[Ophiolite]

DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.

[/quote]

There was no such a thing as "dismemberment " of my allegations regarding science  to be detected in your above mentioned post , that one that dates back to the first of November thus  , i am with you regarding what science actually is and should be as a result , science as just a human effective and unparalleled tool instrument method to deal with the observable, empirical ...........via multiple ways that are specific to their corresponding specific sciences , there are sciences indeed , as there are many forms of the scientific method, not just one : cosmologists do not deal with the cosmos like biologists do in relation to life etc...

Naturalist science has been dominated by the materialist reductionist naturalist false conception of nature , in the sense that reality as a whole is just physical material, and therefore there is no such a "being " such as God, no immaterial side of reality you do call the 'supernatural " , the latter that's just semantics that mean nothing = the immaterial side of reality is in fact ...normal, not paranormal ;the  "paranormal "  label  is just the materialist way of dismissing what it , per definition, rejects ,that's all .

That reality as a whole is just physical material is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one , but that materialist core belief assumption has been taken for granted as science , for so long now thus , once again .

But fact is , once again : thanks to materialism , the 'scientific world view " is materialist = reality as a whole is just physical material = see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere , and therefore is the human mind or  human intellect , memory in general, consciousness, emotions, feelings  , ...are just products of the physical brain's neuro-chemical  activity= materialist belief assumptions , no empirical ones .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Let me try to reconstruct for you the 'scene of the committed crime " haha, before it gets "infected , messed with and distorted " beyond any recognition then  :

I asked you the following :

Do you think that reality as a whole is material physical ? You answered no .
But , ironically and pradoxically, modern science has been in fact assuming that reality as a whole thus is just material physical, thanks to materialism , a "scientific " assumption that has been just a materialist core belief assumption, not an empirical or scientific one .
So,when you said no , that meant you were against that materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as a result , a 'scientific world view " you have been taking for granted without question as the scientific one , despite your "no ".

So, make up your mind then :
Is reality as a whole just material physical ? , if not , as you answered previously , then you are against the 'scientific world view " on the subject , if yes , then you have been deluded into assuming that that materialist core belief assumption has been  "the scientific world view " , either way , you have to explain your position predicament .

Will you do just that ? 

Do not tell me what I think.

I was not telling you what to think , i was just asking you a question you responded to , a response of yours that did go against the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " or 'scientific consensus " on the subject thus .

You make yourself look foolish.

No, i don't think so , see above .
You have been  putting  yourself , as a scientist thus, in a weird paradoxical ironic situation predicament , as the majority of scientists today have been doing , you should try to solve  for yourself at least  .
Will you do just that , as i asked here above ?

[dlorde]

A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...

[dlorde]

Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

[cheryl j]

What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"

[dlorde]

What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"

It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.

It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.

Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.

[/quote]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :

I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

Try to read the following and  try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/

High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos


High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.

The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.

The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.

As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .
See how Sheldrake has been studying telepathy, for example, scientifically .

2) There is no materialist conspiracy

Who said there is one ?

. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate

.

What do you mean exactly ?
The medieval church used to be against science , wasn't it ?
The medieval church that used to see itself as the one and only undisputed ultimate authority : anyone who used to challenge it , used to face dire consequences ,as you know  .
The medieval church used to plant the seeds of its own decline , and those of the rise or birth of mechanistic materialism thus as a result .

 

They were generally in opposition

Scientists were , yes ? indeed ,so .

. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.

I was just talking about the secular materialist establishment as the newly born ultimate authority that had replaced christianity ,metaphorically speaking ,  as the concept of the nation-state had replaced that of the church : the secular materialist establishment as the new then undisputed ultimate authority whose main 'ally " was / has been science , when science became materialistic mechanistic , thanks to materialism thus .

Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.

Wrong :
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

Just be serious , come on :

Just answer the question, come on.

Be serious, ok ?
Well, when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then  science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put  on a new  path that might lead to new  unimaginable  discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?

Science has been just deluded into "thinking " , thanks to materialism thus , that the material physical side of reality is all what there is to reality = a distortion of reality .

When science will be liberated from materialism, then science will be able to "see " or rather try to approach the whole pic of reality or rather  science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it  can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality , science has been taking for the whole real thing = the scope realm , jurisdiction and reach of science will be then extended exponentially ,relatively speaking then, while there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus  .

... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example

.

Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?

Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis

Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .

Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...

See above .
No, you are completely wrong , on all accounts :
I have been put in a position where i have been forced to repeat the same facts over and over again regarding the core fact that materialism is no science , simply because you refuse to acknowledge those simple facts : i did even post a lots of material on the subject that has been supporting my allegations , and more .

