life changed the instant the cell or anything changed from living to dead other than everything stopped.

Just what do you mean by "life"?? In the biological sense, life is characterized by (AFAIK) hereditary material. Of course, that characterization is derived from what is observed in our explored environment. In the sense you seem to be depicting, "life" is a spiritual characteristic. For example, you say :

we cannot detect what it was that left or quit when the living cell died.

I should probably note as well that we cannot tell what anything is really; we can only infer what something may be by its characteristics. Take force for example. We don't know precisely what it is, but we have an exceptional understanding of what it does. So in this context, no one can tell you what life is, but they can tell you what its characterized by...right?

 

[Les Sleeth]

It really isn't contradicted or anything... i mentioned it as a posibility, and you say I'm contradicted by facts? i didn't say there were any facts or that i believed there to be... chemical systems can "accidentially" organize themselves into a lot of incredible structures... you are aware of this, aren't you?

I am very aware of that. I am also very aware that the self-organizationalness of chemistry so far turns repetitive far to soon to lead to a living system (i.e., in my language, it is "non-progressive"). I have never said there isn't some self-organizing ability to found in physical processes.

The "facts" to which I refer (the inability to demostrate "progressive" organization and subjective experience) may not contradict, but I think in an unbiased mind they should naturally prevent one from being confident about physicalism at this time. The fact that right now the world is filled with people who already believe physicalism is a viable explanation indicates to me (obviously one of the few unbiased people on the planet ) that objectivity is as absent in physicalist circles as it is among the religious.

by your standards, nothing is based on physics... we don't have proof of how gravity, energy quantization or wave propagation works either... we only have indications... so let's just attribute that to "something else"... we have to, otherwise we're not being objective by your standards...

Untrue! I have never said or implied such a thing (there's a thread on the straw man argument going on somewhere at PF ). I have limited my challenge to a 100% physicalist theory to two areas, that's it. And even then, I have NOT said because there is currently no physical explanation for those two areas we should jump to the conclusion "something more" is behind it. I've simply said it should, in an unbiased mind, raise a red flag. Also about an unbiased mind I ask, what is the big deal if there is "something more"? Why should anyone genuinely interested in the truth care? I certainly don't care what the truth is as long as I can have it.

a random number generator is mechanical aswell... and most of what you probably attribute to "something else", phychologists would attribute to a lot of other things, mechanical processes, that "seems" like an act of individuality and a free mind... our mind is not anyway near free from mechanical processes, it is loaded with them... unless of course you want to argue with the field of psychology aswell...

Again, we know that if consciousness is "something more" it interacts with brain physics. But why must it be fully physical or fully something more?

yes of course... you are on the other hand ignoring the fact, that a lack of facts isn't a proof of anything either...

Yes it is proof of something, and that is that something is a mystery. And if the "something" is alien to known principles, that is a stonger reason to give pause before just automatically assuming it will one day fit into one's preferred metaphysics.

of course I'm open for the option, but rigth now the evidence points in the direction of physicality, so I'm betting my money on that horse...

The evidence (in the case of progressive organization and consciousness) does NOT point in the direction of physicality yet. The evidence shows there are physical processes present, but their behaviors are not explained by physical law. According to your logic, if we find a Monet painting and wonder about its origin, we should limit ourselves to the physical processes required to create it. When I want to know how those physcial processes got in the shape of a beautiful painting, the physicalist must repy (in the absence of knowing about Monet) "right now the evidence points in the direction of physicality."

so what you're saying is: you're not thrilled about the physicalist idealism, cause scientists cannot demonstrate self assembly yet... but if they could demonstrate self assembly, it would be due to "something else"... okay, why are you having this discussion if you have already made up your mind about not being convincable?

I didn't say that, I don't know how you got that interpretation. I don't insist there is something more, I don't know for sure if there is or not. I only say that progressive organization and consciousness are reasons for suspecting something more. It is the physicalist or religionist or whatever "-ist" one can imagine who usually embraces their favorite metaphysical stance in the absence of adequate facts to justify the strength of their embrace. I myself simply say there is reason to not yet accept physicalism as the total answer, and there is reason to suspect something more.

it is a very good argument... you're demanding us to demonstrate something that has been million years in the making, and you want it now! and like you said yourself, if we could demonstrate it to you, it would "prove" the existence of "something else" to you anyway... now that is what i call "not being objective," and that is also why i said "no matter how much we prove it, how many indications we find, people will still find more comfort in the existence of "something else""...

