Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Royce]

Well, I for one, believe that there is something more to life than conventional physics. I believe that there is a life force or energy that exists and is the motivating and organizing force or arrow pointing toward more complex life forms. Is it spiritual or super natural? No, that would be an oxymoron. What could be more natural to living organisms than life,life force or energy.

I believe this for a number of reasons and admittedly if looked at in a different way they could be used to support physicalism.

Life is ubiquitous here on earth. It is everywhere, even in places and conditions that were previously thought to be impossible for life to flourish.

Evidence is found that life progresses from simple to complex and while there are exceptions the arrow points one way just as does the arrow of time and entropy.

We cannot create life nor can we create or manufacture many of the chemicals of life without using life itself to do it for us.

Once dead we can not make even a "simple" cell come back to life even if we provide all of the necessities for it to do so. It does not spontaneously come back to life and all of its chemical processes and reactions start up again even thought there is not reason for it not to and every reason to believe that it would if abiogenisis is correct. The chemicals, energy and environment are there. Why then doesn't it live again once dead?

This in itself, in my mind, is enough to prove that abiogenisis is wrong. There is something more. We just don't know yet what it is and haven't yet identified it mainly because it hasn't reached up and slapped us in the face, we haven't been looking for it and even though it lays there right in front of us, as obvious as life itself, we refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in nicely with our pet theories of physics and chemistry. No it isn't supernatural nor spiritual. It is as natural as life itself. It is life. It is a quality that makes the difference between living and non-living, organic and non-organic. Just exactly what it is and how can we measure or detect it, I don't know; but, there is a whole world of things I, and/or we, don't know that does exist in the physical world.

We don't even know what matter, space time or energy is.
What is an electron made of and why does it behave as it does most of the time yet can still behave differently counter to every physical law know to man at other times? How can any of you be so cock sure that physicalism is right and everything else wrong when physical science can't even tell us what the physical world is made of.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

I am not accusing anyone in particular of that. I am merely giving a general guideline as to how different people may think of it. Admittedly, people do think of it in the ways I suggested, or don't they?

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 mean 'Collective organisation into a progressive whole' which I think should be naturally distinguished from the singular term 'self-organisation'? Or is it collective self-organisation? Which one?

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.

The points of b) and c) might seem like a tautology, but they still stand. I will clarify and expand upon it later.

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.

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.

I have not read the thread with your model yet...and I am not denying that there could be something more. However, my argument is that if there were something more, such a thing could never take the form of 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness'. It must lay within the bounds of accountability eitther now or in future.

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.

Well, my own detailed investigations within the bounds of logic and critical thinking constantly point to the fact that Religious thinking, however naive it may outwardly appear, is here to stay, at least until further notice. We all thought that science could dispose of relgious claims completely, but it turns out that it can't. On the claim that I am the only one taking that route, well, I am not taking any route. Rather I am merely trying to reroute the reasoning on the whole subject from the direction of inconsistency to the direction of consistency. Please refer back to my earlier posting on this.

 

[Fliption]

about "the hard problem of conciousness" ... now I've done some searches on it, and **** like this:

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...

You seem like a person with some reasoning ability so let me just asks that you spend some more time studying this topic because I don't think you grasp the weight of the argument. If you look at this with an open mind I think you'll find some interesting things to ponder at least, even if you don't deny your current beliefs. This topic isn't so easily cast aside as you have done here. The zombie argument is a thought exercise merely to demonstrate a point. If you get the point then you no longer need the zombie illustration. So many people get caught up in it literally.

There's lots of stuff on the internet as I'm sure you've found. Also, I'll suggest looking into threads in this forum started by Hypnagogue that deal with "reductionists" not being able to explain "Consciousness". (I can't think of the exact titles.) Hypnagogue has a gift for explanation on this matter and the patience to explain it

 

[balkan]

You seem like a person with some reasoning ability so let me just asks that you spend some more time studying this topic because I don't think you grasp the weight of the argument. If you look at this with an open mind I think you'll find some interesting things to ponder at least, even if you don't deny your current beliefs. This topic isn't so easily cast aside as you have done here. The zombie argument is a thought exercise merely to demonstrate a point. If you get the point then you no longer need the zombie illustration. So many people get caught up in it literally.

i didn't take it literally... i know it's a thought experiment, and that's my point... he's stating an example of a being with exactly the same structure, but without certain qualities, and is by this trying to prove that physicalism cannot explain the existence or loss of these qualities... this is a totally hypothetical and subjective idea, that has got no hold in anything concrete of any kind... trying to prove his own perception by using a situation that only exists in his own mind...
as far as i see it, it's a slightly improved version of the "a stone cannot fly - mom cannot fly - mom is a stone" argument...

