Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: DonQuichotte on 21/10/2013 19:59:50
-
What's The Origin of Life ?
Hi, folks :
Can we really try to explain or find out about the origins of life , just via physics and chemistry , the latter that cannot , per definition and nature , account fully for such processes such as life , let alone its origins emergence or evolution ...fully .
Do tell me about just all that , please .
Thanks , appreciate indeed .
Cheers .
-
OK, DQ, usual starting rules. Define life, fully, and we'll have a go at explaining its origin.
Frankly, I don't think the "meteorite" source of amino acids gets us very far. Just saying that life, or its fundamental constituents, came from somewhere else, is a bit like a cargo cult explanation for the existence of tinned sardines.
-
The origins of life on earth are a hotly debated topic among scientists. One theory suggests that meteorites brought some of the chemical building blocks for amino acids – the molecules that make up proteins. Now tests on a meteorite provide more evidence that they might have kickstarted the chain of events that led to the evolution of life here.
Read the whole story on our website by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/2197/)
[chapter podcast=3024 track=11.03.06/Naked_Scientists_Show_11.03.06_8008.mp3](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2FHTML%2Ftypo3conf%2Fext%2Fnaksci_podcast%2Fgnome-settings-sound.gif&hash=f2b0d108dc173aeaa367f8db2e2171bd) or Listen to the Story[/chapter] or [download as MP3] (http://nakeddiscovery.com/downloads/split_individual/11.03.06/Naked_Scientists_Show_11.03.06_8008.mp3)
There is nothing new though about that theory that has been circulating around for some time now :
It's pretty possible that life on earth might have originated from other planets , via the "ingredients " of amino-acids transported on board of some meteorites that might have landed on earth ...
Interesting indeed .
-
OK, DQ, usual starting rules. Define life, fully, and we'll have a go at explaining its origin.
Frankly, I don't think the "meteorite" source of amino acids gets us very far. Just saying that life, or its fundamental constituents, came from somewhere else, is a bit like a cargo cult explanation for the existence of tinned sardines.
I do think that life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , as materialists assumes it to be .
Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life , so .
I think there is more to life than just that , but then again, that's just my own belief assumption = unscientific , but not necessarily false , as matrialism is .
But ,that above mentioned meteorite theory might be true , who knows ...
-
I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.
-
I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.
Read what i said carefully then :
Physics and chemistry cannot account fully for such processes such as life , consciousness , human cognition , feelings ,emotions ....otherwise , we can easily make "sentient alive .." machines = cannot be done, obviously , not now , not tomorrow , and not in a trillion years to come either .
I think science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life also , together with the physical biological material ones as well .
Science needs to change radically to be able to do just that , starting from rejecting materialism in science and by replacing it by a non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature in science .
How can science approach the non-physical or non-biological sides of reality or sides of life ......? = beat me .
I do not know how ...yet .Does not mean i will not know how ...tomorrow.
-
Maybe , women just came from Venus , and men from Mars haha kidding .
-
Still no definition.
-
What's The Origin of Life ?
Hi, folks :
Can we really try to explain or find out about the origins of life , just via physics and chemistry , the latter that cannot , per definition and nature , account fully for such processes such as life , let alone its origins emergence or evolution ...fully .
Do tell me about just all that , please .
Thanks , appreciate indeed .
Cheers .
"fully" Well, I know where this is going. Anything that can't be explained now or "fully" proves that materialism is wrong, and western civilization is inferior. If you think I am over-reacting, wait and read the next 26 pages of this thread. It will have nothing to do with biochemistry or the origins of life. And you will think I am psychic!
-
I can't help but agree with alancalverd and his sardines; interesting but has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Anyway, we're getting bombarded with micrometeorites every day and, so far, nobody has shown that these result in new life-forms while the presence of organic molecules in said meteorites has been seen many times.
However, the role of science in the quest for the origins of life has, once again, raised its head. This time, absence of definition aside, the debate seems somewhat more level-headed. So, not a bad place to have another go at drawing the line between Science and other avenues of research into existence.
I agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.
However, I disagree adamantly with DonQuichotte that, "science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life". This is most certainly NOT within the remit of Science; it does not deal with the "observable". There are other disciplines, such as theology or philosophy, that handle these areas of research.
Simply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.
Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.
-
I agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.
Exactly :
That's 1 of the reasons why i did try to post a whole thread concerning the 'origins of life " = it is indeed ludicrous and even unscientific to try to trace back the origins of life to just the 'emergence " of its alleged physical biological material genetical amino-acids , RNA , DNA ....so-called "building blocks " = to try to explain life ,its evolution or origins just in terms of physics and chemistry = there is obviously more to life than just the latter = physics and chemistry alone cannot account fully for the nature of life as such , let alone its evolution , emergence or origins ...fully .
But , materialism reduces life and reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry though , to just material physical biological processes ,including consciousness, feelings , emotions, human reason, human conscience ....including human language ,the latter's origins evolution and emergence , and including the rest = that's just the materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole = the materialist mechanistic false conception of nature that dates back to the 19th century(The materialist false and unscientific conception of nature in science that considers reality as a whole as just a matter of matter , as just allegedly and exclusively being physical material ) ,and that has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere since .
Worse : the materialist false exclusive physical material biological conception of nature has been taken for granted by most scientists without any question,since the 19th century at least thus .
Science is indeed concerned only about the material physical biological side of reality , but that's not all there is to reality as a whole of course , as materialism wanna make people believe it is .
However, I disagree adamantly with DonQuichotte that, "science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life". This is most certainly NOT within the remit of Science; it does not deal with the "observable". There are other disciplines, such as theology or philosophy, that handle these areas of research.
