Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2013 18:24:24
-
Are We Alone in The Universe ?
Are we, dear folks ?
Since there is more than billions and billions of galaxies out there , and much more maybe , it's pretty possible and logical to assume that some kind of life might have emerged on some planet out there, we do not know of .
Maybe some advanced aliens out there "manufactured " us , human beigns , also , who knows ?
Our human reality might be just a kind of elaborate matrix or hologram , who knows .
Do tell me about just that , please , i am serious , thanks , appreciate indeed .
Cheers .
The Secret Evidence We Are Not Alone :
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secret-evidence-we-are-not-alone/
-
Probably not.
As for our being an artefact, why?
-
Probably not.
As for our being an artefact, why?
How can you be so sure about that then ?
Have you explored all the universe already , via some time travel machine maybe ?
-
The funny thing is that i asked a friend of mine the same above mentioned question of this thread , and guess what he replied :
"Are we alone on earth?, Are we the one and only truely intelligent beings on earth ? "
He added : i am not referring to any of the other known living organisms on earth ...
-
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Either way, the two alternatives, alone or not alone, are amazing to contemplate.
-
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Absolutely.
One could think of Earth as "average", but among all the earth-like planets that exist, somewhere one has to be first, and one has to be last.
It is believed that shortly after Earth was first capable of supporting life, then life in fact developed. This might indicate that any planet like Earth (which we would have to assume there are others) would also develop life. Or, it might indicate that everything came together at the right time. Even if abiogenesis was inevitable, the jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was apparently slow, and may not always occur everywhere.
We can be amazed by the harmony of nature. But, life could well have extinguished itself too.
While Earth may have the only sentient multi-cellular beings in our solar system, perhaps more analysis of Mars, Europa, and Titan, as well as the many asteroids will reveal evidence of either current, or previous life elsewhere in our solar system. Then its characteristics will help us understand life in general.
-
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Which is why it is worth applying Bayesian statisics and asking what if anything is remarkable about your tiny sample. This leads quite nicely to the Drake equation which suggests (a) there is a nonzero probability that something we might call life either exists, may have existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe and (b) we are most unlikely to find it. Such cautious statistical analysis is a long way from the Goldilocks or anthropocentric extrapolation, even if conclusion (b) is indistinguishable from the Goldilocks result!
-
Personally, I find the idea that Earth is the only home of life to be unlikely. Your suggestion that we could exist as nothing but a Matrix-like simulation is untestable (unless you could find a bug in the system). Really, we know information exists but we can't prove anything else (see Wheeler's "It from bit").
-
Your suggestion that we could exist as nothing but a Matrix-like simulation is untestable (unless you could find a bug in the system).
It would take an enormous amount of computing power to simulate 7 billion people, and about 20 billion chickens, and all the other creatures.
Of course, if one looks at life through the eyes of a single person, then one only really ever sees at most a thousand or so people at at time.
Then one would have to ask to what end we are in this incalculable simulation. Perhaps like an ant farm, but still the effort to manage it would be extraordinary.
I think the same would go for having some magical figure controlling every aspect of our lives, and listening to billions of prayers a day.
As far as we can tell, the other planets in our solar system do just fine without "life". And, even Earth could exist quite fine without humanity.
We may well be just an accidental coalition of amines and hydrocarbons that somehow started catalyzing their own regeneration.
-
I expect we'll have evidence of life on another planet in another star system within the next couple of decades, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it happened before 2020. Finding intelligent life on our own level will be a lot less likely, but again I think it'll be out there somewhere and we may get a signal from it some day. Perhaps we'll meet up with some of them when our galaxy merges with M31 (though meeting directly could be lethal for all involved due to unfamiliar bacteria and their alien equivalents).
-
If we find a planet in the Goldilocks zone, with an oxygen rich atmosphere, we could start beaming continuous radio signals in that direction. Perhaps alternately broadcasting in AM, FM, and binary pulses, all either in multi-frequency, or variable frequencies.
If the other planet either knew of our existence, or happened to be tuned in this direction, they might pick up the signal.
Still, if the planet was 100 light years away, it would take about 2 centuries to exchange a simple "Hello".
Could we design a probe capable of enduring for a million year trip, or so, just to check it out?
Of the 300 billion stars in the Milky Way, we might not have to wait for Andromeda to possibly stir the pot after our sun likely expands to the red giant phase.
-
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Which is why it is worth applying Bayesian statisics and asking what if anything is remarkable about your tiny sample.
When we do this we discover we lack the knowledge, currently, to answer that question for several key issues.
This leads quite nicely to the Drake equation which suggests (a) there is a nonzero probability that something we might call life either exists, may have existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe
The Drake equation is generally misunderstood and misapplied. Frank Drake introduced the equation as an agenda for a meeting on extra-terrestrial intelligence held at the Green Bank observatory in the early 1960s. He did not intend it as a serious means of estimating the number of ET civilisations. Later he seems to have forgotten his own intentions and readily made such estimates with it.
The equation only generates a non-zero probability if one arbitrarily introduces non-zero terms in all of the functions within the equation. At present we lack the data to this with full confidence.
(b) we are most unlikely to find it.
This is not the case if you take the more ebullient numbers proposed by some researchers. Nor is it the case if you accept the improvements to be expected from technological advances in our ability to detect life forms elsewhere. So, this is not a conclusion we can form from proper application of Drake.
Such cautious statistical analysis is a long way from the Goldilocks or anthropocentric extrapolation, even if conclusion (b) is indistinguishable from the Goldilocks result!
Since the use of the Drake equation implicitly involves identification of Goldilocks zones I fail to see how you can make this assertion.
-
My misappropriation of Goldilocks as being "just right" - i.e. anthropocentric - as distinct from "good enough" to support a selfreplicating organism.
I would be extremely surprised if there was nowhere else in the universe with some kind of green slime or uber-Klingon in residence. I would be (extremely)2 surprised if it ever made contact with homo sapiens. And given what hom sap did to the dodo, and even to tribes of its own species, the prospects for a joyous outcome to such a meeting are not hopeful anyway.
-
My point is that what would or would not surprise you (or any of us) has little foundation, since our knowledge is currently inadequate in too many areas. i.e, back to my original point about extrapolating from a sample size of one.
-
Hold on! The sample size is at least a dozen planetary objects (i.e. including large moons) , and thousands of smaller chunks of rock, in the solar system, of which only one is known to support life and only two others (Mars and Europa) might have or have had the capability of doing so - assuming that life involves selfreplicating systems that transpire water.
Now given the very small range of orbital radii around any given star, within which water will remain liquid, and the minimum size of planet needed to retain water in its atmosphere, it's unlikely that any star will have more than one Earthlike planet in the right orbit. So we are beginning to put some real numbers into Drake. We need a star of similar age and composition to the sun to provide a reasonably stable energy input without too much ionising radiation, and since that pretty much defines the mass range of the candidate star, we can begin counting candidates.
It is sensible to double the actual number of candidate stars on the grounds that we know of at least one moon that probably contains liquid water on account of its internal heat and suitable size.
In other words we really have enough knowledge of the conditions required to sustain anything we might call life, and of the distribution of star types at least within a few galaxies (which we may as well assume to be typical) to set an upper limit on the probability of life existing elsewhere. Hence my opinion that it is nonzero but exceedingly unlikely to be found.
-
I think basing any of the guesswork around the possibility of life outside the constraints of a planet like, or similar to the earth on the basis of how life developed here is a little arrogant on our part. We dont understand life, we dont even have an idea WHY things that we call life happened to form..
Yes, we can go into a primordial soup state and say that somehow long chain hydrocarbons began to separate the outside from the inside (definately the first step towards life in my opinion).. We do understand HOW the hydrocarbons did this, (hydrophilic and hydrophobic tendancies) we can even do some damn good guess work on where the hydrocarbons came from.. but between the step of inside/outside separation where did the drive come from for the little protocell structures to actually take in energy, and reproduce.. we can say that it may have been happenstance, that these protocells had excess energy and needed something to do with it, so they reproduced without really knowing what it was doing.. at some point a driving force appears that makes the protocells WANT to reproduce, WANT to produce energy, WANT to get better at doing things.. (unless the belief is of accidental evolution) where the transition went from protocells getting energy from the sun to protocells 'eating' each other isa probably better understood, but the driving force behind it is still not clear..
Some say that the mitochondria (not mitichloriants for Jedi's) is actually a lifeform in itself and provides the driving force for life, but how did these structures develop? I find it hard to rule out both that, some intervention at any point in that cycle.. or that this cycle is not driven by natural forces.
There are lots of IF's in the discussion, but I dont believe we have the full understanding of 'life' or the driving forces to say that this could not happen in different circumstances, whether this could happen in a gaseous state, or under supercritical conditions, (evidence is starting to show it very may well be able to with extremophiles).
It wouldnt take too much imagination to see that maybe there are beings as big as planets out there, compensating for much lower pressures, having just formed a segregated boundary and developed processes within that can be described as lifelike.
For me the chances of there not being anything else (at all) is incredibly remote, however, is there a chance of intelligent beings out there?, is another thing entirely. And I am sure if they knew we were here, they would be as excited as we would be to find others out there.
-
Hold on! The sample size is at least a dozen planetary objects (i.e. including large moons) , and thousands of smaller chunks of rock, in the solar system, of which only one is known to support life and only two others (Mars and Europa) might have or have had the capability of doing so - assuming that life involves selfreplicating systems that transpire water.
The sample referred to is the the one known existence of life. We do not have adequate information on the other potential sites in the solar system. It is entirely possible Venus was capable of supporting life initially before runaway greenhouse conditions kicked in. Titan has not been ruled out. Enceladus is now considered in a similar category to Europa. Bottom line: we simply do not know.
Now given the very small range of orbital radii around any given star, within which water will remain liquid, and the minimum size of planet needed to retain water in its atmosphere, it's unlikely that any star will have more than one Earthlike planet in the right orbit.
Simulations suggest one is likely and two are entirely possible, even taking into account a shifting HZ as the star evolves.
So we are beginning to put some real numbers into Drake. We need a star of similar age and composition to the sun to provide a reasonably stable energy input without too much ionising radiation, and since that pretty much defines the mass range of the candidate star, we can begin counting candidates.
There are plausible arguments in favour of much cooler stars than the sun - not so many for anything hotter than a G-type. But there are also major issues about proximity to the galactic centre and time spent outside of the spiral arms. The picture is much more complicated than the one you present.
That said, we are, as you suggest, able to apply meaningful numbers to potential habitable planets. The same simply cannot be said of the other terms in the equation. Opinions, based upon careful consideration of the available facts, not upon assumptions, lead to a range of assessments as to the probability of abiogenesis. On the one hand we have the optimistic view of Christian de Duve, Nobel laureate, whose book The Cosmic Imperative explains why he sees life as inevitable and abundant. On the other hand is the pessimism of Jacques Monod, another Nobel laureate, who believed life was a freak accident, unique to Earth.
The only thing I can say with confidence is that we are ignorant.
-
The suggestion that a freak accident could only occur in one place in the universe is somewhat baffling. There is always a cause for every effect, and we only ascribe "freak" to effects if the cause was a priori improbable or unconsidered. But once we have sorted out the cause of an accident it always becomes clear that the consequences were inevitable from the starting conditions. So given a very large universe and a very long time, we only need to see the starting conditions (or something similar) once more to answer the question.
It might be argued that abiogenesis resulted from a primal cause via an inherently chaotic pathway, but however random a system, the probability of it being is the same state twice is nonzero.
So my opinion is inevitable (it's happened at least once, so p=1 somewhere) but not very abundant.
-
Are we alone ...on earth ?
This is a serious question though , no kidding .
-
No. I have a girlfriend, a dog, and numerous parasites, commensals, symbionts, gut flora, and all the other biological stuff that makes life possible and interesting. What more could anyone want or imagine? An invisible Klingon?
-
No. I have a girlfriend, a dog, and numerous parasites, commensals, symbionts, gut flora, and all the other biological stuff that makes life possible and interesting. What more could anyone want or imagine? An invisible Klingon?
haha
There are some immaterial beings as conscious and as intelligent as we are , and even more so than ourselves, as human beings , out there , on earth, science cannot , per definition, approach as such : stuff like that: believe it or not , i don't care .
Instead of searching for aliens in outer-space , one should first try to find out about those immaterial 'aliens " on earth ...
