Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Nereid]

Hi Nereid, I've not forgotten about you. I wanted to think about your previous post a bit before responding.

No worries! (oops )

I can't always spend time every day on PF, and the concepts we're discussing won't disappear tomorrow. And in any case, I've got at least three things that have appeared earlier in this thread that I want to work on myself. L8ter.

 

[Philocrat]

Update:

The debate about whether physics alone can explain reality or everything so far goes like this:

1) THE PHYSICALIST ACCOUNT: Many of you believe that the physical world is describable only by Physics. A higher percentage of you argued that there is nothing over and above physical explanation. And quite rightly (and very appreciatively) most of you provided a substantial amount of 'real' examples from your different disciplines.

2) THE SKEPTICAL NON-PHYSICALIST ACCOUNT: Those on this side of the argument argued that (equally with some source materials and examples) there is something over and above physical explanation. That certain aspect of the human reality displays some non-physical properties that counter the claim that only physical explanation is possible, as the current voting result suggests.

So far so good. But there are a few issues that we need some clarification with regards to (1) CAUSATION, (2) PURPOSE OF ANY CAUSE, and (3) CAUSAL RELATIONS:

(1) CAUSATION

(a) Is there a first cause? That is what started it all? Or simply, can anything self-cause itself?
(b) If anything can self-cause itself, what is or should be the nature of its being in terms of its structure and function?
(c) Or is everything jointly cuased? That is, a thing caused by a collection of other things.
(d) If everything is joinlty caused, what would be the nature of its being in terms of its overall structure and function? For example, would it be structurally and functionally progressive towards attaining a state of indestructibility, or would it remain structurally and functionally moderate, stagnant and circular ad infinituum?

(2) CAUSAL RELATIONS AND THE PURPOSE OF ANY CAUSE

(a) What is the purpose of any cause? Why would anything want to cause another?

(b) Can a self-caused thing single-handedly cause or give rise to another thing? And what would be the reason and purpose of this possibility? For example, if I could self-cause myself and I am completely self-sufficienct, both in structure and in function, would I have the need to cause or give rise to another thing?

(c) The cause of something by another thing or by a group of other things kickstarts a chain of causation, what is the natural clarifying relation between (1) ORIGINAL CAUSES, (2) INTERMEDIATE TRANSPORTATIONAL CAUSES and (3) FINAL CAUSES?

------------------------------------------

Or is the universe locked up in an infinite repetitious recycling of its moderate or imperfect parts?

------------------------------------------

 

[Fliption]

Could you post them again? I might give it another look.

Absolutely. There were other links I provided but I think this site may reference most of those as well.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

 

[loseyourname]

Well, that's the "something more" you envision, I see it a bit differently. Let’s compare situations where an infant being cared for by loving, attentive adults is suddenly moved to an environment where the adults who care for him constantly fight and are spaced out on drugs. Even though the child doesn’t intellectually understand what’s going on, he will feel the difference, and that difference can affect his development. Similarly, would I suggest that if the progressively organizing force is part of the inner environment of life, the odds of adaptive mutation occurring when it needs to might increase in favor of adaption.

By the way, studies being conducted (such as the QSC research by Gao Shan that Radar mentioned in another thread) are exploring the possibility of consciousness being able to affect things on a quantum level. We might imagine that any living awareness, once sensing the need to adapt, could have an effect on its own genetics.

Did you even read the post before this one? There is almost no way of knowing what a given mutation will result in. Even if consciousness was capable of having an effect on its own genetics, it still wouldn't be able to cause a purposeful mutation; certainly an individual consciousness would not. If you contend that the informational resources of this general pool of consciousness is so great that it would be capable of making a purposeful mutation (an incredible claim), then how do you explain the fact that almost every mutation is either neutral or detrimental? Wouldn't we expect a majority of favorable mutations if mutations were, in fact, purposeful and directed?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Did you even read the post before this one? There is almost no way of knowing what a given mutation will result in. Even if consciousness was capable of having an effect on its own genetics, it still wouldn't be able to cause a purposeful mutation; certainly an individual consciousness would not. If you contend that the informational resources of this general pool of consciousness is so great that it would be capable of making a purposeful mutation (an incredible claim), then how do you explain the fact that almost every mutation is either neutral or detrimental? Wouldn't we expect a majority of favorable mutations if mutations were, in fact, purposeful and directed?

I did read the post, why are you asking? But I didn't say purposeful or directed, YOU said that (why is everyone so intent on putting words in my mouth?). I spoke of conditions turning more supportive of constructive mutation, and the possibility that the awareness of the organism sensing some need might affect that.

That doesn't necessarily mean when conditions are more friendly, even then things go 100% in a positive direction. Maybe the percentage turns from 99% negative/neutral to 60% negative/neutral.

I would then explain the vast majority of neutral or destructive mutations as having resulted from the "normal" odds being against it; and the development of very sophisticated systems (such as eyes) as having been assisted when the more positive condition is "switched on."

