kldickson said:Because they're aware of the fact that somehow giving in to the chemical impulses is maladaptive. The chemical component of 'love', et cetera, is merely an impulse to go one way or the other; the human has the capacity to act on that or not act on that, much the same way they can have the capacity to murder or not murder when they feel something such as rage.
And this is explained How by physicalism? Why is the human able to act counter to its instincts? It is a doomed endeavour to try and explain high-level emergent behaviour(high level simplicity) by a reductionist approach(high level complexity). You can't get a woman in your bed by beating her. For some reason certain approaches just don't work while others do in this universe.
WaveJumper, your assertion about RNA and life I cannot find in my search of the literature
The RNA world hypotesis is pretty old(a few decades, that's an eon in your field of study hehe).
in any case, RNA is composed of nucleic acids; if by 'quantum particles' you mean 'elementary particles', the thing about, for example, up quarks and down quarks is that from what I know they have a tendency by their nature to form baryons, which include protons and neutrons, with other up quarks and down quarks. These compose the nuclei of atoms, and so on. This really needs more of a chemical perspective than a physical perspective, though you can't neglect the physical perspective.
The RNA world hypothesis supposes that the first Life molecule was a very simple self-replicating molecule(not its today's vast information carrier equivalent). This self-replicating molecule must have assembled itself on its own out of a number of atoms. If we reject this idea, we have to seek supernatural origins.
Only partly, i changed my major mid-term but my fascination with physics has remained ever since.WaveJumper, am I right in inferring that your background is probably in physics so you probably have relatively less exposure to material on these things?