Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[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!

 

[Philocrat]

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.

Well, I only go by what science says and my main interest is to deduce from what science ascertains. And my argument is this:

If the 'Right conditions theory of Life' is true, then it holds true that wherever we find similar conditions as eath's, a life identical or equivalent to ours must also exist. However, this does not resolve the issue of there being something more than the physical aspect of life itself. We still have to show how life could be brought about, or related to, by something other than the physical.

 

[Fliption]

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.

I will just add to this that in the case of consciousness, there is good argument that the current scientific paradigm "cannot", in principal, close the gap. This is more than just plugging god into a temporary gap of ignorance.

 

[UltraPi1]

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.

My argument is that reality is not physical in any way...so the question does not make sense from that standpoint. You could ask - Do you think your conceptual hunger could be satisfied by the concept of food. My answer would be yes (most definately). Just grab that munchy and eat it. I would also argue that the act of getting the food is not a physical act. Motion would be an act of conceptual interaction governed by the adherence to conceptual laws.

If there are fundamental entities (no parts). We must conclude that these fundamental entities are made of nothing at all. I.E The fundamental entities are no more than conceptual geometric forms.

 

[balkan]

yes of course i'll just mix up some chemicals and demonstrate progressive organization... and while I'm at it i'll solve every quantum mechanical problem in the universe and i'll do that right now, cause of course it doesn't demand time and research... that's no excuse... just do it
really, that kind of argumentation is not what I'm looking for... there are loads of exceptions to universal rules, if you've studied it for so long, you should know that...

lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything but the fact that there's something you don't know... quite my point... evidence of that, and nothing else!

about "the hard problem of conciousness" ... now I've done some searches on it, and **** like this:
"The being underlying Chalmers' account of the hard problem is a zombie twin of a real person. Let the real person be John and his double be Zohn (zombie John). Zohn is made of flesh and blood and is neurophysiologically identical with John. John and Zohn are atom for atom the same, but John has qualitative states while Zohn does not. If Zohn is logically possible this implies first of all that the qualitative is not supervenient upon the physical. If phenomenon P is supervenient upon a substructure S then it is not logically possible for two beings to have the same substructure S and yet differ with respect to P. John and Zohn by definition share their substructure yet differ with respect to their mental states. Furthermore, since John and Zohn are physically just the same, but different in qualia, it follows that qualia must be nonphysical. So if zombies are logically possible, physicalism is false."
is just another load of subjective arguments...
there are some interesting twists and turns, but really, it is all deep down subjective and perception-based...
the imagined existence of "zombies" doesn't prove anything whatsoever...

and about the remarks on your perception and bias, you have several times made it quite clear what you think, which:
1) i cannot just overlook because you ask me to. not unless you completely forget that i have mentioned physicalism as my favoured theory.
2) is an obvious origin of a bias.
^
and that is also why i said you placed yourself on a piedestal...

 

[balkan]

now les, as for your strawman arguments, let's take on the last one, which is quite ridiculous: the car analogy.
first of all, the car isn't evolving. the car is stationary and only subject to erosion... that's not a progressive organization so it's a rediculous strawman argument. shame on you.
now, will you admit to it? or do you want me to look out the rest? I'm pretty tired of you claiming to be the objective and resonable one, when obviously you're just as bad as the rest of us. and especially when you once in a while get emotional fits...
both strawman arguments and emotional fits are ok, as long as you don't act like you'd never do such a thing, cause you're on the moral highground...

now, to further counter the car analogy and explain why i pointed to the chaotic nature of life:
the scientific subject at hand is evolutionary cells, not a piece of metal... this is what we study to find the origin of life...
you said "life adabts" and it doesn't! some life dies due to not having the rigth mutations and some life survives... this is caused by errors and accidents in the chemical reactions and sometimes these errors have a positive effect, which is what creates the "the strongest survives" principle of evolution... the opposite is just as likely and happens all the time...

since every evolutionary even is cause by random chemical accidents, and these accidents can be traced back through a timeline, it should be natural to assume that the starting point of this string of events have been an accident aswell...
what you are suggesting is, that even though every evolutionary mutation is caused by accidents and errors, somehow the starting point was set in motion "on purpose"... that doesn't quite seem like the rational response to me...