-
The Secret Evidence We Are Not Alone :
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secret-evidence-we-are-not-alone/
-
So which are you going with: immaterial beings or little green men in flying saucers?
-
So which are you going with: immaterial beings or little green men in flying saucers?
haha
I am inclined to go for the firsts .
I don't think there are any outer-space aliens out there , i dunno .
-
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....
You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist?
-
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....
You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist?
I too am interested in seeing his answer to this question.
-
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....
You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist?.
I too am interested in seeing his answer to this question.
I am not afraid haha of any mainstream materialist 'scientific world view "'s censorship or inquisitions to dare to say that there are indeed spiritual immaterial beings on earth out there , even though i cannot prove their existence ,as i cannot prove the existence of God either = just belief assumptions of mine thus .
Since the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " assumes , just a materialist belief core assumption thus , that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then, it's pretty obvious that that "scientific world view " would a-priori reject those belief assumptions of mine as expressed above thus .
But , science proper thus (without materialism thus ) cannot , per definition, neither prove nor disprove neither my belief in the existence of God nor my belief in the existence of those immaterial or spiritual beings on earth = that's 'somehting " that's both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .
P.S.: Those above mentioned belief assumptions of mine are not just based on religious authority , but also on my own personal experiences on the subject, among other factors as well .
Religion , or just my faith in this case , that does stimulate experience , personal experience ,for example, before science ever learned to do so thus .
Even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book i do believe in also: see my own thread on the same subject : science as a religious duty , a form of worship of God , in order to try to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without .
Long story thus i am not gonna elaborate any further on .
-
I am not afraid haha of any mainstream materialist 'scientific world view "'s censorship or inquisitions to dare to say that there are indeed spiritual immaterial beings on earth out there , even though i cannot prove their existence ,as i cannot prove the existence of God either = just belief assumptions of mine thus .
Since the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " assumes , just a materialist belief core assumption thus , that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then, it's pretty obvious that that "scientific world view " would a-priori reject those belief assumptions of mine as expressed above thus .
But , science proper thus (without materialism thus ) cannot , per definition, neither prove nor disprove neither my belief in the existence of God nor my belief in the existence of those immaterial or spiritual beings on earth = that's 'somehting " that's both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .
P.S.: Those above mentioned belief assumptions of mine are not just based on religious authority , but also on my own personal experiences on the subject, among other factors as well .
Religion , or just my faith in this case , that does stimulate experience , personal experience ,for example, before science ever learned to do so thus .
Even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book i do believe in also: see my own thread on the same subject : science as a religious duty , a form of worship of God , in order to try to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without .
Long story thus i am not gonna elaborate any further on .
You didn't answer the question.. what do they do that makes you think they exist? We are not asking for proof, just examples of things that cannot be explained by what you call materialism?
You are arguing yourself in circles. You accuse science of having a negative belief, and use your own negative belief as a counter argument. Science may never prove or disprove the existence of the immaterial, but it may find the evidence for it that you so obviously need to make your arguments hold water. It may very well be outside the possibility of science to actually investigate the immaterial, but until there's some immaterial evidence there is no current boundary for science to reach and so it will will keep discovering the material world until it finds where it cannot go further.. Your belief is not affected by the progress of science.. unless it explains what you call 'proof' of your belief to be a false belief..
You are simply my sir, afraid of being proven to have lived your life on a lie. And want to stop everyone else from finding out.
-
I am not afraid....
so why not just answer the very simple question instead of blathering on about what you think I might think.
What is it that these immaterial beings do that makes you think they exist?
-
Just try to read what i said carefully then, folks .
Any beliefs for that matter are , per definition, unscientific ,either the religious beliefs or the secular ones thus, but, they are not all necessarily false , as materialism is .
They just happen to be both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well , when science will be less dogmatic and more scientific by rejecting materialism in science that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now , without question .
Thanks , appreciate indeed.
Cheers.
-
Did you have an experience with a haunting of some sort? I'm actually rather interested in such things (and anything related to spirits or paranormal), so I'd welcome any stories you have on those matters.
Even though I agree that one can believe in unexplained things without a need for scientific proof of them, I should also point out that one should have a good reason to believe in such things. If I saw a Bigfoot firsthand, then I would have a legitimate reason to believe in them. However, if I believed in something solely because I was taught to believe in it, then the rationality of that belief becomes questionable.
-
Did you have an experience with a haunting of some sort? I'm actually rather interested in such things (and anything related to spirits or paranormal), so I'd welcome any stories you have on those matters.
Even though I agree that one can believe in unexplained things without a need for scientific proof of them, I should also point out that one should have a good reason to believe in such things. If I saw a Bigfoot firsthand, then I would have a legitimate reason to believe in them. However, if I believed in something solely because I was taught to believe in it, then the rationality of that belief becomes questionable.
Most people do miss the fact that there are false and true beliefs indeed out there :
The beliefs in the tooth fairy , Sint Claus ...are obviously false .
But,science can indeed only wish to approach those true beliefs out there .
Some true beliefs are based not just on authority , but also on personal experiences , even though there are cases of alleged "paranormal " experiences that can turn out to be illusions that might be generated by epilepsy and the sort , by brain disorder , brain damage ....( There is no such a thing such as the paranormal in fact , just made-up by man semantics : the so-called paranormal, or rather just the real one , is normal : makes part of reality as a whole : that's just the non-physical or non-material side of reality : the paranormal label is just the materialist way of dismissing what lies beyond the false materialist version of reality, and hence beyond the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " thus .).
In my case , and in the case of many people i did investigate in many ways , people who did experience similar personal experiences to mine i did try to put under harsh and uncompromised methodic scrutiny , in my case , i did have some way too personal encounters with some spiritual beings whose short nasty and unpleasant (an understatement ) control over me , in ways i can hardly describe or just talk about , whose control over me was undone via the help of well informed and well experienced people in the field : long story thus , i might tell you all about another day thus : a personal nasty terrible and too-real -to-me-not-to-be-true story i prefer to forget about , for the time being at least , for obvious reasons thus .
In short :
Folks :
The core issue here is , once again , as follows :
We shouldn't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisonned within a certain false conception of nature , as it has been the case since the 19th century at least thus .
Science that's a kind of an effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that should be completly free in its inquiry in relation to reality whatever the nature of which might turn out to be .
So, to keep science confined to just a certain conception of nature is like pretending that we do already know what the nature of reality is , and it is more like dictating to an adeventurer such as science what specific part of reality it must explore , and no other .
Science that's still a relatively young effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already , an adventurer that must be totally free in exploring reality , or just the parts of reality it can dela with empirically , free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be thus .
The mainstream materialist conception of nature , and hence the 'scientific world view " , just hold back science and restrict its scope ,realm ,reach and jurisdiction , by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist version of reality that's obviously false.
The materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , in the sense that reality is just material or physical , is false , and hence the materialist 'scientific world view " is false also .
Reality is thus not just physical or material ,which means that all physical sciences for that matter must undergo a revolutionary and radical change , in order to be able to deal with the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the materialist false "scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ,if all physical sciences want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : science thus has no choice but to include the missing part of reality in its attempts to try to describe , explain or understand reality as a whole .
Science must be totally free to explore reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be , instead of being held captive within a particular conception of nature, a false one at that .
Science whose nature is to try to go beyond what it has already revealed , including beyond the laws of physics themselves .
There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , who knows ? and that might turn out to be totally different from any human notion of law that's just a human projection .
No wonder that modern physics do speak in terms of fields , for example : electro-magnetic and other fields thus : even the most basic particules are a matter of waves and mass ...
Do the maths then .
Cheers.
-
Folks :
That i allegedly was "possessed " haha by some "supernatural " spirits was just a test you might have been deceived by and failed in , since you might have been thinking that anyone such as myself who would be against the mainstream materialist " scientific world view " must turn out to be some sort of a schizophrenic patient of some sort haha .
Congratulations.
-
Test or not, if it were the case, science would show a great interest in you, as solid evidence of something that is not understood.
What you miss completely from your waffling and indignation is that science would LOVE to find an immaterial, a sentience that makes the world happen.. as it would make their lives a LOT easier.
-
Well it's been nearly two weeks since I asked the question, and no answer has been given in several pages of beautifully expressed argument, so we must assume that DQ has no evidence of the existence of immaterial beings.
This makes a tenuous bridge between his world and the one that the rest of us inhabit.
-
So then, were you joking when you said you have personal experience with immaterial beings on the whole? If so, what has lead you to believe in their existence? And no, quite sane people can hold unorthodox views. I never assumed you to be mentally ill.
-
So then, were you joking when you said you have personal experience with immaterial beings on the whole? If so, what has lead you to believe in their existence?
Yes , indeed : it was just a test, in the above mentioned sense thus .
I do believe in the existence of immaterial beings on earth and elsewehere , and in much more , as parts of my whole belief system , the latter is not just based on authority thus , but also on the personal experiences of many people i have been having contact with ,whose allegations i did put under uncompromised scrutiny .
Besides, my own belief or religion as a whole does have its own core transcendent and other rationale and logic ...as well i am relatively convinced by .
My own religion which has been considering reason, logic , the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense , work, personal experience , experience period , constant search , science ...as religious duties , as forms of worship of God , in order to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without , in order to get closer to ...God .
No wonder that the scientific method or science itself did originate from the very epistemology thus of the holy book i do believe in .
And no, quite sane people can hold unorthodox views. I never assumed you to be mentally ill.
Indeed , thanks .
Only really sane people can say the above indeed.
-
I think you said you were Arab, right? Putting the pieces together, I'm guessing that you are a Muslim and that the spiritual beings you speak of are angels and/or djinni. There's nothing wrong with believing in such beings, but when you propose on a science discussion board that these beings exist, then surely you must expect that the members here are going to ask for evidence (or at least a good logical argument) to back up your claims.
-
I think you said you were Arab, right? Putting the pieces together, I'm guessing that you are a Muslim and that the spiritual beings you speak of are angels and/or djinni. There's nothing wrong with believing in such beings, but when you propose on a science discussion board that these beings exist, then surely you must expect that the members here are going to ask for evidence (or at least a good logical argument) to back up your claims.
[/quote]
Right : when science will stop assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then and only then , science might be able to expand its realm , reach and jurisdiction as to include the missing part of reality it can deal with empirically .
P.S.: My own belief assumptions are , per definition, unscientific , but they are not necessarily false , as materialism is, materialism that has been making science assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical thus , while making people take that for granted as the "scientific world view " as a result .
-
If immaterial things and/or beings are detectable, then in principle they can be tested for by science. In such a case, such concepts can only be discounted if the theories about their existence can be proven false.
If immaterial things and/or beings are not detectable, then science cannot be applied to them and science should be indifferent as to whether they exist or not. Why should (or rather, how could) science care about things that it can neither confirm nor deny?
-
If immaterial things and/or beings are detectable, then in principle they can be tested for by science. In such a case, such concepts can only be discounted if the theories about their existence can be proven false.
If immaterial things and/or beings are not detectable, then science cannot be applied to them and science should be indifferent as to whether they exist or not. Why should (or rather, how could) science care about things that it can neither confirm nor deny?
[/quote]
Either way , it all comes down or up haha to , depends on one's view on the subject considering the nature of reality as a whole thus , it all comes down to the fact that reality as a whole is not just material or physical, and hence the mainstream 'scientific world view " is ...false , which does mean that reality as a whole is not just material or physical , and the mental or the non-physical are irreducible to the physical .
In other words :
The mainstream materialist reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false , and hence the mainstream 'scientific world view " is also false , and must be rejected , and must be replaced by a more or less valid non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature that must include the mental as being non-reducible to the physical .
But , if you want to hear my own point of view regarding the non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature as a potentially "valid " alternative to materialism in science , then, i must say that it is also , obviously , ...false , simply because nature cannot "generate " life , the mind or the rest of the non-physical out there,no way .
In short :
Any naturalist attempts in science , eiher the materialist reductionist ones or the naturalist non-reductionist ones , cannot explain or account for how the mental or the non-physical came to exist, in the first place to begin with .
-
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?
-
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?
[/quote]
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ., let alone its origins .
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.
How could sentient mental physical life rise from just physics and chemistry ?
When one wants to explain life , one should try to explain it as a whole package : body and mind, not just take the physical body as the whole thing , by reducing the mental to the physical, it cannot be reduced to .
-
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone
Why not?