With a theory like that (or any theory really), one would have to wonder why human consciousness should have evolved. It is something strange don't you think?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The debate about whether physics alone can explain reality or everything so far goes like this:

1) THE PHYSICALIST ACCOUNT: Many of you believe that the physical world is describable only by Physics. A higher percentage of you argued that there is nothing over and above physical explanation. And quite rightly (and very appreciatively) most of you provided a substantial amount of 'real' examples from your different disciplines.

2) THE SKEPTICAL NON-PHYSICALIST ACCOUNT: Those on this side of the argument argued that (equally with some source materials and examples) there is something over and above physical explanation. That certain aspect of the human reality displays some non-physical properties that counter the claim that only physical explanation is possible, as the current voting result suggests.

So far so good. But there are a few issues that we need some clarification with regards to (1) CAUSATION, (2) PURPOSE OF ANY CAUSE, and (3) CAUSAL RELATIONS:

(1) CAUSATION

(a) Is there a first cause? That is what started it all? Or simply, can anything self-cause itself?
(b) If anything can self-cause itself, what is or should be the nature of its being in terms of its structure and function?
(c) Or is everything jointly cuased? That is, a thing caused by a collection of other things.
(d) If everything is joinlty caused, what would be the nature of its being in terms of its overall structure and function? For example, would it be structurally and functionally progressive towards attaining a state of indestructibility, or would it remain structurally and functionally moderate, stagnant and circular ad infinituum?

(2) CAUSAL RELATIONS AND THE PURPOSE OF ANY CAUSE

(a) What is the purpose of any cause? Why would anything want to cause another?

(b) Can a self-caused thing single-handedly cause or give rise to another thing? And what would be the reason and purpose of this possibility? For example, if I could self-cause myself and I am completely self-sufficienct, both in structure and in function, would I have the need to cause or give rise to another thing?

(c) The cause of something by another thing or by a group of other things kickstarts a chain of causation, what is the natural clarifying relation between (1) ORIGINAL CAUSES, (2) INTERMEDIATE TRANSPORTATIONAL CAUSES and (3) FINAL CAUSES?

------------------------------------------

Or is the universe locked up in an infinite repetitious recycling of its moderate or imperfect parts?

------------------------------------------

. . . would you mind posing a bit more challenging questions? Hey, I think it's very funny you made the "something more" crowd the skeptics. That might be a philosophical first!

 

[Philocrat]

Gee, would you mind posing a bit more challenging questions?

How challenging do you want them? Is it by posting examples and counter-examples that return us back to square one? I could do that and I have tons of materials to do that. But then again, of what value is that when it returns us back to square one? If you see nothing challenging in the above questions, then just pass over in silence. Just pretend they are meaningless. That's fine by me.

 

[loseyourname]

I did read the post, why are you asking? But I didn't say purposeful or directed, YOU said that (why is everyone so intent on putting words in my mouth?). I spoke of conditions turning more supportive of constructive mutation, and the possibility that the awareness of the organism sensing some need might affect that.

Well jeez, how is that different from directed? If they occur in a manner such that it is more likely than not that mutations will cause an organism to evolve in a predetermined way, well heck, what else would you call this? And again with the awareness of the organism effecting the mutations that occur. I think you are seriously underestimating the fact that it is impossible, given the amount of information we currently have, and it may be impossible altogether, to even tell how deleting or substituting a given base will effect the organism on a macroscopic, tangible level. I'm really having difficulty fathoming how you could imagine it would be possible for a given entity to contain all of this information, have all of this computing capability, and be able to influence the direction of evolution such that mutations favoring the emergence of certain traits would be more likely to occur, without being either conscious or intelligent.

That doesn't necessarily mean when conditions are more friendly, even then things go 100% in a positive direction. Maybe the percentage turns from 99% negative/neutral to 60% negative/neutral.

I still don't see how that could happen without a purposive, intelligent entity behind it.

I would then explain the vast majority of neutral or destructive mutations as having resulted from the "normal" odds being against it; and the development of very sophisticated systems (such as eyes) as having been assisted when the more positive condition is "switched on."

Okay, but what's wrong with the current theory that mutations occur at a rate, and organisms are of such a great number, such that, given enough time, enough mutations will occur that are favorable in a given environment and be selected for? This is one of the best tested theories ever, and it always holds up, without any need for additional directive input. Why postulate another mechanism when the mechanisms already known to exist are capable of doing the job on their own?

With a theory like that (or any theory really), one would have to wonder why human consciousness should have evolved. It is something strange don't you think?

Well, with your hypothesis, the evolution of consciousness would be predetermined. Under the theory of evolution by natural selection, the rudiments of elementary consciousness would arise by chance and be selected for because they provide the organism with this trait with a greater chance of reproductive success. There are many ways in which this could be an advantage, so I imagine your only problem is with consciousness being an emergent property at all.