physicalism can explain an incredible amount of phenomenons regarding life, and have traced back chemical errors and changes through hundreds of thousands of years (an example of that is the recent breakthroughs in skizophrenia research)... we have evidence of how this work in a forward sense and thus also in a backward sense, so it is quite resonable to say that physicists have quite a good and resonable explanation of how life came to be...

now, with that in mind, let's revisit your car analogy: constantly, a mechanic (let's call him Random Errors) is changing things on the machine to make it better and have better mileage, although he mostly make mistakes or no change at all... he even has a logbook of many of the changes that has been made throughout the years...
would a physicalist be resonable when saying that the building of the car was probably initiated by the mechanic? yes!
and what would a "something else" person say? that the car was magically created by "something else" and the mechanic merely found it... which is a significantly less rational than the physicalist theory...

 

[Royce]

Well, I for one, believe that there is something more to life than conventional physics. I believe that there is a life force or energy that exists and is the motivating and organizing force or arrow pointing toward more complex life forms. Is it spiritual or super natural? No, that would be an oxymoron. What could be more natural to living organisms than life,life force or energy.

I believe this for a number of reasons and admittedly if looked at in a different way they could be used to support physicalism.

Life is ubiquitous here on earth. It is everywhere, even in places and conditions that were previously thought to be impossible for life to flourish.

Evidence is found that life progresses from simple to complex and while there are exceptions the arrow points one way just as does the arrow of time and entropy.

We cannot create life nor can we create or manufacture many of the chemicals of life without using life itself to do it for us.

Once dead we can not make even a "simple" cell come back to life even if we provide all of the necessities for it to do so. It does not spontaneously come back to life and all of its chemical processes and reactions start up again even thought there is not reason for it not to and every reason to believe that it would if abiogenisis is correct. The chemicals, energy and environment are there. Why then doesn't it live again once dead?

This in itself, in my mind, is enough to prove that abiogenisis is wrong. There is something more. We just don't know yet what it is and haven't yet identified it mainly because it hasn't reached up and slapped us in the face, we haven't been looking for it and even though it lays there right in front of us, as obvious as life itself, we refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in nicely with our pet theories of physics and chemistry. No it isn't supernatural nor spiritual. It is as natural as life itself. It is life. It is a quality that makes the difference between living and non-living, organic and non-organic. Just exactly what it is and how can we measure or detect it, I don't know; but, there is a whole world of things I, and/or we, don't know that does exist in the physical world.

We don't even know what matter, space time or energy is.
What is an electron made of and why does it behave as it does most of the time yet can still behave differently counter to every physical law know to man at other times? How can any of you be so cock sure that physicalism is right and everything else wrong when physical science can't even tell us what the physical world is made of.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

I am not accusing anyone in particular of that. I am merely giving a general guideline as to how different people may think of it. Admittedly, people do think of it in the ways I suggested, or don't they?

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 mean 'Collective organisation into a progressive whole' which I think should be naturally distinguished from the singular term 'self-organisation'? Or is it collective self-organisation? Which one?

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.

The points of b) and c) might seem like a tautology, but they still stand. I will clarify and expand upon it later.

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.

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.

I have not read the thread with your model yet...and I am not denying that there could be something more. However, my argument is that if there were something more, such a thing could never take the form of 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness'. It must lay within the bounds of accountability eitther now or in future.

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.

Well, my own detailed investigations within the bounds of logic and critical thinking constantly point to the fact that Religious thinking, however naive it may outwardly appear, is here to stay, at least until further notice. We all thought that science could dispose of relgious claims completely, but it turns out that it can't. On the claim that I am the only one taking that route, well, I am not taking any route. Rather I am merely trying to reroute the reasoning on the whole subject from the direction of inconsistency to the direction of consistency. Please refer back to my earlier posting on this.

 

[Fliption]

about "the hard problem of conciousness" ... now I've done some searches on it, and **** like this:

is just another load of subjective arguments...
there are some interesting twists and turns, but really, it is all deep down subjective and perception-based...
the imagined existence of "zombies" doesn't prove anything whatsoever...

You seem like a person with some reasoning ability so let me just asks that you spend some more time studying this topic because I don't think you grasp the weight of the argument. If you look at this with an open mind I think you'll find some interesting things to ponder at least, even if you don't deny your current beliefs. This topic isn't so easily cast aside as you have done here. The zombie argument is a thought exercise merely to demonstrate a point. If you get the point then you no longer need the zombie illustration. So many people get caught up in it literally.

