Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[UltraPi1]

Thought I'd stir things up a bit.

I would make the argument that reality is not physical at all. From large to small - All things are conceptual in nature. I.E. A rock on the side of the road is a conceptual entity expressed by it's geometric embodiment. I'm sure this is hard to accept, but what makes everyone so sure about physical reality?

 

[Philocrat]

The Right-Conditions Theory of Life

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any?

And even more troubling is the fact that the term 'self-organising' is a vague term and somewhat very misleading. Do we mean:

a) A group of things organising themselves into a thing?

b) A thing organising itself into the same or similar thing by recycling its imperfect parts?

c) Or a thing organising itself into another thing by rearanging its changeagble parts?

And lastly, those who claim that there is something more than physical explanation also need to clarify the following relations:

1) The relation between something and nothing;

(a) Can Nothing give rise to something?
(b) Can something decline or change into nothing?

2) The relation between things that can be seen or felt and those that can
neither be seen nor felt in any way conceivable;

(a) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them
non-physical?
(b) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them non-
existent?

3) The Relation between the design and the designer (given that we took
this route);

(a) can anything single-handedly give rise to another thing?
(b) what ought to be the appropriate relation between the design and
the designer?
(c) Can a perfect designer give rise to an imperfect design, or the
superior to the inferior?

These are hard-headed issues needing clarification if this debate is to have any chance of heading in the right direction, I hope.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am sure those with defensive stances about physicality and evolution would find ways to disdain such discoveries, but I for one would be fascinated to know.

I don't know if you'd include me with those "would find ways to disdain" but I don't believe I am trying to scorn any legitimate achievement by science or any other discipline. This phase of our debate has become about proper inference and interpretation, not achievement.

Can we infer from any experiments conducted so far that progressive organization is likely to happen? (In case there's any doubt about what I mean by "progressive organization" -- the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.) I don't believe there's anything disparaging in challenging physicalist assertions that when researchers push organization toward amino acid formation it is similar to chemistry taking over and continuing to organize toward an adaptive system. So, while it may not be "implausible that a poly-U molecule could be put together by chance processes," that isn't the issue. I don't want to be a mega-skeptic, but I am not suspending my logic skills either to prematurely buy what appears to be over-eager physicalist inferences.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thought I'd stir things up a bit.

I would make the argument that reality is not physical at all. From large to small - All things are conceptual in nature. I.E. A rock on the side of the road is a conceptual entity expressed by it's geometric embodiment. I'm sure this is hard to accept, but what makes everyone so sure about physical reality?

That would be a pretty good argument except for one thing: non-mental experience. We discover a wall is more than a concept when we smash into it. That's exactly why science-oriented philosophy has surpassed (IMHO) purely rationalistic musings . . . because empirical thinkers attempt to seek confirming experience. If one eschews the experiential aspect and does nothing but think about reality, then I suppose reality for that person could be wholly conceptual.

 

[UltraPi1]

That would be a pretty good argument except for one thing: non-mental experience. We discover a wall is more than a concept when we smash into it.

I was going to bring that up ... such as stubbing your toe on a chair leg. How could anyone argue that it's not physical? But ... Who says a concept can't be stationary, and who says that a concept can't move.? Who says a concept can't give you a bloody nose ... such as running into a wall?

Concepts could have laws that are followed implicitly - Same as you have physical laws. If conceptual geometric forms (made of nothing at all) obey what we term physical laws - Reality still looks and feels and acts the same as the physical one you adhere to.

In a physical reality you have a couple of choices. Either the entire panoply , including the vacuum of space is composed of physical entities by which movement seems unlikely to be even remotely possible, or we have physical entities opposed by nothing at all, by which we differentiate those physical entities?

 

[Rader]

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any.

The facts are that all life here on Earths stems from ACDT base combinations. When we find, if we find, life forms with other base combinations, that will raise a whole bunch of new philosophical questions to address. Will we find something different on Mars? Would I like to know.

 

[balkan]

In this very thread I changed my mind about the possibility of a living cell being created in the lab after I realized it very well could be a pure machine, and that whether it is or isn't a machine isn't the main thrust of my argument anyway. My objection is that I don't believe natural conditions can generate the level of organization necessary for chemicals to achieve the functionality of a cell. So to prove it can, scientists must get the conditions together imitating Earth's early environment, and the see if life will spontaneously develop. That's what Urey and Miller did, and what happened? A few steps, and that was it. Physicalists constantly point to that as evidence chemistry self-organized into life. But I say instead it is evidence of exactly the opposite! It proves that chemicals cannot be shown, not yet anyway, to organize themselves beyond a few steps.

so you're basically saying we should have to create a chemical environment as large as Earth (or the probability of such an "accident" would be much lower)... then we would have to wait a million years or so, cause it didn't just "happen overnight"...
the fact that they made a very small environment and actually discovered a molecule going through a few steps seems like a major achievement to me, considering how long time and how huge an environment the Earth had at its disposal...

 

[Les Sleeth]

The claim that life forms only where physical conditions are right does put a question mark on the 'Designer Theory of Life'. If Life like any other design had a designer, would it matter which physical condition life inherits or is placed in? Even more so, this could point to the possibility of 'propreitory self-organisation' on the basis of suitable physical conditions. What about a 'multi-condition' form of life? How may such a life be formed, if any?

Well, I've not made any claims about what the "something more" might be like in this thread, such as if it is a "designer." But if pressed, I'd keep my speculations conservative and suggest it might be an evolutive force. In other words, just as we can see that with matter the direction of change is overall entropic (dis-organizing), possibly the effect something more has on things is to progressively organize them.