I am starting to feel like the scarecrow on his way to Oz (you know, a straw man). Show me where I said if you could demonstrate chemogenesis to me it would prove the existence of something more. I said the opposite, that if chemistry could be shown to possesses progressive self-organizaing ability, that would strongly tip the scales in favor of a physicalistic model of biogenesis; similarly, if a computer can create consciousness, I would also say physicalism is the current best explanation.

I am NOT anti-physicalist. What I am, is highly skeptical of those who are proclaiming confidence in a physicalist TOE as though the evidence is there to support that confidence. I say, their bias and a priori assumptions are showing.

 

[Nereid]

The evidence (in the case of progressive organization and consciousness) does NOT point in the direction of physicality yet.

With apologies in advance that I'm taking this out of a much larger context.

I want to argue the case that the evidence *does* point in the direction of physicality, for consciousness.

If good insights into such subjective experiences as colour perception and romantic love can be obtained from scientific study - chemistry, physics, anatomy, etc - and the more we study the better our understanding of what's going on gets, isn't this 'evidence [which points] in the direction of physicality' of consciousness?

Further, the rate of change in our understandings of subjective experience in terms of chemistry etc has been quite rapid. While all extrapolations are fraught, extrapolating this rate of change just 50 years into the future suggests even consciousness will become at least somewhat understood in terms of 'physics'.

I feel the corresponding case for 'progressive organisation' isn't as strong yet; with each advance, the gulf still to be bridged remains huge.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So, if romantic love can be explained as drug addiction, why should we expect that one day consciousness could not be explained in terms of (something like) brain chemistry too?

I am guessing what you mean by saying romantic love is "drug addiction" is that it is encouraged by hormones, and so does have significant physiological force behind it. But there is also non-romantic, objectless love, or "agape" as it is called. Hormones nor any other drugs explain that.

However, you haven't addressed the main point when it comes to consciousness. Remember, when we refer to the hard problem of consciousness, we are not referring merely to the ability to think, sense and remember -- mechancal devices can do that. But there is also that aspect which is experiencing what one is thinking, sensing, and remembering, and that is what cannot be explained by any known physical processes.

This idea of one day "expecting" is a way of saying the trend in evidence points so strongly to a conclusion that it (the conclusion) now justifies faith regardless of the fact that absolute proof isn't possible (evolution is something like this, which IMO does deserve faith in the absence of absolute proof). My entire objection is exactly to that faith by physicalists in a physical TOE theory. I say it is not justified as long as there are such major missing parts to a physicalist TOE theory as progressive organization (needed for an abiogenesis explanation) and for the subjective aspect of consciousness.

Goodness, maybe 'spirituality' and 'belief in gods' has a solid (meta) brain chemisty explanation too? . . . and what if, 200 years or more from now, the fine details of just how this intelligent, thinking person came to reach what to her are these 'conclusions' are well understood in terms of brain chemistry (and, similarly, why a different intelligent, thinking person concludes otherwise)?

That's a lot of maybe's and what if's . However, I am not talking about spirituality, belief in gods, or any such thing. I am arguing from the position of reason, looking at what appears to me to be people replacing religious dogma with a new variety of dogma.

I simply look at what we know is present in the universe, and how the vast majority of the universe appears to work, and notice that in two instances there are major exceptions: the origin of life and the subjective aspect of consciousness. I say, only if you approach those exceptions already believing in a physicalist TOE will you automatically assume they must have a physicalist explanation. If one is uncommitted to any metaphysical stance one is free to be objective; and to say there is reason to suspect "something more" seems to me to be a pretty conservative stance to take.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I want to argue the case that the evidence *does* point in the direction of physicality, for consciousness.

If good insights into such subjective experiences as colour perception and romantic love can be obtained from scientific study - chemistry, physics, anatomy, etc - and the more we study the better our understanding of what's going on gets, isn't this 'evidence [which points] in the direction of physicality' of consciousness?

