- #121
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
Cool it, Les. I don't want this thread to be locked yet; I'm enjoying the posts quite a bit.
Click For Summary
Scientific materialists are argued to be in denial regarding the origins of life, as they claim that chemistry alone can account for life processes, a theory referred to as chemogenesis. The discussion emphasizes that while chemistry is fundamental to life, it does not inherently produce the necessary organization for life, which requires progressive organization characterized by adaptability, hierarchical development, and persistence. Critics assert that examples of chemical self-organization, such as RNA polymerization and amino acid synthesis, do not fulfill the criteria for progressive organization. The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement on whether life can be fully explained through chemistry, with some arguing that the complexity of life transcends mere chemical interactions. The conversation ultimately questions the adequacy of current scientific explanations for the emergence of life from non-life.
- #122
Royce
- 1,538
- 0
To put it very simply, every craftsman knows that we must use the right tool for the right job. I do not use a thermometer to measure how much carpet I will need to cover my bedroom floor; nor, do I use a ruler to measure the temperature of my oven.
Why then do we attempt to use emperical measurement to measure that which is non-physical, subjective and or metaphysical (I use that term only in want of a better more acceptable term).
If I say that the most likely cause of life is the intent and will of God or any other consciousness in the universe, you will deny it and say there is no evidence of such a being or such a happening. There is also no evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, none; nor has even been shown that it is possible.
Why then is one highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support more likely than another highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support? The answer is bias. Your bias makes abiogenesis most likely because that is the only one you will accept.
My bias makes the will and intent of a creator most likely because science has not shown me any viable alternative.
Science refuses to consider or acknowledge any other alternative. Science then loses any veracity it may have had in this area and in this instance becomes no more an authority on the subject than the good revend Billy Joe Bob who at least has some evidence and support in his bible.
Why then do we attempt to use emperical measurement to measure that which is non-physical, subjective and or metaphysical (I use that term only in want of a better more acceptable term).
If I say that the most likely cause of life is the intent and will of God or any other consciousness in the universe, you will deny it and say there is no evidence of such a being or such a happening. There is also no evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, none; nor has even been shown that it is possible.
Why then is one highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support more likely than another highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support? The answer is bias. Your bias makes abiogenesis most likely because that is the only one you will accept.
My bias makes the will and intent of a creator most likely because science has not shown me any viable alternative.
Science refuses to consider or acknowledge any other alternative. Science then loses any veracity it may have had in this area and in this instance becomes no more an authority on the subject than the good revend Billy Joe Bob who at least has some evidence and support in his bible.
- #123
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,256
- 0
Yeah, my temper got the best of me. I came back to delete that post before anybody read it, but I guess it's too late.
- #124
Royce
- 1,538
- 0
Science is a tool, only a tool and only one tool that we have to investigate the universe and reality. It is not the only way to know or learn something. Some one earlier said scientist out of nowhere come up with new ideas, solutions and hypothesis; and that new theories are popping up all of the time. They are then varified or disproven in the lab. Where do these things come from if not our minds? If our minds are capable of making such leaps in science why do we think that only in science are such leaps meaningful? If our minds are capable of logic and reason and capable of coming up with new ideas why is it only science and materialism that hold any reality.
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs. A metaphysical philosophy the discounts the metaphysical. A subjective idea that only the material and not the subjective are real. If we can only know anything by subjective perceptions in our minds Then how can we say that such subjectiveness has no reality?
As Les said you are a man with only one tool. The only tool that you really have however is not the hammer of science but your mind.
Our minds are not limited by nature to only the material objective reality. That is an artificial blinder that we put on ourselves.
The same is true of religion. Why do we limit ourselves?
Why do we refuse to consider any and all possibilities? How can we explore the unknown if the unknown is not allowed to exist?
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs. A metaphysical philosophy the discounts the metaphysical. A subjective idea that only the material and not the subjective are real. If we can only know anything by subjective perceptions in our minds Then how can we say that such subjectiveness has no reality?
As Les said you are a man with only one tool. The only tool that you really have however is not the hammer of science but your mind.
Our minds are not limited by nature to only the material objective reality. That is an artificial blinder that we put on ourselves.
The same is true of religion. Why do we limit ourselves?
Why do we refuse to consider any and all possibilities? How can we explore the unknown if the unknown is not allowed to exist?
- #125
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how subjective perspectives are the result of material processes but yet have no place in discovering truth because they cannot in principle be measured and assigned a truth value.