Regarding your point about if it matters "which physical condition life inherits or is placed in," I don't see your point at all. I have never suggested the something more is supernatural (even if non-physical), so the physical conditions we find are not just based on what the something more can do, but also on the potentials and limitations of matter.

And even more troubling is the fact that the term 'self-organising' is a vague term and somewhat very misleading. Do we mean:

a) A group of things organising themselves into a thing?

b) A thing organising itself into the same or similar thing by recycling its imperfect parts?

c) Or a thing organising itself into another thing by rearanging its changeagble parts?

How could I be more clear about what I mean by "progressive organization"? Here's how I defined it for selfAdjoing: the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.

You ask, was the self-organizing principle headed for a thing? Who knows. All we know is what that principle has done, and if the amount of adaptive system-building it's achieved is any clue, then that appears to be part of its nature. Regarding b) and c), I don't see the relevance.

And lastly, those who claim that there is something more than physical explanation also need to clarify the following relations:

1) The relation between something and nothing;

(a) Can Nothing give rise to something?
(b) Can something decline or change into nothing?

Ha! Nice try Philocrat . Why are those who suggest something more any more responsible for explaining the relation between something and nothing than physicalists? However, I did attempt to model a source for "first cause" in my thread on panpsychism; I also addressed your next question there.

2) The relation between things that can be seen or felt and those that can neither be seen nor felt in any way conceivable;

(a) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them
non-physical?
(b) Does the invisibility or non-observability of things make them non-
existent?

It is you who say something more cannot be experienced, but I've found quite a stack of reports taken from history of people who developed the inner skill of union, or as it's called in India samadhi. There is something very different from religion found in these reports. I am convinced all legitimate reports about something more have come from adepts in this practice.

Now, I've studied those reports for decades, so compared to most people I am more or less an expert. I realize most people have never even heard of union experience, and so there is little basis for my points to carry much weight with them. My experience with people, including science types, is that they read and listen to primarily that which supports their belief system.

3) The Relation between the design and the designer (given that we took this route);

(a) can anything single-handedly give rise to another thing?
(b) what ought to be the appropriate relation between the design and
the designer?
(c) Can a perfect designer give rise to an imperfect design, or the
superior to the inferior?

These are hard-headed issues needing clarification if this debate is to have any chance of heading in the right direction, I hope.

You are the only one taking that route, I've not suggested there is a "designer." I wouldn't propose it because I don't believe I can make the case, even if I think there might be some designing aspect to the something more. Also, your question about "a perfect designer [giving] rise to an imperfect design" is clearly one of those religious concepts logical people love to blast. As I said earlier in this thread, I wish we could throw out all the religious crap and unsupported spiritual claims, wipe the slate clean, and then start over. Of course, I'd want to erase physicalist bias too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I was going to bring that up ... such as stubbing your toe on a chair leg. How could anyone argue that it's not physical? But ... Who says a concept can't be stationary, and who says that a concept can't move.? Who says a concept can't give you a bloody nose ... such as running into a wall?

I am sure you know your arguments are classic idealism, and so you probably also suspect that at an empirically-oriented forum, there won't be much sympathy for that view.

Most would agree that all human experience is subjective, even if it might be experience of something whose information about it originates outside of oneself. But to make sense of internalness, I would also have to add that there is a major difference between the functions behind mentality and whatever it is that allows experience. So I don't think you accurately characterized the difference between the concept of a bloody nose and an actual bloody nose. Do you think your physical hunger could be satisfied by the concept of food? A person could imagine the perfect meal and then easily starve to death imagining eating it.

Concepts could have laws that are followed implicitly - Same as you have physical laws. If conceptual geometric forms (made of nothing at all) obey what we term physical laws - Reality still looks and feels and acts the same as the physical one you adhere to.

I agree conceptualization does have laws, very definite laws which are described by logic and reason, plus whatever principles are behind mental imaging. But I don't understand the desire to relate to reality only conceptually when there is clearly at least one other realm of consciousness. We can think/conceptualize, and we can feel/experience. Each has its own ways of operating and effects on/in consciousness.

In a physical reality you have a couple of choices. Either the entire panoply, including the vacuum of space is composed of physical entities by which movement seems unlikely to be even remotely possible, or we have physical entities opposed by nothing at all, by which we differentiate those physical entities?

I'm afraid I don't understand that statement.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know if you'd include me with those "would find ways to disdain" but I don't believe I am trying to scorn any legitimate achievement by science or any other discipline. This phase of our debate has become about proper inference and interpretation, not achievement.

Can we infer from any experiments conducted so far that progressive organization is likely to happen? (In case there's any doubt about what I mean by "progressive organization" -- the quality of self-organization which, under conditions found naturally on Earth, heads toward adaptive system building, and keeps going.) I don't believe there's anything disparaging in challenging physicalist assertions that when researchers push organization toward amino acid formation it is similar to chemistry taking over and continuing to organize toward an adaptive system. So, while it may not be "implausible that a poly-U molecule could be put together by chance processes," that isn't the issue. I don't want to be a mega-skeptic, but I am not suspending my logic skills either to prematurely buy what appears to be over-eager physicalist inferences.

I suppose it's inevitable that I would see you as setting the bar unreasonably high to protect your beliefs, while you would see me as an over-eager enthusiast out to sell you shaky evidence.