The fact that I can't climb Everest, and that nobody else had until 1953, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. On the other hand we do have "unprovability theorems" in various branches of mathematics. So if you want to make a categorical statement of impossibility in a science forum, I expect you to back it up with more than a mere assertion.
-
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone .
You still didn't address my question. A single-celled organism is a living thing. If physics and chemistry alone cannot explain its functions, then there must be one or more functions of that cell that require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry. So I ask once again, what aspects of a cell's function require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry?
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.
That sounds like a repackaging of the "God of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't know how dead matter can become life, therefore something supernatural created life". It's just another argument from ignorance.
-
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ., let alone its origins .
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.
How could sentient mental physical life rise from just physics and chemistry ?
When one wants to explain life , one should try to explain it as a whole package : body and mind, not just take the physical body as the whole thing , by reducing the mental to the physical, it cannot be reduced to .
[/quote]
How many fallacious and misleading statements do you want to make?
Your argument from personal incredulity is plain, and shifting the burden of proof is a typical reaction when you know you are fighting a losing battle.
You play with your circular arguments, without once questioning the conclusion you are arguing from. WE have tried to meet you with false compromises, yet you stick to your guns with no proof or evidence of any kind. You inflate the conflict about the few subjects you have chosen as you immaterial evidence regardless of having no evidence excpet the lack of evidence
-
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone
Why not?
The fact that I can't climb Everest, and that nobody else had until 1953, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. On the other hand we do have "unprovability theorems" in various branches of mathematics. So if you want to make a categorical statement of impossibility in a science forum, I expect you to back it up with more than a mere assertion.
[/quote]
Just tell me then how life emerged from the dead matter then in the so-called original soup , genius ?
Life that's not just a matter of physics and chemistry .
Nobody has an answer to that question , and nobody will , simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life .
How did nature "generate " the conscious life then ?
-
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone .
You still didn't address my question. A single-celled organism is a living thing. If physics and chemistry alone cannot explain its functions, then there must be one or more functions of that cell that require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry. So I ask once again, what aspects of a cell's function require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry?
My question was :
How did life emerge from the dead matter in the so-called original soup ?
How physics and chemistry alone can account for the sentient life ?
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.
That sounds like a repackaging of the "God of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't know how dead matter can become life, therefore something supernatural created life". It's just another argument from ignorance.
I did not say that : all i was saying is that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life , let alone its origins or evolution , since reality as a whole , including life thus ,including evolution, is not just material or physical , and therefore physics and chenistry alone can never be able to account for life or consciousness ... not now , not tomorrow or ever , simply because life as a whole , like reality as a whole , is not just physical or material .
Trying to exlain life just in terms of physics and chemistry is materialism of the gaps in fact that reduces life or reality as a whole to just material physical biological processes, just in order to "validate " materialism , in vain .
Your "promissory messianic materialism ", in the sense that science under materialism will be able to explain how life did emerge from the dead matter someday is just that , simply because life is not just material or physical,as reality as a whole is not , unlike what materialism wanna make you believe they are .
Get that ? Think about it .
-
Folks :
Physics and chemistry alone can never be able to explain or account for sentient life , they just try to describe it physically .
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for sentient life thus , simply because reality as a whole , including life , is not just material or physical , as the false materialism has been assuming it to be , and hence as the false 'scientific world view " has been doing all along , since the 19th century at least .
Stop your silly promissory messianic materialist non-sense then = science under materialism will never be able to explain sentient life just in terms of physics and chemistry .
Solution ?
All sciences must reject the false materialist meta-paradigm in science regarding the nature of reality , and hence their false materialist 'scientific world view " , by including the mental that's irreducible to the physical .
-
You must acquire a little humility if you wish to be taken seriously by scientists. "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to your first question, and "please define consciousness" is a reasonable response to the second, but your statement that "nobody will..." is laughably arrogant.
You would do well to study the writings of Dunning and Kruger to discover why nobody takes your unfounded assertions seriously. We've seen it all before, many times, and we are not impressed.
You can't escape the fact that living things have evolved, and since (despite being asked several times) you haven't presented any plausible evidence of supernatural intervention, we must assume that they did so according to the natural laws of physics and chemistry. Given time, we may be able to explain how.
-
... all i was saying is that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life , let alone its origins or evolution ...
If true someone should tell all the scientists referred to in this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) that they are wasting their time.
-
... all i was saying is that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life , let alone its origins or evolution ...
If true someone should tell all the scientists referred to in this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) that they are wasting their time.
[/quote]
If life that's sentient is just a matter of physics and chemistry , then , try to explain consciousness to us scientifically then, but not via the materialist belief assumption that " the mind is in the brain " that's no empirical one .
Try to tell us how life emerged from the dead matter in the so-called original soup .
Try to explain life , consciousness, memory , human intellect , the nature of feelings emotions , the feeling of pain , human conscience , human love , not to mention societies, politics , cultures, economy, history ,art , music, literature , ethics , poetry , human language and the rest ..............just via physics and chemistry then.
The false mainstream materialist "scientific world view " has been turning you, guys , into complete insane irrational unscientific illogical dummies zombies .
P.S.: Reality as a whole cannot be just material or physical , despite the fact that all sciences have been assuming it to be just material or physical , thanks to materialism , and hence the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " is false = reality as a whole is not just material or physical , and hence life is not just physical or material , evolution cannot be therefore just biological .....
-
Try to tell us how life emerged from the dead matter in the so-called original soup .
Try to explain life , consciousness, memory , human intellect , the nature of feelings emotions , the feeling of pain , human conscience , human love , not to mention societies, politics , cultures, economy, history ,art , music, literature , ethics , poetry , human language ...
So I’ve to summarize 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history in one post , that's a tall order but I’ll give it a shot …
Primordial soup gives rise to simple self-replicating cells (e.g. “Lipid world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Lipid_world)” hypothesis ).
Self-replicating cells can have neuronal (https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=cellular%20automata%20neuronal%20model%20neuron) emergent properties, (see cellular automata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata)).
Neurons are the hardware on which the software that is consciousness runs.
Consciousness gives rise to language , technology (e.g. internet) , music, literature, etc.
Re: your post about you taking LSD (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49531.msg424244#msg424244), apparently LSD hallucinations are more vivid than reality, but they are not an insight into reality : you scrambled your brain with chemistry, which could explain your unshakeable belief that something exists outside the material realm ...
Many [LSD] users experience a dissolution between themselves and the "outside world".
This unitive quality may play a role in the spiritual and religious aspects of LSD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychological
-
Try to tell us how life emerged from the dead matter in the so-called original soup .
Try to explain life , consciousness, memory , human intellect , the nature of feelings emotions , the feeling of pain , human conscience , human love , not to mention societies, politics , cultures, economy, history ,art , music, literature , ethics , poetry , human language ...
So I’ve to summarize 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history in one post , that's a tall order but I’ll give it a shot …
Primordial soup gives rise to simple self-replicating cells (e.g. “Lipid world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Lipid_world)” hypothesis ).
Self-replicating cells can have neuronal (https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=cellular%20automata%20neuronal%20model%20neuron) emergent properties, (see cellular automata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata)).
Neurons are the hardware on which the software that is consciousness runs.
Consciousness gives rise to language , technology (e.g. internet) , music, literature, etc.
Re: your post about you taking LSD (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49531.msg424244#msg424244), apparently LSD hallucinations are more vivid than reality, but they are not an insight into reality : you scrambled your brain with chemistry, which could explain your unshakeable belief that something exists outside the material realm ...
Many [LSD] users experience a dissolution between themselves and the "outside world".
This unitive quality may play a role in the spiritual and religious aspects of LSD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychological
[/quote]
Nobody can give an answer ,and nobody will , to the question regarding how life could have allegedly emerged from the dead matter in the so-called original soup , simply becaus life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , as reality as a whole is not just material or physical .
What you were talking about is not what i asked thus .
.............
Will you stop that materialist machine-like computer -like bullshit regarding life ?
Stop talking about the nature or origins of consciousness as a so-called 'emergent " property from the evolved complexity of the brain = that's just materialist magic , no science = emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological physical or material levels : consciousness as a non-physical process that's totally different from its alleged biological original components cannot have risen from the physical brain, no matter how evolved the latter can ever be .
"The brain creates the mind , or the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ..." are just extensions of the false materialist conception of nature that assumes or rather believes reality as a whole as to be just material or physical .
-
Do you accept the following statement as true?
A living cell does not need anything supernatural or immaterial that allows it to perform its functions (reproduction, metabolism, growth, etc.).
If you do not believe that statement to be true, then you need to explain what aspect of its function requires a non-material explanation.
Take note that I am not talking about its origin. I am only talking about its current existence and function.
Whether your answer to this question is "yes" or whether it is "no", either one has some very interesting implications about future arguments...
-
Do you accept the following statement as true?
A living cell does not need anything supernatural or immaterial that allows it to perform its functions (reproduction, metabolism, growth, etc.).
If you do not believe that statement to be true, then you need to explain what aspect of its function requires a non-material explanation.
Take note that I am not talking about its origin. I am only talking about its current existence and function.
Whether your answer to this question is "yes" or whether it is "no", either one has some very interesting implications about future arguments...
[/quote]
0 of all : that life seems to involve nothing non-physical in its functioning , does not mean that the latter does not exist as such : cannot be a-priori ruled out, untill proven to be "false " .
First of all : when i say that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for or explain life fully , let alone its origins emergence and evolution , that does not mean i am referring to any "supernatural " .
I am just stating a fact : physics and chemistry alone , DNA alone ...cannot explain how living organisms can be self-organizing ,self-regenerating ...,for example , how they give rise to their own forms and shapes ....
See the following on the subject , even though i do not agree with some alternatives-to-materialism theories of Sheldrake :
Second : since reality as a whole cannot be just material or physical, then nothing can be , including matter itself (see modern physics regarding the latter ) , if we would except those purely immaterial beings out there , if we would except consciousness that's non-physical ....and hence, life cannot be just physical or material , and even evolution itself cannot be just biological = nothing can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone .
Which brings us to :
Third : there might be some more fundamental forms of causation out there underlying the laws of physics themselves , non-physical forms of causation at that , simply because physics and chemistry alone are just a single part of the whole pic , and a less fundamental part at that .
In short :
One can certainly not explain reality as a whole , including life and the rest , including evolution itself, just via their physical part ,no way .
-
I am just stating a fact : physics and chemistry alone , DNA alone ...cannot explain how living organisms can be self-organizing ,self-regenerating ...,for example , how they give rise to their own forms and shapes ....
So I see that your answer to my question is "no".
In that case, let's see what your claims are:
(1) Physics and chemistry alone cannot explain how living organisms can be self-organizing.
Self-organizing structures can be created artificially in the laboratory, including micelles, protobionts, and crystals (though crystals exist in nature as well). So an immaterial explanation is not needed to explain how something can maintain a state of organization.
(2) Physics and chemistry alone cannot explain how living organisms can be self-regenerating.
You do know how regeneration works, right? It involves the replication of cells (mitosis) so that tissue which has been lost and be replaced. Mitosis is a well-understood phenomenon. We know which internal parts of the cell are active and at what times in order to make it happen. All that is required is that the different parts of a cell need to communicate with each other in order to make it happen. Why then, is there any reason that the communication must take place through immaterial means? We know that signalling molecules exist. Since schemes exist which can explain how different parts of a cell can communicate with each other in order to orchestrate mitosis using material means (signaling molecules), then there is no need to invoke any immaterial properties to explain how they accomplish this.
Also, before you try to say that reproduction itself requires an immaterial explanation or that it cannot come from dead matter, I would like to inform you that self-replicating molecules have been created artificially by scientists: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.htm (http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.htm)
Scientists have also created a polymer that heals itself: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/polymer-regenerates-elastomer-heals-independently (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/polymer-regenerates-elastomer-heals-independently)
-
Don,
you have a faulty view of the scientific method. Science is not naturalistic. i.e. it does not deny the possibility of the supernatural, or of something beyond the material. It is, instead, methodologically naturalistic. That is to say the scientific method currently assumes that the world is wholly explicable in natural terms, that if anything else does exist it is beyond the reach of science to study. But is does not deny this possibility. It simply notes that the scientific method would not lend itself to the study of the supernatural.
Thus far science has been remarkably successful with this approach. Do you deny this success?