 

[Rader]

Absolutely. There were other links I provided but I think this site may reference most of those as well.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Fliption, Thanks for the link, if you have anymore good ones, post them.
I did not see the previous ones. Were you able to read all the links of Gao Shan?

 

[balkan]

I didn't see this post until after I responded to the last one.

I think you're mind is made up. I would encourage you to read more and definitely look into and participate in Hypnagogues postings on this topic.

BTW, I'm not convince of any of this myself but I do understand the relevance a bit more than you seem to and I'll be open to it for that reason only.

my mind isn't made up at all... I'm an agnostic...
but the "evidence" you provided has got nothing at all to give... nothing... (face it, you can't proove the existence of "something else" or even point to indications of it... not without making a heap of mistakes compared to reality and science)... i think it's quite okay to believe... in fact i think it's great if it's working for you, but those mind games are ridiculous, they really are... especially the zombie one... the game of life example is just plain sad, since he's using an example that can't explain anything physical and then he's trying to argue that since this example, (that can't explain anything physical) can't create consciousness, physics can't either... that's just sad... especially when he calls himself a scientist...

i also see that you merrily skipped around everything i said, including my comments on the mary problem... i got loads of more on that btw, if your mind is open, that is...
the more i think about it, the more does the mary problem prove to me that "something more" migth not exist, which is the first argument to actually do that...

 

[vanesch]

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.

This is not true. The process of generating a solution that doesn't have the symmetry of the original problem (here, parity) is called spontaneous symmetry breaking and is a known phenomenon in many fields.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How challenging do you want them? Is it by posting examples and counter-examples that return us back to square one? I could do that and I have tons of materials to do that. But then again, of what value is that when it returns us back to square one? If you see nothing challenging in the above questions, then just pass over in silence. Just pretend they are meaningless. That's fine by me.

Sorry Philocrat, I didn't make it more clear that what I said was tongue-in-cheek. I was teasing you good-naturedly, not ridiculing. I was really saying your questions are incredibly difficult! To ask about first cause or purpose is to pose two of the most elusive issues I know of. Already the subject of this thread has a lot of people thinking of how to answer it, do you really want to add more issues we can't answer?

 

[Fliption]

i think it's quite okay to believe... in fact i think it's great if it's working for you, but those mind games are ridiculous, they really are... especially the zombie one... the game of life example is just plain sad, since he's using an example that can't explain anything physical and then he's trying to argue that since this example, (that can't explain anything physical) can't create consciousness, physics can't either... that's just sad... especially when he calls himself a scientist...

I'll say this one more time. I do not and have not participated in mind games. What I was trying to say earlier is that what seems absurd to you actually makes sense to others. It depends on background and perspective. I contend that you have come to the conclusions that you have because you do not understand the topic and it is quite obvious that you do not want to. Also, I don't "believe" in any view. I think about things a lot. If you could hear the internal debate in my mind you'd understand why I say I don't have a steadfast belief.

i also see that you merrily skipped around everything i said, including my comments on the mary problem... i got loads of more on that btw, if your mind is open, that is...
the more i think about it, the more does the mary problem prove to me that "something more" migth not exist, which is the first argument to actually do that...

I skipped merrily around nothing. I hit it straight on. I asked you a very specific question (which you didn't answer) to directly respond to all your "Mary" comments. I asked you if you are claiming that babies do not have experiences. The reason you do not see this as a direct response is because perhaps you do not understand the point of these illustrations to begin with. Seeing the color red is but one example of qualia. It's too easy for you to pick apart an example like this and dazzle us with irrelevant physics knowledge. So I'm raising the real issue. You're claiming that babies do not have experiences. Right?

 

[Fliption]

Fliption, Thanks for the link, if you have anymore good ones, post them.
I did not see the previous ones. Were you able to read all the links of Gao Shan?

I think this topic was discussed and the links were provided in a thread called "Clarification of Quantum Physics". If you can't find it let me know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well jeez, how is that different from directed? If they occur in a manner such that it is more likely than not that mutations will cause an organism to evolve in a predetermined way, well heck, what else would you call this? And again with the awareness of the organism effecting the mutations that occur.

You seem determined to stick me in the "purpose" box, but I don't want to be there. I might just try to argue some aspect of purpose if I could set up the debate myself, to argue as I'd need to for anything to make sense. But here I am looking at the internal biological environment in which mutation takes place. So what I suggest to "call this" is the biological environment becoming friendlier-than-normal to constructive mutation. One of the factors which might affect that internal bio-milieu is the organism's awareness of survival pressures in its external environment.

I think you are seriously underestimating the fact that it is impossible, given the amount of information we currently have, and it may be impossible altogether, to even tell how deleting or substituting a given base will effect the organism on a macroscopic, tangible level. I'm really having difficulty fathoming how you could imagine it would be possible for a given entity to contain all of this information, have all of this computing capability, and be able to influence the direction of evolution such that mutations favoring the emergence of certain traits would be more likely to occur, without being either conscious or intelligent.