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole , indirectly : see Sheldrake's work regarding telepathy , for example ...
The immaterial side of reality is in fact normal, not paranormal = just the other side of the same coin of the same reality .
Simply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.
Nobody is saying that there is a materialist 'conspiration " : all i am saying is that materialism has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , by imposing its own mechanistic false world view ideology as ...science , since the 19th century at least .
Science can indeed just tell us about the physical material biological side of reality as a whole, of life ......the rest is a matter of belief each one of us should decide for himself/herself .
Science can thus cover only a tiny piece of reality effectively , the known part of the material side of reality thus .
Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.
Don't worry about it ...
-
science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life
Only if you have a nonphysical and nonbiological definition of life. To my mind it is nothing more than the abstract quality demonstrated by all living things, and all definitions of living things seem to come down to observed physics and chemistry. It's a pretty useless word.
-
science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life
Only if you have a nonphysical and nonbiological definition of life. To my mind it is nothing more than the abstract quality demonstrated by all living things, and all definitions of living things seem to come down to observed physics and chemistry. It's a pretty useless word.
[/quote]
Non-sense : reality as a whole, life , consciousness ,memory, human reason,feelings , emotions , ....cannot be accounted for just via physics and chemistry , obviously,no way .
Let me try to rephrase it or reformulate that differently ,as follows :
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ? Obviously ...not .
Do the maths then ...
God...
-
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole
And there, I believe, is the rub. Yes, Science can, but then it wouldn't be Science. It comes back to the confusion about what "science" is that I mentioned in my last post.
Science is not and never will be the spring of all knowledge. The correct term for this is Learning and its goal is, basically, knowing all there is to know. Its a pretty big area so, in order to acquire Learning, we break it down in to various areas. Science is just one, along with many others, both respectable and not. Science deals with the observable, basta! There may come a day when our descendants can tick of the "science" box in Learning because science has done its job. It has classified everything that can be observed. Perhaps, along the way, we will evolve additional sensory mechanisms and science will need expanding; who knows where such an expansion could lead?
In the meantime it is Sciences job to define the origin of life according to what it can observe and test. Science is not there yet but it is making great headway. It is counter-productive to muddy the boundaries between science and other areas of Learning, unless one is selling sensational books or videos; I have no time for Shelldrakes or any of the myriad psuedo-scientists of the religious press who are constantly using this tactic to denigrate science. It is what it is.
-
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?
Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality".
For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.
-
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole
And there, I believe, is the rub. Yes, Science can, but then it wouldn't be Science. It comes back to the confusion about what "science" is that I mentioned in my last post.
Science tries to deal only with the observable empirical faslifiable verifiable reproducible part of reality indeed , so, science can therefore also study telepathy , pyshic and other claims of some people via trying to test them to see if those claims can be reproducible verifiable falsifiable testable ....but , science can say indeed nothing regarding the nature of telepathy , the nature of the alleged psychic skills ....
There are many forms of the scientific method , not just one thus : cosmologists , for example , cannot put stars , planets , galaxies ...the sun haha ...into the lab to study them..........they have their own scientific ways of studying them as you know .
Science is not and never will be the spring of all knowledge. The correct term for this is Learning and its goal is, basically, knowing all there is to know. Its a pretty big area so, in order to acquire Learning, we break it down in to various areas. Science is just one, along with many others, both respectable and not. Science deals with the observable, basta! There may come a day when our descendants can tick of the "science" box in Learning because science has done its job. It has classified everything that can be observed. Perhaps, along the way, we will evolve additional sensory mechanisms and science will need expanding; who knows where such an expansion could lead?
Science is indeed not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly of the truth either , science can only cover a tiny piece of reality , the known one so far at least , that does not mean that all what science cannot observe test verify falsify reproduce ....is false or that that does not exist as such , as materialism in science assumes so wrongly of course , for obvious materialist ideological reasons thus= materialists assume thus that the whole reality is just physical material , and therefore reject God, religions , telepathy , psychic powers ...but , pure science or science proper can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the immaterial side of reality in fact thus , the existence of God ....= do you see here the major difference between materialism as a false belief and science ? materialism that gets sold to the people as science by making science reduce verything= the whole reality to just physics and chemistry thus , including life , consciousness, memory , human love , human spirituality , human reason , human conscience ...
Science cannot , per definition , make us know thus all there is to know out there , simply because science deals only with that tiny piece of reality it can observe test reproduce verify falsify ....
Science is a human limited tool instrument to understand and explain reality thus , the part of reality it can deal with , science is thus no magic or no Alaaddin magical lamp ,despite its huge achievements , despite its highly effective and unparalleled method (s) that's like no other , despite its high descipline ....
Those science's ideals of unbiased objective disciplined methodic approaches of reality are rarely reached by scientists humans : proof ? : that false materialist belief in all sciences and elsewhere that gets taken for granted without question as science , by the mainstream scientific establishment or community = objectivity is a myth .
Do not forget either that science is just a human social activity, a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans via their limited faculties, flaws ,shortcomings , beliefs (see the materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences for that matter and elsewhere , materialist belief that gets presented and sold to the people as science , while materialism as a false world view has nothing to do with science , science has never proved , and can never prove the materialist "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is exclusively material physical , simply because science deals only with the observable testable verifiable empirical ...side of reality , and therefore science can say nothing , per definition, regarding the other potential part of reality = that does not mean that the latter does not exist as such .), science is practiced thus by scientists humans through their whole beings ,objectivity in science is a myth in fact : proof ? = the false and , per definition, unscientific materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , and that gets taken for granted as science by the majority of scientists today .
