Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[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.

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.

 

[UltraPi1]

Thought I'd stir things up a bit.

I would make the argument that reality is not physical at all. From large to small - All things are conceptual in nature. I.E. A rock on the side of the road is a conceptual entity expressed by it's geometric embodiment. I'm sure this is hard to accept, but what makes everyone so sure about physical reality?

 

[Philocrat]

The Right-Conditions Theory of Life

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any?

And even more troubling is the fact that the term 'self-organising' is a vague term and somewhat very misleading. Do we mean:

a) A group of things organising themselves into a thing?

b) A thing organising itself into the same or similar thing by recycling its imperfect parts?

c) Or a thing organising itself into another thing by rearanging its changeagble parts?

And lastly, those who claim that there is something more than physical explanation also need to clarify the following relations:

1) The relation between something and nothing;

(a) Can Nothing give rise to something?
(b) Can something decline or change into nothing?

2) The relation between things that can be seen or felt and those that can
neither be seen nor felt in any way conceivable;

(a) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them
non-physical?
(b) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them non-
existent?

3) The Relation between the design and the designer (given that we took
this route);

(a) can anything single-handedly give rise to another thing?
(b) what ought to be the appropriate relation between the design and
the designer?
(c) Can a perfect designer give rise to an imperfect design, or the
superior to the inferior?

These are hard-headed issues needing clarification if this debate is to have any chance of heading in the right direction, I hope.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

I don't know if you'd include me with those "would find ways to disdain" but I don't believe I am trying to scorn any legitimate achievement by science or any other discipline. This phase of our debate has become about proper inference and interpretation, not achievement.

Can we infer from any experiments conducted so far that progressive organization is likely to happen? (In case there's any doubt about what I mean by "progressive organization" -- the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.) I don't believe there's anything disparaging in challenging physicalist assertions that when researchers push organization toward amino acid formation it is similar to chemistry taking over and continuing to organize toward an adaptive system. So, while it may not be "implausible that a poly-U molecule could be put together by chance processes," that isn't the issue. I don't want to be a mega-skeptic, but I am not suspending my logic skills either to prematurely buy what appears to be over-eager physicalist inferences.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thought I'd stir things up a bit.

I would make the argument that reality is not physical at all. From large to small - All things are conceptual in nature. I.E. A rock on the side of the road is a conceptual entity expressed by it's geometric embodiment. I'm sure this is hard to accept, but what makes everyone so sure about physical reality?

That would be a pretty good argument except for one thing: non-mental experience. We discover a wall is more than a concept when we smash into it. That's exactly why science-oriented philosophy has surpassed (IMHO) purely rationalistic musings . . . because empirical thinkers attempt to seek confirming experience. If one eschews the experiential aspect and does nothing but think about reality, then I suppose reality for that person could be wholly conceptual.

 

[UltraPi1]

That would be a pretty good argument except for one thing: non-mental experience. We discover a wall is more than a concept when we smash into it.

I was going to bring that up ... such as stubbing your toe on a chair leg. How could anyone argue that it's not physical? But ... Who says a concept can't be stationary, and who says that a concept can't move.? Who says a concept can't give you a bloody nose ... such as running into a wall?

Concepts could have laws that are followed implicitly - Same as you have physical laws. If conceptual geometric forms (made of nothing at all) obey what we term physical laws - Reality still looks and feels and acts the same as the physical one you adhere to.

In a physical reality you have a couple of choices. Either the entire panoply , including the vacuum of space is composed of physical entities by which movement seems unlikely to be even remotely possible, or we have physical entities opposed by nothing at all, by which we differentiate those physical entities?

 

[Rader]

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any.

The facts are that all life here on Earths stems from ACDT base combinations. When we find, if we find, life forms with other base combinations, that will raise a whole bunch of new philosophical questions to address. Will we find something different on Mars? Would I like to know.

 

[balkan]

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.

so you're basically saying we should have to create a chemical environment as large as Earth (or the probability of such an "accident" would be much lower)... then we would have to wait a million years or so, cause it didn't just "happen overnight"...
the fact that they made a very small environment and actually discovered a molecule going through a few steps seems like a major achievement to me, considering how long time and how huge an environment the Earth had at its disposal...

 

[Les Sleeth]

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any?

Well, I've not made any claims about what the "something more" might be like in this thread, such as if it is a "designer." But if pressed, I'd keep my speculations conservative and suggest it might be an evolutive force. In other words, just as we can see that with matter the direction of change is overall entropic (dis-organizing), possibly the effect something more has on things is to progressively organize them.