There's lots of stuff on the internet as I'm sure you've found. Also, I'll suggest looking into threads in this forum started by Hypnagogue that deal with "reductionists" not being able to explain "Consciousness". (I can't think of the exact titles.) Hypnagogue has a gift for explanation on this matter and the patience to explain it

 

[balkan]

You seem like a person with some reasoning ability so let me just asks that you spend some more time studying this topic because I don't think you grasp the weight of the argument. If you look at this with an open mind I think you'll find some interesting things to ponder at least, even if you don't deny your current beliefs. This topic isn't so easily cast aside as you have done here. The zombie argument is a thought exercise merely to demonstrate a point. If you get the point then you no longer need the zombie illustration. So many people get caught up in it literally.

i didn't take it literally... i know it's a thought experiment, and that's my point... he's stating an example of a being with exactly the same structure, but without certain qualities, and is by this trying to prove that physicalism cannot explain the existence or loss of these qualities... this is a totally hypothetical and subjective idea, that has got no hold in anything concrete of any kind... trying to prove his own perception by using a situation that only exists in his own mind...
as far as i see it, it's a slightly improved version of the "a stone cannot fly - mom cannot fly - mom is a stone" argument...

 

[Fliption]

i didn't take it literally... i know it's a thought experiment, and that's my point... he's stating an example of a being with exactly the same structure, but without certain qualities, and is by this trying to prove that physicalism cannot explain the existence or loss of these qualities... this is a totally hypothetical and subjective idea, that has got no hold in anything concrete of any kind... trying to prove his own perception by using a situation that only exists in his own mind...
as far as i see it, it's a slightly improved version of the "a stone cannot fly - mom cannot fly - mom is a stone" argument...

The problem of consciousness is so much more than this illustration. But you do what you must to justify your curiosity and beliefs.

 

[balkan]

The problem of consciousness is so much more than this illustration. But you do what you must to justify your curiosity and beliefs.

same to you...
if the rest of the arguments are like the initial ones I've read, then i really can't see how an objective person can think of it as being anything but a mind game... i'll look more into it, but please warn me up front if the rest is similar...

 

[Les Sleeth]

now les, as for your strawman arguments, let's take on the last one, which is quite ridiculous: the car analogy.
first of all, the car isn't evolving. the car is stationary and only subject to erosion... that's not a progressive organization so it's a rediculous strawman argument. shame on you.
now, will you admit to it? or do you want me to look out the rest? I'm pretty tired of you claiming to be the objective and resonable one, when obviously you're just as bad as the rest of us. and especially when you once in a while get emotional fits...
both strawman arguments and emotional fits are ok, as long as you don't act like you'd never do such a thing, cause you're on the moral highground...

I suspect we are from two different planets. Nothing you say makes sense to me, none of your logic adds up to a justification for your views.

One such case is your above example of my supposed strawman argument, which is itself a bit strawmanish. What I said might be a misapplied analogy (though I don't believe it is), but it is not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is one where you pretend your opponent has meant something he really didn't mean so you can create an argument against it. Here's a past strawman argument of yours, "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."

I have never questioned any scientific claim where there is enough evidence supporting a theory. Evolution and the Big Bang are such theories I generally accept. Your logic seems to have been: doubt one science claim, and it means you doubt science altogether. However, I never said or implied anything remotely like that, so we are left to conclude you made it up so you could act like my point is as moronic you try to make it appear.

Here's your most recent strawman argument, ". . . and what would a 'something else' person say? that the car was magically created by 'something else' and the mechanic merely found it... which is a significantly less rational than the physicalist theory..." That's downright blatent . I have never said or implied the something more is magical. Your tactic there seems obvious, which is to associate my position with the irrational claims of supernaturalists.

But let's return to your refutation of my "ridiculous" car analogy . . .

now, to further counter the car analogy and explain why i pointed to the chaotic nature of life: the scientific subject at hand is evolutionary cells, not a piece of metal... this is what we study to find the origin of life... you said "life adabts" and it doesn't! some life dies due to not having the rigth mutations and some life survives... this is caused by errors and accidents in the chemical reactions and sometimes these errors have a positive effect, which is what creates the "the strongest survives" principle of evolution... the opposite is just as likely and happens all the time...

