Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[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.