- #126
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
We are sujective creatures trapped in an objective world, and we have to deal with that. Nothing 'comes from' our subjective, our subjective is always the result of the objective. If you know the objective, you know the cause of the subjective. If you know the subjective, then that is all you know.
We don't use physical measurement methods to measure that which is non-physical. We only measure the physical because that is all there is to measure. Everything else is an intangible consequence of the physical.
What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.
I play the science game, as I see it. I am a philosopher and a scientist. I think for myself to the extent where I have decided up on my own metaphysics. I know what i believe and why i believe it. I rationalise out every one of my beliefs because I don't accept any general belief system which gets handed to you by other people.
And yet, the whole time, whenever I try to explain to anybody why it is that I believe what I do and how I rationalise the standpoint, my reasons are either ignored, or just mentally skipped over and replaced with the accepted typical 'scientism' reasons, which I am not sure if they even exist.
I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i believe this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.
Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.
FFS, my signature is serious. PROVE ME WRONG. I am sick of people just accusing me of it, and never backing up their words with anything meaningful.
And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.
We don't use physical measurement methods to measure that which is non-physical. We only measure the physical because that is all there is to measure. Everything else is an intangible consequence of the physical.
What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.
I play the science game, as I see it. I am a philosopher and a scientist. I think for myself to the extent where I have decided up on my own metaphysics. I know what i believe and why i believe it. I rationalise out every one of my beliefs because I don't accept any general belief system which gets handed to you by other people.
And yet, the whole time, whenever I try to explain to anybody why it is that I believe what I do and how I rationalise the standpoint, my reasons are either ignored, or just mentally skipped over and replaced with the accepted typical 'scientism' reasons, which I am not sure if they even exist.
I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i believe this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.
Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.
FFS, my signature is serious. PROVE ME WRONG. I am sick of people just accusing me of it, and never backing up their words with anything meaningful.
And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.
- #127
Royce
- 1,538
- 0
Okay I won't bash materialism anymore on this thread.
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.
It is pure speculation and as such has no more credence or validity than any other pure speculation that cannot be tested. I do not support the biblical creationist; nor anyone theory or hypothesis.
My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen.
Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has physical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.
Althought I am reluctant to speak for Les, I think that we both agree that the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explanation that has been thought up. It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.
This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.
To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that anyone of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum.
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.
It is pure speculation and as such has no more credence or validity than any other pure speculation that cannot be tested. I do not support the biblical creationist; nor anyone theory or hypothesis.
My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen.
Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has physical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.
Althought I am reluctant to speak for Les, I think that we both agree that the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explanation that has been thought up. It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.
This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.
To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that anyone of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum.
- #128
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Logic supports it. Occams razor supports it. Reasonablenes supports it.
If you can create life from chemicals, then you can show it (that is a test). If you can set up the individual steps that led to the formation of life, and let them happen by themselves, then you can show it (that is a test). If someone can show that life can be formed from non-life, then you can show it.
It predicts that there is nothing more to life than chemical organisation. But I can't be sure whether this was predicted and then shown, or known and thus part of the predicitons of Abiogenesis. It predicts that non-life, under the right conditions, can give rise to life eventually.
So the final clincher test hasn't been achieved yet. Doesn't mean it won't happen. There is goo dreason to believe that this fact is a result of incorrect initial conditions, not enough time, not enough material etc.
measure what? Non-lifeness and lifeness? This has already been discussed and agreed upon. this point is meaningless as far as I can tell.
So, so far we have the facts: Life is chemical in nature. There was a time when there was no life. We now have life. Life has been advancing the whole time, getting more and more complicated: it is as if it is advancing from an original form.
Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A => ? => C... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B, but it must have happened somehow. yes, there is a degree of speculation, but saying 'pure speculation' and 'extremely unlikely' are just empty claims on your behalf which hold no weight.
Just because you have decided that I am biased towards material explanations..(Something which I am still unsure as to why that is a bad thing), doesn't mean an argument can't be rationalised out on logical ground. Don't let this decline into Claim - Counterclaim.
I don't believe that for a second.
Bias or not, I can attempt to argue against this rationally, rather than just accusing you of being biased and ignoring your claims/arguments.
Life was started by intent? What intent? Where did this intent come from? How is it manifest? How does this intent interact with the Molecules that lead to life? How do you know life started with DNA? There are many reasons to suppose that life started out nothing like what we know life to be now, and if it was in any way similar, it would probably be RNA based.