Regarding your point about if it matters "which physical condition life inherits or is placed in," I don't see your point at all. I have never suggested the something more is supernatural (even if non-physical), so the physical conditions we find are not just based on what the something more can do, but also on the potentials and limitations of matter.

And even more troubling is the fact that the term 'self-organising' is a vague term and somewhat very misleading. Do we mean:

a) A group of things organising themselves into a thing?

b) A thing organising itself into the same or similar thing by recycling its imperfect parts?

c) Or a thing organising itself into another thing by rearanging its changeagble parts?

How could I be more clear about what I mean by "progressive organization"? Here's how I defined it for selfAdjoing: the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.

You ask, was the self-organizing principle headed for a thing? Who knows. All we know is what that principle has done, and if the amount of adaptive system-building it's achieved is any clue, then that appears to be part of its nature. Regarding b) and c), I don't see the relevance.

And lastly, those who claim that there is something more than physical explanation also need to clarify the following relations:

1) The relation between something and nothing;

(a) Can Nothing give rise to something?
(b) Can something decline or change into nothing?

Ha! Nice try Philocrat . Why are those who suggest something more any more responsible for explaining the relation between something and nothing than physicalists? However, I did attempt to model a source for "first cause" in my thread on panpsychism; I also addressed your next question there.

2) The relation between things that can be seen or felt and those that can neither be seen nor felt in any way conceivable;

(a) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them
non-physical?
(b) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them non-
existent?

It is you who say something more cannot be experienced, but I've found quite a stack of reports taken from history of people who developed the inner skill of union, or as it's called in India samadhi. There is something very different from religion found in these reports. I am convinced all legitimate reports about something more have come from adepts in this practice.

Now, I've studied those reports for decades, so compared to most people I am more or less an expert. I realize most people have never even heard of union experience, and so there is little basis for my points to carry much weight with them. My experience with people, including science types, is that they read and listen to primarily that which supports their belief system.

3) The Relation between the design and the designer (given that we took this route);

(a) can anything single-handedly give rise to another thing?
(b) what ought to be the appropriate relation between the design and
the designer?
(c) Can a perfect designer give rise to an imperfect design, or the
superior to the inferior?

These are hard-headed issues needing clarification if this debate is to have any chance of heading in the right direction, I hope.

You are the only one taking that route, I've not suggested there is a "designer." I wouldn't propose it because I don't believe I can make the case, even if I think there might be some designing aspect to the something more. Also, your question about "a perfect designer [giving] rise to an imperfect design" is clearly one of those religious concepts logical people love to blast. As I said earlier in this thread, I wish we could throw out all the religious crap and unsupported spiritual claims, wipe the slate clean, and then start over. Of course, I'd want to erase physicalist bias too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I was going to bring that up ... such as stubbing your toe on a chair leg. How could anyone argue that it's not physical? But ... Who says a concept can't be stationary, and who says that a concept can't move.? Who says a concept can't give you a bloody nose ... such as running into a wall?

I am sure you know your arguments are classic idealism, and so you probably also suspect that at an empirically-oriented forum, there won't be much sympathy for that view.

Most would agree that all human experience is subjective, even if it might be experience of something whose information about it originates outside of oneself. But to make sense of internalness, I would also have to add that there is a major difference between the functions behind mentality and whatever it is that allows experience. So I don't think you accurately characterized the difference between the concept of a bloody nose and an actual bloody nose. Do you think your physical hunger could be satisfied by the concept of food? A person could imagine the perfect meal and then easily starve to death imagining eating it.

Concepts could have laws that are followed implicitly - Same as you have physical laws. If conceptual geometric forms (made of nothing at all) obey what we term physical laws - Reality still looks and feels and acts the same as the physical one you adhere to.

I agree conceptualization does have laws, very definite laws which are described by logic and reason, plus whatever principles are behind mental imaging. But I don't understand the desire to relate to reality only conceptually when there is clearly at least one other realm of consciousness. We can think/conceptualize, and we can feel/experience. Each has its own ways of operating and effects on/in consciousness.

In a physical reality you have a couple of choices. Either the entire panoply, including the vacuum of space is composed of physical entities by which movement seems unlikely to be even remotely possible, or we have physical entities opposed by nothing at all, by which we differentiate those physical entities?

I'm afraid I don't understand that statement.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know if you'd include me with those "would find ways to disdain" but I don't believe I am trying to scorn any legitimate achievement by science or any other discipline. This phase of our debate has become about proper inference and interpretation, not achievement.