I don't think so. If you were to similarly analyze someone using a fork lift, you would point to all the mechanical principles involved in using the fork lift without acknowledging the driver.

Is there any reason why a non-physical consciousness couldn't interact with a physical system? Well, we don't know that. I myself can imagine it could be so, and even modeled it in my "panpsychism" thread. I don't know what the truth is, but let's say I am extremely resistant to granting physicalism TOE status until progressive organization and the hard problem of consciousness can be shown to be physical.

Further, the rate of change in our understandings of subjective experience in terms of chemistry etc has been quite rapid. While all extrapolations are fraught, extrapolating this rate of change just 50 years into the future suggests even consciousness will become at least somewhat understood in terms of 'physics'.

I am not sure what understandings you are referring to. I've not seen any new understanding of that unless you are talking about understanding neurological influences and our psychology, which are not the subjectiveness that characterizes the "hard problem" of consciousness.

I feel the corresponding case for 'progressive organisation' isn't as strong yet; with each advance, the gulf still to be bridged remains huge.

I am impressed to hear you say that. I think it is the first time I have ever heard a physicalist (assuming you are) admit the difficulties in abiogenesis theory.

I hope you can see that I am only resisting jumping to the conclusion that physicalist theory can explain everything. I am not the slightest bit resistant to allowing what is physical be explained physicalistically, or to granting science top honors for discovering what is physical. It is just that as of now, I think some physicalists are going too far with the evidence we have, and are not as open as an objective mind should be.

 

[balkan]

I am very aware of that. I am also very aware that the self-organizationalness of chemistry so far turns repetitive far to soon to lead to a living system (i.e., in my language, it is "non-progressive"). I have never said there isn't some self-organizing ability to found in physical processes.

The "facts" to which I refer (the inability to demostrate "progressive" organization and subjective experience) may not contradict, but I think in an unbiased mind they should naturally prevent one from being confident about physicalism at this time. The fact that right now the world is filled with people who already believe physicalism is a viable explanation indicates to me (obviously one of the few unbiased people on the planet ) that objectivity is as absent in physicalist circles as it is among the religious.

Untrue! I have never said or implied such a thing (there's a thread on the straw man argument going on somewhere at PF ). I have limited my challenge to a 100% physicalist theory to two areas, that's it. And even then, I have NOT said because there is currently no physical explanation for those two areas we should jump to the conclusion "something more" is behind it. I've simply said it should, in an unbiased mind, raise a red flag. Also about an unbiased mind I ask, what is the big deal if there is "something more"? Why should anyone genuinely interested in the truth care? I certainly don't care what the truth is as long as I can have it.

Again, we know that if consciousness is "something more" it interacts with brain physics. But why must it be fully physical or fully something more?

Yes it is proof of something, and that is that something is a mystery. And if the "something" is alien to known principles, that is a stonger reason to give pause before just automatically assuming it will one day fit into one's preferred metaphysics.

The evidence (in the case of progressive organization and consciousness) does NOT point in the direction of physicality yet. The evidence shows there are physical processes present, but their behaviors are not explained by physical law. According to your logic, if we find a Monet painting and wonder about its origin, we should limit ourselves to the physical processes required to create it. When I want to know how those physcial processes got in the shape of a beautiful painting, the physicalist must repy (in the absence of knowing about Monet) "right now the evidence points in the direction of physicality."

I didn't say that, I don't know how you got that interpretation. I don't insist there is something more, I don't know for sure if there is or not. I only say that progressive organization and consciousness are reasons for suspecting something more. It is the physicalist or religionist or whatever "-ist" one can imagine who usually embraces their favorite metaphysical stance in the absence of adequate facts to justify the strength of their embrace. I myself simply say there is reason to not yet accept physicalism as the total answer, and there is reason to suspect something more.