 

[Fliption]

i didn't take it literally... i know it's a thought experiment, and that's my point... he's stating an example of a being with exactly the same structure, but without certain qualities, and is by this trying to prove that physicalism cannot explain the existence or loss of these qualities... this is a totally hypothetical and subjective idea, that has got no hold in anything concrete of any kind... trying to prove his own perception by using a situation that only exists in his own mind...
as far as i see it, it's a slightly improved version of the "a stone cannot fly - mom cannot fly - mom is a stone" argument...

The problem of consciousness is so much more than this illustration. But you do what you must to justify your curiosity and beliefs.

 

[balkan]

The problem of consciousness is so much more than this illustration. But you do what you must to justify your curiosity and beliefs.

same to you...
if the rest of the arguments are like the initial ones I've read, then i really can't see how an objective person can think of it as being anything but a mind game... i'll look more into it, but please warn me up front if the rest is similar...

 

[Les Sleeth]

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...

I suspect we are from two different planets. Nothing you say makes sense to me, none of your logic adds up to a justification for your views.

One such case is your above example of my supposed strawman argument, which is itself a bit strawmanish. What I said might be a misapplied analogy (though I don't believe it is), but it is not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is one where you pretend your opponent has meant something he really didn't mean so you can create an argument against it. Here's a past strawman argument of yours, "by your standards, nothing is based on physics... we don't have proof of how gravity, energy quantization or wave propagation works either... we only have indications... so let's just attribute that to "something else"... we have to, otherwise we're not being objective by your standards."

I have never questioned any scientific claim where there is enough evidence supporting a theory. Evolution and the Big Bang are such theories I generally accept. Your logic seems to have been: doubt one science claim, and it means you doubt science altogether. However, I never said or implied anything remotely like that, so we are left to conclude you made it up so you could act like my point is as moronic you try to make it appear.

Here's your most recent strawman argument, ". . . 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..." That's downright blatent . I have never said or implied the something more is magical. Your tactic there seems obvious, which is to associate my position with the irrational claims of supernaturalists.

But let's return to your refutation of my "ridiculous" car analogy . . .

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...

. . . you missed the point once again! Not one thing you said to refute the car analogy applies to what I'm saying, which is why I gave the analogy in the first place. In fact, all your answers in this post I'm responding to confirms that you are doing what I am portraying you as doing in my analogy, as this quote, demostrates:

"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..."

You seem to think that all the physical stuff that is present in life somehow transfers over to the progressive organization question. Likewise, your following logic again misses the target:

"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!"

You are pointing to how mutation can work to improve i an already living system. I've never questioned the role of mutation. We've been talking about non-living chemicals forming themselves into life. Period! NOTHING MORE! So what are you doing giving me examples within a living system?

Back to the car analogy. I was saying that your argument is to list all the physicalness of an intact system, and to talk about the on-going organization quality exhibited in a system; while I am trying to point to the question of how the physical stuff got organized into a system in the first place. I claimed you do not address the organization question at all, just exactly as you did in this post. So tell, me how is my analogy either strawman or "ridiculous"?

 

[balkan]

a strawman argument is any argument that divert the attention... your car example was such a one...

"You are pointing to how mutation can work to improve i an already living system. I've never questioned the role of mutation. We've been talking about non-living chemicals forming themselves into life. Period! NOTHING MORE! So what are you doing giving me examples within a living system?
Back to the car analogy. I was saying that your argument is to list all the physicalness of an intact system, and to talk about the on-going organization quality exhibited in a system; while I am trying to point to the question of how the physical stuff got organized into a system in the first place. I claimed you do not address the organization question at all, just exactly as you did in this post. So tell, me how is my analogy either strawman or "ridiculous"?"
i ****ing did adress the organization question, but you are too pigheaded to read it and let anything inside that skull of yours... I'm quite fed up with your high horse attitude.

the mechanic argument directly deals with the organization as it is quite rational to suggest that the same functions that evolves the current system was the one starting it. that's not friggin hard to understand. it is at least a thousand times more rational than attributing it to something else for your own sense of psychological security...

"Your logic seems to have been: doubt one science claim, and it means you doubt science altogether. "
and this is no strawman argument either, is it mr. high horse? not even in your own definition. give me a break, I'm fed up with your endless superior attitude...

