[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels  .

I did post Nagel's Chapter 2 for the first time here , because i found it relevant to this discussion concerning the inherent implausible absurd , counter-intuitive paradoxical incoherent inconsistent  false  ...you name it ....materialist 'scientific world view " , simply because you do not wanna listen to what i have been saying , you just listen to what materialism whispers into your ears : you are just driven by belief assumptions only , not by facts , science is a matter of facts , not a matter of beliefs opinions ....even though science does need hypothesis assumptions theories ...in order to progress , but when a so-called scientist is confronted over and over again by the obvious simple and undeniable fact that his so-called 'scientific world view " is false , but can't or does not want to consider that option, then, that's the end of the story , right ?
All that materialist bullshit and much more you have been talking about , except some rare relevant insights you did provide , all that i have encountered in some form or other during my own journey : so, i am not interested in any false materialist belief assumptions that get taken for granted as "the scientific world view " : the latter is mostly what you can offer only : so, just try to sell it to somebody else : i am not buying ,Mr.Jehova's witness .

Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption  , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption  , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .

Well, of course physics and chemistry alone can explain "everything" =(=not even remotely close thus , even at the level of just matter thus )  within just the materialist version of reality , of course the universe must be determinist , logically , within (not even that remotely close thus, even at the level of just matter thus  ) the materialist version of reality :
materialism that inherently does require reductionism atheism and determinism : how convenient and handy = The "truth " at the service of ideology , not the other way around .
How convenient and handy materialism has been : reducing reality to just what materialism assumes or rather believes reality  to be , and then afterwards,saying  that that materialist core belief asumption regarding the nature of reality is the one and only 'scientific world view " , amazing = when 1 would reduce reality to just what 1 believes reality to be in science , then, all scientific facts experiments' results views theories  would be ,logically , misinterpreted in a way to make them fit into that belief,obviously  = turning science into a belief , into a dogmatic orthodox religion  .

It's a bit like saying , just an analogy , no matter what scientific experiments would deliver , only my materialist belief is true , is science , regardless of whether science can prove or disprove my materialist belief haha= my materialist belief is not only science , it is "the scientific world view " .

[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 .

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

Indeed , you are right , if we would consider that just from the materialist key hole point of view thus , logically = as  i said here above = you are driven just by the materialist 'scientific world view " not by science , not by facts thus : no wonder thus = your materialist belief assumptions are science ,are the "scientific world view " to you at least thus , logically .

[cheryl j]

If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?

[dlorde]

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

Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic.

Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels  .

My saying, "I don't know", is 'over-estimating my capacity of judgement'? Have you any idea how crazy that sounds?

[alancalverd]

Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption  , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption  , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .

Please show your counter-evidence, or shut up.

[SimpleEngineer]

If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?

I think it may have taken a week? with a day's rest of course (but no mention of tea or lunch breaks).

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?

[/quote]

I am well aware of those experiments and research  and much more similar stuff as well , i have been encountering in some form or another : that's not what i asked dlorde to explain to the people here :
To be able to make amino-acids , RNA , other organic matter , artificial genomes , to be able to manipulate cells, bacteria, viruses or other living organisms ,for commercial or for other  purposes  ...genetically and more are no evidence for how life emerged .
The father of human genome mapping has even tried  , as some Italian scientist and others did , they even tried to "create " a primitive cell from its most basic and necessary components , while eliminating the seemingly unecessary ones , just to see how a cell fundamentally works , in order to replicate   it  or rather recreate it  from those most basic elements of it : they failed so far , and even if they succeed in "creating life " that way , as they have pretended to do , they still had to use existing basic organic elements of that cell in question thus = that does not explain how life had emerged for the first time from inorganic matter ...
So, that's not what i asked dlorde to tell the people here :
I told him  mainly  , try to explain to us how life emerged from the dead matter ; how physics and chemistry can "generate " life ...
Nobody has the answer to just that , and nobody will , just because life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone .

[alancalverd]

life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone

Pray tell us what you think it is, then we can have a go at explaining how it happened.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde :

Quantum physics or modern physics , or the laws of physics alone , physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the whole reality as a whole as such , simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical , so :
whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .

In short :

To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .

Physics and chemistry cannot even explain "everything " regarding the material side of reality they have been taking for the whole real thing .
End of the story .

[dlorde]

... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .

Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?

To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .

It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.

Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" 
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"

That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.

There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;

I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...

I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reasons are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .

Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?

To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .

It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.

Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" 
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"

That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.

There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;

I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...

I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reason are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.

[/quote]

Just cut the crap  then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids  , then and only then , i will answer yours :
I have been asking this same core question explicitly or implicitly in one form or another for so long now , in vain : nobody , including yourself , can give an answer to : cannot be answered , simply because the materialist 'scientific world view ", or rather the materialist conception of nature is , obviously ...false :

Why do you think that reality as a whole is just material or physical then ,once again ? Why do you take it for granted as the "scientific world view " : when did science ever prove that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true" that reality as a whole is just material or physical ? when ? = never , ever , obviously .
Just try to deliver your own materialist "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality as a whole , the materialist version of reality that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view " , an alleged 'scientific world view " that is,obviously  ..false .
Deal ?

[Zapper Dave]

While I can not say whether life arrived here on earth, already created, or was created here, I will say that life was not a random  sequence of events over a period of time but instead,our biological form of life was engineered. There is no random path to the ribosome, m-RNA, t-RNA  system. as the minimum ribosome structure is far too complex for it to be achieved randomly even if there was a very concentrated soup of RNA and amino-acids. If it had been so, there would be an evidence trail and far more diversity in ribosomal structure than is present today.

Certain organelles such as the cell membrane might be easily obtained through random functions as is also possible for the amino-acids but the RNA-Ribosome complex of even the lowest prokaryote  to have been formed randomly. It was necessary for this component of life to be assembled with forethought and intent.

The ribosome is a masterpiece of engineering.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :
Can some genius here or elsewhere tell me how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?

[RD]

... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?

biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life

A proof of concept are the space invader type patterns which appear in cellular automata which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them.

If you were about to say cellular automata don’t resemble real life see "Rule 30" ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?

biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life

A proof of concept are the space invader type patterns which appear in cellular automata which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them.

If you were about to say cellular automata don’t resemble real life see "Rule 30" ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30

[/quote]

See  what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .

[RD]

See  what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .

In my previous post above I provided evidence that emergent properties do occur. 
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread.

[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving or ad hominem attacks ]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

See  what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .

In my previous post above I provided evidence that emergent properties do occur. 
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread.

[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving or ad hominem attacks ]

[/quote]

See my reply to you on the subject on the consciousness thread :
Emergent property phenomena do occur only at the biological, physical or material levels .
In the case of consciousness that's not a biological process , the biggest mistake ever made in science is that one does confuse the image of the process of consciousness in the physical brain ,with the cause of the process.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

See  what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .

In my previous post above I provided evidence that emergent properties do occur. 
If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,
rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread.

[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving or ad hominem attacks ]

[/quote]

Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .

Plus :

It all comes down to the following  :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .

So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?

Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus  :
Even evolution itself  cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence  ,the same goes for  the origins of human language....and the rest .

[Ophiolite]

Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .

You are making an assertion. Making an assertion is not evidence.

RD specifically asked for evidence to support your refutation. Simply repeating your assertion does not constitute evidence. It is only an opinion, and a highly questionable opinion.

Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?

[dlorde]

Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?

I think you'll find that Don's modus operandi is mostly repeated assertion, bluster, and ad-hominems. I and others have repeatedly asked him for evidence or plausible argument to support his assertions in other threads, but none have been given.