. . . you missed the point once again! Not one thing you said to refute the car analogy applies to what I'm saying, which is why I gave the analogy in the first place. In fact, all your answers in this post I'm responding to confirms that you are doing what I am portraying you as doing in my analogy, as this quote, demostrates:

"physicalism can explain an incredible amount of phenomenons regarding life, and have traced back chemical errors and changes through hundreds of thousands of years (an example of that is the recent breakthroughs in skizophrenia research)... we have evidence of how this work in a forward sense and thus also in a backward sense, so it is quite resonable to say that physicists have quite a good and resonable explanation of how life came to be..."

You seem to think that all the physical stuff that is present in life somehow transfers over to the progressive organization question. Likewise, your following logic again misses the target:

"now, with that in mind, let's revisit your car analogy: constantly, a mechanic (let's call him Random Errors) is changing things on the machine to make it better and have better mileage, although he mostly make mistakes or no change at all... he even has a logbook of many of the changes that has been made throughout the years... would a physicalist be resonable when saying that the building of the car was probably initiated by the mechanic? yes!"

You are pointing to how mutation can work to improve i an already living system. I've never questioned the role of mutation. We've been talking about non-living chemicals forming themselves into life. Period! NOTHING MORE! So what are you doing giving me examples within a living system?

Back to the car analogy. I was saying that your argument is to list all the physicalness of an intact system, and to talk about the on-going organization quality exhibited in a system; while I am trying to point to the question of how the physical stuff got organized into a system in the first place. I claimed you do not address the organization question at all, just exactly as you did in this post. So tell, me how is my analogy either strawman or "ridiculous"?

 

[balkan]

a strawman argument is any argument that divert the attention... your car example was such a one...

"You are pointing to how mutation can work to improve i an already living system. I've never questioned the role of mutation. We've been talking about non-living chemicals forming themselves into life. Period! NOTHING MORE! So what are you doing giving me examples within a living system?
Back to the car analogy. I was saying that your argument is to list all the physicalness of an intact system, and to talk about the on-going organization quality exhibited in a system; while I am trying to point to the question of how the physical stuff got organized into a system in the first place. I claimed you do not address the organization question at all, just exactly as you did in this post. So tell, me how is my analogy either strawman or "ridiculous"?"
i ****ing did adress the organization question, but you are too pigheaded to read it and let anything inside that skull of yours... I'm quite fed up with your high horse attitude.

the mechanic argument directly deals with the organization as it is quite rational to suggest that the same functions that evolves the current system was the one starting it. that's not friggin hard to understand. it is at least a thousand times more rational than attributing it to something else for your own sense of psychological security...

"Your logic seems to have been: doubt one science claim, and it means you doubt science altogether. "
and this is no strawman argument either, is it mr. high horse? not even in your own definition. give me a break, I'm fed up with your endless superior attitude...

 

[Fliption]

same to you...
if the rest of the arguments are like the initial ones I've read, then i really can't see how an objective person can think of it as being anything but a mind game... i'll look more into it, but please warn me up front if the rest is similar...

Yes, same to me...which is why I have studied both sides of the topic diligently.

I strongly encourage you to study further but I have to say I don't sense an openness to it from you. You'll probably find whatever you want to find if that's the case. The hard problem of consciousness is one that I can see and understand very clearly and I also do not like the zombie illustration. I find it very unnecessary and it does nothing but cause problems and misunderstandings. So don't let a 5 minute read from one webpage justify you casting aside a topic that's been debated for centuries by many very credible people.

This is a link to investigate
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/book.html

This chapter of the same book deals specifically with the argument against physicalism.
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/chptr2.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

i ****ing did adress the organization question, but you are too pigheaded to read it and let anything inside that skull of yours... I'm quite fed up with your high horse attitude . . . that's not friggin hard to understand. it is at least a thousand times more rational than attributing it to something else for your own sense of psychological security . . . and this is no strawman argument either, is it mr. high horse? not even in your own definition. give me a break, I'm fed up with your endless superior attitude...

Ooooooooh . . . now I get it. Very logical.

 

[FZ+]

The examples that you've "listed time and again" are NOT the definition of "progressive" as I, the inventor of the term, meant it.

Of course they are not, because you have used the term progressive in a very much subjective, and biased manner.