I am starting to feel like the scarecrow on his way to Oz (you know, a straw man). Show me where I said if you could demonstrate chemogenesis to me it would prove the existence of something more. I said the opposite, that if chemistry could be shown to possesses progressive self-organizaing ability, that would strongly tip the scales in favor of a physicalistic model of biogenesis; similarly, if a computer can create consciousness, I would also say physicalism is the current best explanation.

i'm certainly not trying to make a strawman argument, m8... I'm merely responding to what you said, which is:

"If a bunch of scientists use their consciousness to organize chemistry and create a living cell, that does not demonstrate that chemistry can self-organize itself! Consciousness has done the organizing, which is exactly what those who believe in God say is missing from physicalist creation theory."

how in the living hell will we ever be able to prove the physicalist theory to you? we would have to create another earth, with the chemical system it had several million years ago, and then we would have to wait a million years or so until something chemically organized itself into life...

the evidence do point in the direction of physicalism... we have lots and lots of proof of how the brain works, while we have no evidence what so ever (except for the lack of evidence as you say, which is shrinking every day) of "something else"... lots of evidence vs. nothing... that's pretty compelling, really...

now imagine that your truck is driven by a really smart computer, and that we know all the mechanisms of the computer as well as the mechanics of the truck itself... anyway... like i said, I'm open for the option of "something else" aswell, but i'd really like some evidence to back it up if I'm going to endorse it in any way, and I'm simply not going to settle for lack of evidence...
i'm glad to hear that evidence could convince you, but it didn't come off like that in your post... quite the contrary... so if you don't want to feel like the scarecrow (what was controlling the scarecrow btw? new thread? ), you should proof read your posts for spots that could be misinterpreted

 

[Les Sleeth]

i'm certainly not trying to make a strawman argument, m8... I'm merely responding to what you said, which is:

"If a bunch of scientists use their consciousness to organize chemistry and create a living cell, that does not demonstrate that chemistry can self-organize itself! Consciousness has done the organizing, which is exactly what those who believe in God say is missing from physicalist creation theory."

how in the living hell will we ever be able to prove the physicalist theory to you? we would have to create another earth, with the chemical system it had several million years ago, and then we would have to wait a million years or so until something chemically organized itself into life...
. . . if you don't want to feel like the scarecrow . . . you should proof read your posts for spots that could be misinterpreted

What I was saying was that if a cell were created in the laboratory, one has to take into consideration the role of consciousness of those involved in creating that cell. If the scientists do anything which injects organizationalness into the creation of the cell which wouldn't be found in nature, then they've not proven life could have evolved from chemistry without the organizational help consciousness provides (i.e., the scientists' consciousnesses). And since most believe the help "something more" provided in the creation of life is precisely that sort of organizational quality, that is why I say if scientists' consciousnesses add the missing organizational aspect and through that create a living cell, they've actually given evidence in favor of "something more" present when life first evolved billions of years ago.

In this very thread I changed my mind about the possibility of a living cell being created in the lab after I realized it very well could be a pure machine, and that whether it is or isn't a machine isn't the main thrust of my argument anyway. My objection is that I don't believe natural conditions can generate the level of organization necessary for chemicals to achieve the functionality of a cell. So to prove it can, scientists must get the conditions together imitating Earth's early environment, and the see if life will spontaneously develop. That's what Urey and Miller did, and what happened? A few steps, and that was it. Physicalists constantly point to that as evidence chemistry self-organized into life. But I say instead it is evidence of exactly the opposite! It proves that chemicals cannot be shown, not yet anyway, to organize themselves beyond a few steps.

Now regarding the subject of creating subjective consciousness with a computer, I think if scientists could do that it would prove consciousness is physical, regardless of the help researchers provided (although that still wouldn't answer the progressive organization problem). That's because consciousness does appear to "emerge" from the machinery of biology. Yet the question is, is consciousness generated by the brain, or is the brain a device which draws consciousness into the CSN from some pre-existing general consciousness source? Because we can't tell which is happening, that's why all your examples of the physicality of the brain, and the interdepence of consciousness and brain functions, doesn't mean consciousness at the foundation is physical.

It isn't easy to see how to avoid duality and also say there is a physical system and non-physical consciousness entwined together in biology, but I believe that could be the case. I suspect there is a common foundation to them both which is neither physical nor conscious, and that is what allows their interaction (if you are interested in how this could be so, check out my thread on "panpsychism").