 

[Fliption]

same to you...
if the rest of the arguments are like the initial ones I've read, then i really can't see how an objective person can think of it as being anything but a mind game... i'll look more into it, but please warn me up front if the rest is similar...

Yes, same to me...which is why I have studied both sides of the topic diligently.

I strongly encourage you to study further but I have to say I don't sense an openness to it from you. You'll probably find whatever you want to find if that's the case. The hard problem of consciousness is one that I can see and understand very clearly and I also do not like the zombie illustration. I find it very unnecessary and it does nothing but cause problems and misunderstandings. So don't let a 5 minute read from one webpage justify you casting aside a topic that's been debated for centuries by many very credible people.

This is a link to investigate
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/book.html

This chapter of the same book deals specifically with the argument against physicalism.
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/chptr2.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

i ****ing did adress the organization question, but you are too pigheaded to read it and let anything inside that skull of yours... I'm quite fed up with your high horse attitude . . . that's not friggin hard to understand. it is at least a thousand times more rational than attributing it to something else for your own sense of psychological security . . . and this is no strawman argument either, is it mr. high horse? not even in your own definition. give me a break, I'm fed up with your endless superior attitude...

Ooooooooh . . . now I get it. Very logical.

 

[FZ+]

The examples that you've "listed time and again" are NOT the definition of "progressive" as I, the inventor of the term, meant it.

Of course they are not, because you have used the term progressive in a very much subjective, and biased manner.

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.

Define it. Define it properly. As I see it, your progressiveness rules out life, because all of life's non-repetitiveness is due to a non-repetitive environment, or an environment which it has failed to reach equilibirium in. All evolution is due to flaws, which propagate in the system.

Show how life is progressive self-organisation, please, and I'll point out the gaps. There seems to be just repeated assertions that it is, without anything like an attempt at justification. I am not responding to you are saying, because this sort of thing tends to get very long, and I get tired easily, and wish to focus on what I perceive to be the core problem - your very slippery notion of life itself.

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.

A human designer is an example of an accidental, physical process. The logic is self-consistent. Of course it conflicts with you granting a special role to design, and consciousness, and so on. But so what?

 

[balkan]

Yes, same to me...which is why I have studied both sides of the topic diligently.

I strongly encourage you to study further but I have to say I don't sense an openness to it from you. You'll probably find whatever you want to find if that's the case. The hard problem of consciousness is one that I can see and understand very clearly and I also do not like the zombie illustration. I find it very unnecessary and it does nothing but cause problems and misunderstandings. So don't let a 5 minute read from one webpage justify you casting aside a topic that's been debated for centuries by many very credible people.

This is a link to investigate
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/book.html

This chapter of the same book deals specifically with the argument against physicalism.
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/chptr2.htm

thanx, i'll look into it...

 

[Fliption]

A human designer is an example of an accidental, physical process. The logic is self-consistent. Of course it conflicts with you granting a special role to design, and consciousness, and so on. But so what?

For my message to Les, this isn't the way I make the distinction. It doesn't matter because it's purely a semantic issue that you raise. I'm just pointing out that fact in case anyone thinks it affects my point.

Assuming that the debate is between something being directly built by chance processes or directly built by a conscious designer with a plan, my point was that you will choose the chance processes even in the most absurd instances. To then argue that a designer is also a chance process is just denying that there is any disagreement at all on the topic. Just another example of defining ones view such that the opposing view cannot even exists by definition. Word games, pure and simple.

 

[FZ+]

Just another example of defining ones view such that the opposing view cannot even exists by definition. Word games, pure and simple.

Of course that is all it amounts to. If conscious designers exist at all as a special case, materialism, physicalism cannot be true. Your argument, invoking the existence of a conscious designer as a special, distinct option, already assumes physicalism to be true. It's an example of assuming what you prove. All it shows it that physicalism is consistent with physicalism, and is not consistent with the other view. Which is pretty obvious. If I am honestly arguing for physicalism, the question itself just doesn't make any sense.

In any case, if we look back into history, in that thread we were arguing as to whether it is possible to perceive the presence of design. My viewpoint was:

(a) Design is only meaningful relative to a consumer, which provides purpose.
(b) Rarity, or abundance is itself no indicator of design.
(c) Improbability is no evidence of design, if we concede a lack of total knowledge.

With the car on Mars, the best we can say is that it may be produced by a process which we have arbitarily labelled 'a human designer', or a relative of this process. We can compare the probability of this to a variety of other alternatives, and pick a possibility as the highest at a particular time. But we cannot declare absolutely that the car is designed, especially if we don't know a lot of context, and because design isn't absolutely defined, and because same product does not entail same process.