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.

Define it. Define it properly. As I see it, your progressiveness rules out life, because all of life's non-repetitiveness is due to a non-repetitive environment, or an environment which it has failed to reach equilibirium in. All evolution is due to flaws, which propagate in the system.

Show how life is progressive self-organisation, please, and I'll point out the gaps. There seems to be just repeated assertions that it is, without anything like an attempt at justification. I am not responding to you are saying, because this sort of thing tends to get very long, and I get tired easily, and wish to focus on what I perceive to be the core problem - your very slippery notion of life itself.

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.

A human designer is an example of an accidental, physical process. The logic is self-consistent. Of course it conflicts with you granting a special role to design, and consciousness, and so on. But so what?

 

[balkan]

Yes, same to me...which is why I have studied both sides of the topic diligently.

I strongly encourage you to study further but I have to say I don't sense an openness to it from you. You'll probably find whatever you want to find if that's the case. The hard problem of consciousness is one that I can see and understand very clearly and I also do not like the zombie illustration. I find it very unnecessary and it does nothing but cause problems and misunderstandings. So don't let a 5 minute read from one webpage justify you casting aside a topic that's been debated for centuries by many very credible people.

This is a link to investigate
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/book.html

This chapter of the same book deals specifically with the argument against physicalism.
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/chptr2.htm

thanx, i'll look into it...

 

[Fliption]

A human designer is an example of an accidental, physical process. The logic is self-consistent. Of course it conflicts with you granting a special role to design, and consciousness, and so on. But so what?

For my message to Les, this isn't the way I make the distinction. It doesn't matter because it's purely a semantic issue that you raise. I'm just pointing out that fact in case anyone thinks it affects my point.

Assuming that the debate is between something being directly built by chance processes or directly built by a conscious designer with a plan, my point was that you will choose the chance processes even in the most absurd instances. To then argue that a designer is also a chance process is just denying that there is any disagreement at all on the topic. Just another example of defining ones view such that the opposing view cannot even exists by definition. Word games, pure and simple.

 

[FZ+]

Just another example of defining ones view such that the opposing view cannot even exists by definition. Word games, pure and simple.

Of course that is all it amounts to. If conscious designers exist at all as a special case, materialism, physicalism cannot be true. Your argument, invoking the existence of a conscious designer as a special, distinct option, already assumes physicalism to be true. It's an example of assuming what you prove. All it shows it that physicalism is consistent with physicalism, and is not consistent with the other view. Which is pretty obvious. If I am honestly arguing for physicalism, the question itself just doesn't make any sense.

In any case, if we look back into history, in that thread we were arguing as to whether it is possible to perceive the presence of design. My viewpoint was:

(a) Design is only meaningful relative to a consumer, which provides purpose.
(b) Rarity, or abundance is itself no indicator of design.
(c) Improbability is no evidence of design, if we concede a lack of total knowledge.

With the car on Mars, the best we can say is that it may be produced by a process which we have arbitarily labelled 'a human designer', or a relative of this process. We can compare the probability of this to a variety of other alternatives, and pick a possibility as the highest at a particular time. But we cannot declare absolutely that the car is designed, especially if we don't know a lot of context, and because design isn't absolutely defined, and because same product does not entail same process.

Just my opinion, so end of story?

 

[loseyourname]

As far as I can tell, what Sleeth means by "progressive organization" is the ability of non-living matter to organize into a living system through progressive steps. It is nothing more than abiogenesis.

My question is simple: If there is indeed a special quality that the first living matter possessed, why did only that batch of matter possesses this quality? As far as we can tell, life only arose once (at least on this planet), and it took close to a billion years for it to do so. If there is indeed "something more" that is responsible for this happening, what took it so long? Why has it only manifested its presence once and in such a limited capacity? There seems to be the concession that organic evolution can be accounted for through purely physical processes. If so, then "something more" only had to present in a very limited amount of matter billions of years ago and never again (also never before). If this were not the case, and "something more" was present in all matter, then we would see living systems develop in Urey-Miller type experiments! Given that this just happened to occur on a planet capable of supporting life at a good time would seem to not be chance. So is "something more," or the "general pool of consciousness," itself conscious? It certainly seems to have made a choice. If so, then you have introduced a clever variation on an intelligent designer, but an intelligent designer nonetheless.