-
Don,
you have a faulty view of the scientific method. Science is not naturalistic. i.e. it does not deny the possibility of the supernatural, or of something beyond the material. It is, instead, methodologically naturalistic. That is to say the scientific method currently assumes that the world is wholly explicable in natural terms, that if anything else does exist it is beyond the reach of science to study. But is does not deny this possibility. It simply notes that the scientific method would not lend itself to the study of the supernatural.
Thus far science has been remarkably successful with this approach. Do you deny this success?
I think his gripe isn't with the scientific method itself. It's more with the modern-day scientific community (which he says are a bunch of materialists).
-
I am just stating a fact : physics and chemistry alone , DNA alone ...cannot explain how living organisms can be self-organizing ,self-regenerating ...,for example , how they give rise to their own forms and shapes ....
So I see that your answer to my question is "no".
In that case, let's see what your claims are:
(1) Physics and chemistry alone cannot explain how living organisms can be self-organizing.
Self-organizing structures can be created artificially in the laboratory, including micelles, protobionts, and crystals (though crystals exist in nature as well). So an immaterial explanation is not needed to explain how something can maintain a state of organization.
(2) Physics and chemistry alone cannot explain how living organisms can be self-regenerating.
You do know how regeneration works, right? It involves the replication of cells (mitosis) so that tissue which has been lost and be replaced. Mitosis is a well-understood phenomenon. We know which internal parts of the cell are active and at what times in order to make it happen. All that is required is that the different parts of a cell need to communicate with each other in order to make it happen. Why then, is there any reason that the communication must take place through immaterial means? We know that signalling molecules exist. Since schemes exist which can explain how different parts of a cell can communicate with each other in order to orchestrate mitosis using material means (signaling molecules), then there is no need to invoke any immaterial properties to explain how they accomplish this.
Also, before you try to say that reproduction itself requires an immaterial explanation or that it cannot come from dead matter, I would like to inform you that self-replicating molecules have been created artificially by scientists: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.htm (http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.htm)
Scientists have also created a polymer that heals itself: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/polymer-regenerates-elastomer-heals-independently (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/polymer-regenerates-elastomer-heals-independently)
[/quote]
That's no "evidence for the fact " that life can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry .
Come on, be serious .
All the above you mentioned and much more i am already familiar with in one form or another (That's by the way the mainstream materialist dominating "scientific world view " point of view on the subject ,we get only bombarded by , day and night .), all the above and much more does not explain morphogenesis ,life ,and the rest , despite the fact that man can manufacture, so to speak, genetically manipulated bacteria , viruses , cells , organs, organisms, organic matter ,animal clones, RNA,molecules ....despite the fact that man can make artificial plants and the rest : all those attempts just try to describe those phenomena of life mechanistically , but they cannot be explained fully , just in terms of physics and chemistry .
Did you at least try to watch Sheldrake's video here above ? Guess not :
You just prefer to listen to your own music i do know all about , a mechanistic music that 's unable to explain the above and much more i was talking about , and mechanistic science never will ,as long as science is under materialism, simply because nothing is just chemsitry and physics , as i explained to you , in the sense that the physical or material side of reality as a whole is just one single side of reality as a whole .
So nothing for that matter can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , including life , evolution itself, including matter istelf , and the rest .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical , including life , inculding matter itself, including evolution itself that cannot be therefore just biological ...
How long do i have to repeat this then, before that finds its way to your mind via your eyes to your brain ...?
-
Don,
you have a faulty view of the scientific method. Science is not naturalistic. i.e. it does not deny the possibility of the supernatural, or of something beyond the material. It is, instead, methodologically naturalistic. That is to say the scientific method currently assumes that the world is wholly explicable in natural terms, that if anything else does exist it is beyond the reach of science to study. But is does not deny this possibility. It simply notes that the scientific method would not lend itself to the study of the supernatural.
Thus far science has been remarkably successful with this approach. Do you deny this success?
I think his gripe isn't with the scientific method itself. It's more with the modern-day scientific community (which he says are a bunch of materialists).
[/quote]
It's more ,as follows , once again :
The false materialist naturalist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature ,has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now = the latter is thus also false,logically .
See the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences for that matter since the 19th century at least = reality as a whole is just material or physical .
So, all sciences and hence the false 'scientific world view " have been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical = a materialist false conception of nature , a false materialist world view , a false materialist philosophy ...that has been taken for granted as science , as the " scientific world view " , science proper has absolutely nothing to do with whatsoever thus .
The false materialist conception of nature thus goes beyond the scientific method, beyond science , beyond science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction by pretending to know already the nature of reality as a whole .
But , fact is : reality as a whole is not just material or physical , and hence nothing is ,including matter itself , including life , including evolution that cannot be therefore just ...biological .
-
Don,
you have a faulty view of the scientific method. Science is not naturalistic. i.e. it does not deny the possibility of the supernatural, or of something beyond the material. It is, instead, methodologically naturalistic. That is to say the scientific method currently assumes that the world is wholly explicable in natural terms, that if anything else does exist it is beyond the reach of science to study. But is does not deny this possibility. It simply notes that the scientific method would not lend itself to the study of the supernatural.
Wrong , see above .
Thus far science has been remarkably successful with this approach. Do you deny this success?
Science has been extremely successful only thanks to its effective and unparalleled method ,but the materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " , in the sense that reality as a whole is just material or physical , has just been holding science back ,by imprisonning science within the materialist world view or philosophy ,or within the materialist secular belief prison .........
I am tired really of repeating the same simple facts stuff over and over again , for so long now .................
How can't you, folks, get just that ?
Amazing ...
-
I am tired really of repeating the same simple facts stuff over and over again , for so long now .................
You have not repeated any facts, because you have no facts to repeat. You are repeating opinions. Can't you get that?
-
I am tired really of repeating the same simple facts stuff over and over again , for so long now .................
You have not repeated any facts, because you have no facts to repeat. You are repeating opinions. Can't you get that?
[/quote]
Ok : genius :
Just try to answer the following then ,for starters :
Has science proper ever proved the materialist "fact " , or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just material or physical ?, the latter is the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " .
Is reality as a whole just material or physical?, as all sciences have been assuming it to be for so long now, thanks to materialism .
Is that a "scientific fact " ?
-
About those self-replicating molecules developed in the lab, do they require an immaterial explanation as to how they replicate?
-
About those self-replicating molecules developed in the lab, do they require an immaterial explanation as to how they replicate?
[/quote]
Does fertilization in vitro do?
-
I don't personally think that fertilization (in a test tube or otherwise) requires an immaterial explanation, no.
So how about you answer my question now?
-
I don't personally think that fertilization (in a test tube or otherwise) requires an immaterial explanation, no.
So how about you answer my question now?
[/quote]
There might be some sort of underlying formative causation at work :
See the following on the same subject :
Excerpts from "A New Science " By Rupert Sheldrake , Introduction :
At present ,the orthodox approach to biology is given by the mechanistic theory of life: living
organisms are regarded as physico-chemical machines, and all the phenomena of life are considered to
be explicable in principle in terms of physics and chemistry.1 This mechanistic paradigm2 is by no
means new; it has been predominant for well over a century. The main reason most biologists continue
to adhere to it is that it works: it provides a framework of thought within which questions about the
physico-chemical mechanisms of life processes can be asked and answered.
The fact that this approach has resulted in spectacular successes such as the “cracking of the genetic
code” is a strong argument in its favor. Nevertheless, critics have put forward what seem to be good
reasons for doubting that all the phenomena of life, including human behavior, can ever be explained
entirely mechanistically.3 But even if the mechanistic approach were admitted to be severely limited
not only in practice but in principle, it could not simply be abandoned; at present it is almost the only
approach available to experimental biology, and will undoubtedly continue to be followed until there
is some positive alternative.
Any new theory capable of extending or going beyond the mechanistic theory will have to do more
than assert that life involves qualities or factors at present unrecognized by the physical sciences: it
will have to say what sorts of things these qualities or factors are, how they work, and what
relationship they have to known physical and chemical processes.
The simplest way in which the mechanistic theory could be modified would be to suppose that the
phenomena of life depend on a new type of causal factor, unknown to the physical sciences, which
interacts with physico-chemical processes within living organisms. Several versions of this vitalist
theory were proposed in the early twentieth century,4 but none succeeded in making predictions that
could be tested, or suggested new kinds of experiments. If, to quote Sir Karl Popper, “the criterion of
the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability,” 5 vitalism failed to
qualify.
However, the organismic or holistic philosophy of nature provides a context for a more radical
revision of the mechanistic theory. This philosophy denies that everything in the universe can be
explained from the bottom up, as it were, in terms of the properties of subatomic particles, or atoms,
or even molecules. Rather, it recognizes the existence of hierarchically organized systems that, at each
level of complexity, possess properties that cannot be fully understood in terms of the properties
exhibited by their parts in isolation from each other; at each level the whole is more than the sum of
its parts. These wholes can be thought of as organisms, using this term in a deliberately wide sense to
include not only animals and plants, organs, tissues, and cells, but also crystals, molecules, atoms, and
subatomic particles. In effect this philosophy proposes a change from the paradigm of the machine to
the paradigm of the organism in the biological a n d in the physical sciences. In Alfred North
Whitehead’s well-known phrase: “Biology is the study of the larger organisms, whereas physics is the
study of the smaller organisms.”6
Various versions of this organismic philosophy have been advocated by many writers, including
biologists, since the 1920s.7 But if organicism is to have more than a superficial influence on the
natural sciences, it must be able to give rise to testable predictions.8
The most important organismic concept put forward so far is that of morphogenetic fields.9 These
fields are supposed to help account for, or describe, the coming-into-being of the characteristic forms
of embryos and other developing systems. The trouble is that this concept has been used ambiguously.
The term itself seems to imply the existence of a new type of physical field that plays a role in the
development of form. But some organismic theoreticians deny that they are suggesting the existence
of any new type of field, entity, or factor at present unrecognized by physics;10 rather, they are
providing a new way of talking about complex physico-chemical systems.11 This approach seems
unlikely to lead very far. The concept of morphogenetic fields can be of practical scientific value only
if it leads to testable predictions that differ from those of the conventional mechanistic theory. And
such predictions cannot be made unless morphogenetic fields are considered to have measurable
effects.
The hypothesis put forward in this book is based on the idea that morphogenetic fields do indeed
have measurable physical effects. It proposes that specific morphogenetic fields are responsible for
the characteristic form and organization of systems at all levels of complexity, not only in the realm
of biology, but also in the realms of chemistry and physics. These fields order the systems with which
they are associated by affecting events that, from an energetic point of view, appear to be
indeterminate or probabilistic; they impose patterned restrictions on the energetically possible
outcomes of physical processes.
If morphogenetic fields are responsible for the organization and form of material systems, they
must themselves have characteristic structures. So where do these field structures come from? They
are derived from the morphogenetic fields associated with previous similar systems: the
morphogenetic fields of all past systems become present to any subsequent similar system; the
structures of past systems affect subsequent similar systems by a cumulative influence that acts across
both space and time.
According to this hypothesis, systems are organized in the way they are because similar systems
were organized that way in the past. For example, the molecules of a complex organic chemical
crystallize in a characteristic pattern because the same substance crystallized that way before; a plant
takes up the form characteristic of its species because past members of the species took up that form;
and an animal acts instinctively in a particular manner because similar animals behaved like that
previously.
The hypothesis is concerned with the repetition of forms and patterns of organization; the question
of the origin of these forms and patterns lies outside its scope. This question can be answered in
several different ways, but all of them seem to be equally compatible with the suggested means of
repetition.12
A number of testable predictions, which differ strikingly from those of the conventional
mechanistic theory, can be deduced from this hypothesis. A single example will suffice: If an animal,
say a rat, learns to carry out a new pattern of behavior, there will be a tendency for any subsequent
similar rat (of the same breed, reared under similar conditions, etc.) to learn more quickly to carry out
the same pattern of behavior. The larger the number of rats that learn to perform the task, the easier it
should be for any subsequent similar rat to learn it. Thus, for instance, if thousands of rats were
trained to perform a new task in a laboratory in London, similar rats should learn to carry out the same
task more quickly in laboratories everywhere else. If the speed of learning of rats in another
laboratory, say in New York, were to be measured before and after the rats in London were trained, the
rats tested on the second occasion should learn more quickly than those tested on the first. The effect
should take place in the absence of any known type of physical connection or communication between
the two laboratories.