Just my opinion, so end of story?

 

[loseyourname]

As far as I can tell, what Sleeth means by "progressive organization" is the ability of non-living matter to organize into a living system through progressive steps. It is nothing more than abiogenesis.

My question is simple: If there is indeed a special quality that the first living matter possessed, why did only that batch of matter possesses this quality? As far as we can tell, life only arose once (at least on this planet), and it took close to a billion years for it to do so. If there is indeed "something more" that is responsible for this happening, what took it so long? Why has it only manifested its presence once and in such a limited capacity? There seems to be the concession that organic evolution can be accounted for through purely physical processes. If so, then "something more" only had to present in a very limited amount of matter billions of years ago and never again (also never before). If this were not the case, and "something more" was present in all matter, then we would see living systems develop in Urey-Miller type experiments! Given that this just happened to occur on a planet capable of supporting life at a good time would seem to not be chance. So is "something more," or the "general pool of consciousness," itself conscious? It certainly seems to have made a choice. If so, then you have introduced a clever variation on an intelligent designer, but an intelligent designer nonetheless.

 

[Nereid]

As far as I can tell, what Sleeth means by "progressive organization" is the ability of non-living matter to organize into a living system through progressive steps. It is nothing more than abiogenesis.

My question is simple: If there is indeed a special quality that the first living matter possessed, why did only that batch of matter possesses this quality? As far as we can tell, life only arose once (at least on this planet), and it took close to a billion years for it to do so.

Hmm, do you have a reference for that? IIRC, there is evidence that life was already established on Earth in the very oldest of terrestrial rocks. Certainly that's several hundred million years after the Earth was formed, but as there are no older rocks, when it originated will have to wait until we find Earth meteorites on Mars, the Moon etc to check (or some other, indirect method).

If there is indeed "something more" that is responsible for this happening, what took it so long? Why has it only manifested its presence once and in such a limited capacity?

But we have, as yet, no way to test either statement. In the next five decades Mars and Io probes should either find life (or fossils) there, or at least provide much stronger limits on what sort of life isn't (and wasn't) on either.

There seems to be the concession that organic evolution can be accounted for through purely physical processes. If so, then "something more" only had to present in a very limited amount of matter billions of years ago and never again (also never before). If this were not the case, and "something more" was present in all matter, then we would see living systems develop in Urey-Miller type experiments!

But only if they got it 'right', reproducing the ancient environment correctly for example (IIRC, it's now thought their experiment modeled an environment that didn't actually exist on the early Earth).

 

[Nereid]

Okay, one more post then!

Thanks Les.

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!

Whew, quite a lot there, probably more than I can handle in just one post, but let's try ...

Per my reply to loseyourname, the best we can say today is that life seems to have been well established in the earliest terrestrial rocks that are capable of providing such evidence (i.e. there's no trace of life in early igneous rocks, but then we wouldn't expect there to be anyway!). Another thing that's become increasingly clear is that we live the Age of Bacteria; indeed, it has always been the Age of Bacteria, and will likely be so until the Earth is fried by the Sun going red giant. Further, there's no evidence of anything but random walks from bacteria, life hasn't 'progressed' at all since it began! AFAIK, Gould first drew attention to this, and there's a marvellous chapter or two in one of his popular books explaining it (and, no doubt, a paper or six in the peer-reviewed literature).

So, there doesn't seem to be much chance of making progress on discovering how life began, from local rocks. A more productive approach may be molecular reconstruction ... learn in great detail how the most primitive bacteria work, and how less primitive ones work, and maybe just maybe some reconstruction can be done ... a bit like constructing the vocabulary and grammar of proto-IndoEuropean.

Then there's Miller-Urey XXXIV, etc. Maybe that will work, maybe not; even if it does, the sheer complexity - as we now know - of the enterprise will mean it will likely take at least 50 years just to nail down the main stages with any degree of confidence.

Then there's panspermia. Perhaps before 2100, samples returned from Mars will show clearly that life began there before 3.9 bya, and seeded the Earth. Perhaps sample returns from comets will show a far richer brew of organics - that could be used as starter chemicals - than anyone has so far dreamed of.

But that's all perhaps and maybes, and I don't have a spare $trillion or three to fund an accelerated research program.

Next post, something about the time dimension, and how its passage may change the nature of our discussion.

 

[Fliption]

Of course that is all it amounts to. If conscious designers exist at all as a special case, materialism, physicalism cannot be true.