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb
sites and the triumphal march of molecular biology just makes it in the last degree implausible that some vital principle outside of the visible physical principles is necessary for life. With all respect, I don't think you have internalized that evidence sufficiently to judge it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

so you're basically saying we should have to create a chemical environment as large as Earth (or the probability of such an "accident" would be much lower)...

I am not saying that. Why would we need a chemical environment as large as Earth's? All we should need is the proper conditions recreated in one spot, similar to what Stanley Miller did.

. . . then we would have to wait a million years or so, cause it didn't just "happen overnight"...

I personally wouldn't require chemistry to morph into "living" before I accept the potential of chemistry to achieve life. I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated. Is that asking so much? To me it seems the minimum one should require from physicalist theorists who are trying to say chemistry can self-organize suffiently to become life.

the fact that they made a very small environment and actually discovered a molecule going through a few steps seems like a major achievement to me, considering how long time and how huge an environment the Earth had at its disposal...

It's only interpreted as a "major achievement" by those trying for a physicalistic explanation of life's origins. I say it is no achievement at all, and here's why.

I, at least, have never disputed that life evolved through chemistry here on Earth, or that chemistry is the basis of biology. Given the huge proliferation of life after its inception, shouldn't we expect that Earth's chemistry was quite encouraging to life's development? So in a bio-friendly world, why shouldn't we expect organic compounds to form? It would be more strange if they didn't.

We already know chemicals interact, and we know we can set a series of reactions in motion with the right chemicals and the right conditions. So that's not the issue is it? The issue is finding the potenital of chemistry to keep organizing toward a "system," a system which can adapt to the environment (I'm insisting on organization "toward" an adaption system because adaptivity is central to what life is). No one, ever, has demonstrated chemistry can do that on its own, yet physicalists act like it's a foregone conclusion that life developed from self-organizing chemisty! However, while such reasoning might be dubious, but it is a fine example of propaganda.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I suppose it's inevitable that I would see you as setting the bar unreasonably high to protect your beliefs, while you would see me as an over-eager enthusiast out to sell you shaky evidence.

I want to be fair to my fellow human beings who are of the physicalist persuasion, but that "bar" I cite seems minimal to me. It is the very first principle needed, and abiogenesis cannot be explained without it. You know, I am not trying to be non-physicalistic; I'd be perfectly happy for creation to be only physical if my experiences, evidence and reason supported that. I simply need for things to make sense. What is missing from physicalist theory prevents that, and so I see those glossing over the huge missing piece as people committed to physicalism regardless of what evidence is missing. That's why I said I might be one of the few truly objective people around here. Everybody else seems committed a priori to some belief system.

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb sites and the triumphal march of molecular biology just makes it in the last degree implausible that some vital principle outside of the visible physical principles is necessary for life. With all respect, I don't think you have internalized that evidence sufficiently to judge it.

I'm surprised SA, I wouldn't have imagined you to try the ol' condescending tactic. I might not be familiar with every single thing going on in biology (although it was my first major in college decades ago), but neither am I unfamiliar with what's been achieved in the way of progressive self-organization (and I'd venture to say I've looked into science stuff a lot more than you've checked out the inner experiences I've cited as evidence worth considering).

Would you like to hear how much I think has been achieved in the way of proving progressive organization: NOTHING. NADA. Not one instance has EVER been demonstrated (self-organization, yes; progressive self-organizaiton, no). Life is the only example. If you've got an instance of self-organization that doesn't turn repetitive or non-adaptive or downright chaotic, or which doesn't need a living system to morph (i.e., a virus), please cite it.

Your example of AI really makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing. If you set up 5 billion dominoes to tumble each other in a complex pattern, have you created progressive self-organization? AI, like those dominoes, never gets impressively far past its programming.

Also, I haven't argued for a "vital principle." I have spoken of an organzing principle, as yet unrecognized, which might be part of life and consciousness. Tell me, just how far out is such a proposal? 1) I see self organization, 2) I see no physical principle that explains it, 3) I surmise maybe there's a self-organizing principle distinct from physicality. That's really weird isn't it? I'm a crackpot kook!

Here's a question I've asked before which you and others devoted to physicalism don't seem to want to answer: Why is it so important for everything to be physical, that non-physical suggestions are resisted at every turn? What is the obsession with that need? What possible difference could it make to find out there is "something more" than what's physical? Just from my side of it, sometimes it seems like I am talking to people who are actually afraid that something might be non-physical. :surprise:

 

[balkan]

I am not saying that. Why would we need a chemical environment as large as Earth's? All we should need is the proper conditions recreated in one spot, similar to what Stanley Miller did.

I personally wouldn't require chemistry to morph into "living" before I accept the potential of chemistry to achieve life. I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated. Is that asking so much? To me it seems the minimum one should require from physicalist theorists who are trying to say chemistry can self-organize suffiently to become life.