Can we infer from any experiments conducted so far that progressive organization is likely to happen? (In case there's any doubt about what I mean by "progressive organization" -- the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.) I don't believe there's anything disparaging in challenging physicalist assertions that when researchers push organization toward amino acid formation it is similar to chemistry taking over and continuing to organize toward an adaptive system. So, while it may not be "implausible that a poly-U molecule could be put together by chance processes," that isn't the issue. I don't want to be a mega-skeptic, but I am not suspending my logic skills either to prematurely buy what appears to be over-eager physicalist inferences.

I suppose it's inevitable that I would see you as setting the bar unreasonably high to protect your beliefs, while you would see me as an over-eager enthusiast out to sell you shaky evidence.

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb
sites and the triumphal march of molecular biology just makes it in the last degree implausible that some vital principle outside of the visible physical principles is necessary for life. With all respect, I don't think you have internalized that evidence sufficiently to judge it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

so you're basically saying we should have to create a chemical environment as large as Earth (or the probability of such an "accident" would be much lower)...

I am not saying that. Why would we need a chemical environment as large as Earth's? All we should need is the proper conditions recreated in one spot, similar to what Stanley Miller did.

. . . then we would have to wait a million years or so, cause it didn't just "happen overnight"...

I personally wouldn't require chemistry to morph into "living" before I accept the potential of chemistry to achieve life. I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated. Is that asking so much? To me it seems the minimum one should require from physicalist theorists who are trying to say chemistry can self-organize suffiently to become life.

the fact that they made a very small environment and actually discovered a molecule going through a few steps seems like a major achievement to me, considering how long time and how huge an environment the Earth had at its disposal...

It's only interpreted as a "major achievement" by those trying for a physicalistic explanation of life's origins. I say it is no achievement at all, and here's why.

I, at least, have never disputed that life evolved through chemistry here on Earth, or that chemistry is the basis of biology. Given the huge proliferation of life after its inception, shouldn't we expect that Earth's chemistry was quite encouraging to life's development? So in a bio-friendly world, why shouldn't we expect organic compounds to form? It would be more strange if they didn't.

We already know chemicals interact, and we know we can set a series of reactions in motion with the right chemicals and the right conditions. So that's not the issue is it? The issue is finding the potenital of chemistry to keep organizing toward a "system," a system which can adapt to the environment (I'm insisting on organization "toward" an adaption system because adaptivity is central to what life is). No one, ever, has demonstrated chemistry can do that on its own, yet physicalists act like it's a foregone conclusion that life developed from self-organizing chemisty! However, while such reasoning might be dubious, but it is a fine example of propaganda.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I suppose it's inevitable that I would see you as setting the bar unreasonably high to protect your beliefs, while you would see me as an over-eager enthusiast out to sell you shaky evidence.

I want to be fair to my fellow human beings who are of the physicalist persuasion, but that "bar" I cite seems minimal to me. It is the very first principle needed, and abiogenesis cannot be explained without it. You know, I am not trying to be non-physicalistic; I'd be perfectly happy for creation to be only physical if my experiences, evidence and reason supported that. I simply need for things to make sense. What is missing from physicalist theory prevents that, and so I see those glossing over the huge missing piece as people committed to physicalism regardless of what evidence is missing. That's why I said I might be one of the few truly objective people around here. Everybody else seems committed a priori to some belief system.

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb sites and the triumphal march of molecular biology just makes it in the last degree implausible that some vital principle outside of the visible physical principles is necessary for life. With all respect, I don't think you have internalized that evidence sufficiently to judge it.

I'm surprised SA, I wouldn't have imagined you to try the ol' condescending tactic. I might not be familiar with every single thing going on in biology (although it was my first major in college decades ago), but neither am I unfamiliar with what's been achieved in the way of progressive self-organization (and I'd venture to say I've looked into science stuff a lot more than you've checked out the inner experiences I've cited as evidence worth considering).

Would you like to hear how much I think has been achieved in the way of proving progressive organization: NOTHING. NADA. Not one instance has EVER been demonstrated (self-organization, yes; progressive self-organizaiton, no). Life is the only example. If you've got an instance of self-organization that doesn't turn repetitive or non-adaptive or downright chaotic, or which doesn't need a living system to morph (i.e., a virus), please cite it.

Your example of AI really makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing. If you set up 5 billion dominoes to tumble each other in a complex pattern, have you created progressive self-organization? AI, like those dominoes, never gets impressively far past its programming.