Maybe , in the future , it's highly probable indeed in fact that man will be able to extend or broaden his/her understanding of what science is , what the scientific method is , through developing an extended scientific method through its epistemology that might deliver some new understandings of science and its core epistemology , via highly probable undersandings of what man is , what man's consciousness might be,relatively speaking , what man's reason emotions feelings intuition and senses are really = that might deliver some advanced forms of the scientific method or methods ...
Technology might also broaden our own understanding of man , nature , the universe ....= in still unimaginable ways-to-all-of-us yet .
Only time will tell then indeed , but we might be not there to witness just that ourselves, who knows .
In the meantime it is Sciences job to define the origin of life according to what it can observe and test. Science is not there yet but it is making great headway. It is counter-productive to muddy the boundaries between science and other areas of Learning, unless one is selling sensational books or videos; I have no time for Shelldrakes or any of the myriad psuedo-scientists of the religious press who are constantly using this tactic to denigrate science. It is what it is.
As long as science will keep on reducing the whole reality to just physics and chemistry (thanks to materialism ) , including life , consciousness , emotions feelings , human reason , human conscience ....science will just be giving us a distorted reflection of reality as a whole ,unfortunately enough .
Only when science will reject materialism , an inevitable fact , simply because materialism is outdated false and has been superseded by the physical sciences themselves even , and simply because science's self-rejuvenating and self - cleansing , self - regenerating critical powers faculties and inrinsic properties can enable science to reject all false assumptions , including and mainly those of materialism , when science thus will be able to do just that , whole unimaginable new vistas will open up for science , when science will cease thus to "see " the whole reality as just a matter of physics and chemistry thus.
-
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?
Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality".
For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.
Well, that's the core issue here : the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least
That the whole reality is physical material = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...= all sciences under the exclusive monopoly and supremacy dominance of materialism thus have been assuming therefore that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...even though science , per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of neither God nor that of the immaterial side of reality thus .
But , proper science as such can indeed thus neither prove nor disprove God or the immaterial side of reality : materialism has thus been making science go beyond its own relam and jurisdiction .
Science proper must and will get rid of that false materialist conception of nature indeed .
If you trace back materialism to its historic cultural ideological political philosophical economic ...Eurocentric roots , you would notice that materialism has been just a product of medieval 's Europe religious conflicts : materialism that has been anti-religion since then, by rejecting anything that is not observable testable empirical .... : materialism goes thus beyond science and its scientific method, beyond both the realm and jurisdiction of science , while imposing all that as science :
materialism that , per definition, can only lead to atheism and reductionism by reducing everything to just physics and chemistry , by rejecting christianity and all other religions as well = there is no God , no immaterial reality ...= materialist ideological belief assumptions that have been imposed on science since the 19th century at least as science , for obvious ideological materialist purposes , in order for materialism to "be able to validate itself as being true " through science as science : so, science has been assuming that the whole reality is material physical thus , thanks to materialism thus , science has been therefore assuming, since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialsm thus , that everything = the whole reality thus can be explained in terms of physics and chemsitry only : an obviously false assumption in all sciences and elsewhere , science gotta get rid of , and science will indeed = inevitable = just a question of ...time thus .
Only time will tell then ....
-
the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least
Repeating this absurd assertion does not make it true or even meaningful. Science is an inanimate process, not a sentient being, so it cannot have any beliefs or assumptions.
-
the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least
Repeating this absurd assertion does not make it true or even meaningful. Science is an inanimate process, not a sentient being, so it cannot have any beliefs or assumptions.
[/quote]
Science is a human social activity , a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans .............Science is just the scientific method (s) practiced by scientists humans ...
So, science is no "entity " ...
It is a simply obvious and an undeniable fact that the materialist dogmatic belief system has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere=( =including in the so-called human sciences , in plolitical science thus , in economics , in anthropology ,sociology, ,in the so-called evolutionary psychology ...and in the rest , including in literature , art ...), since the 19th century at least : see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff...
The mainstream scientific establishment or community has been dominated by materialism since the 19th century as well thus ...
-
Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.
I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?
And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.
"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."
Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.
Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?
-
I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:
Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke
-
I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:
Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke
[/quote]
Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :
The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .
-
Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.
I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?
And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.
"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."
Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.
Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?
[/quote]
haha
"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .
Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :
Materialism has been imposing its owm materialist conception of nature , its world view , or its own materialist belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality as a whole in all sciences , since the 19th century at least :
materialism that assumes thus that the whole reality is just physical material = everything thus (the whole reality ) can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , and just in terms of physics' and chemistry's extensions ...such as "the mind is in the brain, human reason is just a product of the physical brain's neuronal computational activity , memory is stored in the brain = memory as an alleged product of the physical material biological neuronal activity of the brain , consciousness is just a magical emergent property from the evolved complexity of the brain , life as a whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry ...."
Well, quite frankly , i did not expect this shocking simple-minded non-sense from you , i just thought that i might try to give it a shot to try to make you understand what i was saying regarding materialism in all sciences , but i see that you failed , once again , to understand simple facts concerning the simple fact that all sciences at least have been dominated by materialism for so long now :
The "scientific " meta-paradigm by the way ,considers reality as a whole as a material physical process = a materialist belief assumption that has , obviously , nothing to do with science .
I see no point in wasting my time on you any further ,logically = you will only misunderstand my words or distort them beyond any recognition .
Scientists are just humans , no superhumans : objectivity in science is a myth : proof ? : materialism in all sciences and elsewhere .
-
Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :
The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .
What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.
Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?
-
Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :
The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .
What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.
Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?
[/quote]
Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?
Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?
-
DQ
Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?
-
Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?
Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?
Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight, but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.
-
"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .
Fine, I'll accept that. So your argument starts with..
Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :
These are two consecutive sentences; they are blatantly contradictory. Science must not, should not and CANNOT assume anything; it is a tool that is used for a particular job. One wouldn't use a microscope to hammer in a nail and one wouldn't use science to investigate an aspect of Reality that was not observable.
I'm sorry; I am not prepared to wade through pages of literature in a discussion forum. Can you, in one or two sentences and without reference to any third party, explain what it is about Science or the way that it is conducted that you object to? Do you deny that Science is a tool and nothing else?
-
Donquichotte, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Currently science follows a principle of methodological naturalism. Both those words are central to the practice of science. You have misinterpreted this as the application of materialism. Admittedly there is some correlation, but precious little causation.
When we say science follows the principle of naturalism we mean several related things. Naturalism takes as axiomatic that the universe behaves according to certain rules. Further it believes these rules can be discovered through observation, experiment and inference. Moreover, the rules are applied consistently. Supernatural events do not occur. There are no interventions by a supreme being; no ghosts; no magic.
But more than this, science uses methodological naturalism. This is an important distinction. Pure naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural. You could argue that this matches your claims for materialism. But methodological naturalism is different. It makes no claim as to the existence, or non-existence of the supernatural. It simply declares "we do not investigate the supernatural, we assume it does not exist, since if it did it would not be subject to investigation by the scientific process". So, science, currently acts as if there was no supernatural, while not actually denying the possibility of its existence.
-
DQ
Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?
I am interested , most of all, in trying to make you ,folks, understand what science really is , in trying to make you , folks, realise that science must be liberated from that false outdated and superseded materialist mechanical secular religion ideology misconscption of nature in science , then , and only then , we can talk ...pure science .
-
Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?
Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?
Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight, but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.
Once again, sis :
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just biological physical material processes since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact restrict and confine itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , the rest does "fall " both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .
-
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry since the 19th century at least , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .
No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?
I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either. Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?
-
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.
The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff? Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
-
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry since the 19th century at least , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .
No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?
You did ,obviously, not understand what i was saying , once again :
I said : science has been pretending to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such already , by reducing it to just material physical biological processes , thanks to materialism , = by reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions , while science should in fact limit itself only to the observable, empirical ...
Who said that the whole reality as a whole as such as allegedly being just material physical biological processes = just physics and chemistry ...who said that that allegation , or rather materialist false belief assumption in science is an ..."empirical observable ...fact " ? : see the materialist dominating meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , a meta-paradigm's core materialist belief assumption that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical ..= a materialist meta-paradigm belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " ...
Get that ,or not yet ?
I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either.
I am not imposing anything : i just refer you , folks, to relevant links on the subject , that's all : it is your own free choice to read it ot not : Sheldrake, for example, is a qualified scientist on the subject: he did write a whole scientific book on the subject i have been providing you, folks, with important and relevant excerpts from .
Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?
What do you think i was doing all along ? = see above .
-
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.
The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff? Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
[/quote]
Never mind that :
Just tell me this : this is the core issue here by the way , once again :
Do you think that the whole reality as a whole as such is just material physical ? = just a matter of physics and chemistry = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such ?
Is that an "empirical , observable ...fact , or assumption ? " = of course not : well, that's what science has been doing = considering reality as a whole as such as just being material physical, thanks to materialism , while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical...part of reality it can deal with , the rest is both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisidction as well .
P.S.: see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , once again, a materialist meta-paradigm that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical :
How can science pretend to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such already , as science has been doing , thanks to materialism for so long now ?
Just do try to tell me about it ...
-
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case.
And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.
-
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case.
And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.
[/quote]
Just answer my questions , instead of these silly empty rhetorics of yours .
Is reality as a whole as such just physical material ?
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
The answer to that question is so obvious and simple that it would not have to cost you any intellectual effort to see ...as a scientist .
Use your mind then , not your head = your mind is not in your brain, not in your head , your mind is not your head , is not your brain .
-
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
No.
You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
-
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
No.
You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
[/quote]
haha
Well, good for you : you just went against the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , as you should do indeed , a materialist 'scientific world view " you do take for granted without question, despite your "no " here .
Congratulations .
-
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.
Do not tell me what I think. You make yourself look foolish.
-
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
-
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
[/quote]
There was no such a thing as "dismemberment " of my allegations regarding science to be detected in your above mentioned post , that one that dates back to the first of November thus , i am with you regarding what science actually is and should be as a result , science as just a human effective and unparalleled tool instrument method to deal with the observable, empirical ...........via multiple ways that are specific to their corresponding specific sciences , there are sciences indeed , as there are many forms of the scientific method, not just one : cosmologists do not deal with the cosmos like biologists do in relation to life etc...
Naturalist science has been dominated by the materialist reductionist naturalist false conception of nature , in the sense that reality as a whole is just physical material, and therefore there is no such a "being " such as God, no immaterial side of reality you do call the 'supernatural " , the latter that's just semantics that mean nothing = the immaterial side of reality is in fact ...normal, not paranormal ;the "paranormal " label is just the materialist way of dismissing what it , per definition, rejects ,that's all .
That reality as a whole is just physical material is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one , but that materialist core belief assumption has been taken for granted as science , for so long now thus , once again .
But fact is , once again : thanks to materialism , the 'scientific world view " is materialist = reality as a whole is just physical material = see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere , and therefore is the human mind or human intellect , memory in general, consciousness, emotions, feelings , ...are just products of the physical brain's neuro-chemical activity= materialist belief assumptions , no empirical ones .
-
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.
Let me try to reconstruct for you the 'scene of the committed crime " haha, before it gets "infected , messed with and distorted " beyond any recognition then :
I asked you the following :
Do you think that reality as a whole is material physical ? You answered no .