My only point to Les has been made into a mountain. If I change the words to say "human" designer versus random chance, then I say you would choose random chance for the car on Mars for all the reasons I stated. Is that better?

(a) Design is only meaningful relative to a consumer, which provides purpose.

Huh? We can agree as beings that can communicate using language that the word "design" means something willfully created by a conscious being. It doesn't have to mean something useless. I'm not sure if you're going to go down the infinite path of asking for definitions like "what is willful?" but if you do, I will remember it and show you in a future thread that you're participating in that you cannot escape what you're trying to dish out. Or maybe you won't go there. I hope not.

(b) Rarity, or abundance is itself no indicator of design.

Surely you aren't denying a correlation? One does not lead to the other I agree but one only has to look at the fact that things designed by conscious beings have a tendency to be very rare where there are no conscious beings.

(c) Improbability is no evidence of design, if we concede a lack of total knowledge.

Same as above. Let's not pretend there is no correlation.

But we cannot declare absolutely that the car is designed, especially if we don't know a lot of context, and because design isn't absolutely defined, and because same product does not entail same process.

You will never hear me declaring anything absolutely. So yes I agree we cannot do that. I have never argued for that.

 

[loseyourname]

Hmm, do you have a reference for that? IIRC, there is evidence that life was already established on Earth in the very oldest of terrestrial rocks. Certainly that's several hundred million years after the Earth was formed, but as there are no older rocks, when it originated will have to wait until we find Earth meteorites on Mars, the Moon etc to check (or some other, indirect method).

The exact age isn't important. The only evidence that life may have existed in the very oldest rocks is that fossils found in slightly younger rocks are of the type that likely would have taken a while to evolve. Either way, it took a while for it to happen. Whether it was a million years or a billion years, it took a while. Given the fairly large amount of carbon to work with, it was a rare event. The ability to organize into life does not seem to be an intrinsic property of either carbon-based or silicon-based matter. It seems to depend very highly on the environment and on chance. To postulate the existence of "something more" that gives such matter the ability to self-organize, we must conclude that this something more was very choosy. Only a conscious being can make a choice. A conscious "something more" is a variation on an intelligent designer. Anyway, that's the conclusion I've come to reading through all of this for the past couple of months. We'll see if Sleeth agrees.

But we have, as yet, no way to test either statement. In the next five decades Mars and Io probes should either find life (or fossils) there, or at least provide much stronger limits on what sort of life isn't (and wasn't) on either.

I limited my discussion to this planet for that very reason.

But only if they got it 'right', reproducing the ancient environment correctly for example (IIRC, it's now thought their experiment modeled an environment that didn't actually exist on the early Earth).

This again corroborates my point. If there is "something more" that embues matter with the ability to organize into living systems, then it should be able to operate in any environment where such organization is possible. Such organization was possible in Urey-Miller, but did not occur, which is negative evidence for the existence of "something more" in that particular batch of matter. If the organizational capacity is entirely natural, then we would expect it to be much more heavily dependent on environment, which is in fact what we find.

 

[balkan]

really:
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/chptr2.htm#_ftnref1
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb/book.html

some of you objective people and also physicalists out there should read it... at least if you know your physics and science, cause this guy clearly doesn't...

i like how he jumps rigth over important physical facts and establish his own physics theory... e.g. he claims the world of physics to consist of bare differences (in the life world that equals on and off, on is different from off and vice versa) but in real life physics, a particle can be in two different states... even a rather large molecule like C60 has been observed to be in two places at once! He should read some quantum mechanics and write a new book...
and the simplicity with which he governs his experiments is just amazing... circular arguments and quite blatant subjective statements that you then are supposed to take as the truth... how can any objective person read this, and still claim that this is not just another mind game? I'm really curious... his argument is ridiculously simplified and filled with subjective statements that backs up his claims, and not to mention quite obvious flaws in his knowledge about physical science...

i'm quite offended that he calls himself a "scientist"... this has nothing to do with science...

 

[Les Sleeth]

As far as I can tell, what Sleeth means by "progressive organization" is the ability of non-living matter to organize into a living system through progressive steps. It is nothing more than abiogenesis.

Yes, a means for abiogenesis. "Progressive steps" would mean, each step builds toward a higher functioning adaptive system. I am looking at the quality of that "stepping," and claiming it is atypical of physical processes.