Also, I haven't argued for a "vital principle." I have spoken of an organzing principle, as yet unrecognized, which might be part of life and consciousness. Tell me, just how far out is such a proposal? 1) I see self organization, 2) I see no physical principle that explains it, 3) I surmise maybe there's a self-organizing principle distinct from physicality. That's really weird isn't it? I'm a crackpot kook!

Here's a question I've asked before which you and others devoted to physicalism don't seem to want to answer: Why is it so important for everything to be physical, that non-physical suggestions are resisted at every turn? What is the obsession with that need? What possible difference could it make to find out there is "something more" than what's physical? Just from my side of it, sometimes it seems like I am talking to people who are actually afraid that something might be non-physical. :surprise:

 

[balkan]

I am not saying that. Why would we need a chemical environment as large as Earth's? All we should need is the proper conditions recreated in one spot, similar to what Stanley Miller did.

I personally wouldn't require chemistry to morph into "living" before I accept the potential of chemistry to achieve life. I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated. Is that asking so much? To me it seems the minimum one should require from physicalist theorists who are trying to say chemistry can self-organize suffiently to become life.

We already know chemicals interact, and we know we can set a series of reactions in motion with the right chemicals and the right conditions. So that's not the issue is it? The issue is finding the potenital of chemistry to keep organizing toward a "system," a system which can adapt to the environment (I'm insisting on organization "toward" an adaption system because adaptivity is central to what life is). No one, ever, has demonstrated chemistry can do that on its own, yet physicalists act like it's a foregone conclusion that life developed from self-organizing chemisty! However, while such reasoning might be dubious, but it is a fine example of propaganda.

of course it matters whether or not the test area is huge or not since it is always a matter of probability whether or not a specific chemical reaction will occur... if it is a highly unprobable reaction, of course you need a sufficiently large environment for it to happen in a resonable timespan... that's really very simple... the same can be said about the timespan itself... if it is a very unprobable event, of course it demands a lot of time to occur...
how can you disregard that and still call yourself objective?

this brings us back to the problem of conciousness being the founder of that reaction, doesn't it?

of course self organization is one of the biggest issues, but it is also a very new scientific field, and huge progress have already been made... of course it's not being objective, having 100% faith in physicalism, but having 80-90% faith is quite objective i think, once again due to the fact that absolutely no evidence have yet been discovered for the "something else" theory, while evidence of the physicalist theory is stacking up every day...

while the few physicalists who believe 100% in the theory may be irrational to some degree, i find it much more concerning, that you seem to disregard a huge amount of factors which are a basis for the very unlikely event of the "life accident"... yet, you still call yourself more objective...
i'm personally at about a 90-95% faith on the issue... while I'm quite sure that the physicalist theory is correct, however impossible it may be to proove (especially without using conciousness ), I'm keeping an open mind, should some evidence of "something else suddently show up...

 

[FZ+]

This seems familiar. Here we go again... Let's find the not-so-well-hidden pitfalls.

I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated.

The definition of progressive - here it is used in a funny pragmatic way, which eventually translates to organisation into what 'feels' like life, which conveniently is infintessimally improbable, given that our concept of what feels like life is defined after the event.

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth. In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic. With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive. Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your example of AI really makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing. If you set up 5 billion dominoes to tumble each other in a complex pattern, have you created progressive self-organization? AI, like those dominoes, never gets impressively far past its programming.

(Edit out previous text). I mistyped AI for AL.

 

[balkan]

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth. In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic. With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive. Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

good point... the entire evolution of life depends on (highly unlikely!) accidents and errors... every step of the way...

 

[Les Sleeth]

This seems familiar. Here we go again... Let's find the not-so-well-hidden pitfalls. The definition of progressive - here it is used in a funny pragmatic way, which eventually translates to organisation into what 'feels' like life, which conveniently is infintessimally improbable, given that our concept of what feels like life is defined after the event.

As usual, your "pitfalls" are entirely straw man bullsh*t. None of what you argue against in this post is anything I've said or implied. To start off, I NEVER talked about some "feel" of life.

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth.

The term "progressive," as applied to organizational change, I made up. I have defined it a specific way to use in a specific way to describe a specific circumstance. The examples that you've "listed time and again" are NOT the definition of "progressive" as I, the inventor of the term, meant it. If you think fire and crystals are examples of progressive organization, you've not been listening. A crystal is an example of self-organization alright, but not progressive self-organization. I've never denied a limited amount of self-organization takes place in the universe.

Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic.

What are you talking about? When have I ever tried to exclude random effects, repetitiveness, or chaotic circumstances in life? They are part of existence like a lot of other things. But ONLY in life is progressive organization, as I've defined it, been observed.

With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive.

And your point is . . . What does this have to do with my argument? I don't dispute that.

In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. . . . Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

Make your case FZ, tell me exactly how progressive organization, AS I'VE DEFINED IT, rules out life itself. Your just being a smartass again, nothing I've ever said denotes or connotes such a thing. Geez, why don't you try responding to what I actually say once in awhile.

 

[Les Sleeth]

good point... the entire evolution of life depends on (highly unlikely!) accidents and errors... every step of the way...

What does the fact of accidents have to do with self-organization? Besides, that life can adapt systematically to those accidents and errors indicates even more strongly the presence of some unusual organizational quality in life. Have you ever noticed the effect of the vast majority of accidents on non-living stuff?

You know, I don't understand you guys at all. Are you denying that in life self-organization has surpassed anything ever observed in our universe? Are you denying that as of now, no one can prove what is causing it? And are you denying that life could be life without it?

Here's my point. I look at it and it prevents me from believing in physicalism because it is so unlike the normal quality of physical organization or any demonstrated potential of physical processes. That's it . . . almost.

Then I look at others who don't seem to want to even acknowledge this problem to a physicalist model. What am I to think? Should I believe they are really interested in the truth? Or should I suspect they are just trying anyway they can to maintain faith in physicalism regardless of the truth.

Unlike you guys, I don't really care what the truth is. I'm not going to let myself be bullied by physicalist zealots into accepting as "probable" what they can't yet demonstrate is probable.

 

[balkan]

1) What does the fact of accidents have to do with self-organization? Besides, that life can adapt systematically to those accidents and errors indicates even more strongly the presence of some unusual organizational quality in life. Have you ever noticed the effect of the vast majority of accidents on non-living stuff?


2) Unlike you guys, I don't really care what the truth is. I'm not going to let myself be bullied by physicalist zealots into accepting as "probable" what they can't yet demonstrate is probable.

see, that's my problem with what you are saying... life isn't "adapting"... when 5 million bacteria dies due to some outside influence and maybe one survives, it's due to accidents/errors in the DNA coding sequence... it's not "adaption"... life isn't adabting to these errors either...

2) but you consider "something else" probable, without any evidence what so ever.. see, that is what we (or i at least) are trying to make you realize... cause that's not objectivity or rationalism as you claim it to be... that's subjective oppinions that you try and rationalize by pointing to lack of evidence in support of the perception that isn't shared by you... and you don't care how overwhelming the evidence is compared to what you have got...
it's alrigth to be subjective, but at least admit to it...

and nobody is trying to bully you, we're merely debating flaws in both sides arguments... you are lashing out at least as much and creating strawman arguments as well by constantly stating "lack of evidence = evidence"... and that's allrigth aswell, as long as you don't put yourself on a piedestal like you're doing right now...

calling me a physicalist zealot is also a strawman argument, and quite untrue as I've stated several times... give me some evidence of "something else" (other than lack of evidence, which is yet to be collected), and i will gladly consider that an option...

 

[Les Sleeth]

(Edit out previous text). I mistyped AI for AL.

Correction noted.

 

[Fliption]

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb

I remember posting a thread titled "Simulation of Natural Selection" where I was asking for information on a demonstration of AI like you're alluding to here. No one ever really pointed me to anything that resembled what I would expect to see. Everything that was provided didn't meet the criteria that I argued should exists if creating AI were possible. I won't get into the actual point here in this thread but I did want to ask for any information you have about this. Sources? Links? Thanks

 

[Fliption]

if it is a very unprobable event, of course it demands a lot of time to occur...
how can you disregard that and still call yourself objective?

I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

i think, once again due to the fact that absolutely no evidence have yet been discovered for the "something else" theory, while evidence of the physicalist theory is stacking up every day...

(especially without using conciousness ), I'm keeping an open mind, should some evidence of "something else suddently show up...

Then consider this with an open mind. What type of evidence do you think you will find to proof something other than physical may exists? Where are you looking? I suspect, once again, that we are eaten up with semantic problems. I've posted a suggested distinction several pages back which would argue that the only difference between physical and non-physical is the type of evidence it leaves. So are you looking for all your evidence in test tubes? You might want to be even more open minded. Unless of course you define these terms differently. Then we have an even more embarrassing issue to deal with...arguing about concepts when we all mean something different by them .