There you go again, characterizing what I "imagine" is possible in your own terms. I can tell you flat out I do not think some entity is "computing" a bunch of info. I think all the conditions for mutative change are in place. If anything "directive" occurs, then I'd liken it to will. In other words, it is like when you want to move your body from point A to point B, and then it responds to your will. A million internal events have to occur inside your body for that movement to happen, but all you need to know is how to will it to happen. A system is in place that allows that.

Of course, if the typical physicalist were to desribe that event the same way they describe evolution, they'd only talk about what metabolized, calories burned, nerve impulses fired, muscles moved . . . i.e., the body's physiology. And will? No such thing, it can't be observed!

I still don't see how that could happen without a purposive, intelligent entity behind it.

Oh, so you do believe in God .

Okay, but what's wrong with the current theory that mutations occur at a rate, and organisms are of such a great number, such that, given enough time, enough mutations will occur that are favorable in a given environment and be selected for? This is one of the best tested theories ever, and it always holds up, without any need for additional directive input. Why postulate another mechanism when the mechanisms already known to exist are capable of doing the job on their own?

Well, I don't really want to jump to a new debate, but I don't buy that theory for the same reason I don't believe abiogenesis can happen without the help of some progressive organizating force.

According to physicalists, constructive mutation happens through nothing but physical processes. You say the vast majority of mutation is neutral or destructive, but mutation has nonetheless brought the incredible developments found in life -- from metabolism and reproduction to senses and consciousness. Wow.

Now look at physical processes outside of life and notice how often physical changes, unaffected by living or conscious processes, are constructive. Get it? To me, without progressive organization the entire physicalist theory is a house of cards, built on quicksand.

Well, with your hypothesis, the evolution of consciousness would be predetermined.

I can find a way to say Darwinist evolution is predetermined too (think about it). My hypothesis is only predetermined in the sense that the progressive force pushes toward ever-higher levels of the manifestation of its organizational nature. But if consciousness is regarded as a highly evolved expression of organization, then yes I suppose I might agree the eventual manifestation of consciousness was "predetermined."

Under the theory of evolution by natural selection, the rudiments of elementary consciousness would arise by chance and be selected for because they provide the organism with this trait with a greater chance of reproductive success.

There are plenty of Darwinists who don't see how consciousness assists survival, and who think we'd be more likely to survive without it. It is a mystery why (and how) consciousness developed.

There are many ways in which this could be an advantage, so I imagine your only problem is with consciousness being an emergent property at all.

My problem with physicalist theory is the same from start to finish. There are no variations in my objection. It is that physicalness lacks the organizational quality to achieve life, as well as any known properties which can account for consciousness. This new concept of "emergence" (i.e., that consciousness is a new "property" of matter) is, in my opinion, nothing more that a physicalist strategy to incorporate what can't be explained by physicalist theory.

As I've said several times in this thread, I don't understand the dread, loathing, the trepidation, the revulsion, the horror, the abhorance, the utter and complete panic! :surprise: at the idea of something non-physical being part of the description of reality. OMFG! What if it's true?? Chaos and mayhem insanity a freaking nightmare a tragedy . blaspheme (oh yeah ) . . .

 

[Nereid]

Hey Les, you missed this smiley:

 

[selfAdjoint]

There are plenty of Darwinists who don't see how consciousness assists survival, and who think we'd be more likely to survive without it. It is a mystery why (and how) consciousness developed.

Cite one. And make sure it's really a Darwinist.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But even here, I would say we really don't have a clue about the universals; we merely know something about what seems to work across a dozen or so OOM of time and space. For example, what sort of processes - mechanistic or otherwise - rule for dark energy and dark matter? What goes on in spaces smaller than a Planck 'metre' or between Planck 'seconds'?

True, but you do know that all that’s been discovered so far about physicalness has been mechanistic, generally repetitive, and inevitable (even uncertainty only describes our own lack of ability to predict, not that anything actually chaotic is happening there).

But aren't you then jumping to conclusions? If it takes another 200 years to nail down even the outline of how life got going (from various chemicals, in a particular set of environments); or 300 years to be able to explain the subjectivity of consciousness, why do you say 'no'? Imagine your great-(great) grandmother and my great (etc) grandfather having a debate about the source of light and heat in the Sun - how would that differ from the debate we're having here today? Of course, science (and philosophy?) have moved on a tad since then, but otherwise? (Side note: it seems I've misunderstood your 'progressive organisation' idea; I'll need to go back and read the threads again).

I do understand what you are saying, but I there are two reasons why I don’t believe time is going to help physicalists make their case. To understand the first reason, I think you have to consider how seriously I take my generalism. I see every example you are giving as falling easily into the “mechanistic” category, plus your approach to life and consciousness is to look for mechanisms. So if there is an aspect of life that isn’t mechanistic, then there is no possible way for you to find it through that investigative appoach.