We already know chemicals interact, and we know we can set a series of reactions in motion with the right chemicals and the right conditions. So that's not the issue is it? The issue is finding the potenital of chemistry to keep organizing toward a "system," a system which can adapt to the environment (I'm insisting on organization "toward" an adaption system because adaptivity is central to what life is). No one, ever, has demonstrated chemistry can do that on its own, yet physicalists act like it's a foregone conclusion that life developed from self-organizing chemisty! However, while such reasoning might be dubious, but it is a fine example of propaganda.

of course it matters whether or not the test area is huge or not since it is always a matter of probability whether or not a specific chemical reaction will occur... if it is a highly unprobable reaction, of course you need a sufficiently large environment for it to happen in a resonable timespan... that's really very simple... the same can be said about the timespan itself... if it is a very unprobable event, of course it demands a lot of time to occur...
how can you disregard that and still call yourself objective?

this brings us back to the problem of conciousness being the founder of that reaction, doesn't it?

of course self organization is one of the biggest issues, but it is also a very new scientific field, and huge progress have already been made... of course it's not being objective, having 100% faith in physicalism, but having 80-90% faith is quite objective i think, once again due to the fact that absolutely no evidence have yet been discovered for the "something else" theory, while evidence of the physicalist theory is stacking up every day...

while the few physicalists who believe 100% in the theory may be irrational to some degree, i find it much more concerning, that you seem to disregard a huge amount of factors which are a basis for the very unlikely event of the "life accident"... yet, you still call yourself more objective...
i'm personally at about a 90-95% faith on the issue... while I'm quite sure that the physicalist theory is correct, however impossible it may be to proove (especially without using conciousness ), I'm keeping an open mind, should some evidence of "something else suddently show up...

 

[FZ+]

This seems familiar. Here we go again... Let's find the not-so-well-hidden pitfalls.

I've merely asked for progressive organization to be demonstrated.

The definition of progressive - here it is used in a funny pragmatic way, which eventually translates to organisation into what 'feels' like life, which conveniently is infintessimally improbable, given that our concept of what feels like life is defined after the event.

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth. In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic. With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive. Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your example of AI really makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing. If you set up 5 billion dominoes to tumble each other in a complex pattern, have you created progressive self-organization? AI, like those dominoes, never gets impressively far past its programming.

(Edit out previous text). I mistyped AI for AL.

 

[balkan]

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth. In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic. With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive. Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

good point... the entire evolution of life depends on (highly unlikely!) accidents and errors... every step of the way...

 

[Les Sleeth]

This seems familiar. Here we go again... Let's find the not-so-well-hidden pitfalls. The definition of progressive - here it is used in a funny pragmatic way, which eventually translates to organisation into what 'feels' like life, which conveniently is infintessimally improbable, given that our concept of what feels like life is defined after the event.

As usual, your "pitfalls" are entirely straw man bullsh*t. None of what you argue against in this post is anything I've said or implied. To start off, I NEVER talked about some "feel" of life.

The examples have been listed time and again. Fire. Crystals. So on, and so forth.

The term "progressive," as applied to organizational change, I made up. I have defined it a specific way to use in a specific way to describe a specific circumstance. The examples that you've "listed time and again" are NOT the definition of "progressive" as I, the inventor of the term, meant it. If you think fire and crystals are examples of progressive organization, you've not been listening. A crystal is an example of self-organization alright, but not progressive self-organization. I've never denied a limited amount of self-organization takes place in the universe.

Without the random effects of mutations, an outside factor, life would indeed be repetitive. In certain conditions, life is also chaotic.

What are you talking about? When have I ever tried to exclude random effects, repetitiveness, or chaotic circumstances in life? They are part of existence like a lot of other things. But ONLY in life is progressive organization, as I've defined it, been observed.

With static environment, you have stagnation. Most life also needs other life to survive.

And your point is . . . What does this have to do with my argument? I don't dispute that.

In fact, last I remembered, applied objectively your criteria for progressive organisation rules out life itself. . . . Objectively speaking, your bar is raised so high that life is not life!

Make your case FZ, tell me exactly how progressive organization, AS I'VE DEFINED IT, rules out life itself. Your just being a smartass again, nothing I've ever said denotes or connotes such a thing. Geez, why don't you try responding to what I actually say once in awhile.

 

[Les Sleeth]

good point... the entire evolution of life depends on (highly unlikely!) accidents and errors... every step of the way...

What does the fact of accidents have to do with self-organization? Besides, that life can adapt systematically to those accidents and errors indicates even more strongly the presence of some unusual organizational quality in life. Have you ever noticed the effect of the vast majority of accidents on non-living stuff?

You know, I don't understand you guys at all. Are you denying that in life self-organization has surpassed anything ever observed in our universe? Are you denying that as of now, no one can prove what is causing it? And are you denying that life could be life without it?

Here's my point. I look at it and it prevents me from believing in physicalism because it is so unlike the normal quality of physical organization or any demonstrated potential of physical processes. That's it . . . almost.

Then I look at others who don't seem to want to even acknowledge this problem to a physicalist model. What am I to think? Should I believe they are really interested in the truth? Or should I suspect they are just trying anyway they can to maintain faith in physicalism regardless of the truth.

Unlike you guys, I don't really care what the truth is. I'm not going to let myself be bullied by physicalist zealots into accepting as "probable" what they can't yet demonstrate is probable.

 

[balkan]

1) What does the fact of accidents have to do with self-organization? Besides, that life can adapt systematically to those accidents and errors indicates even more strongly the presence of some unusual organizational quality in life. Have you ever noticed the effect of the vast majority of accidents on non-living stuff?


2) Unlike you guys, I don't really care what the truth is. I'm not going to let myself be bullied by physicalist zealots into accepting as "probable" what they can't yet demonstrate is probable.

see, that's my problem with what you are saying... life isn't "adapting"... when 5 million bacteria dies due to some outside influence and maybe one survives, it's due to accidents/errors in the DNA coding sequence... it's not "adaption"... life isn't adabting to these errors either...