If you know it is extremely unlikely, then why do you claim to think that it happened? Surely you can think of a much more reasonable method of life starting: Try cutting out all of the speculation, and look at what is staring you straight in the face, and work with that.
Oh I am sure science considers all, no matter how unlikely: Its just that if there is no REASON to investigate further, there is no point wasting time. Given reason, anything is worth investigating.
More to reality than the physical, like what? Sure, we have our 'minds', but they are inextricably linked to the physical, so much so that it is reasonably to think that they are an illusion of sorts, or just an emergent property of the brain. There is nothing more to them. They are isolated pools of 'seeming' in a world of brutal meaningless facts.
Well der. It isn't the job of a theory to be open minded about all possibilities. It is up to a theory to propose an explanation for some phenomenon as best it can. Abiogenesis does that, and people tend to agree with it.
it is up to people to be open minded that it might not be correct, but so far there is no conclusive evidence to make them do so. So far Abiogenesis is still possible, it is still logically consistent, and there is still no other alternative.
I am all with you in agreeence that Scientists need to be open to alternative possibilities, and that they should not be fanatical about anything. And I will claim right here and right now that I believe I am not. To be honest, I don't give a crap whether Abiogenesis is true or not: But I am still yet to hear one good reason why I should deny its validity. And that is the reason I am starting to find this all very very tedious. I hear lots of accusations and lots of bashing, but nothing practical. No reasons. No logic. No basis. No Evidence. Oh sure, lots of time is spent questioning the validity of the evidence that is accepted, but stop talking all airy fairy, and deal with the case at hand.
Using analogies, and talking in vague reference to concepts is useful at times, but now we are dealing with a very specific topic, that deals with a specific claim: Can't we keep it real? Talk about what we want to deal with?
No fear, I tend to keep my self as much out of this as possible, and thank you. I have to ask you something though: Have you gone through a change recently? I recall having you arguing somewhat different several months back? I'm just curious, you know, wondering if I am still sane or just losing my memory.
But what has been brought up? All i have noticed that has been brought up, is that there might be semantic confusion as to what 'most likely' means. Les has pointed out that no one has made it happen in a lab yet (not a conclusive argument against the theory: No one could measure the speed of light for many hundreds of years but it was still a likely theory that light wasn't infinitely fast for example...)...what else has been brought up?
No, i do not think that those two points are reason enough for me to admit that there is a valid claim against Abiogenesis. I don't believe Abiogenesis is Factually Established, but it is the most likely option available: Not just because it is the only horse in the race, but because it is a logically consistent, valid, reasoned explanation.
And that is my standpoint.
- #129
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Ever fall off a horse? Get ready.
I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows.
I hear you. Unfortunately I don't think you're as open as you think you are. I was not trying to nitpick you with semantics. I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood. This is all very simple. So why debate on abiogensis when we all agree on it's validity as a scientific theory? You keep demanding that someone give you a criticism of it and the only criticism is that it is NOT "most likely"(as that term is being used by most of us) But very well may be one day.
Realize that without semantic understanding, debate is meaningless. This is such a problem on this forum. I will keep beating this drum until either people get it or they get into their 30's LOL. Thank god the two usually go hand in hand.
I agree. I'd like to request that no one ever use the word materialism again in a thread until everyone has had a crash course explaining what it actually means.
I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows.
I hear you. Unfortunately I don't think you're as open as you think you are. I was not trying to nitpick you with semantics. I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood. This is all very simple. So why debate on abiogensis when we all agree on it's validity as a scientific theory? You keep demanding that someone give you a criticism of it and the only criticism is that it is NOT "most likely"(as that term is being used by most of us) But very well may be one day.
Realize that without semantic understanding, debate is meaningless. This is such a problem on this forum. I will keep beating this drum until either people get it or they get into their 30's LOL. Thank god the two usually go hand in hand.
I agree. I'd like to request that no one ever use the word materialism again in a thread until everyone has had a crash course explaining what it actually means.
Last edited:
- #130
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Two out of the three are subjective tools and I'm assuming meaningless since subjectivity is useless.
It predicts more than this because no one here denies this I don't think.
There we go. Probably requires something said about chance and natural processes but this will do.
So, so far we have the facts: My house is made of wood. There was a time when my house didn't exists. My house went through several stages of development getting more complicated; it is as if it was advanced from an original form.
Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A=> ?=> C ... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B but it either is the result of trees falling in bad storms in a perfect arrangement by chance or someone built this beautiful house.
Was this logic supposed to point us in a direction for what B is?
Think about this. If you are biased in a certain direction, of course you aren't going to understand why that is a bad thing! That's what it means to be biased.
Calling him a liar?
I'm sure Mentat will come in now and tell you to knock it off. Unless, of course, he is biased toward materialists. I agree with this but I think it applies to everyone involved here. Your casual explanation for what life is, simplifying it to nothing but: 5: Attach simple process
10: Goto 5
is not consistent with anything that I have ever read on this topic. In all honesty, when I see words like yours I think that either you aren't educated on the matter or you only see what you want to see. I could be wrong on both counts. I'm just telling you what my thoughts are because I don't see this view of yours anywhere else but in this forum. I'm not suggesting that scientists don't think this is a theory with potential and worthy of research. But I see them honestly dealing with a theory that has some major hurdles to overcome. And none of them ever shrug off life's complexity with such little respect; as if the road to explanation is paved and clear. Now I still think that Les's point stands about how even though all these problems exist, there is little doubt in their minds that abiogensis is correct.
And here is a statement of fact about another area that has more questions then answers. I don't understand how anyone can be so certain about anything in this crazy universe and still have clear glasses on.
I don't believe that for a second. (I just copied and pasted this
)This relates to my previous thread. I say get your definitions consistent with all involved first and then deal with this other stuff. Either we are all talking a different language or everybody but you really is a dumba**.
Wow! Someone at PF changing their mind? Is that allowed?
Grrrrr
Good thing they weren't intended to.
- #131
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Ironically, i have only ever used the term because of these forums. I don't really consider myself a 'materialist', I just have my beliefs. This has been explained several times, while you were present, and so I'd think you would know it by now. I don't care whether I really know what a materialist is or not, I just continue thinking the way I think, trying to rationalise out everything I can. I choose to use my perception of reality to do this, and no 'spiritual' claims.
If knowledge is never certain, and we can never truly know anything, then every truth claim can only be accepted in degree's of likelihood. Abiogenesis isn't the most likely just because it is the only horse in the race. It is most likely also because it fits the facts thus far presented. Even in its most common usage of the phrase, Abiogenesis is still most likely.
And so, if we all agree on its scientific validity, and there might be a little contention as to its status as 'most likely', but in general we all agree it isn't impossible...What is this all about?
- #132
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
We are subjective creatures. We have to use subjective methods. The key is to apply them to objective facts. In this case, they are.
There is no meaning without subjectivity. There is nothing to be made meaningful without the Objective reality.
That sounds like a great analogy, but the context is entirely different. In your example, the context is loaded, so that the obvious answer is that Humans built your house: but the very purpose of the original question is to find out where the humans came from. So your analogy doesn't help.
In the original example, there is nothing around which could 'create' stuff. There was only chemicals. And thus, the logic is made once again, much more apparent.
No I am not, but you already know that. I am just saying that he, like the rest of us, may occasionally post something in the heat of the moment, and then upon further reflection realize that that doesn't actually reflect their views.
Calling him a liar?
But even with problems to overcome, there is no reason to doubt that it happened. That is basically what it comes down to. Life wasn't there, it is now. It had to come from somewhere, and so somewhere down the path it self-organised. HOW EXACTLY it did that, is a challenging task, I agree with that, but I have no reason to doubt that it happened.
The strange thing that I find, is that people seem stuck on thinking of life as something similar to what we know it to be. I doubt ever so much that life was anything like what we think of life as for many millions of years. And I feel safe in thinking that the precursors for life were around for many millions of years too, doing their little 'not quite actually life' types of things that they do.
But how that happened, I have no real idea. I just know that there is nothing difficult to grasp about the idea. There is nothing unheard of that needs to occur in the process.
"All those problems" are problems of how to explain it, not problems of whether it actually happened.
- #133
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Then I don't understand. How is the subjective tools you mentioned any better than the subjective tools that Les has mentioned?
Actually, the analogy did exactly what it was intended to do. It was designed to expose the built in assumption that you apparently have that only humans can design things.
How do you know this? How do you know that an alien life form from a neighboring planet didn't exists? Granted, I'm not arguing that this is the case nor that there is evidence of such. I am merely suggesting that huge gaps of abiogensis needn't be ignored simply because it's the only theory available on the basis of the assumption that no creative entity existed before Earth life. Because that assumption just might be wrong!