My question is simple: If there is indeed a special quality that the first living matter possessed, why did only that batch of matter possesses this quality? As far as we can tell, life only arose once (at least on this planet), and it took close to a billion years for it to do so. If there is indeed "something more" that is responsible for this happening, what took it so long? Why has it only manifested its presence once and in such a limited capacity? There seems to be the concession that organic evolution can be accounted for through purely physical processes. If so, then "something more" only had to present in a very limited amount of matter billions of years ago and never again (also never before). If this were not the case, and "something more" was present in all matter, then we would see living systems develop in Urey-Miller type experiments! Given that this just happened to occur on a planet capable of supporting life at a good time would seem to not be chance. So is "something more," or the "general pool of consciousness," itself conscious? It certainly seems to have made a choice. If so, then you have introduced a clever variation on an intelligent designer, but an intelligent designer nonetheless.

I think it is a good question to ask why new life doesn't appear to have formed. The problem is, just this question of if we need "something more" to explain biogenesis is tough enough. To me it seems more focused to fight out one issue at a time.*

*Just a quick note, I at least haven't evisioned the "something more" as present in matter. I've usually thought of it present more like gravity, as a general effect ubiquitously present.

Regarding your question, remember, all I've said progressive organization indicates is 1) as of now, chemistry cannot be shown to be in possession of that ability, and 2) there might be an additional principle at work in conjuction with physics.

Now, if anyone wants to speculate beyond that, I am not responsible . Is the progressive principle a designer, intelligent, conscious? I personally refrain from speculating in a debate such as this because I don't think I can make the case about those things. I feel I can make the progressive organization case, and chemistry's lack of ability to achieve it. The "leap" I take from that fact I've claimed is pretty conservative: I simple suggest it might mean there is "something more." Maybe it is an organizing force, or an evolutive force. Of course, maybe it is physical too, but if so, because we have such wonderful research tools for physical principles, then I believe we should demonstrate physical organization can behave progressively.

 

[loseyourname]

Regarding your question, remember, all I've said progressive organization indicates is 1) as of now, chemistry cannot be shown to be in possession of that ability, and 2) there might be an additional principle at work in conjuction with physics.

I feel I can make the progressive organization case, and chemistry's lack of ability to achieve it. The "leap" I take from that fact I've claimed is pretty conservative: I simple suggest it might mean there is "something more." Maybe it is an organizing force, or an evolutive force. Of course, maybe it is physical too, but if so, because we have such wonderful research tools for physical principles, then I believe we should demonstrate physical organization can behave progressively.

See, I'm still a little confused. You compare it to gravity, saying at the very least it is some form of quality of matter or force acting on matter to progressively organize it. But gravity acts on all matter. It does not act selectively. If there was an organizing principle, a "something more" that was present everywhere in the universe, then experiments like Urey-Miller would work. Progressive organization would be found all over the place because this "something more" would working everywhere. Since this is obviously not the case, "something more," if it indeed exists, operates selectively. I think at some point, if you really want to develop this idea, you're going to have to at least conjecture about why this may be. What was going on back in the primordial seas that isn't going on in the lab?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Per my reply to loseyourname, the best we can say today is that life seems to have been well established in the earliest terrestrial rocks that are capable of providing such evidence (i.e. there's no trace of life in early igneous rocks, but then we wouldn't expect there to be anyway!). Another thing that's become increasingly clear is that we live the Age of Bacteria; indeed, it has always been the Age of Bacteria, and will likely be so until the Earth is fried by the Sun going red giant. Further, there's no evidence of anything but random walks from bacteria, life hasn't 'progressed' at all since it began! AFAIK, Gould first drew attention to this, and there's a marvellous chapter or two in one of his popular books explaining it (and, no doubt, a paper or six in the peer-reviewed literature).

I've read and enjoyed Gould, and Margulis as well, and believe they make good points about bacteria except, that is, that the abundance, variety, adaptability, and age of bacteria means they are more advanced than humans. If we use survivability as the determining factor, then of course we can say bacteria are tops. But in terms of the progressive development of a single organism (it doesn't seem a proper comparison to contrast millions of species of bacteria to the single species of man), humanity is tops.

I am saying quantity is one thing, quality is another. Human physiology is the finest example of evolutionary and progressive quality. What primarily determines that? Consciousness, in my opinion.

So, there doesn't seem to be much chance of making progress on discovering how life began, from local rocks. A more productive approach may be molecular reconstruction ... learn in great detail how the most primitive bacteria work, and how less primitive ones work, and maybe just maybe some reconstruction can be done ... a bit like constructing the vocabulary and grammar of proto-IndoEuropean.