2) but you consider "something else" probable, without any evidence what so ever.. see, that is what we (or i at least) are trying to make you realize... cause that's not objectivity or rationalism as you claim it to be... that's subjective oppinions that you try and rationalize by pointing to lack of evidence in support of the perception that isn't shared by you... and you don't care how overwhelming the evidence is compared to what you have got...
it's alrigth to be subjective, but at least admit to it...

and nobody is trying to bully you, we're merely debating flaws in both sides arguments... you are lashing out at least as much and creating strawman arguments as well by constantly stating "lack of evidence = evidence"... and that's allrigth aswell, as long as you don't put yourself on a piedestal like you're doing right now...

calling me a physicalist zealot is also a strawman argument, and quite untrue as I've stated several times... give me some evidence of "something else" (other than lack of evidence, which is yet to be collected), and i will gladly consider that an option...

 

[Les Sleeth]

(Edit out previous text). I mistyped AI for AL.

Correction noted.

 

[Fliption]

To me the ability to create viruses, the success of evolution in AI and genetic programming, the observation of evolution in many species, the huge body of evidence collected at the talk origins archive and panda's thumb

I remember posting a thread titled "Simulation of Natural Selection" where I was asking for information on a demonstration of AI like you're alluding to here. No one ever really pointed me to anything that resembled what I would expect to see. Everything that was provided didn't meet the criteria that I argued should exists if creating AI were possible. I won't get into the actual point here in this thread but I did want to ask for any information you have about this. Sources? Links? Thanks

 

[Fliption]

if it is a very unprobable event, of course it demands a lot of time to occur...
how can you disregard that and still call yourself objective?

I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

i think, once again due to the fact that absolutely no evidence have yet been discovered for the "something else" theory, while evidence of the physicalist theory is stacking up every day...

(especially without using conciousness ), I'm keeping an open mind, should some evidence of "something else suddently show up...

Then consider this with an open mind. What type of evidence do you think you will find to proof something other than physical may exists? Where are you looking? I suspect, once again, that we are eaten up with semantic problems. I've posted a suggested distinction several pages back which would argue that the only difference between physical and non-physical is the type of evidence it leaves. So are you looking for all your evidence in test tubes? You might want to be even more open minded. Unless of course you define these terms differently. Then we have an even more embarrassing issue to deal with...arguing about concepts when we all mean something different by them .

 

[balkan]

1) I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

2) Then consider this with an open mind. What type of evidence do you think you will find to proof something other than physical may exists? Where are you looking? I suspect, once again, that we are eaten up with semantic problems. I've posted a suggested distinction several pages back which would argue that the only difference between physical and non-physical is the type of evidence it leaves. So are you looking for all your evidence in test tubes? You might want to be even more open minded. Unless of course you define these terms differently. Then we have an even more embarrassing issue to deal with...arguing about concepts when we all mean something different by them .

1) that's great, and I'm quite sure someone will eventually do this, but self organizing systems are still on very early experimental stages... i was arguing specifically with les on this, since his statement was, that since the proof would be made by conscious minds, it would actually be an indication of "something else" (just a note, not a bash or anything)...

2) I'm going to have to look up those pages... I'm looking for any kind of evidence that isn't just an argument of lack of evidence to support the physicalist theory... no matter how that is twisted and turned, it is not evidence, it's a perception...
i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

 

[Les Sleeth]

see, that's my problem with what you are saying... life isn't "adapting"... when 5 million bacteria dies due to some outside influence and maybe one survives, it's due to accidents/errors in the DNA coding sequence... it's not "adaption"... life isn't adabting to these errors either...

That's non sequitur if I've ever heard it. That point has NOTHING to do with progressive organization!

but you consider "something else" probable, without any evidence what so ever..

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said something else is probable. For the shared situation of this debate I said "possible." Now what I think personally, that is another matter.

see, that is what we (or i at least) are trying to make you realize... cause that's not objectivity or rationalism as you claim it to be... that's subjective oppinions that you try and rationalize by pointing to lack of evidence in support of the perception that isn't shared by you...

What possible difference does it make if my perceptions are shared? Do you think a physicalist's perceptions will be shared if he is in a room full of Jehovah's Witnesses? We are debating an area of reality that is unknown and not understood. Physicalist thinkers put forth physicalist explanations for that, just as one might expect. But don't act like they have some right over other theorists just because they happen to be in the majority here at PF. Nothing I've said contradicts known facts. Remember, I am the skeptic here, not the advocate of "something more."

and you don't care how overwhelming the evidence is compared to what you have got...

Please, not that impotent argument again! Let's take the car I mentioned in an earlier post, and have you argue it self-organized itself while I say I have never seen any organization principles which would make that happen. In that case, the "overwhelming evidence" would be you describing in minute detail all the physical aspects of the car, and utterly ignoring the fact that I am pointing to something completely different. Yes, life involves deep levels of physicalness and mechanics. I've never denied it.

As far as my "lack" of evidence goes, you really don't know what you are talking about. To debate that point would sidetrack this thread, and people who know me have heard me debate it many times. For a quick explanation, let's just say that there is no scientific evidence for something more; the "empirical" part of science relies on sense experience; sense experience has only been shown to reveal physical aspects of reality; so if there is anything non-physical, sense-dependent investigation ain't going to find it.

Is there any other type of reliable consciousness experience besides through the senses? Well, I say there is but, again, this isn't the time or place to talk about it.

it's alrigth to be subjective, but at least admit to it...

Everything conscious is subjective. The issue is how much our subjectivity is biased.

you are lashing out at least as much and creating strawman arguments as well but constantly stating "lack of evidence = evidence...

Name one strawman argument I've advanced. Shame on me if I have!