Such a prediction may seem so improbable as to be absurd. Yet, remarkably enough, there is
already evidence from laboratory studies of rats that the predicted effect actually occurs.13
This hypothesis, called the hypothesis of formative causation, leads to an interpretation of many
physical and biological phenomena that is radically different from that of existing theories, and
enables a number of well-known problems to be seen in a new light. In this book, it is sketched out in
a preliminary form, some of its implications are discussed, and various ways in which it could be
tested are suggested.
-
THE UNSOLVED PROBLEMS OF BIOLOGY
1.1 The background of success
In the world of science, the predominant theory of life is mechanistic. Living organisms are machines.
They have no souls or mysterious vital principles; they can be fully explained in terms of physics and
chemistry. This is not a new idea: it dates back to the philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650). In
1867, T. H. Huxley summed it up as follows:
Zoological physiology is the doctrine of the functions or actions of animals. It regards animal
bodies as machines impelled by various forces and performing a certain amount of work that can
be expressed in terms of the ordinary forces of nature. The final object of physiology is to deduce
the facts of morphology on the one hand, and those of ecology on the other, from the laws of the
molecular forces of matter.1
The subsequent developments of physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, genetics, and molecular
biology are all foreshadowed in these ideas. In many respects these sciences have been brilliantly
successful, none more so than molecular biology. The discovery of the structure of DNA, the
“cracking of the genetic code,” the elucidation of the mechanism of protein synthesis, and the
sequencing of the human genome seem impressive confirmations of the validity of this approach. The
most articulate advocates of the mechanistic theory are molecular biologists. Their accounts usually
begin with a brief dismissal of the vitalist and organismic theories. These are defined as survivals of
“primitive” beliefs that are bound to retreat further and further as mechanistic biology advances. They
then proceed along the following lines:2
The chemical nature of the genetic material, DNA, is now known and so is the genetic code by
which it codes for the sequence of amino acids in proteins. The mechanism of protein synthesis is
understood in considerable detail. The structure of many proteins has now been worked out. All
enzymes are proteins, and enzymes catalyze the complex chains and cycles of biochemical
reactions that constitute the metabolism of an organism. Metabolism is controlled by
biochemical feedback; several mechanisms are known by which the rates of enzymic activity can
be regulated. Proteins and nucleic acids aggregate spontaneously to form structures such as
viruses and ribosomes. Given the range of properties of proteins, plus the properties of other
physicochemical systems such as lipid membranes, plus complex systems of physicochemical
interaction, the properties of living cells can, in principle, be fully explained.
The key to the problems of differentiation and development, about which very little is known,
is the understanding of the control of protein synthesis. The way in which the synthesis of certain
metabolic enzymes and other proteins is controlled is understood in detail in the bacterium
Escherichia coli. The control of protein synthesis takes place by more complicated mechanisms
in higher organisms, but we now know more about them than ever before. In due course,
differentiation and development should be explicable in terms of series of chemically operated
“switches,” which “switch on” or “switch off ” genes or groups of genes. Major systems of
switches are already known, such as the homeobox genes.3
The way in which the parts of living organisms are adapted to the functions of the whole, and
the apparent purposiveness of the structure and behavior of living organisms, depends on random
genetic mutations followed by natural selection: those genes that increase the ability of an
organism to survive and reproduce will be selected for; harmful mutations will be eliminated.
Thus the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution can account for purposiveness; it is totally
unnecessary to suppose that any mysterious “vital factors” are involved.
More and more is known about the functioning of the central nervous system, and the advances
of biochemistry, biophysics, electrophysiology and brain scanning are already helping us to
explain what we speak of as the mind in terms of physical and chemical mechanisms in the brain.
Computer modelling enables us to see the mind as software operating through the hardware of the
brain. Dreams of creating artificial intelligence, and even consciousness itself, within machines
may soon come closer to reality.4
Thus living organisms are, in principle, fully explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. Our
limited understanding of the mechanisms of development and of the central nervous system is
due to the enormous complexity of the problems; but now, armed with the powerful new concepts
of molecular biology and with the aid of computer models, these subjects can be tackled in a way
not previously possible.
In the light of past successes, optimism that all the problems of biology can ultimately be solved
mechanistically is understandable. But a realistic opinion about the prospects for mechanistic
explanation must depend on more than an act of faith; it can be formed only after a consideration of
the outstanding problems of biology, and how they might be solved.
1.2 The problems of morphogenesis
Biological morphogenesis can be defined as the “coming-into-being of characteristic and specific
form in living organisms.”5 The first problem is precisely that form comes into being: new structures
appear, such as eyes and flowers, which cannot be explained in terms of structures already present in
the egg. There are no miniature eyes in an eagle’s eggs, or miniature flowers in foxglove seeds.
The second problem is that many developing systems can regulate; in other words, if a part of a
developing system is removed (or if an additional part is added), the system continues to develop in
such a way that a more or less normal structure is produced. The classical demonstration of this
phenomenon was in Hans Driesch’s experiments on sea-urchin embryos. When one of the cells of a
very young embryo at the two-celled stage was killed, the remaining cell gave rise not to half a sea
urchin but to a small but complete sea urchin. Similarly, small but complete organisms developed
after the destruction of any one, two, or three cells of embryos at the four-celled stage. Conversely, the
fusion of two young sea-urchin embryos resulted in the development of one giant sea urchin.6
Regulation occurs in all developing organisms, in animals and plants. In animals, as development
proceeds, this capacity is often lost as the fate of different regions of the embryo becomes determined,
as in limbs and livers. But even when determination occurs at an early stage, as in insect embryos,
regulation still occurs after damage to the egg (see figure 1).
Results of this type show that developing plants and animals proceed toward a morphological goal.
They have some property that specifies this goal and enables them to reach it, even if parts of the
system are removed and the normal course of development is disturbed.
The third problem is regeneration. Organisms replace or restore damaged structures. Many plants
have almost unlimited regenerative abilities. If the trunk, branches, and twigs of a willow tree are cut
up into hundreds of pieces, all can grow into new trees. Some animals also regenerate from parts. A
flatworm, for example, can be cut up into several pieces that all grow into new worms.
Figure 1. An example of regulation. On the left is a normal embryo of the dragonfly Platycnemis pennipes. On the right is a small
but complete embryo formed from the posterior half of an egg ligated around the middle soon after laying. (After Weiss, 1939)
Some vertebrates show striking powers of regeneration. If the lens is surgically removed from a
newt’s eye, a new lens regenerates from the edge of the iris (figure 2); in normal embryonic
development, the lens is formed in a very different way, from the skin. The German biologist Gustav
Wolff studied this type of regeneration in the 1890s. He deliberately chose a kind of mutilation that
would not have occurred accidentally in nature; there would therefore have been no natural selection
for this regenerative process.7
Figure 2. Regeneration of a lens from the margin of the iris in a newt’s eye after the surgical removal of the original lens. (Cf.
Needham, 1942)
The fourth problem is posed by the simple fact of reproduction: a detached part of the parent
becomes a new organism; a part becomes a whole.
The only way in which these phenomena can be understood is in terms of causes that are somehow
more than the sum of the parts, and which determine the goals of the processes of development.
Vitalists ascribe these properties to vital factors, organicists to systems properties or morphogenetic
fields, and mechanists to genetic programs.
The concept of genetic programs is based on an analogy with computer programs. The metaphor
implies that the fertilized egg contains a preformed program that somehow coordinates the organism’s
development. But the genetic program must involve something more than the chemical structure of
DNA, because identical copies of DNA are passed on to all cells; if all cells were programmed
identically, they could not develop differently. So what exactly is it? In response to this question, the
idea can only disintegrate into vague suggestions about physico-chemical interactions structured in
time and space; the problem is merely restated.8
There is a further problem with the program metaphor. A computer program is put into a computer
by an intelligent conscious being, the computer programmer. It is intelligently designed in order to
achieve a computational goal. Insofar as the genetic program is analogous to computer software, it
implies the existence of a purposive mind that plays the role of the programmer.
Mechanists reject the idea that developing organisms are under the control of a vital factor that
guides them to their morphological goals. But insofar as mechanistic explanations depend on
teleological concepts such as genetic programs or genetic instructions, goal-directedness can be
explained only because it has already been smuggled in. Indeed the properties attributed to genetic
programs are remarkably similar to those with which vitalists endowed their hypothetical vital
factors; ironically, the genetic program seems to be very like a vital factor in a mechanistic guise.9
In Richard Dawkins’s concept of the “selfish gene,” the genes themselves have come to life. They
are like little people: they are as ruthless and competitive as “successful Chicago gangsters”; they
have powers to “mold matter,” to “create form,” to “choose,” and even “aspire to immortality.”10
Dawkins’s rhetoric is vitalistic. His selfish genes are miniaturized vital factors.
Nevertheless, the fact that biological morphogenesis cannot be explained in a rigorously
mechanistic manner at present does not prove that it never will be. The prospects for arriving at such
an explanation in the future are considered in the next chapter.
1.3 Behavior
If the problems of morphogenesis are dauntingly difficult, those of behavior are even more so. First,
instinct. Consider, for example, how spiders are able to spin webs without learning from other
spiders.11 Or consider the behavior of European cuckoos. The young are hatched and reared by birds
of other species, and never see their parents. Toward the end of the summer, the adult cuckoos migrate
to their other home in southern Africa. About a month later, the young cuckoos congregate together
and they also migrate to southern Africa, where they join their elders.12 They instinctively migrate
and know when to migrate; they instinctively recognize other young cuckoos and congregate together;
and they instinctively know in which direction they should fly and how to find their ancestral habitats
in southern Africa, after flying unaccompanied over the Straits of Gibraltar and the Sahara Desert.
Second, there is the problem posed by the goal-directedness of animal behavior. Even if an animal
is prevented from reaching its goal in one way, it may get there by another. For example, a dog after
amputation of a leg learns how to walk on three legs rather than four. Another dog after brain damage
gradually recovers most of its previous abilities. A third dog has obstacles put in its path. But all three
dogs can go from one place to another place they want to get to in spite of disturbances to their limbs,
central nervous systems, and environments.
Third, there is the problem of intelligent behavior; new patterns of behavior appear that cannot be
explained entirely in terms of preceding causes. Animals can be creative.
An enormous gulf of ignorance lies between these phenomena and the sciences of molecular
biology, biochemistry, genetics, and neurophysiology.
How can the migratory behavior of young cuckoos ultimately be explained in terms of DNA,
protein synthesis, and molecular cell biology? Obviously a satisfactory explanation would require
more than a demonstration that appropriate genes containing appropriate base-sequences in DNA were
necessary for this behavior, or that the behavior of cuckoos depends on electrical impulses in nerves;
it would require some understanding of the connections between specific sequences of bases in DNA,
the birds’ nervous system, and the migratory behavior. At present, these connections can be provided
only by the same elusive entities that “explain” all the phenomena of morphogenesis: genetic
programs, vital factors, system properties, or morphogenetic fields.
In any case, an understanding of behavior presupposes an understanding of morphogenesis. Even if
all the behavior of a relatively simple animal, say a nematode worm, could be understood in detail in
terms of the “wiring” and physiology of its nervous system, there would still be the problem of how
the nervous system was wired so precisely in the first place.
1.4 Evolution
Long before Mendelian genetics was thought of, plant and animal breeders developed many varieties
of cultivated plants and domesticated animals, like Damascene roses and Pharaoh hounds. Selective
breeding was the basis of their success. Charles Darwin argued persuasively that a comparable
development of races and varieties occurred in the wild under the influence of natural rather than
artificial selection.
Darwin also believed that habits acquired by plants and animals could be inherited.13 The neo-
Darwinian theory of evolution agrees about the importance of natural selection but rejects the
inheritance of habits, and tries instead to explain all evolutionary innovation in terms of random
genetic mutations, which is why it is neo-Darwinian rather than Darwinian.
Everyone agrees that mutation and natural selection can lead to the formation of varieties or
subspecies. But there is no general agreement among evolutionary biologists that gradual
microevolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families,
and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large-scale evolution, or
macroevolution, can indeed be explained in terms of long-continued processes of microevolution;14
the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of
evolution.15 But while opinions differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few
large ones, there is general agreement that mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained
by a combination of random mutation and natural selection.