True. But I don't think I've ever seen Royce being a victim of the "heat of the moment". As a matter of fact I would guess that this response of yours to him is more a candidate for that than his original comment.
It seems we are having semantic problems again. I'm not sure what others here would say but I agree with you that life came from non-life. So I agree that "it happened". But I don't think that's what abiogensis is. Even God in the book of Genesis created life from non-life but we don't call that abiogensis. So abiogensis is a theory on "how" it happened. So we aren't talking about explaining "how" abiogensis happens. We're talking about "how" life comes from non-life. And abiogensis is one of the answers to that. Abiogensis would answer "self organization". Now of course science goes on to learn "how" it self organizes but that's asking questions at a more detailed level. You seem to be interchanging these 2 levels and it seems a bit confusing.
So where you and I would part ways in your comments above is that I don't know that the "self-organized" part is as obvious as the rest. That really is the main issue being presented here by Les. I don't think that he would deny that life is made up of non living things. It's the method of organization that we all differ on. Not the beginning ingredients. Just so you know, I'm not saying that I believe abiogensis isn't true. I am simply saying that I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me it is either.
Not I. I am completely open to these ideas. In fact, they only make sense. But I don't see this as a relevant issue in defense of abiogensis.
Les is arguing that there are things unheard of that is required. This is a key issue.
Again, the word "it" here is referring to life coming from non-life. Not abiogensis or self organization. That's where more proof is needed before you can say it "actually happened". I would say that life coming from nonlife actually happened. I can't say that about self oganization.
Last edited:
- #134
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Quick-read a hundred posts or so...
Certainly not. Science doesn't make that presumption. Materialists make an alternative pronouncement - anything that has an influence is defined as physical. So, if we assert that an metaphysical entity created the universe/life, then to the materialist, we have merely extended the domain of physical to include that entity.
In short, materialism is not about denying that which prior physical evidence failed to show, but rather to extend the realms of the physical to include all necessary possibilities. God, as creator, is not neccessarily a bad thing to a materialist. Just look at the Spinoza-esque ideas many scientists follow. A God creation theory is in the race, but there is no empirical evidence as yet at all to confirm it, and has low fecundity because we still have to explain where God came from, though as with chemogenesis it has both subjective "evidence" and no disproof as of yet. So, at present, it is behind in the race.
This applies equally to the matter of meditation, and so on. Let me, just point out that I do practice meditation myself, though I do not think of it as sensing but more with a goal of understanding. The point with meditation is that if it did have real meaning, then it would be by the materialist way of thought a physical process. Therefore, the idea of "scientism" ignoring non-empirical evidence is absurd, as all evidence is to the materialist by definition empirical. The issue is then whether meditation matters empirically, and in this the evidence is weak.
Firstly, if we accept LWSleeth's assertion that life is real, as far as the materialist is concerned it must be measurable. Measurable, or influence and reality are in materialist terms the same thing.
Secondly, we must accept abiogenesis is incomplete. Certainly, as a theory, there are gaps. But there is no reason to consider them unsurmountable. In scientific terms, clearly these gaps cannot be ignored, because finding and plugging the gaps is what science is about.
There is evidence to support abiogenesis. There is no conclusive evidence, that's all.
Certainly not. Science doesn't make that presumption. Materialists make an alternative pronouncement - anything that has an influence is defined as physical. So, if we assert that an metaphysical entity created the universe/life, then to the materialist, we have merely extended the domain of physical to include that entity.
In short, materialism is not about denying that which prior physical evidence failed to show, but rather to extend the realms of the physical to include all necessary possibilities. God, as creator, is not neccessarily a bad thing to a materialist. Just look at the Spinoza-esque ideas many scientists follow. A God creation theory is in the race, but there is no empirical evidence as yet at all to confirm it, and has low fecundity because we still have to explain where God came from, though as with chemogenesis it has both subjective "evidence" and no disproof as of yet. So, at present, it is behind in the race.
This applies equally to the matter of meditation, and so on. Let me, just point out that I do practice meditation myself, though I do not think of it as sensing but more with a goal of understanding. The point with meditation is that if it did have real meaning, then it would be by the materialist way of thought a physical process. Therefore, the idea of "scientism" ignoring non-empirical evidence is absurd, as all evidence is to the materialist by definition empirical. The issue is then whether meditation matters empirically, and in this the evidence is weak.