Yes, I point to lack of evidence. Isn't a discipline dependent on observation required to back claims with adequate evidence? The lack of evidence is evidence; it is evidence that you don't know something.

give me some evidence of "something else" (other than lack of evidence, which is yet to be collected), and i will gladly consider that an option...

Why should I have to give evidence of something else to question claims of physicalist probability? Either the evidence supports a probability or it doesn't.

 

[Fliption]

What are you talking about? When have I ever tried to exclude random effects, repetitiveness, or chaotic circumstances in life? They are part of existence like a lot of other things. But ONLY in life is progressive organization, as I've defined it, been observed.

Heh. If FZ found an automobile on Mars he would allow for accidental physical processes as the creator simply because he doesn't want his subjective understanding of what a useful thing is to cloud his judgement about something on Mars. So you can see the differences in perspective here. FZ and I have gone around and around about this sort of thing. His is the sort of extreme view which states that because we can't point to the dividing line at the micro level then it's ok to completely ignore the distinctions we see at the macro level. While I see the merit in keeping this point in mind, I also have argued that to totally ignore the macro view is just intellectually dishonest. To make the argument that scientific inquiry should be driven completely by this "blind", strict process is just wrong. The scientific method is a strict process. But the direction/theories which science chooses to apply it to have been based on much less.

Surely a reasonable person would question the origin of a contraption such as an automobile on Mars? (BTW FZ, I would say this even if I had no idea what an automobile was .)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think the issue is that if matter can progressively self organize to form what we would call complex life forms then one would expect to see on some level the ability for matter to progressively self organize. So no one is asking for proof by asking for a repeat of a billion year process. What's being asked for is a simple mechanism of progressive self organization from which an accidental masterpiece could have developed. You don't need to win the lottery to show that someone can win. You only need to show that a lottery system is in place to proof that a winner is bound to happen.

You've said exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't know if I ever made it clear, or if my fellow debaters are purposely being obtuse. From my standpoint, mine is the concern of a reasonable person searching for the unbiased truth, so I resist accepting professed "probabilities" by those admittedly already committed to some "-ism" whether that is scientism or spiritualism. Of course, me talking like that has Balkan thinking I've put myself on a pedestal.

Whatever, I suspect I should just drop out of this debate because I am too frustrated to make any sense.

 

[Fliption]

1) that's great, and I'm quite sure someone will eventually do this, but self organizing systems are still on very early experimental stages... I was arguing specifically with les on this, since his statement was, that since the proof would be made by conscious minds, it would actually be an indication of "something else" (just a note, not a bash or anything)...

Fair enough. But I would think this would be rather easy to do. I eluded to this in my "Simulation" thread that I mentioned earlier. For me, you don't even need to show such things with chemicals and life forms. If someone can demonstrate that some type of simple instruction sets on a computer can progressively organize, this would be sufficient I would think. I make the argument though, that given the speed of computers and the ability to speed up the mutation and selection process, we should have some major AI soon. Like in a matter of years; not millions. Who would have thought it? We don't have to actually think about programming an AI machine. We just set up a fast running algorythm and it programs itself!

2) I'm going to have to look up those pages... I'm looking for any kind of evidence that isn't just an argument of lack of evidence to support the physicalist theory... no matter how that is twisted and turned, it is not evidence, it's a perception...
i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

Who is suffering from the illusion and how do we explain matter creating a "who" that can be subject to illusions? Or perhaps the concept of "I" is just an illusion to? In which case, who is experiencing that illusion?

It appears you're looking for evidence in the test tube. If you read the pansychism thread by Les, you'll see he is eluding to other kinds of evidence. Also, I would recommend some serious study into some philosophical issues like the problems of consciousness if you haven't already. Science books aren't going to talk about these things.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i can say, however, that most of those arguments about how the human mind is proof of "something else" falls rigth off me, since I've read psychology, and i know the human brain follows very specific patterns and is highly subject to chemistry and genetics aswell... the idea of subjectivity and a free mind is for the greater part an illusion...

Human psychology may very well fall primarily in the physical realm, and of course certainly brain stuff does. To understand the part of consciousness being pointed to as an "exception," you should do a Google search on the "hard problem of consciousness."

 

[Nereid]

I am impressed to hear you say that. I think it is the first time I have ever heard a physicalist (assuming you are) admit the difficulties in abiogenesis theory.

Hey Les, I’m really enjoying this thread, so please don’t get frustrated and leave, please?

I have no idea if I’m a ‘physicalist’ or not! Let’s see …

I hope you can see that I am only resisting jumping to the conclusion that physicalist theory can explain everything. I am not the slightest bit resistant to allowing what is physical be explained physicalistically, or to granting science top honors for discovering what is physical. It is just that as of now, I think some physicalists are going too far with the evidence we have, and are not as open as an objective mind should be.

Several pages of this thread have been devoted to the origin of life, and what sort of gulf there is in terms of a ‘physicalist’ position, and Les has kept insisting on his shibboleth – progressive organization. There have also been a couple of posts on consciousness (the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness), and one or two of mine that I’d like to come back to at a later time (e.g. ‘romantic love’).

This post is addressed principally to Les.