This theory is inevitably speculative. The evidence for evolution is open to a variety of
interpretations. Opponents of neo-Darwinism can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely
explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized
by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures arising from the behavior and properties of
living organisms may themselves depend on inner organizing factors that are essentially nonmechanistic.
Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively. Organismic theories necessarily
involve an extrapolation of organismic ideas, just as the neo-Darwinian theory involves an
extrapolation of mechanistic ideas.
-
1.5 The origin of life
This problem of the origin of life is just as insoluble as that of evolution, for the same reasons. What
happened in the distant past can never be known for certain; there will probably always be a plethora
of speculations. Scenarios for life’s origin include its spontaneous appearance in a primeval broth on
Earth; the infection of the Earth by microorganisms deliberately sent on a space ship by intelligent
beings on a planet in another solar system;16 and the evolution of life on comets containing organic
materials derived from interstellar dust.17
Even if the conditions under which life originated were known, this information would shed no light
on the nature of life. Assuming it could be demonstrated, for example, that the first living organisms
arose from nonliving chemical aggregates or “hypercycles” of chemical processes18 in a primeval
broth, this would not prove that they were entirely mechanistic. Organicists would argue that new
organismic properties emerged in the first living system precisely when it came to life. The same
arguments would apply even if living organisms were to be synthesized artificially from chemicals in
a test tube.
1.6 Minds
The mechanistic theory postulates that all the phenomena of life, including human behavior, can in
principle be explained in terms of physics. It is a form of materialism or physicalism, the theory that
only material or physical things exist; they are the only reality. Materialism is opposed to the more
commonsense view that minds affect bodies, and are capable of interacting with them.19
Materialism runs into logical problems from the outset: attempting to explain mental activity in
terms of physical science is circular, because science itself depends on mental activity.20 This
problem became apparent within modern physics in connection with the role of the observer in
processes of physical measurement; the principles of physics “cannot even be formulated without
referring (though in some versions only implicitly) to the impressions—and thus to the minds—of the
observers” (Bernard D’Espagnat).21 Since physics presupposes the minds of observers, these minds
cannot be explained in terms of physics.22
Among materialist philosophers of mind, the most extreme stance is called eliminative
materialism. This philosophy claims that beliefs and feelings have no coherent definition and play no
part in the scientific understanding of the brain. The neuroscience of the future will have no need for
outmoded concepts like beliefs and feelings; they will join previously discarded concepts like
phlogiston and vital forces. Minds will be explained completely in terms of the objectively
measurable activity of the nervous system.23
Another materialist approach to the problem of consciousness is to admit that it exists while
denying it does anything. This view is called epiphenomenalism, the claim that “mental events are
caused by physical events in the brain although mental events themselves do not cause anything.”24
As the philosopher Alex Hyslop has put it, “The case for epiphenomenalism is the case for
materialism, together with the case against materialism. The case for materialism is the argument
from science, from a triumphant, or at least steadily triumphing science. The case against materialism
is that there are features of our conscious experience that are not accounted for by science.”25
In psychology, the science of the mind, there are different schools of thought about the relationship
between mind and body. The most extreme materialist solution is to deny the reality of the mind and
to assume that only the body is real. This was the approach of the Behaviorist school, which
dominated academic psychology for much of the twentieth century. Behaviorists confined their
attention to objectively observable behavior and ignored the existence of consciousness.26 But
behaviorism was not a testable scientific hypothesis; it was a methodology.27 It is now out of fashion
within academic psychology, and has largely been replaced by cognitive psychology.
Like behaviorism, cognitive psychology rejects introspection, but it admits the existence of internal
mental states, such as belief, desires, and motivations. Its dominant metaphor is the computer. Mental
activity is thought of as “information processing.” But the limitations of the computer metaphor are
becoming increasingly apparent, not least through a new recognition of the role of the emotions28 and
an acknowledgment that minds are embodied and actively related to the environment.29
In the 1990s, the philosopher David Chalmers made a distinction between what he called the “easy
problems” of consciousness, like finding neural correlates of sensation—for example, which parts of
the brain become active during the visual perception of moving objects—and the “hard problem.” The
hard problem is, “Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?” There is a radical
distinction between the biology of the brain and mental experience, which includes the experience of
qualities, such as red. (Philosophers of mind call these subjective experiences “qualia.”) Chalmers
argues that to take consciousness seriously, it is necessary to go beyond a strict materialist
framework.30
Unlike the materialist psychologies that predominate within academic institutions, other schools of
psychology accept subjective experience as their starting point, but also recognize that not all mental
activity is conscious: many aspects of behavior and subjective experience depend on the subconscious
or unconscious mind. The unconscious mind may also have properties that defy mechanistic
explanation. For example, in Carl Jung’s development of this concept, the unconscious is not confined
to individual minds, but provides a common substratum shared by all human minds, the collective
unconscious.
In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which
we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an
appendix) there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature
which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually
but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become
conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.31
Jung tried to explain the inheritance of the collective unconscious physically by suggesting that the
archetypal forms were “present in the germplasm.”32 But it is doubtful that anything with the
properties of the archetypal forms could be inherited chemically in the structure of DNA, or in any
other physical or chemical structure in sperm or egg cells. Indeed the idea of the collective
unconscious makes little sense in terms of current mechanistic biology, whatever its merits as a
psychological theory might be.
However, there is no a priori reason why psychological theories should be confined within the
framework of the mechanistic theory. Mental phenomena need not necessarily depend on the known
laws of physics, but may depend on principles as yet unrecognized by science.
1.7 Parapsychology
In all traditional societies, stories are told of men and women with seemingly miraculous powers, and
such powers are acknowledged by all religions. In many parts of the world, various psychic abilities
are cultivated within systems such as shamanism, sorcery, tantric yoga, and spiritualism. And even
within modern Western society, there are persistent reports of unexplained phenomena, such as
telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, memories of past lives, hauntings, poltergeists, psychokinesis,
and so on. Surveys show that the most common kind of telepathy occurs in connection with
technology, namely telephone telepathy, whereby people think of someone for no apparent reason who
calls soon afterward.33
Although dogmatic skeptics dismiss all this evidence out of hand,34 the possibility that at least
some of these events actually occur is an open question. It can be answered only after an examination
of the evidence.
The scientific study of allegedly psychic phenomena has now been going on for more than a
century. Investigators in this field of psychic research have discovered some cases of fraud, and found
that some apparently paranormal events can in fact be explained by normal causes. But there remains
a large body of evidence that seems to defy explanation in terms of any known physical principles.35
Numerous experiments designed to test for so-called extrasensory perception have yielded positive
results with odds against chance coincidence of thousands, millions, or even billions to one.36
Insofar as these phenomena cannot be explained in terms of the known laws of physics and
chemistry, from the mechanistic point of view they ought not to occur.37 But if they do, then there are
two possible approaches. The first is to suppose that they depend on nonphysical causal factors or
connecting principles.38 The second is to start from the assumption that they depend on laws of
physics as yet unknown, or on extensions of quantum theory,39 for example by postulating that mental
states play a role in determining the outcomes of probabilistic processes of physical change.40
1.8 Conclusions
This brief consideration of the outstanding problems of biology does not offer much hope that they
can all be solved by an exclusively mechanistic approach. In the case of morphogenesis and animal
behavior, the question is open. The problems of evolution and the origin of life are insoluble per se
and cannot help to decide between the mechanistic and other possible theories of life. The mechanistic
theory runs into serious philosophical difficulties in connection with the problem of the limits of
physical explanation; in relation to psychology, it leads to seemingly insoluble problems; and it is in
conflict with the apparent evidence for parapsychological phenomena.
The prospects for improved versions of mechanistic, vitalist, and organismic theories are discussed
in the following chapter. Morphogenesis is the starting point.
-
Seriously man, there was no need to post such a giant slab of text to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question.
As to "underlying formative causation", can you be more specific? Are the laws of physics not enough to explain the replication of a molecule? If not, then what part of the process requires something more?
-
Ok : genius :
Just try to answer the following then ,for starters :
You are the one making the assertions. You are the one who claims you have evidence. You are the one who is required, by the rules of the forum, to produce that evidence.
However, on the off-chance you may actually read something properly here we go:
Has science proper ever proved the materialist "fact " , or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just material or physical ?, the latter is the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " .
I have explained this you before. Science employs methodological naturalism. That is it uses a working presumption that reality is material; that reality conforms to certain rules; that these rules can be explored via the scientific method. It does not deny the possibility of the immaterial, but considers that, if it exists, to be outside its purview.
In short, you are setting up a strawman and arguing against that.
-
If life that's sentient is just a matter of physics and chemistry , then , try to explain consciousness to us scientifically then, .
I repeat my offer, made many times previously. If you define consciousness, I'll explain it.
There is little point in waffling on about anything if we haven't agreed what we are talking about.
-
Seriously man, there was no need to post such a giant slab of text to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question.
The answer to that seemingly easy question of yours,that's not that easy thus ,is contained in those excerpts you should appreciate by being open minded to them , insteaf of just listening to your own dogmatic music on the subject , you have been taking for granted as science .
As to "underlying formative causation", can you be more specific? Are the laws of physics not enough to explain the replication of a molecule? If not, then what part of the process requires something more?
The so-called laws of physics are just one single part of the whole pic ( The very notion of laws is in fact just a human projection ) , the other part is the mental or non-physical, the latter that's more fundamental than the physical, and hence there might be some formative or other forms of causation out there underlying the so-called laws of physics themselves : mental or non-physical forms of causation at that ,maybe not in the form of morphic resonance ,as Sheldrake suggests here above : read what Sheldrake had to say about just that , as displayed here above , just for your lovely sweet blue eyes , lazy guy .
-
If life that's sentient is just a matter of physics and chemistry , then , try to explain consciousness to us scientifically then, .
I repeat my offer, made many times previously. If you define consciousness, I'll explain it.
There is little point in waffling on about anything if we haven't agreed what we are talking about.
[/quote]
haha : you can explain consciousness ? haha
Humanity as a whole , during all its history , including science that's just a human activity , have been breaking their teeth and much more in relation to the hard problem of consciousness for so long now up to this present date ,in vain, while there is still in fact no end in sight to that human struggle and attempts to try to tackle the extremely hard and almost impossible issue of consciousness , and you , of all people, do pretend to be able to explain consciousness that's non-physical, and hence that's non-definable :
Sweet dreams in your wonderland , you silly simple -minded naive zombie Alice .
Who can anyone for that matter ever take you ...seriously ?.
-
Ok : genius :
Just try to answer the following then ,for starters :
You are the one making the assertions. You are the one who claims you have evidence. You are the one who is required, by the rules of the forum, to produce that evidence.
However, on the off-chance you may actually read something properly here we go:
Has science proper ever proved the materialist "fact " , or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just material or physical ?, the latter is the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " .
I have explained this you before. Science employs methodological naturalism. That is it uses a working presumption that reality is material; that reality conforms to certain rules; that these rules can be explored via the scientific method. It does not deny the possibility of the immaterial, but considers that, if it exists, to be outside its purview.
In short, you are setting up a strawman and arguing against that.
[/quote]
Then, i must disappoint you by saying that you are not well informed ,regarding the above , simply because all sciences for that matter have been assuming for so long now that reality is just material or physical, thanks to materialism thus = that's the current dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science = that's the current mainstream 'scientific world view " or the mainstream "scientific consensus " , regarding the nature of reality , and hence there is no such a "thing " or a process such as the non-physical , including the mental that's just a biological process , according to the mainstream false 'scientific world view " .
Try to answer the core question here ,once again,then :
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " , or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical ? Obviously ...not, never , ever = the current mainstream "scientific world view " has been just the materialist false conception of nature , and hence has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , or with the true scientific world view .
-
haha : you can explain consciousness ? haha
Yes I can, and I will, if you define it. Try me!
-
haha : you can explain consciousness ? haha
Yes I can, and I will, if you define it. Try me!
[/quote]
Can't you read , 'scientist " ?Amazing .
What's wrong with your capacity of judgement ? I wonder ...
What's wrong with you ?
If life that's sentient is just a matter of physics and chemistry , then , try to explain consciousness to us scientifically then, .
I repeat my offer, made many times previously. If you define consciousness, I'll explain it.
There is little point in waffling on about anything if we haven't agreed what we are talking about.