That brings us to my second reason, which is why I don’t think life and consciousness are mechanistic. What would help you understand where I’m coming from is if you went to this link to a thread on “empirical induction” I initiated -- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762 -- and read my opening posts about a certain experience I have studied and practiced (that way too I don’t have to repeat stuff other participants here who know me have already read). When you understand that besides the intellectual objection I pose, my studies and experience also contradict a purely mechanistic explanation, I think you will better see why I don’t think physicalists will ever account for life and consciousness.

. . . one of the things I am trying to point out - badly, as usual, it seems - is that by the time something like your test might be feasible, it's entirely possible that the very concepts will have changed so much as to make your test hopelessly ambiguous (or worse). The best analogy I can think of right now is phlogiston.

I think you are doing a good job of making your point, it’s just that I am not convinced by it for the generalist and experiential reasons I cited above. However, I don’t think phlogiston is a good analogy because you are talking about a clearly physical phenomenon. Combustion was produced by physical actions, even if they didn’t understand what was happening behind those actions. But the physical actions that would explain the origin of life or consciousness are missing. Just because we can’t explain something, doesn’t mean one can assume it will be explained by physical processes. To say “wait with faith in science, while we who have believe in physicalism attempt to make our case” doesn’t seem to allow there are other possible explanations.

Are there any good reasons why any 'something more' can't be studied scientifically?

Yes, I am afraid there are. Whatever human consciousness is, it is now in a physical body. To perceive we rely on the senses, which are also physical, and they reveal only physical information. The empirical aspect of science depends solely on the senses. That means if there is something more than physicalness, then science has no experiential avenue with which to empirically confirm hypotheses about “something more.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

Cite one. And make sure it's really a Darwinist.

Sorry, I can’t find it. I thought it was Strickberger (writing in “Evolution”) or Dorion Sagan . . . Actually I thought it was commonly agreed upon that it is a mystery why consciousness evolved, especially since it might be threatening to survival. I did find this by Sir Alister Hardy (1896-1985, former Oxford professor of zoology):

“I am a Darwinian in the modern sense, but I venture to suggest that there is something more about the process of evolution than is generally conceded by most biologists today . . . . I am not a vitalist in the old-fashioned sense of the word. I fully expect that the whole of an animal’s bodily mechanism will be resolved in terms of biophysics and biochemistry; but I am not materialist in that I am blind to the reality of consciousness in the organic world. As yet we just do not know where, or how, it relates to the physiochemical system; and our science, at present, cannot deal with it. . . . Are natural selection and the gene complex the only factors [in evolution]? Important they must be – but are they all-important? Frankly we do not know, and I for one doubt it.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les, you missed this smiley:

That's 'cause I'm an angel.

 

[Rader]

This is not true. The process of generating a solution that doesn't have the symmetry of the original problem (here, parity) is called spontaneous symmetry breaking and is a known phenomenon in many fields.

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.

If its not true, then explain to me why, I gave a sufficient explanation, of the difference between biologically active substance, that can discriminate and those that can not. Yes inate matter can produce its symmetical equal, but only live matter will produce its, symmetical equal. Thats what, the something more seems to be.

All proteins that form part of living things are optically active and almost all are levogiras.

By there nature, chemcial reations can never produce, spontaneously, a substance formed exclusively by a optic isomero, be it L or D. This is statistically imposible.

Logically, a chemical reaction confronts, by chance enormous quantities of atoms and molecules, that have no power to individually decide, that only obey the thermodynamic rule of reaction, a probablistic law of big numbers.

We can predict with full, rigor the result of the individual reaction because we know that millions of molecules of a substance, unite with millions of molecules of others. But that molecule that unites with that other is solely by chance. Because of the freedom of chance, they are indefectibly conducted to reach a percental equality in there distribution.

In chemical reactions of inate material, this funtions perfectly, because all molecules of each type of substance intervene en a reaction are exactly the same between themselves. So that, it makes no difference, indistinction, which one with which other.

Remembering that each molecule of ++ has two optical forms L or D, and both identical from the point of a chemical view. It is to say that ++ L, for example has no way to know if ++ with whom it will combine is L or D.

For the following to produce the condensatation of muchos ++ and not making a special selection strange to the chemical reaction in itself, the substance will include molecules of both optical types. That is to say racemico and not apt for life. This is theoretical and experimental, there is no discussion here.

In the experiments of Miller, results were all racemicos, without exception. Useless from the point of a biological standpoint, for use as building blocks of life.

Unless the data I have on Miller experiments is totally false, what has been stated is true.

To give you an idea, of the diffulculty with asymmetrically optic molecules, the probabilities, of a relatively simple protein, of say 400 ++ by chance or by the physio-chemical laws, to produce all the ++ en form of L, would be 1X10X123.