Besides, God or religions , any world views for that matter , including materialism thus , materialism as just a secular dogmatic orthodox religion in science , are both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .
So, materialism has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry in science , while selling that materialist core belief assumption to the people as science , in order to reject all non-materialist world views , including religions thus , "scientifically ", and in order for materialism to try to "validate " itself through science as science , in order thus for materialism to try to prove itself as being " the one and only scientifically true world view " , as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course : no wonder that materialism in science has been sold to the people as "the scientific world view " , materialism that's just a false conception of nature that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science , science that should try to deal with all parts of reality it can deal with empirically , not just with the material part of reality science has been confined to , thanks to materialism , the material side of reality that science has been assuming that it is all what there is to reality as a whole  .
I cannot be any clearer than that .

[dlorde]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.

Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"

It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.

It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.

Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.

[/quote]

There is a lots of speculations ,fairy tales, bullshit  ....in science regarding the origins of life,way more than in any other given field of science  :
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter , or just how the alleged first RNA emerged , or rather how just the first alleged organic matter did emerge from the dead matter ....and how the magical emergence of the organic matter , after so many alleged accidents in the middle of that messy so-called original soup ....how life emerged via so many mutations, atsronomical unbelievable accidents  and random chance  , through millions and millions of years ...............even a sane kid would not believe as such= unbelievable fairy tales in science  .

Try to do that , go ahead , be my guest , impress me and knock yourself out , scientist .

Physics and chemistry are just the material physical biological side of life : to try to find out about the origins of life just via physics and chemistry  , while pretending or assuming that physics and chemistry are all what there is to life  , by ignoring the immaterial side of life , is simply ludicrous and unscientific + a materialist belief assumption  in science that's no science = pseudo-science .
Besides, physics and chemistry or the laws of physics alone cannot account for the origins and emergence of life as such , the latter that cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , obviously , otherwise , try to explain to us how life did emerge from the inorganic or dead matter for that matter , via some magical materialist inexplicable tricks performances ,such as that silly magical materialist 'emergence " trick performance regarding the origins, emergence  and nature of consciousness , or such as those silly  materialist mechanical neuronal 'computational " mechanisms regarding the origins emergence and nature of the human  intellect ......

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.

Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other  , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted  (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then   : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .

If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
But fact is , not everyhting is just a matter of the laws of physics , of cause and effect thus , otherwise try to explain or rather predict the behaviour, development , evolution  or nature of conscionsess , the economy , politics , cultures , societies , and the rest , just via the laws of physics, just via atoms , molecules ...do not be silly  = mechanistic determinist materialism has   been turning you into an insane counter-intuitive fool, sorry , despite the counter-evidence that stares at you in front of your very eyes .

Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).

Physics cannot explain or predict everything ,despite that so-called theory of everything fantasy utopia .

To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might  , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box   .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science  that makes no sense whatsoever  : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .

If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
Who or what drives your car , if not yourself ...who or what makes you sleep with your wife , ...some strip-tease harmonious synchronisations oscillations vibrations ritual dances of neurons or of ensemble of neurons, through their atoms and molecules' interactions  ... ? come on .
What triggers wars ? atoms ?
What put you in the lab ? atoms ?
What makes a politician , a musician, a criminal , a priest , an alien, a pedophile ,Hitler  ...do what he/she does ? atoms or their sexy ritual dances ?
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software  .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven  by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment  .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit .
What is nature then ?: mechanistic materialism had just "killed " God by replacing God by another god = nature , as Nietzsche was trying to do his own sick pathological way .
What is nature way down to its bottom ultimate core then ? An endless pandora's box thus .
Atoms do not make up everything , neither figuratively , nor literally .
Don't be ridiculous ...

P.S.: You know :
When i finished reading some parts of Nagel's book ,i saw how he desperately tried to find his already troubled confused atheist naturalist way ,within his naturalist atheist linear belief assumptions , in order to sort out the inherent paradoxical elements of his naturalist atheist belief or world view ,by rejecting the false materialist mechanistic reductionist conception of nature ,while trying to figure out an alternative to it : the outcome was so tragic-hilarious in the sense that he perceived nature (his so-called naturalism would not allow him to do otherwise of course , unless he would reject it : i do not see why naturalism cannot be underlied by ...God , really = that's the only serious solution ,if one is a true thruth seeker in fact ) , he perceived nature thus as being intrinsically teleological and an intrinsic  generator of the mind , life , or consciousness from the very start of it , giving nature godlike qualities , simply because he refused to believe in God , simply because he said he did not want there to be a God , .....= his atheist belief assumptions determined  the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around  ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual  dishonesty at best = pathetic    .