[/quote]
haha : you can explain consciousness ? haha
Humanity as a whole , during all its history , including science that's just a human activity , have been breaking their teeth and much more in relation to the hard problem of consciousness for so long now up to this present date ,in vain, while there is still in fact no end in sight to that human struggle and attempts to try to tackle the extremely hard and almost impossible issue of consciousness , and you , of all people, do pretend to be able to explain consciousness that's non-physical, and hence that's non-definable :
Sweet dreams in your wonderland , you silly simple -minded naive zombie Alice .
Who can anyone for that matter ever take you ...seriously ?.
-
You didn't directly address my questions. Part of the problem of saying "read what Sheldrake said" is that you admit that you do not adhere to all of his beliefs. Therefore, you must be specific as to which of those beliefs you do adhere to.
So please answer this directly: Which step in the molecular replication process requires an immaterial explanation?
Here is a diagram just in case you need one:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Fabioprob%2Fsrep.gif&hash=b1e51874ec2c1b14667892cb902218c2)
-
Try to explain ... music
music can emerge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) from cellular automata (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49377.msg424350#msg424350) ... http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata (http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata/?q=10_27_176_742172160111763113642840470562000) [requires Adobe flash , press play]
-
You didn't directly address my questions. Part of the problem of saying "read what Sheldrake said" is that you admit that you do not adhere to all of his beliefs. Therefore, you must be specific as to which of those beliefs you do adhere to.
So please answer this directly: Which step in the molecular replication process requires an immaterial explanation?
Here is a diagram just in case you need one:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Fabioprob%2Fsrep.gif&hash=b1e51874ec2c1b14667892cb902218c2)
[/quote]
Physics and chemistry are just one single part of the whole pic : there might be some sort of formative or other unknown to science non-physical foms of causation ,that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , the non-physical or mental as the other more fundamental side of the whole pic ,without which we can't know how DNA , for example , is made the way it is ,as to give form to itself by self-replication, by 'coding " the synthesis of proteins ...by preserving and by giving form to biological traits or genetical inheritance ....
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for just that , let alone the rest .
Example ? : epigenetics : acquired characteristics get passed on from generation to the next and beyond :
The materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature rejects this Lamarckian kind of inheritance or evolution, while Darwin did adhere to the latter , by also trying to explain it ...
P.S.: Living organisms are wholes inside of wholes inside of wholes ,all the way down to sub-atoms that are wholes inside of atoms as wholes , atoms that are wholes inside of molecules as wholes , all the way up to organs as wholes inside of living organims as wholes = the whole is more than the sum of its parts= materialist reductionism is false = one cannot explain the whole via its parts ,or via its smallest parts ,no way .
-
Try to explain ... music
music can emerge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) from cellular automata (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49377.msg424350#msg424350) ... http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata (http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata/?q=10_27_176_742172160111763113642840470562000) [requires Adobe flash , press play]
Don't be silly : living organisms are no machines : see above also .
-
Try to explain ... music
music can emerge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) from cellular automata (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49377.msg424350#msg424350) ... http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata (http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata/?q=10_27_176_742172160111763113642840470562000) [requires Adobe flash , press play]
Don't be silly : living organisms are no machines : see above also .
The music via that cellular-automaton (http://youtu.be/k8EfRXihiWg?t=1m10s) isn't a symphony* , but is a proof-of-concept that automata can produce music which at times would be indistinguishable from music created by a human, i.e. cellular-automata mechanism within the human can explain the music they create without any need for anything out-with the material world.
[ * more varied than some Philip Glass (http://youtu.be/swUMpLsx6Pc?t=15m57s) compositions though [:)] ]
-
Try to explain ... music
music can emerge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) from cellular automata (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49377.msg424350#msg424350) ... http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata (http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata/?q=10_27_176_742172160111763113642840470562000) [requires Adobe flash , press play]
Don't be silly : living organisms are no machines : see above also .
The music via that cellular-automaton (http://youtu.be/k8EfRXihiWg?t=1m10s) isn't a symphony* , but is a proof-of-concept that automata can produce music which at times would be indistinguishable from music created by a human, i.e. cellular-automata mechanism within the human can explain the music they create without any need for anything out-with the material world.
[ * more varied than some Philip Glass (http://youtu.be/swUMpLsx6Pc?t=15m57s) compositions though [:)] ]
[/quote]
Once again, that machine analogy or metaphor regarding life is just a materialist mechanical belief assumption, no empirical fact .
-
Once again, that machine analogy or metaphor regarding life is just a materialist mechanical belief assumption, no empirical fact .
That the music generated by cellular-automata can be indistinguishable from human-generated music , (analogous to a Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)), is empirical evidence that a cellular-automata mechanism within the human brain is sufficient to explain human-generated music, so no additional non-material explanation is required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor).
-
Yet again, you fail to directly address the question. This suggests to me that either:
(1) You cannot directly answer the question and therefore don't know what you are talking about.
(2) You won't directly answer the question because you realize that if you do then you will begin the process of pinning yourself into a corner that will become increasingly difficult to debate your way out of.
You can prove both of these assumptions wrong, however, if you choose to directly answer my question(s) once and for all. Go ahead then. Prove me wrong:
Is there a requirement for some immaterial explanation in order to explain how this peptide molecule replicates that the laws of chemistry alone cannot explain? If so, which aspect of the replication process requires it and how exactly does the immaterial supply these needs?
I've got a strong suspicion that you will fail to directly answer this yet again and instead will post some generalized statement about how materialism is wrong as a red herring. Materialism being wrong is beside the point, as I am asking a question only about one particular phenomenon. Even if the mechanism behind this peptide replication is entirely physical, that would not rule out the concept of the immaterial as a whole.
I do find it interesting that you say "there might be some sort of formative or other unknown to science non-physical foms of causation". Might? Sounds like you have doubt. Do you have doubt that this peptide replication requires an immaterial explanation?
-
Yet again, you fail to directly address the question. This suggests to me that either:
(1) You cannot directly answer the question and therefore don't know what you are talking about.
(2) You won't directly answer the question because you realize that if you do then you will begin the process of pinning yourself into a corner that will become increasingly difficult to debate your way out of.
You can prove both of these assumptions wrong, however, if you choose to directly answer my question(s) once and for all. Go ahead then. Prove me wrong:
Is there a requirement for some immaterial explanation in order to explain how this peptide molecule replicates that the laws of chemistry alone cannot explain? If so, which aspect of the replication process requires it and how exactly does the immaterial supply these needs?
I've got a strong suspicion that you will fail to directly answer this yet again and instead will post some generalized statement about how materialism is wrong as a red herring. Materialism being wrong is beside the point, as I am asking a question only about one particular phenomenon. Even if the mechanism behind this peptide replication is entirely physical, that would not rule out the concept of the immaterial as a whole.
I do find it interesting that you say "there might be some sort of formative or other unknown to science non-physical foms of causation". Might? Sounds like you have doubt. Do you have doubt that this peptide replication requires an immaterial explanation?
That seems to require no non-physical forms of causation, not because it does not , but simply because mechanistic science under materialism thinks that physics and chemistry alone are all what there is to reality, including to DNA,including the mind ....
How does DNA give rise to morphogenesis then ? why does it behave the way it does ,as if it had some pre-planned 'agenda " : note that materialists say that DNA is just software , just a progrm : that's a form of vitalism those materialists have been "fighting " against by metaphorically giving DNA a mechanical "soul " of the vitalists ,by introducing their own teleological vitalism into life ,by seeing life as just hardware programmed by software .....while not being able to explain how that sentient living "hardware or software " came into being , in the first place to begin with .
Not to mention the kind of epigenetics that has been proving the traditional Lamarckian inheritance of environmental acquired characteristics physiologically ,by switching on or off certain genes ,to be true ,in total contrast with the neo-darwinian "scientific world view " that used to attribute inheritance only to genes ' sequences , neo-darwinism that does reject that darwinian and lamarckian view of evolution via environmental acquired characteristics or traits habits : what about the psychological and mental implications of or adaptations to the environment such as the impacts of past tragic events , wars , famine , holocaust ...that might also be passed on to the next generations as well, and beyond ...non-physically or non-genetically , since psychological and mental adaptations to the environment are irreducible to the physical .
DNA or any other molecules for that matter are just wholes inside of wholes inside of wholes ......: sub-atoms as whole "organisms " inside of atoms as whole "organisms " , inside of molecules as whole "organisms " , inside of organs as whole "organisms " , inside of organisms as wholes = the whole is not the sum of its parts , is more than just that, and one cannot explain the whole just via its parts ,as reductionist materialism has been doing .
So, science must start looking for non-physical or mental forms of causation out there that might be or rather must be then underlying the laws of physics themselves ,since reality is not just material or physical, and hence even DNA is not , even physics and chemistry are thus not just that .
Quantum physics , for example , has been talking in terms of fields such as the electro-magnetic fields and others ,without being able yet to say much about the nature of those fields ,or about the nature of electricity and magnetism at their ultimate bottom , has been talking in terms of waves and mass in relation to particles , without being able yet to say what the nature of those waves or energy are ....or as a certain scientist once said " matter is not made of matter " ,so to speak .
Even just physics and chemistry might turn out to be not just that thus , at its ultimate bottom .
In short :
Science must undergo a major and revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm ,not just a paradigm shift , as to include the possible non-physical forms of causation out there , that must be underlying the laws of physics themselves .( I said might , just because science has not yet been able to find just that , thanks to materialism, but i am relatively sure that there are non-physical or mental forms of causation at bottom,since reality is not just material or physical , and since the mental or non-physical that's irreducible to the physical ,is way more fundamental than matter can ever be . )
Before saying anything about the mental, let modern physics tell us first what matter is ,at its ultimate bottom .
That might sound just generalization talk to you ,but it is not , if you only would try to think about just that then : nothing is what it appears to be ,as science has been teaching us ,so, science might be able to reveal some more fundamental forms of nature at its ultimate bottom in he future , who knows ?
To say already that "everything = nothing " is just physics and chemistry ,while ignoring the other more fundamental side of reality , and without knowing what the nature of matter itself might be , is simply...dogmatic ignorance , the latter science is all about dispelling .
What are "physics and chemistry" at their ultimate bottom then , before speaking of the more fundamental side of reality : the mental or non-physical .
-
I'm not asking whether or not peptide replication "seems" to not require an immaterial explanation. I'm asking if you as an individual believe that it does or not. Do you believe it does or do you believe it does not?
The argument that DNA seems to have some agenda sounds like a parallel to the typical creationist-type argument about design. That is, if something looks designed, then it must be designed. Saying that something has an agenda implies that it has some ability to think and plan. How a molecule can think and plan is beyond me.
-
Humanity as a whole , during all its history , including science that's just a human activity , have been breaking their teeth and much more in relation to the hard problem of consciousness for so long now up to this present date
And until someone defines it, nobody will ever explain it, because you cannot "explain" a meaningless noise. But nobody dares to define it because that would spoil the mystery!
-
I'm not asking whether or not peptide replication "seems" to not require an immaterial explanation. I'm asking if you as an individual believe that it does or not. Do you believe it does or do you believe it does not?
The argument that DNA seems to have some agenda sounds like a parallel to the typical creationist-type argument about design. That is, if something looks designed, then it must be designed. Saying that something has an agenda implies that it has some ability to think and plan. How a molecule can think and plan is beyond me.
I think you should try to reread what i said : i cannot be more clearer than that .
I said also that materialists who do try to refute that unproved vitalism, end up becoming vitalists themselves their own materialist way thus , by attributing "souls or vital mysterious forces " to DNA , metaphorically speaking then, by saying that DNA is a program that does shape living organisms ,as if DNA is somehow conscious, even though they say that 'selfish genes " are just a metaphor : materialists end up introducing materialist vitalist teleological mysteries to DNA as some sort of 'software " , as some sort of an architect of life , programming living organisms as some sort of "hardware ". without being able to tell us how that presumed DNA program came into being ,or how it can account for morphogenesis .....let alone for how come that even rice does have more than 38 000 genes , while humans do have just 23 000 genes , even some plants do have more genes than we have : not to mention that our alleged closest "relatives " the chimps do share more than 99% DNA material with us : DNA alone cannot account for our forms and complexity thus ...in comparison with those of our alleged closest "relatives , or with those of other species ...
Homeobox genes, for example, are identical in us , in fruitflies and in other species as well, but they cannot account for our totally different foms and complexity in comparison with those of fruitflies ...
Morphogenesis , inheritance ...are not just a matter of DNA thus : we are not just DNA or biology .