Firstly, if we accept LWSleeth's assertion that life is real, as far as the materialist is concerned it must be measurable. Measurable, or influence and reality are in materialist terms the same thing.
Secondly, we must accept abiogenesis is incomplete. Certainly, as a theory, there are gaps. But there is no reason to consider them unsurmountable. In scientific terms, clearly these gaps cannot be ignored, because finding and plugging the gaps is what science is about.
There is evidence to support abiogenesis. There is no conclusive evidence, that's all.
I accept this fully. But people will always have opinions, and will always express that opinion. In sort, I agree completely that an absolutist statement on a scientific theory is an insult to the idea of science. I also think it is unfair to apply the label of materialist to those that do so, since they are simultaneously insulting materialism. Whenever anyone says that, try to subconciously add the phrase... IMHO.
Last edited:
- #135
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Since you've posted this FZ, I assume it is obvious to you that few people here use the word materialism correctly or consistently with one another. I tried to show this in that "Bias against materialism" thread for over twenty pages but got no where.
Despite what AG has claimed a few post above, he most certainly HAS claimed himself to be a materialists. I remember reading it specifically. So the word materialism enters the debate usually because people are claiming it as their belief. And to the point about consistency, the people that are most active in claiming materialism in this forum would not agree with much of what you've said. There is no way Zero would allow materialism to be open to a creator. So I think that whenever you see people bashing materialism here, they are really bashing much of the shallow, dogmatic, idealism that generally comes from people in this forum who claim to be materialists.
So while people bashing materialism may be bashing the wrong label, I think the fault generally falls into the other camp for resisting the idea that they aren't labeling themselves properly or consistently.
- #136
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
IMHO, I do not think you have understood Zero properly here. Zero, and most materialists oppose a theory of God on the connotation of undetectability. In effect, the god of gaps idea. In effect, you you reword the idea of God creating the universe to Giant Alien with super powers (and a beard
) created the universe, then from purely materialist perspectives there is no problem. The idea may be rather forcibly rejected for other reasons, like there being no evidence such a giant alien exists, but it isn't materialistically invalid. Or the idea that a knowable, but not yet found fundamental law created the universe, which has in fact being the driving hypothesis of many materialist thinkers. In fact many very much materialist thinkers have dispensed with any distinction and simply called such universal codes God. "God does not play dice."
The problem with many instances of God is that in many cases it is set up as a moving target - we get the additional assertion that God is not provable/disprovable by empirical, and so materialistically real, methods. In terms of materialism, such an entity, if considered real, is a contradiction in terms.
Why not ask Zero?
Last edited:
- #137
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Then what you are telling me is that you agree with Zero's definition of materialism. Upon re-reading your post again, I see that your view does indeed resemble his. Unfortunately, this cannot be the proper definition of materialism. It's a little off topic here and we spent over 20 pages on it in that other thread but I will try to point out the obvious. If everything that is measurable and "can be shown to exists" then becomes physical and material by definition, why would anyone ever reject materialism? It is correct by definition. But sure enough philsophy is full of arguments for things other than the material. How can this be when you are defining materialism to mean the same thing as the word 'existence'? Could it be they are using a different definition? I suspect so. If something that exists is by definition material then why would anyone believe that something non-material actually exists when if it did exists it would be material by definition? Why would people believe in something that cannot exists?
Heusdens eventually joined in and agreed with me by explaining that there is a scientific definition and a philosophical definition of materialism and they are not the same. But no one would listen.
I understand Zero's position fine. I just didn't understand yours. Now I see they are the same.
- #138
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
But the Matrix is a strictly materialist metaphor.
LWSleeth
I think your problem with systems of life is the same as that which crops up all over in complexity theory, and it hasn't been solved.
“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman quoted in ‘Complexity' – Roger Lewin)
Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer
- #139
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
Sounds like god of the gaps to me. The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry. The problems if there are any with complexity will be solved not by speculation but by empirical investigation.
- #140
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Perhaps you're right, but some people argue that there's a logical problem at the bottom of this, and two and two won't make five however much empirical investigation one does.
- #141
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Certainly, that is the view of the materialist. It seems generally absurd to talk about spiritual entities - materialists would be much more comfortable talking of unknown physical objects and such like. If they did not think this way, materialism would be wholly inconsistent with progressive science, and very few people will be materialist. Someone said once that materialist science has in fact found thousands of fairies and gods - they simply choose to call them Gravity, or Energy, or Relativity.