But , ironically and pradoxically, modern science has been in fact assuming that reality as a whole thus is just material physical, thanks to materialism , a "scientific " assumption that has been just a materialist core belief assumption, not an empirical or scientific one .
So,when you said no , that meant you were against that materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as a result , a 'scientific world view " you have been taking for granted without question as the scientific one , despite your "no ".
So, make up your mind then :
Is reality as a whole just material physical ? , if not , as you answered previously , then you are against the 'scientific world view " on the subject , if yes , then you have been deluded into assuming that that materialist core belief assumption has been "the scientific world view " , either way , you have to explain your position predicament .
Will you do just that ?
Do not tell me what I think.
I was not telling you what to think , i was just asking you a question you responded to , a response of yours that did go against the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " or 'scientific consensus " on the subject thus .
You make yourself look foolish.
No, i don't think so , see above .
You have been putting yourself , as a scientist thus, in a weird paradoxical ironic situation predicament , as the majority of scientists today have been doing , you should try to solve for yourself at least .
Will you do just that , as i asked here above ?
-
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=37765.msg422108#msg422108) is already being realised.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.0), and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.
Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.
And now, back to the fun...
-
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
-
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
-
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.
It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.
Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.
-
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.
[/quote]
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
Try to read the following and try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/
High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos
High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.
The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.
The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.
As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.
-
1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"
I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of human intellect ,of feelings ,of emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .
See how Sheldrake has been studying telepathy, for example, scientifically .
2) There is no materialist conspiracy
Who said there is one ?
. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate
.
What do you mean exactly ?
The medieval church used to be against science , wasn't it ?
The medieval church that used to see itself as the one and only undisputed ultimate authority : anyone who used to challenge it , used to face dire consequences ,as you know .
The medieval church used to plant the seeds of its own decline , and those of the rise or birth of mechanistic materialism thus as a result .
They were generally in opposition
Scientists were , yes ? indeed ,so .
. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.
I was just talking about the secular materialist establishment as the newly born ultimate authority that had replaced christianity ,metaphorically speaking , as the concept of the nation-state had replaced that of the church : the secular materialist establishment as the new then undisputed ultimate authority whose main 'ally " was / has been science , when science became materialistic mechanistic , thanks to materialism thus .
Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.
Wrong :
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
Just be serious , come on :
Just answer the question, come on.
Be serious, ok ?
Well, when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put on a new path that might lead to new unimaginable discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?
Science has been just deluded into "thinking " , thanks to materialism thus , that the material physical side of reality is all what there is to reality = a distortion of reality .
When science will be liberated from materialism, then science will be able to "see " or rather try to approach the whole pic of reality or rather science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality , science has been taking for the whole real thing = the scope realm , jurisdiction and reach of science will be then extended exponentially ,relatively speaking then, while there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus .
... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example .
Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?
Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis ;)
Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .
Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers .
-
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=37765.msg422108#msg422108) is already being realised.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.0), and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.
Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.
And now, back to the fun...
See above .
No, you are completely wrong , on all accounts :
I have been put in a position where i have been forced to repeat the same facts over and over again regarding the core fact that materialism is no science , simply because you refuse to acknowledge those simple facts : i did even post a lots of material on the subject that has been supporting my allegations , and more .
Besides, God or religions , any world views for that matter , including materialism thus , materialism as just a secular dogmatic orthodox religion in science , are both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .
So, materialism has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry in science , while selling that materialist core belief assumption to the people as science , in order to reject all non-materialist world views , including religions thus , "scientifically ", and in order for materialism to try to "validate " itself through science as science , in order thus for materialism to try to prove itself as being " the one and only scientifically true world view " , as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course : no wonder that materialism in science has been sold to the people as "the scientific world view " , materialism that's just a false conception of nature that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science , science that should try to deal with all parts of reality it can deal with empirically , not just with the material part of reality science has been confined to , thanks to materialism , the material side of reality that science has been assuming that it is all what there is to reality as a whole .
I cannot be any clearer than that .
-
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.
Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).
-
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.
It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.
Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.
[/quote]
There is a lots of speculations ,fairy tales, bullshit ....in science regarding the origins of life,way more than in any other given field of science :
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter , or just how the alleged first RNA emerged , or rather how just the first alleged organic matter did emerge from the dead matter ....and how the magical emergence of the organic matter , after so many alleged accidents in the middle of that messy so-called original soup ....how life emerged via so many mutations, atsronomical unbelievable accidents and random chance , through millions and millions of years ...............even a sane kid would not believe as such= unbelievable fairy tales in science .
Try to do that , go ahead , be my guest , impress me and knock yourself out , scientist .
Physics and chemistry are just the material physical biological side of life : to try to find out about the origins of life just via physics and chemistry , while pretending or assuming that physics and chemistry are all what there is to life , by ignoring the immaterial side of life , is simply ludicrous and unscientific + a materialist belief assumption in science that's no science = pseudo-science .
Besides, physics and chemistry or the laws of physics alone cannot account for the origins and emergence of life as such , the latter that cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , obviously , otherwise , try to explain to us how life did emerge from the inorganic or dead matter for that matter , via some magical materialist inexplicable tricks performances ,such as that silly magical materialist 'emergence " trick performance regarding the origins, emergence and nature of consciousness , or such as those silly materialist mechanical neuronal 'computational " mechanisms regarding the origins emergence and nature of the human intellect ......
-
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.
Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .
If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
But fact is , not everyhting is just a matter of the laws of physics , of cause and effect thus , otherwise try to explain or rather predict the behaviour, development , evolution or nature of conscionsess , the economy , politics , cultures , societies , and the rest , just via the laws of physics, just via atoms , molecules ...do not be silly = mechanistic determinist materialism has been turning you into an insane counter-intuitive fool, sorry , despite the counter-evidence that stares at you in front of your very eyes .
Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).
Physics cannot explain or predict everything ,despite that so-called theory of everything fantasy utopia .
To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science that makes no sense whatsoever : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .
If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
Who or what drives your car , if not yourself ...who or what makes you sleep with your wife , ...some strip-tease harmonious synchronisations oscillations vibrations ritual dances of neurons or of ensemble of neurons, through their atoms and molecules' interactions ... ? come on .
What triggers wars ? atoms ?
What put you in the lab ? atoms ?
What makes a politician , a musician, a criminal , a priest , an alien, a pedophile ,Hitler ...do what he/she does ? atoms or their sexy ritual dances ?
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit .
What is nature then ?: mechanistic materialism had just "killed " God by replacing God by another god = nature , as Nietzsche was trying to do his own sick pathological way .
What is nature way down to its bottom ultimate core then ? An endless pandora's box thus .
Atoms do not make up everything , neither figuratively , nor literally .
Don't be ridiculous ...
P.S.: You know :
When i finished reading some parts of Nagel's book ,i saw how he desperately tried to find his already troubled confused atheist naturalist way ,within his naturalist atheist linear belief assumptions , in order to sort out the inherent paradoxical elements of his naturalist atheist belief or world view ,by rejecting the false materialist mechanistic reductionist conception of nature ,while trying to figure out an alternative to it : the outcome was so tragic-hilarious in the sense that he perceived nature (his so-called naturalism would not allow him to do otherwise of course , unless he would reject it : i do not see why naturalism cannot be underlied by ...God , really = that's the only serious solution ,if one is a true thruth seeker in fact ) , he perceived nature thus as being intrinsically teleological and an intrinsic generator of the mind , life , or consciousness from the very start of it , giving nature godlike qualities , simply because he refused to believe in God , simply because he said he did not want there to be a God , .....= his atheist belief assumptions determined the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual dishonesty at best = pathetic .
You know :
Nagel's "search for the truth " reminds me of that of atheist French nobel prize winner Albert Camus = that reveals the very heart mind and spirit of atheism = a deliberate conscious choice to reject God , even if the latter turns out to be the ...fundamental truth , the very fundamental power underlying ...nature and the universe , so to speak = you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am a true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .[/b]
-
Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...
Duh! You don't have to be a genius to know the mathematics of chaos is deterministic - just read the first paragraph of the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory):
Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .
You're sooo confused... I didn't say unpredictability can be predicted, I said a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable, as in chaos. If you'd bothered to read up about chaos theory before posting, you wouldn't get it so wrong.
If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
Good grief... what are you gibbering about? Do please read and try to understand what is written and not confabulate some fantasy you imagine was said. Once more: determinism does not imply predictability.
To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?
These are philosophical questions. Science simply makes better models of what is observable. Quantum mechanics is the best so far, and there's reason to believe it may not be deterministic (it kind of depends how you look at it - some interpretations are deterministic).
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
Well to an extent, that depends what you mean by 'nothing'; although, to be fair, I'm not particularly excited by that hypothesis.
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science that makes no sense whatsoever : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .
Good thing no-one said that then. Hurrah for quantum mechanics.
If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
That's a thread in its own right :)
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit ....
Are you serious? that is so lame - I thought God-botherers dropped that 'determinism = no morals, all zombies' idea years ago. Where have you been - you really don't understand how evolution can give rise to behavioural traits?
But also consider, if quantum mechanics implies the universe is non-deterministic, which it may, it does so by introducing a random, probabilistic element. How does that help free will? Doesn't adding randomness make things worse for free will? At least with determinism, your actions are the result of your own development, unique life experiences, and state of mind...
Even in a deterministic universe, we will act as if we have free will - we have no choice (I can explain that for you if you don't understand it).
... his atheist belief assumptions determined the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual dishonesty at best = pathetic
... you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am a true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .
Well, I did say you'd start the insults under pressure - does that mean I'm psychic? no, it means you are sadly predictable. Insulting me won't make your errors any less obvious.
-
What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.
-
What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.
The earliest ones were bacteria, using hydrogen and sulphur or organic acids or other organic compounds. After around 1.5 billion years, one adapted to use water as an electron source instead, producing oxygen, which was much more efficient. From then on it was all downhill... The chloroplasts in plant cells are thought to be relics of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria.
The Oriental Hornet is the only animal known to photosynthesise for itself, using xanthopterin, a pigment also found in butterfly wings.
-
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter ...
The famous 1953 Miller-Urey experiment made more than 20 amino acids by generating sparks in a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, believed to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere. Since then, it's been discovered that the early atmosphere was probably richer, due to volcanism. More recent experiments have produced many more organic compounds than Miller-Urey did.
But amino acids can also be produced in space by processes involving heat (meteorites have been found with amino acids in them (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html)), and also the cold of deep space (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid-found-in-deep-space.html). NASA experiments (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_33AR.html) that have simulated the deep space conditions have also made amino acids. In all cases, glycine was the most abundant amino acid found.
As for RNA and the other complex organics that life is based on, they can easily be made in the lab, and there are a number of chemically plausible hypotheses for their natural generation from amino acids and other simple organics, although they haven't been observed experimentally yet; but then we don't know exactly what environment was involved (clays or volcanic muds, oceanic vents & flumes, surface pools, fresh or salt water, etc.), and we don't have a whole planet with those conditions and a billion years to play with...
