[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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  .

[Kryptid]

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?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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  .

[alancalverd]

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.   

[Kryptid]

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.

[SimpleEngineer]

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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[alancalverd]

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.

[RD]

... 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 that they are wasting their time.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... 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 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 .....

[RD]

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” hypothesis ).

Self-replicating cells can have neuronal emergent properties, (see 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, 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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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” hypothesis ).

Self-replicating cells can have neuronal emergent properties, (see 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, 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 .

[Kryptid]

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...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[Kryptid]

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

Scientists have also created a polymer that heals itself: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/polymer-regenerates-elastomer-heals-independently

[Ophiolite]

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?

[Kryptid]

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).

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

Scientists have also created a polymer that heals itself: 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 ...?