Then there's Miller-Urey XXXIV, etc. Maybe that will work, maybe not; even if it does, the sheer complexity - as we now know - of the enterprise will mean it will likely take at least 50 years just to nail down the main stages with any degree of confidence.

Then there's panspermia. Perhaps before 2100, samples returned from Mars will show clearly that life began there before 3.9 bya, and seeded the Earth. Perhaps sample returns from comets will show a far richer brew of organics - that could be used as starter chemicals - than anyone has so far dreamed of.

But that's all perhaps and maybes, and I don't have a spare $trillion or three to fund an accelerated research program.

Next post, something about the time dimension, and how its passage may change the nature of our discussion.

It must be obvious to you that your research examples would operate under the assumption that life origination can be found in physical processes alone. Yes, all those offer hope that a secret of abiogenesis will be found, although it doesn't mean it will be found. I realize because there are more possibilities to investigate, nothing I can say now will prove abiogenesis is unlikely. But those possibilities do not strengthen the case for abiogenesis either.

 

[Les Sleeth]

See, I'm still a little confused. You compare it to gravity, saying at the very least it is some form of quality of matter or force acting on matter to progressively organize it. But gravity acts on all matter. It does not act selectively. If there was an organizing principle, a "something more" that was present everywhere in the universe, then experiments like Urey-Miller would work. Progressive organization would be found all over the place because this "something more" would working everywhere. Since this is obviously not the case, "something more," if it indeed exists, operates selectively. I think at some point, if you really want to develop this idea, you're going to have to at least conjecture about why this may be. What was going on back in the primordial seas that isn't going on in the lab?

You want speculation, I'll give you speculation (just kidding).

I'll suggest something or two, but it's under great protest (okay, maybe not THAT great) because of the theme of this thread, which is simply to ask if physicalness can explain everything. I am saying no it can't as yet, and that the organization necessary to create a life form is an example of what cannot be explained. By speculating about what might have done it, I am leading the discussion away from the topic.

But let's say it is like gravity, or even the effect of acceleration. Mass and acceleration engender something resembling a constricting force on the object of mass or acceleration. No mass or acceleration in a given space, and no constriction can be observed. It's almost like that potentiality sits there dormant, ready to respond, but not manifesting until specific conditions occur.

I've characterized gravity/acceleration effects as causeing "constriction" because in a way they mimic focus; that is, the effect is "focused" inward on the object of mass or acceleration. Similarly, possibly "something more" focuses (when it manifests) on the first point of organization it attaches to. Assuming that progressive organization is central to the nature of "something more," then we might imagine it is driven to manifest ever higher levels of progressive organization. It might have used the first "living" organization as a platform to evolve (once the living system could replicate) ever higher levels of progressive organization. Since its very nature is to develop/evolve, in this model we would expect there to always be a "lead point" (i.e., focal point) in its ever-upward climb of manifestation.

(Repeating something I've written before . . .) We might surmise the first instance of progressive manifestation (let's call it an "evolutive force") began when the proper conditions existed here on planet Earth, and the force of evolutiveness billions of years ago could begin its organizing ways using Earth’s chemistry to pull together a life form. Evolutiveness marshaled rich resources building system on top of system, each dedicated at first to the overall purpose of sustaining and progressing organization that could thrive in the harsh conditions of Earth.

As it developed, the living organization became an organism, and new organisms branched off to evolve in unique ways. As the planet became more supportive, eventually the evolutive force gave priority to paths with the most emanative promise (i.e., to "emanate" in the sense of manifest progressive organization), and these became the lead evolutive structures; but left behind were evolutive effects still alive in all surviving species. The non-selected forms continued to physically evolve in the sense that they could adapt to environmental conditions, but since they were no longer the vanguard of the evolutive thrust, such peripheral evolution was not where one might find continuing progression manifestation. The evolutive force continued to push, leaping up through species after species, ever seeking the highest possible expression of itself (“seeking” in the opposite sense of how water “seeks” the lowest point) until after billions of years of evolutive momentum, the modern human came about.

So what is this "highest" expression of progressive organization? Consciousness. Isn't a healthy consciousness very much about organization? Look at, for example, what determines beautiful music for consciousness. If you've ever studied music, you know there is a precise mathematical relationship between notes. Rhythm too falls in that category. Or take physical beauty; studies have shown we are attracted to symetry, which is another aspect of organization.

I say, consciousness is pure progressive organizational quality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Of course they are not, because you have used the term progressive in a very much subjective, and biased manner.