The idea that anyone would reject materialism is that they would reject the idea of the identicalness of:
influence = existence
For example, Iachuss rejects materialism because he sees existence as being something else, perhaps something in the world of ideas, or as a wholing subjective notion, with influence being a subsidiary consequence rather than the precise moment the thing became real.
And thus these people consider that something can exist without doing anything, or that the material should be bounded somehow not to include some things. In short, they do not agree with the definition, or indeed the axiom of what it means to be real, or to be material.
- #142
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,256
- 0
Yes, that is what I see. I see the scientism devotee adding up all the parts and processes of life without feeling a concern about what brought all those parts and processes together in the incredibly effective form they are in.
Besides, you know who declared vitalism dead don't you? It certainly wasn't the majority of people on this planet. It was, quite conveniently, scientism advocates. Their claim was made with the confidence that they could explain life with physical principles alone.
That's why you hear things like a medical biologist (Lewis Wolpert) claiming in the first chapter of his book on how embryos develop (The Triumph of the Embryo): “I will show that there is no ‘master builder’ in the embryo, no vital force.” Did he? No he simply ignored the issue of what pulled all that chemistry together, and what makes it function such an unusual organizational way. Because he only looked at and described "the parts," he made the stupid claim he'd shown there was no vital force. With that logic, I could take a brilliantly composed painting, break it down to all its component parts, and thereby prove no artist was necessary for such a paining.
So, so far scientism's hope of explaining life has proven to be bravado. And that means declaring vitalism dead was premature.
Last edited:
- #143
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,256
- 0
"God of the gaps" is that "empiricentric" thing again, reflected in the typically reductionist statement " The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry." That's right, the more you take it apart, the more all you see is its constituent parts, which is chemistry. But what pulled it together, and keeps it working together as life? If it is just the parts, then why not disassemble every single bit of chemstry of some cell, throw it in a vat, and have it reassemble into life?
Maybe so, but in terms of complexity being the answer either to life or consciousness, no one has demonstrated it yet have they? Just like chemistry apart from life, all you get complexity to do is continue on for awhile. It never attains that perpetually-evolving, metabolizing, reproducing condition so common to life.
Lewin's statement at least acknowledges the possibility that there might be "something more" which reductionist/empirical investigation may be incapable of revealing. I don't hear a peep about that out of most scientism devotees. Their attitude is that if science can't reveal it, then it must not exist. That's empiricentric if you ask me.
Last edited:
- #144
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Very true. Surprisingly nobody knows (scientifically speaking) what in what order complexity, life and consciousness go in, or what gives rise to what. There are supporters for every possible permutation.
- #145
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
This is an old criticism based on old lab procedures of in vitro analysis. To use the famous example, if you take a watch apart and spread the parts on a table, they won't tell time. Is that evidence for a mysterious property of "Chronalism" that inhabits the intact watch? No, it just means you have to reassemble the watch carefully in order to make it work.
What's going on in life research now:
1) Artificial viruses have already been created. Years ago a virus was dissolved, the DNA extracted and put into another flask with an amino acid solution in it. The DNA all by itself recreated the virus just like the original.
2) in about a year or so Craig Venter is going to slip the DNA out of a simple bacteria and replace it with artificially constructed DNA. He hopes by this to obtain tailored bacteria with commercial potential. I have some hope of seeing before I die (I am 70) the analogous thing done with a multicellular organism; perhaps a yeast, or maybe even possibly a worm like some species of Caenorhabditis, that's how fast things are moving. Within your lifetime artificial creatures that live and breathe. And no lightning bolt required.
3) Modern in vivo techniques like tMRI enable scientists to study cellular reactions in the LIVING organism, and they find - more chemistry. It's a lot more complicated than the watch, in even the simplest organsims, but the principle holds. Everything can be explained by interacting chemistries.
Once again with the god of the gaps. Anything not yet completely pinned down is taken as evidence for vitalism. Bad logic.
- #146
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,256
- 0
First of all, I didn't say have a disassmbled watch tell time to prove chronalism, I said get that watch to assemble itself.
Then you go on to make my point for me by saying " you have to reassemble the watch carefully in order to make it work." My criticism all along has been that no one can demostrate enough of an "assembling process" that will lead to life; plus, that in spite of that failure scientism advocates are claiming abiogenesis is "most likely," or in the past that "vitalism is dead." I say, make your case properly first before making such claims.