 

[balkan]

1) I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

2) Then consider this with an open mind. What type of evidence do you think you will find to proof something other than physical may exists? Where are you looking? I suspect, once again, that we are eaten up with semantic problems. I've posted a suggested distinction several pages back which would argue that the only difference between physical and non-physical is the type of evidence it leaves. So are you looking for all your evidence in test tubes? You might want to be even more open minded. Unless of course you define these terms differently. Then we have an even more embarrassing issue to deal with...arguing about concepts when we all mean something different by them .

1) that's great, and I'm quite sure someone will eventually do this, but self organizing systems are still on very early experimental stages... i was arguing specifically with les on this, since his statement was, that since the proof would be made by conscious minds, it would actually be an indication of "something else" (just a note, not a bash or anything)...

2) I'm going to have to look up those pages... I'm looking for any kind of evidence that isn't just an argument of lack of evidence to support the physicalist theory... no matter how that is twisted and turned, it is not evidence, it's a perception...
i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

 

[Les Sleeth]

see, that's my problem with what you are saying... life isn't "adapting"... when 5 million bacteria dies due to some outside influence and maybe one survives, it's due to accidents/errors in the DNA coding sequence... it's not "adaption"... life isn't adabting to these errors either...

That's non sequitur if I've ever heard it. That point has NOTHING to do with progressive organization!

but you consider "something else" probable, without any evidence what so ever..

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said something else is probable. For the shared situation of this debate I said "possible." Now what I think personally, that is another matter.

see, that is what we (or i at least) are trying to make you realize... cause that's not objectivity or rationalism as you claim it to be... that's subjective oppinions that you try and rationalize by pointing to lack of evidence in support of the perception that isn't shared by you...

What possible difference does it make if my perceptions are shared? Do you think a physicalist's perceptions will be shared if he is in a room full of Jehovah's Witnesses? We are debating an area of reality that is unknown and not understood. Physicalist thinkers put forth physicalist explanations for that, just as one might expect. But don't act like they have some right over other theorists just because they happen to be in the majority here at PF. Nothing I've said contradicts known facts. Remember, I am the skeptic here, not the advocate of "something more."

and you don't care how overwhelming the evidence is compared to what you have got...

Please, not that impotent argument again! Let's take the car I mentioned in an earlier post, and have you argue it self-organized itself while I say I have never seen any organization principles which would make that happen. In that case, the "overwhelming evidence" would be you describing in minute detail all the physical aspects of the car, and utterly ignoring the fact that I am pointing to something completely different. Yes, life involves deep levels of physicalness and mechanics. I've never denied it.

As far as my "lack" of evidence goes, you really don't know what you are talking about. To debate that point would sidetrack this thread, and people who know me have heard me debate it many times. For a quick explanation, let's just say that there is no scientific evidence for something more; the "empirical" part of science relies on sense experience; sense experience has only been shown to reveal physical aspects of reality; so if there is anything non-physical, sense-dependent investigation ain't going to find it.

Is there any other type of reliable consciousness experience besides through the senses? Well, I say there is but, again, this isn't the time or place to talk about it.

it's alrigth to be subjective, but at least admit to it...

Everything conscious is subjective. The issue is how much our subjectivity is biased.

you are lashing out at least as much and creating strawman arguments as well but constantly stating "lack of evidence = evidence...

Name one strawman argument I've advanced. Shame on me if I have!

Yes, I point to lack of evidence. Isn't a discipline dependent on observation required to back claims with adequate evidence? The lack of evidence is evidence; it is evidence that you don't know something.

give me some evidence of "something else" (other than lack of evidence, which is yet to be collected), and i will gladly consider that an option...

Why should I have to give evidence of something else to question claims of physicalist probability? Either the evidence supports a probability or it doesn't.

 

[Fliption]

What are you talking about? When have I ever tried to exclude random effects, repetitiveness, or chaotic circumstances in life? They are part of existence like a lot of other things. But ONLY in life is progressive organization, as I've defined it, been observed.