 

[Nereid]

Re-reading this thread I'm reminded of a passage I read once, in Kuhn?

Earnest explication by two groups of people, frustration, talking past each other, puzzlement that the others 'just don't get it'; clear, cogent laying out of the cases, followed by examples and deeper explanations; more frustration and bewilderment; apparently simple words and phrases that you realize the others understand in subtly (and not so) different ways, ... welcome to the Hotel Paradigm Gulf?

 

[loseyourname]

You seem determined to stick me in the "purpose" box, but I don't want to be there.

I'm just curious why you're so dead intent on avoiding it when, from what I can tell, your hypothesis requires it to really make any sense.

There you go again, characterizing what I "imagine" is possible in your own terms. I can tell you flat out I do not think some entity is "computing" a bunch of info. I think all the conditions for mutative change are in place. If anything "directive" occurs, then I'd liken it to will. In other words, it is like when you want to move your body from point A to point B, and then it responds to your will. A million internal events have to occur inside your body for that movement to happen, but all you need to know is how to will it to happen. A system is in place that allows that.

I'm not trying characterize what you imagine. I'm telling you what I think your hypothesis requires to be feasible. A couple of things:

-The vast majority of organisms have no such system in place (one by which they can will a movement from point A to point B).

-The "something more" that you are proposing is not an entity internal to any particular organism. It is an outside force. Even organisms that do have the capability to will their own movement can't will the movement of another organism.

-Movement occurs according to a huge interface of nervous and muscle systems. The replication of DNA, in contrast, occurs in an environment that is completely cut-off from any interaction with any other organismic process. This analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

Oh, so you do believe in God .

First off, the purposive intelligence is something I am proposing to make your hypothesis more feasible. It is not something that I believe in. Second, why does this have to be called God? I never it was all-powerful or all-knowing or that it had anything to do with the existence of the universe itself. There is also no reason why such an entity would be worthy of or require worship.

Well, I don't really want to jump to a new debate, but I don't buy that theory for the same reason I don't believe abiogenesis can happen without the help of some progressive organizating force.

I thought you didn't believe abiogenesis because it hadn't been demonstrated. Evolution by natural selection has been. What comparison is there?

According to physicalists, constructive mutation happens through nothing but physical processes. You say the vast majority of mutation is neutral or destructive, but mutation has nonetheless brought the incredible developments found in life -- from metabolism and reproduction to senses and consciousness. Wow.

Destructive because an organism is fine-tuned to exist in a given environmental niche. When the environment changes and pressures are applied, some of those mutations will come in handy, and they will be selected for. You seem to be neglecting the huge amount of time this takes and the enormous sample size when you are considering every single member of a species that ever exists. Your argument is what is called the "argument from personal incredulity" and isn't much of an argument.

Now look at physical processes outside of life and notice how often physical changes, unaffected by living or conscious processes, are constructive. Get it? To me, without progressive organization the entire physicalist theory is a house of cards, built on quicksand.

Okay, but what does this have to do with evolution? The changes brought about through organic evolution often are brought about by living forces. The single most important pressure applied is competition from other living organisms and the second most important is predation by other living organisms and the third most important is sexual selection by other living organisms. You can't make an analogy with non-living systems because they don't compete for resources, eat each other, or have sex with each other.

There are plenty of Darwinists who don't see how consciousness assists survival, and who think we'd be more likely to survive without it. It is a mystery why (and how) consciousness developed.

Traits are selected for that provide the organism with an increased chance to reproduce. Length of survival is irrelevant as long as it reaches breeding age. Do you honestly not see how being conscious of a potential mate's preferences and tastes and being conscious of your own looks and behavior would be helpful here?

My problem with physicalist theory is the same from start to finish. There are no variations in my objection. It is that physicalness lacks the organizational quality to achieve life, as well as any known properties which can account for consciousness. This new concept of "emergence" (i.e., that consciousness is a new "property" of matter) is, in my opinion, nothing more that a physicalist strategy to incorporate what can't be explained by physicalist theory.

Emergence is not a new concept. The expansion of freezing water is an emergent property. Whether or not consciousness is an emergent property might be up for debate, but the existence of emergent properties is not.

As I've said several times in this thread, I don't understand the dread, loathing, the trepidation, the revulsion, the horror, the abhorance, the utter and complete panic! :surprise: at the idea of something non-physical being part of the description of reality. OMFG! What if it's true?? Chaos and mayhem insanity a freaking nightmare a tragedy . blaspheme (oh yeah ) . . .

Okay. I don't understand why anyone would feel horror either way.

 

[Nereid]

For Rader, non-biological process that favours L (or D)

Anyone familiar with the decades of research on the amino acid enantiomers found in the Murchison meteorite (a carbonaceous chondrite)?

IIRC, despite initial skepticism (to put it mildly) the excess of left enantiomers over right is both real and extraterrestrial.