You know :

Nagel's "search for the truth " reminds me of that of atheist French nobel prize winner Albert Camus = that reveals the very heart mind and spirit of atheism = a deliberate conscious choice to reject God , even if the latter turns out to be the ...fundamental  truth , the very fundamental power underlying ...nature and the universe , so to speak = you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am  a  true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .[/b]

[dlorde]

Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other  , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...

Duh! You don't have to be a genius to know the mathematics of chaos is deterministic - just read the first paragraph of the wiki article:

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted  (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then   : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .

You're sooo confused... I didn't say unpredictability can be predicted, I said a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable, as in chaos. If you'd bothered to read up about chaos theory before posting, you wouldn't get it so wrong.

If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .

Good grief... what are you gibbering about? Do please read and try to understand what is written and not confabulate some fantasy you imagine was said. Once more: determinism does not imply predictability.

To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might  , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box   .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?

These are philosophical questions. Science simply makes better models of what is observable. Quantum mechanics is the best so far, and there's reason to believe it may not be deterministic (it kind of depends how you look at it - some interpretations are deterministic).

Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .

Well to an extent, that depends what you mean by 'nothing'; although, to be fair, I'm not particularly excited by that hypothesis.

To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science  that makes no sense whatsoever  : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .

Good thing no-one said that then. Hurrah for quantum mechanics.

If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?

That's a thread in its own right
 

If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software  .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven  by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment  .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit ....

Are you serious? that is so lame - I thought God-botherers dropped that 'determinism = no morals, all zombies' idea years ago. Where have you been - you really don't understand how evolution can give rise to behavioural traits?

But also consider, if quantum mechanics implies the universe is non-deterministic, which it may, it does so by introducing a random, probabilistic  element. How does that help free will? Doesn't adding randomness make things worse for free will? At least with determinism, your actions are the result of your own development, unique life experiences, and state of mind...

Even in a deterministic universe, we will act as if we have free will - we have no choice (I can explain that for you if you don't understand it).

... his atheist belief assumptions determined  the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around  ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual  dishonesty at best = pathetic
... you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am  a  true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .

Well, I did say you'd start the insults under pressure - does that mean I'm psychic? no, it means you are sadly predictable. Insulting me won't make your errors any less obvious.

[cheryl j]

What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.

[dlorde]

What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.

The earliest ones were bacteria, using hydrogen and sulphur or organic acids or other organic compounds. After around 1.5 billion years, one adapted to use water as an electron source instead, producing oxygen, which was much more efficient. From then on it was all downhill... The chloroplasts in plant cells are thought to be relics of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria.

The Oriental Hornet is the only animal known to photosynthesise for itself, using xanthopterin, a pigment also found in butterfly wings.

[dlorde]

Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter ...

The famous 1953 Miller-Urey experiment made more than 20 amino acids by generating sparks in a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, believed to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere. Since then, it's been discovered that the early atmosphere was probably richer, due to volcanism. More recent experiments have produced many more organic compounds than Miller-Urey did.

But amino acids can also be produced in space by processes involving heat (meteorites have been found with amino acids in them), and also the cold of deep space. NASA experiments that have simulated the deep space conditions have also made amino acids. In all cases, glycine was the most abundant amino acid found.

As for RNA and the other complex organics that life is based on, they can easily be made in the lab, and there are a number of chemically plausible hypotheses for their natural generation from amino acids and other simple organics, although they haven't been observed experimentally yet; but then we don't know exactly what environment was involved (clays or volcanic muds, oceanic vents & flumes, surface pools, fresh or salt water, etc.), and we don't have a whole planet with those conditions and a billion years to play with...

There are physically, chemically, and energetically plausible hypotheses to account for almost all the stages to produce a primitive replicator (cell), but we don't yet know which, if any of them, might have actually occurred, or the precise environment(s) necessary. Some teams, like Craig Venter's, are taking a top-down approach, reverse-engineering the bacterial genome to find the minimal functional genome. They've already produced a live bacterium (called 'Synthia') with a completely synthetic genome, and are making good progress. They have commercial applications in mind, so they have a high chance of success. Interestingly, he signs these artificial genomes with his tradename.

Fortunately, your incredulity has no influence whatsoever on the progress of the teams involved in this research. I think there's a better than even chance that all the stages of an abiogenesis model will be demonstrated in vitro in my lifetime; I doubt it will ever be possible to say exactly what happened 13 billion years ago. YMMV.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent  - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false  ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side  of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other   .

Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .

How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science  as science  , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion  .
Unbelievable .

[dlorde]

you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .

I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...

Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite.

You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .

Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.

I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....

Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).

...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>

Also as I predicted - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.

[dlorde]

Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent  - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false  ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side  of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other   .

Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .

How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science  as science  , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion  .
Unbelievable .

Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.