Heh. If FZ found an automobile on Mars he would allow for accidental physical processes as the creator simply because he doesn't want his subjective understanding of what a useful thing is to cloud his judgement about something on Mars. So you can see the differences in perspective here. FZ and I have gone around and around about this sort of thing. His is the sort of extreme view which states that because we can't point to the dividing line at the micro level then it's ok to completely ignore the distinctions we see at the macro level. While I see the merit in keeping this point in mind, I also have argued that to totally ignore the macro view is just intellectually dishonest. To make the argument that scientific inquiry should be driven completely by this "blind", strict process is just wrong. The scientific method is a strict process. But the direction/theories which science chooses to apply it to have been based on much less.

Surely a reasonable person would question the origin of a contraption such as an automobile on Mars? (BTW FZ, I would say this even if I had no idea what an automobile was .)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

You've said exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't know if I ever made it clear, or if my fellow debaters are purposely being obtuse. From my standpoint, mine is the concern of a reasonable person searching for the unbiased truth, so I resist accepting professed "probabilities" by those admittedly already committed to some "-ism" whether that is scientism or spiritualism. Of course, me talking like that has Balkan thinking I've put myself on a pedestal.

Whatever, I suspect I should just drop out of this debate because I am too frustrated to make any sense.

 

[Fliption]

1) that's great, and I'm quite sure someone will eventually do this, but self organizing systems are still on very early experimental stages... I was arguing specifically with les on this, since his statement was, that since the proof would be made by conscious minds, it would actually be an indication of "something else" (just a note, not a bash or anything)...

Fair enough. But I would think this would be rather easy to do. I eluded to this in my "Simulation" thread that I mentioned earlier. For me, you don't even need to show such things with chemicals and life forms. If someone can demonstrate that some type of simple instruction sets on a computer can progressively organize, this would be sufficient I would think. I make the argument though, that given the speed of computers and the ability to speed up the mutation and selection process, we should have some major AI soon. Like in a matter of years; not millions. Who would have thought it? We don't have to actually think about programming an AI machine. We just set up a fast running algorythm and it programs itself!

2) I'm going to have to look up those pages... I'm looking for any kind of evidence that isn't just an argument of lack of evidence to support the physicalist theory... no matter how that is twisted and turned, it is not evidence, it's a perception...
i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

Who is suffering from the illusion and how do we explain matter creating a "who" that can be subject to illusions? Or perhaps the concept of "I" is just an illusion to? In which case, who is experiencing that illusion?

It appears you're looking for evidence in the test tube. If you read the pansychism thread by Les, you'll see he is eluding to other kinds of evidence. Also, I would recommend some serious study into some philosophical issues like the problems of consciousness if you haven't already. Science books aren't going to talk about these things.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

Human psychology may very well fall primarily in the physical realm, and of course certainly brain stuff does. To understand the part of consciousness being pointed to as an "exception," you should do a Google search on the "hard problem of consciousness."

 

[Nereid]

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.

Hey Les, I’m really enjoying this thread, so please don’t get frustrated and leave, please?

I have no idea if I’m a ‘physicalist’ or not! Let’s see …

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.

Several pages of this thread have been devoted to the origin of life, and what sort of gulf there is in terms of a ‘physicalist’ position, and Les has kept insisting on his shibboleth – progressive organization. There have also been a couple of posts on consciousness (the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness), and one or two of mine that I’d like to come back to at a later time (e.g. ‘romantic love’).

This post is addressed principally to Les.

My view is that many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated. These domains can be the very tiny – the Standard Model clarifying the ‘fundamental particle zoo’, or neutrino oscillations; tiny – the fractal nature of ISM grains, nanoparticles; small - the dominance of life on Earth by bacteria, quasi-crystals; … hidden oceans on Io, planetary systems, interstellar cirrus, … right up to the universe – inflation, primordial nucleosynthesis. With the richness comes a great many gaps and some gulfs, every one of which is an opportunity for ‘something more’, or ‘a god of the gaps’, or ‘new physics/chemistry/biology/whatever’. Sometimes the gaps shrink relatively quickly, (e.g. helium?, Oklo); oftentimes they take decades to show significant progress (e.g. solar neutrinos, plate tectonics, snowball Earth); and no doubt some take centuries (evolution?). Perhaps the origin of life and the hard problem of consciousness will be among this last group?

But why focus on just these two? I mean, between Planck time and distance (~10^-43 s, ~10^-35 m) and the current best we can see (~10^-18 s, ~10^-17 m?), there are ~20 orders of magnitude! That’s approx as many as between the size of the Earth and the whole universe. How much richness is there in these ~20 OOM? How many surprises, gaps, gulfs, etc?

Or take the early universe. Between the first Planck second and what we can ‘see’ directly (the CMBR, at ~300,000 years), there are >50 OOM! And only ~5 from the surface of last scattering to today.