My view is that many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated. These domains can be the very tiny – the Standard Model clarifying the ‘fundamental particle zoo’, or neutrino oscillations; tiny – the fractal nature of ISM grains, nanoparticles; small - the dominance of life on Earth by bacteria, quasi-crystals; … hidden oceans on Io, planetary systems, interstellar cirrus, … right up to the universe – inflation, primordial nucleosynthesis. With the richness comes a great many gaps and some gulfs, every one of which is an opportunity for ‘something more’, or ‘a god of the gaps’, or ‘new physics/chemistry/biology/whatever’. Sometimes the gaps shrink relatively quickly, (e.g. helium?, Oklo); oftentimes they take decades to show significant progress (e.g. solar neutrinos, plate tectonics, snowball Earth); and no doubt some take centuries (evolution?). Perhaps the origin of life and the hard problem of consciousness will be among this last group?

But why focus on just these two? I mean, between Planck time and distance (~10^-43 s, ~10^-35 m) and the current best we can see (~10^-18 s, ~10^-17 m?), there are ~20 orders of magnitude! That’s approx as many as between the size of the Earth and the whole universe. How much richness is there in these ~20 OOM? How many surprises, gaps, gulfs, etc?

Or take the early universe. Between the first Planck second and what we can ‘see’ directly (the CMBR, at ~300,000 years), there are >50 OOM! And only ~5 from the surface of last scattering to today.

So, why spend lots of time pondering consciousness and the origin of life? If you can’t do some experiments or perform some observations to close the gaps, there are thousands of other gaps (and gulfs) that you can work on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les, I’m really enjoying this thread, so please don’t get frustrated and leave, please?

Okay, one more post then!

My view is that many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated. These domains can be the very tiny – the Standard Model clarifying the ‘fundamental particle zoo’, or neutrino oscillations; tiny – the fractal nature of ISM grains, nanoparticles; small - the dominance of life on Earth by bacteria, quasi-crystals; … hidden oceans on Io, planetary systems, interstellar cirrus, … right up to the universe – inflation, primordial nucleosynthesis. With the richness comes a great many gaps and some gulfs, every one of which is an opportunity for ‘something more’, or ‘a god of the gaps’, or ‘new physics/chemistry/biology/whatever’. Sometimes the gaps shrink relatively quickly, (e.g. helium?, Oklo); oftentimes they take decades to show significant progress (e.g. solar neutrinos, plate tectonics, snowball Earth); and no doubt some take centuries (evolution?). Perhaps the origin of life and the hard problem of consciousness will be among this last group?

But why focus on just these two? I mean, between Planck time and distance (~10^-43 s, ~10^-35 m) and the current best we can see (~10^-18 s, ~10^-17 m?), there are ~20 orders of magnitude! That’s approx as many as between the size of the Earth and the whole universe. How much richness is there in these ~20 OOM? How many surprises, gaps, gulfs, etc?

Or take the early universe. Between the first Planck second and what we can ‘see’ directly (the CMBR, at ~300,000 years), there are >50 OOM! And only ~5 from the surface of last scattering to today.

So, why spend lots of time pondering consciousness and the origin of life? If you can’t do some experiments or perform some observations to close the gaps, there are thousands of other gaps (and gulfs) that you can work on.

Well, I think we already have plenty of minds (far more predisposed to deduction than I) who will do an infinitely better job at those research projects you've suggested. My preferred mode of thinking is induction. As a result, I am a 100% dyed-in-the-wool generalist, and after 57 years of looking at things that way, I can't see me switching sides.

Being a generalist, what attracts my attention before anything else are universals, and exceptions to universals. I am always looking for the common principle, or what properties things share. The more broadly a principle applies, the more it excites me (is the inevitability of my particular shibboleth becoming clear?). At the old PF I used to have as my signature a saying of Confucious, "“Do you suppose that I am one who learns a great deal and remembers it? No, I have a thread that runs through it all.” To me, there is no greater intellectual treasure than finding such a thread.

Besides declining your offer to fail at being a scientist , I am telling you that about me because I don't believe the progressive organization point I am making is going to be explained by your very true and excellent insight, "many, if not most, new domains that become available for us to study, or study in more detail, reveal a richness that is rarely anticipated." I do understand what you mean, and because I really appreciate others doing such work is why I spend so much time reading about it or watching it in science specials.

My progressive organization observation is straight from "exception to a universal." We have an entire universe behaving within a certain level of organization, and then we have here on planet Earth something which completely busts out of that general rule. Now, I will concede your point by saying that it is possible matter may have realized a new potential here. There are those who say consciousness, for instance, is a new property of matter (as in "emergent" theory).

But if so, then I still want to see it reproduced. All the arguments about life having millions of years to evolve don't impress me much as an excuse for not demonstrating it (i.e., before proclaiming confidence in abiogenesis). I say that because look at the resiliancy of life. Whatever established it couldn't have been a flimsy or delicate principle for pre-life organization to have endured the hostilities of early Earth, made it to become a "living" system, and then to have survived (in one form or another) billions of years of untold hardships and natural catastrophies. It transformed our atmosphere, the oceans, the entire planet! As a system, life "works." It kicks butt, it gets it on . . . Besides, we know most of the conditions and chemicals that were present in prebiotic Earth. How many ways can those factors be arranged in a search for progressive organization anyway?

So I say, get some molecules going, force them to start self-organizing, pull out the old bag of chemical tricks that a science-educated consciousness should be able to develop far better than chance conditions could have back in primitive times. Prove once and for all chemistry can, in conditions that might be found on Earth, spontaneously kick into progressively organizing gear.

You know, you might be right that as we learn more about matter and self-organization, secrets will be found confirming physicalist theory. But it might also turn out that one day we will hear scientists say, "we can't do it." It's like those scientists today who are starting to waver about finding life on other planets, or even another planet anything like our seemingly rare Earth!