Anyway, my point is that the physicalist model is missing major factors needed to deserve the level of confidence many physicalists have in it. I attribute that to a lack of objectivity caused by looking only at that which supports physicalism. To me it's kind of like those cases they profile on A & E's American Justice (a cable channel) where police think a suspect did some crime, and so stop looking for any evidence but that which indicates the suspect's guilt, while also ignoring evidence which seems to suggest they're investigating the wrong man.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My objection is that I don't believe natural conditions can generate the level of organization necessary for chemicals to achieve the functionality of a cell.

Do you grant that genetic variation and natural selection between them can increase adaptive complexity? It would seem they can, as demonstrated in the (misnamed) artificial life software, and for that matter in the hot field of genetic programming, where these actions are used to produce adaptive, commercially viable computer program code.

So given that the general properties of evolution are demonstrated to work to increase complexity in different arenas, I would not think that the complexity of a cell is obviously unattainable to blind physicalist processes.

Thoughts?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you grant that genetic variation and natural selection between them can increase adaptive complexity?

Yes.

So given that the general properties of evolution are demonstrated to work to increase complexity in different arenas, I would not think that the complexity of a cell is obviously unattainable to blind physicalist processes.

Thoughts?

Well, I haven't said it is unattainable, I've said that nothing demonstrated yet shows progressive organization is possible from any chemistry left sitting on its own.

The problem with using genetics or even programming is that those things are taking place within established systems. Evolution might work to increase complexity in different arenas, but it is doing so from within an already established living system. I am not disputing evolution, or the chemical basis of adaptation; it is the initial establishment of the system through chemogenesis I am questioning.

Personally I can't see any other way to establish certainty about chemogenesis than to demostrate chemistry's ability to spontaneously get progressive. As I pointed out to balkan, about the best we've seen is what Miller's apparatus produced half a century ago! That wasn't progressive organization anyway, so by any objective scientific standard, we are far from proving an abiotic origin of life. In fact, I suspect science's inability to demostrate progressive organization is why some have started hypothesizing that life might have first arrived on Earth hitchhiking on a meteorite (which obviously doesn't solve the origin of life problem).

 

[Rader]

"asymmetrically optic"

That's what Urey and Miller did.

There one thing that should be clear and most physcalist know this.

Pasteur pointed out the most profound enigma, of the chemical construction of living things. they are asymmetrically optic. I hope I spelled that right for you, I am a little rusty in English these days. To state that a little clearer, living substances, like ``proteins``, deviate polarized light that vibrate in only one plane, in a different dirrection, from right to left, when other molecules of the same solution of the same optical type, do not deviate, if they mix equal quantities of molecules, of the opposite optical type.

Molecules that deviate polarized light to the left are levogiras L, those that deviate to the right are dextrogiras D and those that do not deviate are racemicas LD.

This property has the funtion of the molecule to have two distinct spatial confirguations, "isomeros", which are mirrored images of its opposite, like left and right hands are symetrical but not superimposed, although exactly alike, from the point of view chemically, they are without doubt completely distinct, as far as optic activity and biological properties.

Quess what Millers experiment made? racemicas LD :surprise:

I would say that, it is unattainable, until we know the origin of the intellegent design.

There exists only two ways in which molecules can appear asymmetrically optic. One is by action of enzymes inside the cell or by a chemical reactions directs a substance already asymmetrically optic. En both cases a specific information is introduced, into the chemcial reaction, to orchestrate optical resolution. Informtion that does not depend on physio-chemical laws. For the simple reason that molecules that descriminate opticallly, are chemically identical. Chemical reations of inatimate material are not discriminitative. :tongue2:

Therefore, there is no way to obtain active optical components, only by physio-chemical laws. It is absolutely necessary, another information that is of a completely different nature, to exist previous to the aparition of asymmetrically optic molecules. Without this information you end up with racimicos.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, Marshall Nirenberg created a synthetic RNA molecule consisting of only uracil. Placed in a bath of amino acids it assembled the molecule phenylalanine. Does phenylanaline have enantiomorphs? Was Nirenberg's phenylalanine racemic? I don't know. It would be interesting to use a bath of Miller's racemic amino acids with Nirenberg's poly-U to see what the optical properties of the result would be. I am sure those with defensive stances about physicality and evolution would find ways to disdain such discoveries, but I for one would be fascinated to know. It doesn't seem to me implausible that a poly-U molecule could be put together by chance processes, and look what it produces, a molecule that has in it alanine, another base.