You probably think it must because I don't know about those developments that I doubt abiogenesis. Well, I do know about those developements, and all of it, every bit of it, is just more examples of how you can for some number of steps get chemistry to get organized, get more complex, but you CANNOT get it to come alive.
Viruses are not alive, and when you start out with DNA it isn't exactly proving anyway that even viruses can self organize from raw chemicals. Let's see you get DNA to spontaneously form. All the molecular biologists so proud because they take former life parts and hook them to chemistry are conveniently failing to mention they have no clue about how chemistry can, from raw materials, form into something so elegantly capable of directing chemical programming as DNA.
And then in your second example, you are going to replace a living cell's DNA with artificially manipulated DNA, but just like a virus, that DNA ain't going to do it's thing without a living system to work in.
Is it that hard to see that one is not demonstrating chemistry can shape itself into life just because one can fool around with life process and life's former parts?
I don't think the gaps are evidence for vitalism. I don't know at this point what the gaps mean. It is the scientism devotees' failure to properly acknowledge the gaps, to so arrogantly declare "vitalism" dead, to exaggerate the meaning of what they can achieve through molecular biology that bothers me.
I am still open to a real answer, and there is nothing wrong with the logic that is telling me I am being propagandized to by those who are overly eagar for life and consciousness to turn out to be materially derived. It may be, but no one is nearly as close to showing it as they are pretending to be.
Last edited:
- #147
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
This is exactly my point. This is what I've been trying to say since that "bias" thread started. The major driver for disagreement in this forum is not a disagreement on what actually "is" i.e. whether materialism is true or not. It is a disagreement on what words like materialism and existence actually mean. No progress in discussion can be made until these semantic issues are resolved. My point goes further then to say that this semantic issue is not the case in the world of philosophy.
There is a distinct line between materialists, idealists etc etc. They disagree on what "is" and not on what the word materialism means. This is where discussions here need to move to.
We shouldn't go into much detail here but your definition sounds like the "scientific" definition and not the philosophical definition.
- #148
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
I do not see this. Clarify?
What I see is LWSleeth repeating that "life may not have come about by a physical process", to which my immediate reactions is... what is the alternative? What is a process, but something that is physical?
Suppose say vitalism was true. Or that God created life. Or whatever What stops the materialist/scientist from pinning on the label and calling it a physical process, as we have done for the gods of time, space and matter? At what point must we say that x is not a physical process, when to the materialist, the extent of physical processes are infinite?
If we toss away this, we just have the question, is the beginning of life solvable by current knowledge, and current, apparently well established principles. To which the answer is... wait and see.
On a side note, I am doubting whether materialism, idealism, dualism and everything can ever be true or false, but are just ways of thinking, different eyes through which to see an universe of nonsense.
- #149
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Exactly! Do you not see that this is the very same question I am asking? I think you see the same situation I do but it doesn't appear that you understand what point I'm making with the observation. You are simply saying that anything that we discover to be true would then become materialism. You are asking for an example of something that can be found to be true and yet not be physical because you can't see how such a thing exists. And this is exactly what I'm saying. With the definition of materialism that you are using, non material things cannot exists. By definition!
Yet, there are philosophers who consider themselves dualist which means they believe that something non-material does exists. How can this be when we know by definition that it cannot? It is because they are using a different definition of materialism. The definition of materialism that you, Zero, and others here use is not the philsophical definition that is being used when we talk about Materialism/Idealism. It was pointed out in the "bias" thread that confusion is common among scientists and non-scientist because they assume the science definition of materialism applies to the philosophical debate that has been going on for years. When it does not.
I agree with you, if you're using your definition of these things. But the philosophical definition is a much better one that makes it easy to distinguish between material and non-material. When the semantics are clear, the views are either true or they aren't.
- #150
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,256
- 0
What I see so much is everyone in a hurry to have a philosophy, concept, belief, etc. that gives one an answer for the deep questions.
But why not leave all the issues open? You could say, "with the evidence we have today, reality looks like . . . " (i.e., whatever the evidence indicates). If you get new evidence tomorrow, then let whatever it is reshape your concept. Why do you have to settle on the truth of anything ever? I don't. At any given time I only have that which is most supported by my experience, that which is most supported by evidence, and those interesting areas which are supported by my experience and by evidence but yet somehow seem at odds with each other. I usually pay special attention to that.
Of course, with that approach, it requires me to be open to all types of evidence, not that which only supports my favorite theory. It is to trust the truth to reveal itself without any controls, or promotion, or censorship by me.