How can this be? Surely only living things can produce a non-racemic mix?? Well, it seems that billions and billions of tonnes of amino acids are produced on grains in ISM gas clouds; the mechanism for producing the enantiomer imbalance is polarised UV light from (certain) stars. How to get from a small imbalance to pure L or D? Catalysis; several organics possible, some of which are also found in carbonaceous chondrites (and presumably on ISM dust grains).

 

[Rader]

Anyone familiar with the decades of research on the amino acid enantiomers found in the Murchison meteorite (a carbonaceous chondrite)?

IIRC, despite initial skepticism (to put it mildly) the excess of left enantiomers over right is both real and extraterrestrial.

How can this be? Surely only living things can produce a non-racemic mix?? Well, it seems that billions and billions of tonnes of amino acids are produced on grains in ISM gas clouds; the mechanism for producing the enantiomer imbalance is polarised UV light from (certain) stars. How to get from a small imbalance to pure L or D? Catalysis; several organics possible, some of which are also found in carbonaceous chondrites (and presumably on ISM dust grains).

Do you have some good links?

So are you saying we may have been seeded. I felt you were hinting towards this. That does not solve the problem it just makes another. Look at my post in the Astronomy section today.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37261

Thats a interesting combination of elements, on those carbonaceous chondrites. So were asteroids once a planet with life?
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/solar_system/minecarb.html
Murchison meteorite.
http://www.panspermia.org/chiral.htm

 

[Nereid]

I’m having some difficulty here Les, so please be gentle.

By the way, studies being conducted (such as the QSC research by Gao Shan that Radar mentioned in another thread) are exploring the possibility of consciousness being able to affect things on a quantum level. We might imagine that any living awareness, once sensing the need to adapt, could have an effect on its own genetics.

I'm all for experiments!

This one sounds like it will have a rather difficult time of controlling the confounding effects.

I agree. Dr. Shan, I believe, is looking into the possibility that consciousness is a new property of matter, so as far as I can tell his approach is strictly physicalist. I also gleaned from his comments (he generously offered a brief explanation of his work in my thread on panpsychism) that his concept of consciousness is modeled somewhat on how a computer functions.

How does the idea which seems to motivate this experiment differ from Lamarckism?

I don't think it is motivated by Lamarckian concepts at all. I think his experiments take off from the observed wave function collapse in non-locality experiments. I personally don't know how it can be established that the wave collapse isn't the result of the physical aspects of observation (i.e., photon interference), but then I've not kept up with the latest developments in this area. Fliption seems to think there is reason to suspect consciousness itself might have a quantum effect.

Then later

Are there any good reasons why any 'something more' can't be studied scientifically?

Yes, I am afraid there are. Whatever human consciousness is, it is now in a physical body. To perceive we rely on the senses, which are also physical, and they reveal only physical information. The empirical aspect of science depends solely on the senses. That means if there is something more than physicalness, then science has no experiential avenue with which to empirically confirm hypotheses about “something more.”

If any ‘something mores’ cannot, by their very nature, be studied scientifically, is there any way that the experiments of Dr. Shan (etc) can contribute to an understanding of any ‘something more’? Including, potentially, a demonstration that there is no ‘something more’?

Other than the two tests you briefly described (a computer with consciousness and creation of life in a test tube, to oversimplify), is there any way to substantially shrink the potential scope for ‘something more’ wrt consciousness and the origin of life?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I’m having some difficulty here Les, so please be gentle.Then laterIf any ‘something mores’ cannot, by their very nature, be studied scientifically, is there any way that the experiments of Dr. Shan (etc) can contribute to an understanding of any ‘something more’? Including, potentially, a demonstration that there is no ‘something more’?

Other than the two tests you briefly described (a computer with consciousness and creation of life in a test tube, to oversimplify), is there any way to substantially shrink the potential scope for ‘something more’ wrt consciousness and the origin of life?

Yes, I almost addressed that, but I thought you might already know about it. Radar and I exchanged similar ideas, and then I explained it this way. If there is something more to consciousness which is non-physical, there must be a way it interacts with the physical, since here we are alive in physical biology. I don't think the physical can detect the non-physical, but I can see where physical experiments might be able to detect that point, on the physical side, where they interact.

 

[Nereid]

Do you have some good links?

Here is the landmark 1997 paper. If you google on "Murchison", with words such as "non-racemic", "amino acids", etc you will find plenty of links.

So are you saying we may have been seeded. I felt you were hinting towards this.

What I am saying is that as we look closer into new domains, we often find a richness that is unexpected and surprising. In this case, it's another small 'physicalist step' about the origin of life - quite complex organics are apparently being formed, in interstellar space, by the billions of tonnes, with a clear non-racemic flavour. There's still, IMHO, at least a good 50 years' of work to do before all the major steps in the abiogenesis story are even sketched.