We are not just physics and chemistry .
Nobody knows yet even what matter exactly is , what physics and chemistry are in fact ,on top of all that and more .
Our mental side is more fundamental than matter can ever be in fact , the mental that gets reduced to just physics and chemistry by the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " which tries to explain "everything " = nothing ,just in terms of physics and chemistry , whatever the latter might be .
-
... how come that even rice does have more than 38 000 genes , while humans do have just 23 000 genes ...
You must have missed my post on non-coding DNA , aka "Junk DNA" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA) ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.msg424943#msg424943
-
In that case, I will assume that you do believe that an immaterial mechanism is responsible for peptide replication.
However, you never explained which step or what aspect of peptide replication required something immaterial in order to explain it. I do therefore conclude that you either cannot answer the question directly or won't because doing so will have adverse consequences for you.
Saying that materialists attribute souls or mysterious vital forces to DNA is a straw-man argument because they don't believe in souls or mysterious vital forces in the first place. Modern science does not attribute everything about humanity to DNA anyway. Epigenetics and the nurture aspect of "nature vs. nurture" play important roles as well.
Let's see if you can answer this: what is it about the immaterial world that allows it to fill in roles that the material world alone cannot? What properties of the immaterial allow it to explain life?
-
... how come that even rice does have more than 38 000 genes , while humans do have just 23 000 genes ...
You must have missed my post on non-coding DNA , aka "Junk DNA" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA) ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.msg424943#msg424943
[/quote]
Come on : that's no serious answer to my question :
How come we are way too different ,obviously, qua form and complexity ....from rice ,and yet the latter has a lot more genes than we have ?
DNA alone is not what "defines " us thus = we are not just biology,DNA, or physics and chemistry alone .
Our alleged closest "relatives " with which we do share more than 99% DNA material should not be way different from us ,if DNA biology or chemistry and physics are all what there is to us ,or to life in general .
Even the founder of the human genome project said once , after scientists finished the mapping of both the human and the chimps ' genomes that :
"...that does not explain why we are so different ..." .
-
Come on : that's no serious answer to my question :
How come we are way too different ,obviously, qua form and complexity ....from rice ,and yet the latter has a lot more genes than we have ?
Yes it is a serious and accurate answer to your question as to why some plants have a larger genome than humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma).
Less than 2% of human DNA is coding , maybe you can find out how much of that coding DNA we have in common with chimps, (it's definitely less than "99%" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129726/?report=reader)).
To be fair chimps are mentally superior to humans at some things ...
In many species, only a small fraction of the total sequence of the genome encodes protein. For example, only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of protein-coding exons, with over 50% of human DNA consisting of non-coding repetitive sequences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Genes_and_genomes
-
In that case, I will assume that you do believe that an immaterial mechanism is responsible for peptide replication.
I am just logically assuming that there might be some more fundamental forms of causation underlying the laws of physics themselves , since the mental that's irreducible to the physical is more fundamental than matter can ever be , while we still do not know yet what the nature of the latter might be exactly either .
However, you never explained which step or what aspect of peptide replication required something immaterial in order to explain it. I do therefore conclude that you either cannot answer the question directly or won't because doing so will have adverse consequences for you.
See above .
As long as science will remain materialistic , it will only continue trying to explain "everything " = nothing , just in terms of physics and chemistry , while reality or nature are not just material or physical ,are not just physics and chemistry .
Saying that materialists attribute souls or mysterious vital forces to DNA is a straw-man argument because they don't believe in souls or mysterious vital forces in the first place.
I said that the materialist teleological vitalism is just a metaphor: materialism just ends up becoming vitalist teleological , in the materialist sense thus .
Reread what i said then .
Modern science does not attribute everything about humanity to DNA anyway. Epigenetics and the nurture aspect of "nature vs. nurture" play important roles as well.
Modern science does try to explain "everything " = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry ,thanks to materialism , by assuming that reality or nature is exclusively material or physical.
Let's see if you can answer this: what is it about the immaterial world that allows it to fill in roles that the material world alone cannot? What properties of the immaterial allow it to explain life?
Life is , per definition, sentient and alive living : no physics and chemistry can account for the immaterial nature or for the immaterial side of life or for the immaterial consciousness ...
How can sentient alive living life 'rise or emerge " from just organic physics and chemistry , let alone from dead inorganic matter ? physics and chemistry cannot account for that .
We should be behaving like zombies machines ,if we were just physics and chemistry , that's 1 of the "reasons " why mechanistic materialist science does reduce life and consciousness to just physics and chemistry in fact , thanks to materialism = that fits perfectly into the false materialist world view .
Even if we are just physics and chemistry , that's still cannot account for sentient life .
There must be more to physics and chemistry themselves than just what we perceive them to be thus .
Materialists cannot therefore afford to see consciousness as an immaterial process, obviously , otherwise ,they would be no materialists haha .
Science has nothing to do about all that : that's 1 of the reasons why science must be liberated from materialism .
I would even add that even dead inanimate inorganic matter itself is not just matter = has an immaterial side= alive and sentient ,the same goes for animals of course , plants ,and the rest .
Quantum physics are on their way to revolutionize completely our view of what matter is ,modern physics has already been doing just that , by superseding materialism itself ....in the process .
(To complicate matters thus for you , i would say that even organic and non-organic matter are alive living and sentient their own degrees of consciousness and life: that's another totally different set of relative degrees of sentient life at the level of matter , at the level of both organic and inorganic matter , : earth is alive and sentient , so are the stars , the sun and planets , mountains seas oceans ....bacteria ,viruses,plants ,animals ....their own degrees of sentient life that cannot match that of man ,not even remotely close thus : man is unique in that regard .That's 1 of the reasons why i said that we still do not know what even matter exactly is, what physics an chemistry exactly are : they might turn out to be totally different from what we perceive them to be .)
Physics and chemistry alone are just one side of reality, and hence just one single side of life that's way less fundamental than the mental side of nature or of life that's irreducible to the physical or to the material .
So, physics and chemistry alone ,as we perceive them to be at least , cannot account for life fully , let alone its origins evolution or emergence , even if scientists would be able to discover how life did "emerge " from the dead matter , even if scientists would make "artificial life " : they would still have to use the already existing "building blocks " of life ...
So, reality,life, or nature the universe cannot be just material or physical or biological , including evolution that cannot be just biological ....
The above are no scientific statements , in the materialist sense at least .
Who knows what science will be discovering concerning all the above , when science will be liberated from materialism thus .
-
RD:
Birds do fly via their natural wings , we do not , not via natural wings at least haha
Does that mean they are superior to us in that regard ?
Many animals ,social insects ....do see a lots of what we cannot see ...
Does that mean they are superior to us in that regard ?
Via our imagination we can create whole universes though , real ,fictitious or illusory .
Chimps might be better in memory ....but , they cannot match our intellect as a whole , our imagination, creativity ....not even remotely close thus .
How can you explain all that just via physics and chemistry then ?
The whole is not the sum of its parts .
What kindda "reasoning " is this ?
If we are just physics and chemistry interacting with the material environment ....then, that should be enough to explain why we are so different from other species and plants = that does not , obviously .
-
I am just logically assuming that there might be some more fundamental forms of causation underlying the laws of physics themselves
Again with the "might", I see. Using "might" implies a lack of conviction. So you are not convinced that peptide replication requires an immaterial explanation?
See above .
Your above explanation did not address the issue. You did not say which aspect of the replication needed something immaterial. Only now you seem to lack conviction that it needs anything immaterial at all by saying the word "might". If peptide replication only "might" require an immaterial explanation, then replication of living cells also only "might" require an immaterial explanation.
Life is , per definition, sentient and alive living : no physics and chemistry can account for the immaterial nature or for the immaterial side of life or for the immaterial consciousness ...
Argument from incredulity: "We don't know how physics and chemistry can generate life or consciousness, therefore they can't."
Argument from ignorance: "We don't know how physics and chemistry can generate life or consciousness, therefore something immaterial does."
The bulk of your arguments are based solely on "common sense" observations. The problem with this is that common sense has been wrong many times in the past:
-The Earth is obviously flat.
-The Sun obviously revolves around the Earth.
-Objects obviously require constant force in order to maintain their motion.
-Heavy objects obviously fall faster than light ones.
-Matter and energy are obviously two completely different things.
-Time is obviously a universal constant.
-Objects can obviously only exist in one place at a time.
Each and every one of these common sense observations has been proven wrong. Evidence from common sense arguments alone are therefore weak. If you want something more compelling, you must provide evidence that is more objective in nature. However, since you say that you cannot define the immaterial, then you automatically forfeit your ability to present objective evidence.
Consider that two models of reality: Materialism (everything that exists has some origin in the material world) and Immaterialism (some things that exist do not have an origin in the material world). That assumes that immaterialism is word, of course. Idealism might be the better term. The lack of an ability for materialism to prove itself would not automatically make immaterialism right. The lack of immaterialism to prove itself would not automatically prove materialism right. My point is that neither side should focus on the lack of proof of the opposition so much as they should try to prove their own premises correct. If neither side can do this, all this would mean is that the total explanation for reality remains unknown.
In order for you to prove immaterialism/idealism correct, you do not proceed by pointing to a lack of evidence for materialism. You proceed by providing proof that immaterialism is correct. So far, the only "proof" you have provided has been in the form of common sense arguments. Since I have demonstrated why common sense arguments are weak, you need to provide something more concrete in order to present your arguments as compelling.
How can sentient alive living life 'rise or emerge " from just organic physics and chemistry , let alone from dead inorganic matter ? physics and chemistry cannot account for that .
Can you prove that physics and chemistry cannot account for life, or is this just another "common sense" argument?
Birds do fly via their natural wings , we do not , not via natural wings at least haha
Does that mean they are superior to us in that regard ?
Superior to humans when it comes to flying? Yes, as humans can't fly at all naturally. Being superior in one way does not mean being superior in all ways.
-
Folks :
I do suggest that we all should move back ,or restrict ourselves to the consciousness thread , in order to discuss these highly fascinating issues ,simply because almost all of these issues and more can be be brought back to the hard problem of consciousness ,the latter that's THE key to understanding ourselves and this universe within and without, instead of "fragmenting " our energies and time on multiple threads .
-
Chimps might be better in memory ....but , they cannot match our intellect as a whole , our imagination, creativity ....not even remotely close thus .
Until I see a chimpanzee, or indeed any other animal, worshipping a god, or killing another member of its species for not worshipping the same god, I shall continue to regard human beings as the least intelligent, rational or moral species of all. Creativity, however you measure it, is a very minor virtue in comparison with these.
-
Just thought I'd leave this here, you know, for purposes of reference. ;)
http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/ (http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/)
-
Just thought I'd leave this here, you know, for purposes of reference. ;)
http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/ (http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/)
[/quote]
Speaking of the common sense or of the logical fallacy , why don't you try to pay us all a courtesy visit in the consciousness thread to see how Hume was so right by rejecting induction, how Bertrand Russell failed to solve it , and how Karl Popper succeeded so brilliantly in doing so , and much more ...
Take care
-
Seconded. The value of scientific research is in the extent to which it confounds your preconceptions. If everything was obvious, there would be no need for investigation.
-
Chimps might be better in memory ....but , they cannot match our intellect as a whole , our imagination, creativity ....not even remotely close thus .
Until I see a chimpanzee, or indeed any other animal, worshipping a god, or killing another member of its species for not worshipping the same god, I shall continue to regard human beings as the least intelligent, rational or moral species of all. Creativity, however you measure it, is a very minor virtue in comparison with these.
We certainly have instances of chimpanzees being killed by their fellows for failing to conform to the power structure of the troop. That is equivalent to acts of religiously motivated violence.
-
Not at all. The power structure of a troop clearly exists and has some purpose. Egregious nonconformity of action defines crime in a civilised society. Presumed nonconformity of thought can only offend the mentally unbalanced or the sort of criminal scum that use religion as an excuse for evil.
Have you observed a chimpanzee attacking another because of what he thought his victim's mother might have done on Sundays? Have you watched brainless idiots stoning schoolchildren in Northern Ireland?
-
I see you are a digital thinker, not an analogue one. Don't you find that restrictive?
-
One who thinks with his fingers? Arguably the case for an octopus, but I'm not that clever.
-
I always believe that we are not alone in the universe.
Maybe some aliens have reached our planet. Of course they just have a tour in Earth.