There are physically, chemically, and energetically plausible hypotheses to account for almost all the stages to produce a primitive replicator (cell), but we don't yet know which, if any of them, might have actually occurred, or the precise environment(s) necessary. Some teams, like Craig Venter's, are taking a top-down approach, reverse-engineering the bacterial genome to find the minimal functional genome. They've already produced a live bacterium (called 'Synthia') with a completely synthetic genome, and are making good progress. They have commercial applications in mind, so they have a high chance of success. Interestingly, he signs these artificial genomes with his tradename.
Fortunately, your incredulity has no influence whatsoever on the progress of the teams involved in this research. I think there's a better than even chance that all the stages of an abiogenesis model will be demonstrated in vitro in my lifetime; I doubt it will ever be possible to say exactly what happened 13 billion years ago. YMMV.
-
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .
Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .
How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .
Unbelievable .
-
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite.
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Also as I predicted (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=37765.msg423222#msg423222) - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.
-
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .
Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .
How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .
Unbelievable .
Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.
-
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite.
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Also as I predicted - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.
[/quote]
Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels .
I did post Nagel's Chapter 2 for the first time here , because i found it relevant to this discussion concerning the inherent implausible absurd , counter-intuitive paradoxical incoherent inconsistent false ...you name it ....materialist 'scientific world view " , simply because you do not wanna listen to what i have been saying , you just listen to what materialism whispers into your ears : you are just driven by belief assumptions only , not by facts , science is a matter of facts , not a matter of beliefs opinions ....even though science does need hypothesis assumptions theories ...in order to progress , but when a so-called scientist is confronted over and over again by the obvious simple and undeniable fact that his so-called 'scientific world view " is false , but can't or does not want to consider that option, then, that's the end of the story , right ?
All that materialist bullshit and much more you have been talking about , except some rare relevant insights you did provide , all that i have encountered in some form or other during my own journey : so, i am not interested in any false materialist belief assumptions that get taken for granted as "the scientific world view " : the latter is mostly what you can offer only : so, just try to sell it to somebody else : i am not buying ,Mr.Jehova's witness .
Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .
Well, of course physics and chemistry alone can explain "everything" =(=not even remotely close thus , even at the level of just matter thus ) within just the materialist version of reality , of course the universe must be determinist , logically , within (not even that remotely close thus, even at the level of just matter thus ) the materialist version of reality :
materialism that inherently does require reductionism atheism and determinism : how convenient and handy = The "truth " at the service of ideology , not the other way around .
How convenient and handy materialism has been : reducing reality to just what materialism assumes or rather believes reality to be , and then afterwards,saying that that materialist core belief asumption regarding the nature of reality is the one and only 'scientific world view " , amazing = when 1 would reduce reality to just what 1 believes reality to be in science , then, all scientific facts experiments' results views theories would be ,logically , misinterpreted in a way to make them fit into that belief,obviously = turning science into a belief , into a dogmatic orthodox religion .
It's a bit like saying , just an analogy , no matter what scientific experiments would deliver , only my materialist belief is true , is science , regardless of whether science can prove or disprove my materialist belief haha= my materialist belief is not only science , it is "the scientific world view " .
-
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .
Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .
How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .
Unbelievable .
Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.
Indeed , you are right , if we would consider that just from the materialist key hole point of view thus , logically = as i said here above = you are driven just by the materialist 'scientific world view " not by science , not by facts thus : no wonder thus = your materialist belief assumptions are science ,are the "scientific world view " to you at least thus , logically .
-
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
-
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels .
My saying, "I don't know", is 'over-estimating my capacity of judgement'? Have you any idea how crazy that sounds?
-
Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .
Please show your counter-evidence, or shut up.
-
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
I think it may have taken a week? with a day's rest of course (but no mention of tea or lunch breaks).
-
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
[/quote]
I am well aware of those experiments and research and much more similar stuff as well , i have been encountering in some form or another : that's not what i asked dlorde to explain to the people here :
To be able to make amino-acids , RNA , other organic matter , artificial genomes , to be able to manipulate cells, bacteria, viruses or other living organisms ,for commercial or for other purposes ...genetically and more are no evidence for how life emerged .
The father of human genome mapping has even tried , as some Italian scientist and others did , they even tried to "create " a primitive cell from its most basic and necessary components , while eliminating the seemingly unecessary ones , just to see how a cell fundamentally works , in order to replicate it or rather recreate it from those most basic elements of it : they failed so far , and even if they succeed in "creating life " that way , as they have pretended to do , they still had to use existing basic organic elements of that cell in question thus = that does not explain how life had emerged for the first time from inorganic matter ...
So, that's not what i asked dlorde to tell the people here :
I told him mainly , try to explain to us how life emerged from the dead matter ; how physics and chemistry can "generate " life ...
Nobody has the answer to just that , and nobody will , just because life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone .
-
life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone
Pray tell us what you think it is, then we can have a go at explaining how it happened.
-
dlorde :
Quantum physics or modern physics , or the laws of physics alone , physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the whole reality as a whole as such , simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical , so :
whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .
Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
In short :
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything " .
Physics and chemistry cannot even explain "everything " regarding the material side of reality they have been taking for the whole real thing .
End of the story .
-
... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .
Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything " .
It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.
Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?"
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"
That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.
There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...
I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reasons are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.
-
... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .
Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything " .
It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.
Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?"
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"
That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.
There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...
I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reason are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.
[/quote]
Just cut the crap then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids , then and only then , i will answer yours :
I have been asking this same core question explicitly or implicitly in one form or another for so long now , in vain : nobody , including yourself , can give an answer to : cannot be answered , simply because the materialist 'scientific world view ", or rather the materialist conception of nature is , obviously ...false :
Why do you think that reality as a whole is just material or physical then ,once again ? Why do you take it for granted as the "scientific world view " : when did science ever prove that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true" that reality as a whole is just material or physical ? when ? = never , ever , obviously .