Panspermia - 'seeding' - is another story, equally fascinating, but barring a surprising discovery, also a story that will likely run for at least 50 years yet before tantalising hints become moderately confident understanding.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First off, the purposive intelligence is something I am proposing to make your hypothesis more feasible. It is not something that I believe in. Second, why does this have to be called God? I never it was all-powerful or all-knowing or that it had anything to do with the existence of the universe itself. There is also no reason why such an entity would be worthy of or require worship.

I’ll start with this. Lighten up! I was teasing you, I hope you haven’t lost your sense of humor.

Emergence is not a new concept. The expansion of freezing water is an emergent property. Whether or not consciousness is an emergent property might be up for debate, but the existence of emergent properties is not.

What I meant was that the popularity of applying emergent theory to consciousness is relatively recent.

I thought you didn't believe abiogenesis because it hadn't been demonstrated. Evolution by natural selection has been. What comparison is there?

Physicalists study all the physical stuff happening and then proclaim that’s it, we figured it out! But they utterly ignore the advantages being part of a living system gives the physical processes. That is why when they want to prove their case, they have to do it with a living system, or using something that was once part of life (as with viruses or PCR). All that’s been proven is that physical process are thoroughly involved in a living system, and from that they ASSUME physicalness is causing all systemic aspects. I don’t buy for a second, with the evidence we have, that all there is to evolution is physcial processes and the physical environment. If I were an a priori physicalist, I might buy it.

I'm just curious why you're so dead intent on avoiding it when, from what I can tell, your hypothesis requires it to really make any sense.

I don’t think you do understand my hypothesis because . . .

I'm not trying characterize what you imagine. I'm telling you what I think your hypothesis requires to be feasible. A couple of things:

-The vast majority of organisms have no such system in place (one by which they can will a movement from point A to point B).

-The "something more" that you are proposing is not an entity internal to any particular organism. It is an outside force. Even organisms that do have the capability to will their own movement can't will the movement of another organism.

-Movement occurs according to a huge interface of nervous and muscle systems. The replication of DNA, in contrast, occurs in an environment that is completely cut-off from any interaction with any other organismic process. This analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

. . . none of that is relevant to it. I will try to explain what I mean once more. Keep in mind that it was you who asked me to hypothesize about all this when I said up front I didn’t think this was the place for me to speculate. There isn’t enough room here for me to account for everything I need to make my case.

Anyway, I’ll start with an anology. If I were trying to teach you the concept of follow-through on a tennis swing, my lesson (not that you need one) would be to get you to feel the naturalness of follow-through. There was this guy, I think his name was Tim Galway, who wrote a best seller years ago called “The Inner Game of Tennis.” He said he could teach people who never had a racquet in their hand how to hit the ball effectively in an hour. The show “60 Minutes” took him up on the offer, and he did it! His approach was to have students learn to feel one’s way to the proper swing, and to do that ahead of breaking down a swing into minute detail.

My concept of the holistic influence a force of progressive organization might have on a biological system is like that. I have been trying to suggest that the force acts holistically, but results in detailed effects within the complexities of biology (similar to the analogy of will I used earlier). You keep wanting to make the force detailed, but that is not what I, at least, have been saying. If you want to describe it as a detailed, computing, thinking, rational force, then that is your model, not mine. The progressive organizing force I envision is “whole,” it acts holistically, and it’s nature is to move things in the direction of organization (if you want to call that nature “purpose,” I am fine with that). I am making no other claims about it!

Now, as far as an organism’s awareness affecting evolution, again you are bogged down in the minutia of bio-complexity. What I mean is, since biology (in my model) is a system originally borne of the force of progressive organization, evolved by it, and its chemistry is now kept reacting organizationally “upward” by that force (I realize that’s a new aspect of the concept), it means biology is most intimately tied to the organizing force. Awareness, in this model, is the ultimate expression of that organizing force, so it and biology are both offspring of progressive organization and therefore kin. So the idea is that because it is all entwined, each (system awareness and biology) has an avenue for affecting the other.

 

[Philocrat]

Sorry Philocrat, I didn't make it more clear that what I said was tongue-in-cheek. I was teasing you good-naturedly, not ridiculing. I was really saying your questions are incredibly difficult! To ask about first cause or purpose is to pose two of the most elusive issues I know of. Already the subject of this thread has a lot of people thinking of how to answer it, do you really want to add more issues we can't answer?

Perhaps...and I think it was Descartes who thought along this line. He vowed to steer clear of any question for which he may never provide an answer. Everytime I think of these hard-headed questions, they just make my chemistry boil. I share in everyone's frustration in not being able to answer these questions. Yet I feel that we still have to ask them. I think we are better off asking them than not do so at all. Who knows, some clever dude might turn up in future to answer them.

Sorry if irritate you any more than I have to...but one question that I would like us to at least think about is this:

if there is so much deficit in our knowledge of the universe or the human reality, must we physically (or otherwise) change ourselves first before we can know the remainder, given that we knew anything at all?