 

[Philocrat]

The facts are that all life here on Earths stems from ACDT base combinations. When we find, if we find, life forms with other base combinations, that will raise a whole bunch of new philosophical questions to address. Will we find something different on Mars? Would I like to know.

Well, I only go by what science says and my main interest is to deduce from what science ascertains. And my argument is this:

If the 'Right conditions theory of Life' is true, then it holds true that wherever we find similar conditions as eath's, a life identical or equivalent to ours must also exist. However, this does not resolve the issue of there being something more than the physical aspect of life itself. We still have to show how life could be brought about, or related to, by something other than the physical.

 

[Fliption]

So, why spend lots of time pondering consciousness and the origin of life? If you can’t do some experiments or perform some observations to close the gaps, there are thousands of other gaps (and gulfs) that you can work on.

I will just add to this that in the case of consciousness, there is good argument that the current scientific paradigm "cannot", in principal, close the gap. This is more than just plugging god into a temporary gap of ignorance.

 

[UltraPi1]

Do you think your physical hunger could be satisfied by the concept of food? A person could imagine the perfect meal and then easily starve to death imagining eating it.

My argument is that reality is not physical in any way...so the question does not make sense from that standpoint. You could ask - Do you think your conceptual hunger could be satisfied by the concept of food. My answer would be yes (most definately). Just grab that munchy and eat it. I would also argue that the act of getting the food is not a physical act. Motion would be an act of conceptual interaction governed by the adherence to conceptual laws.

If there are fundamental entities (no parts). We must conclude that these fundamental entities are made of nothing at all. I.E The fundamental entities are no more than conceptual geometric forms.

 

[balkan]

yes of course i'll just mix up some chemicals and demonstrate progressive organization... and while I'm at it i'll solve every quantum mechanical problem in the universe and i'll do that right now, cause of course it doesn't demand time and research... that's no excuse... just do it
really, that kind of argumentation is not what I'm looking for... there are loads of exceptions to universal rules, if you've studied it for so long, you should know that...

lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything but the fact that there's something you don't know... quite my point... evidence of that, and nothing else!

about "the hard problem of conciousness" ... now I've done some searches on it, and **** like this:
"The being underlying Chalmers' account of the hard problem is a zombie twin of a real person. Let the real person be John and his double be Zohn (zombie John). Zohn is made of flesh and blood and is neurophysiologically identical with John. John and Zohn are atom for atom the same, but John has qualitative states while Zohn does not. If Zohn is logically possible this implies first of all that the qualitative is not supervenient upon the physical. If phenomenon P is supervenient upon a substructure S then it is not logically possible for two beings to have the same substructure S and yet differ with respect to P. John and Zohn by definition share their substructure yet differ with respect to their mental states. Furthermore, since John and Zohn are physically just the same, but different in qualia, it follows that qualia must be nonphysical. So if zombies are logically possible, physicalism is false."
is just another load of subjective arguments...
there are some interesting twists and turns, but really, it is all deep down subjective and perception-based...
the imagined existence of "zombies" doesn't prove anything whatsoever...

and about the remarks on your perception and bias, you have several times made it quite clear what you think, which:
1) i cannot just overlook because you ask me to. not unless you completely forget that i have mentioned physicalism as my favoured theory.
2) is an obvious origin of a bias.
^
and that is also why i said you placed yourself on a piedestal...

 

[balkan]

now les, as for your strawman arguments, let's take on the last one, which is quite ridiculous: the car analogy.
first of all, the car isn't evolving. the car is stationary and only subject to erosion... that's not a progressive organization so it's a rediculous strawman argument. shame on you.
now, will you admit to it? or do you want me to look out the rest? I'm pretty tired of you claiming to be the objective and resonable one, when obviously you're just as bad as the rest of us. and especially when you once in a while get emotional fits...
both strawman arguments and emotional fits are ok, as long as you don't act like you'd never do such a thing, cause you're on the moral highground...

now, to further counter the car analogy and explain why i pointed to the chaotic nature of life:
the scientific subject at hand is evolutionary cells, not a piece of metal... this is what we study to find the origin of life...
you said "life adabts" and it doesn't! some life dies due to not having the rigth mutations and some life survives... this is caused by errors and accidents in the chemical reactions and sometimes these errors have a positive effect, which is what creates the "the strongest survives" principle of evolution... the opposite is just as likely and happens all the time...

since every evolutionary even is cause by random chemical accidents, and these accidents can be traced back through a timeline, it should be natural to assume that the starting point of this string of events have been an accident aswell...
what you are suggesting is, that even though every evolutionary mutation is caused by accidents and errors, somehow the starting point was set in motion "on purpose"... that doesn't quite seem like the rational response to me...

physicalism can explain an incredible amount of phenomenons regarding life, and have traced back chemical errors and changes through hundreds of thousands of years (an example of that is the recent breakthroughs in skizophrenia research)... we have evidence of how this work in a forward sense and thus also in a backward sense, so it is quite resonable to say that physicists have quite a good and resonable explanation of how life came to be...

now, with that in mind, let's revisit your car analogy: constantly, a mechanic (let's call him Random Errors) is changing things on the machine to make it better and have better mileage, although he mostly make mistakes or no change at all... he even has a logbook of many of the changes that has been made throughout the years...
would a physicalist be resonable when saying that the building of the car was probably initiated by the mechanic? yes!
and what would a "something else" person say? that the car was magically created by "something else" and the mechanic merely found it... which is a significantly less rational than the physicalist theory...