Just try to deliver your own materialist "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality as a whole , the materialist version of reality that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view " , an alleged 'scientific world view " that is,obviously ..false .
Deal ?
-
While I can not say whether life arrived here on earth, already created, or was created here, I will say that life was not a random sequence of events over a period of time but instead,our biological form of life was engineered. There is no random path to the ribosome, m-RNA, t-RNA system. as the minimum ribosome structure is far too complex for it to be achieved randomly even if there was a very concentrated soup of RNA and amino-acids. If it had been so, there would be an evidence trail and far more diversity in ribosomal structure than is present today.
Certain organelles such as the cell membrane might be easily obtained through random functions as is also possible for the amino-acids but the RNA-Ribosome complex of even the lowest prokaryote to have been formed randomly. It was necessary for this component of life to be assembled with forethought and intent.
The ribosome is a masterpiece of engineering.
-
Folks :
Can some genius here or elsewhere tell me how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?
-
... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?
biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life
A proof of concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept) are the space invader (https://www.google.co.uk/images?q=Space+Invaders) type patterns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Examples_of_patterns) which appear in cellular automata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton) which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Rules).
If you were about to say cellular automata don’t resemble real life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton#Biology) see "Rule 30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30)" ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
-
... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?
biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life
A proof of concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept) are the space invader (https://www.google.co.uk/images?q=Space+Invaders) type patterns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Examples_of_patterns) which appear in cellular automata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton) which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Rules).
If you were about to say cellular automata don’t resemble real life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton#Biology) see "Rule 30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30)" ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
[/quote]
See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
-
See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
In my previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49512.msg423550#msg423550) above I provided evidence that emergent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) properties do occur.
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.0).
[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving) or ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks ]
-
See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
In my previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49512.msg423550#msg423550) above I provided evidence that emergent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) properties do occur.
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.0).
[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving) or ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks ]
[/quote]
See my reply to you on the subject on the consciousness thread :
Emergent property phenomena do occur only at the biological, physical or material levels .
In the case of consciousness that's not a biological process , the biggest mistake ever made in science is that one does confuse the image of the process of consciousness in the physical brain ,with the cause of the process.
-
See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
In my previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49512.msg423550#msg423550) above I provided evidence that emergent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) properties do occur.
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.0).
[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving) or ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks ]
[/quote]
Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .
Plus :
It all comes down to the following :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .
So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?
Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus :
Even evolution itself cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence ,the same goes for the origins of human language....and the rest .
-
Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .
You are making an assertion. Making an assertion is not evidence.
RD specifically asked for evidence to support your refutation. Simply repeating your assertion does not constitute evidence. It is only an opinion, and a highly questionable opinion.
Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?
-
Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?
I think you'll find that Don's modus operandi is mostly repeated assertion, bluster, and ad-hominems. I and others have repeatedly asked him for evidence or plausible argument to support his assertions in other threads, but none have been given.
-
Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .
You are making an assertion. Making an assertion is not evidence.
RD specifically asked for evidence to support your refutation. Simply repeating your assertion does not constitute evidence. It is only an opinion, and a highly questionable opinion.
Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?
[/quote]
The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science:
The image of the process gets confused with the cause of the process:
When you do see lightening , for example , in the sky : that's just its image , not it cause , obviously , the same goes for brain and mind, as explained here below :
It goes without saying that consciousness is self-evidently non-physical as we all experience it to be , so, that materialist inexplicable magical "emergence " trick performance ,regarding the nature or origins of consciousness is just an extension of the false materialist conception of nature that "sees " reality as a whole as being just material or physical, including consciousness thus :
It goes without saying also that the materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature is false , simply because reality as a whole cannot be just physical or material, and hence the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " is also false .
Do the maths then ,so to speak .
-
So, in summary you believe that evidence means hand-waving, word salad, ambiguity and further unfounded assertions. I'll afford you one more opportunity to provide evidence. Here, this may help.
Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.
Evidence is not dogma.
Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.
Evidence is not an idea.
Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.
Evidence is not a You-Tube video.
Evidence is not a majority opinion.
Evidence is not a minority opinion.
Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis.
So what is your evidence? Remember, it must take heed of the above.
-
So, in summary you believe that evidence means hand-waving, word salad, ambiguity and further unfounded assertions. I'll afford you one more opportunity to provide evidence. Here, this may help.
Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.
Evidence is not dogma.
Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.
Evidence is not an idea.
Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.
Evidence is not a You-Tube video.
Evidence is not a majority opinion.
Evidence is not a minority opinion.
Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis.
So what is your evidence? Remember, it must take heed of the above.
[/quote]
Can't you read ?
All sciences have been assuming that the materialist secular religion in science is "true and scientific " , that the false materialist conception of nature, the materialist world view or philosophy is "true and scientific " : all sciences have been ruled by the materialist dogmatic belief system ,since the 19th century at least .
All sciences thus must reject their false materialist meta-paradigm ,and hence their false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " , if they wanna be less dogmatic and more scientific,if they wanna be able to progress ,if they wanna be able to become relatively ....free ,if they wanna deserve fully to be called ...sciences .
You will have to throw most of your presumed "scientific " knowledge to the garbage , that's been just materialist ...crap, that's been just materialist false belief assumptions .
Congrat ...and condolences .
-
I can certainly read, though you continue to provide evidence that you may be challenged in this skill.
You have not provided any evidence to support what you say. You continue to mouth opinions. As long as you continue this agenda driven preaching there is little point in further discussion.