So, why spend lots of time pondering consciousness and the origin of life? If you can’t do some experiments or perform some observations to close the gaps, there are thousands of other gaps (and gulfs) that you can work on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les, I’m really enjoying this thread, so please don’t get frustrated and leave, please?

Okay, one more post then!

My view is that many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated. These domains can be the very tiny – the Standard Model clarifying the ‘fundamental particle zoo’, or neutrino oscillations; tiny – the fractal nature of ISM grains, nanoparticles; small - the dominance of life on Earth by bacteria, quasi-crystals; … hidden oceans on Io, planetary systems, interstellar cirrus, … right up to the universe – inflation, primordial nucleosynthesis. With the richness comes a great many gaps and some gulfs, every one of which is an opportunity for ‘something more’, or ‘a god of the gaps’, or ‘new physics/chemistry/biology/whatever’. Sometimes the gaps shrink relatively quickly, (e.g. helium?, Oklo); oftentimes they take decades to show significant progress (e.g. solar neutrinos, plate tectonics, snowball Earth); and no doubt some take centuries (evolution?). Perhaps the origin of life and the hard problem of consciousness will be among this last group?

But why focus on just these two? I mean, between Planck time and distance (~10^-43 s, ~10^-35 m) and the current best we can see (~10^-18 s, ~10^-17 m?), there are ~20 orders of magnitude! That’s approx as many as between the size of the Earth and the whole universe. How much richness is there in these ~20 OOM? How many surprises, gaps, gulfs, etc?

Or take the early universe. Between the first Planck second and what we can ‘see’ directly (the CMBR, at ~300,000 years), there are >50 OOM! And only ~5 from the surface of last scattering to today.

So, why spend lots of time pondering consciousness and the origin of life? If you can’t do some experiments or perform some observations to close the gaps, there are thousands of other gaps (and gulfs) that you can work on.

Well, I think we already have plenty of minds (far more predisposed to deduction than I) who will do an infinitely better job at those research projects you've suggested. My preferred mode of thinking is induction. As a result, I am a 100% dyed-in-the-wool generalist, and after 57 years of looking at things that way, I can't see me switching sides.

Being a generalist, what attracts my attention before anything else are universals, and exceptions to universals. I am always looking for the common principle, or what properties things share. The more broadly a principle applies, the more it excites me (is the inevitability of my particular shibboleth becoming clear?). At the old PF I used to have as my signature a saying of Confucious, "“Do you suppose that I am one who learns a great deal and remembers it? No, I have a thread that runs through it all.” To me, there is no greater intellectual treasure than finding such a thread.

Besides declining your offer to fail at being a scientist , I am telling you that about me because I don't believe the progressive organization point I am making is going to be explained by your very true and excellent insight, "many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated." I do understand what you mean, and because I really appreciate others doing such work is why I spend so much time reading about it or watching it in science specials.

My progressive organization observation is straight from "exception to a universal." We have an entire universe behaving within a certain level of organization, and then we have here on planet Earth something which completely busts out of that general rule. Now, I will concede your point by saying that it is possible matter may have realized a new potential here. There are those who say consciousness, for instance, is a new property of matter (as in "emergent" theory).

But if so, then I still want to see it reproduced. All the arguments about life having millions of years to evolve don't impress me much as an excuse for not demonstrating it (i.e., before proclaiming confidence in abiogenesis). I say that because look at the resiliancy of life. Whatever established it couldn't have been a flimsy or delicate principle for pre-life organization to have endured the hostilities of early Earth, made it to become a "living" system, and then to have survived (in one form or another) billions of years of untold hardships and natural catastrophies. It transformed our atmosphere, the oceans, the entire planet! As a system, life "works." It kicks butt, it gets it on . . . Besides, we know most of the conditions and chemicals that were present in prebiotic Earth. How many ways can those factors be arranged in a search for progressive organization anyway?

So I say, get some molecules going, force them to start self-organizing, pull out the old bag of chemical tricks that a science-educated consciousness should be able to develop far better than chance conditions could have back in primitive times. Prove once and for all chemistry can, in conditions that might be found on Earth, spontaneously kick into progressively organizing gear.

You know, you might be right that as we learn more about matter and self-organization, secrets will be found confirming physicalist theory. But it might also turn out that one day we will hear scientists say, "we can't do it." It's like those scientists today who are starting to waver about finding life on other planets, or even another planet anything like our seemingly rare Earth!