You tend to make statements without feeling any need to follow up with evidence supporting the statements' accuracy. Here you've done so again. How exactly have I used the term progressive subjectively? I honestly can't see what you are talking about.

Define it.

I have defined it.

Define it properly.

I have defined it properly, again and again.

If you aren't satisfied with my definition, then maybe you can relate to Fliption's explanation, which I think sums it it up perfectly. He said:

"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."

As I see it, your progressiveness rules out life, because all of life's non-repetitiveness is due to a non-repetitive environment, or an environment which it has failed to reach equilibirium in. All evolution is due to flaws, which propagate in the system.

The statement "All evolution is due to flaws" is inaccurate. Do you know why they call life an "organism"? According to you they should call it a "chaoticism."

A small percentage of evolution is due to randomness; but change is HUGELY in favor of the directions biological organization sends processes. The fact that an organism endures through chaotic situations proves the strength and adaptibility of life's organization. Also, although I realize mutation is commonly attributed to pure chance, I don't believe that is necessarily so. The "pure chance" principle is naked physicalism, and so an a priori assumption about how change must occur in an adapting system. But if there is a progressively organizing force present in life, then it could tip the "chance" scales in favor of change which leads to an organized, adaptive mutation.

Show how life is progressive self-organisation, please, and I'll point out the gaps. There seems to be just repeated assertions that it is, without anything like an attempt at justification. I am not responding to you are saying, because this sort of thing tends to get very long, and I get tired easily, and wish to focus on what I perceive to be the core problem - your very slippery notion of life itself.

First of all, you are the only one here maintaining that life isn't primarily the result of exceptional organization. I think it is you who needs to show how life is primarily the result of chaos.

Second, I don't have a "slippery notion of life." I've not proposed any new definitions for life. Why would you say that? I am relating to the same definition as most scientists -- you know, life is a metabolizing, reproducing, system capable of participating in natural selection, etc.

A human designer is an example of an accidental, physical process. The logic is self-consistent. Of course it conflicts with you granting a special role to design, and consciousness, and so on. But so what?

Now there's a well-justified statement. Rather than "self-consistant" you should have said self referencing.

P.S.
I've said nothing about design.

 

[Nereid]

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?

Next post, something about the time dimension, and how its passage may change the nature of our discussion.

If progress is made relatively quickly - months, years, decades - 'science' and beliefs about how well 'everything can be reduced to physics' will likely have not changed their spots in the interim. But what if it's centuries?

Example: for how many years has the source of the Sun's light and heat been studied scientifically, as part of physics? We now know the answer (though not until the 'solar neutrino problem' had been solved, just a few years ago, could we have a high degree of confidence in our understanding) - within the best physics we have today - but the question has been pondered for a very long time. How much of that time has been scientific pondering? We can't be anachronistic, and impose today's standards of what's science on the efforts of Greeks (for example).

What we now call abiogenesis may be another example; lots of ideas ('theories'?) on the origin of life proposed going way, way back. How many were 'science', or 'physics'? Starting sometime last century (or maybe the 19th?), various experimental and observational approaches got going into the origins part (as opposed to the 'what is life and how did it evolve' parts); after some initial hubris - like the early days of AI? - it became apparent that it's a much more complex - richer? - problem than it looked from 50,000' (sound familiar?). So maybe it'll take another 200 years to get an understanding comparable to that we have today of what goes on in the Sun's core, how and why?

Which brings me to (may be slightly out of context, apologies)

I simply look at what we know is present in the universe, and how the vast majority of the universe appears to work, and notice that in two instances there are major exceptions: the origin of life and the subjective aspect of consciousness. I say, only if you approach those exceptions already believing in a physicalist TOE will you automatically assume they must have a physicalist explanation. If one is uncommitted to any metaphysical stance one is free to be objective; and to say there is reason to suspect "something more" seems to me to be a pretty conservative stance to take.

Here Les and Nereid differ, enormously. In fact, we haven't a clue as to how 'the vast majority of the universe appears to work', not least because we aren't able to even 'see' it yet! (If anyone doubts this, please say so, I'd be only too happy to provide a few tiny examples). From this perspective, why worry about 'something more' (or 'god in the gaps', or whatever) for just two of the hundreds (thousands?) of such 'instances [that] are major exceptions'?

Dangerous to do for sure, but make a range of extrapolations, and estimate a range of dates by which abiogenesis and the hard problem of consciousness will have a (future) physicalist explanation. In the latter case, it may be necessary to also extrapolate to a considerable extent about 'science'. If even the minimum estimate of any extrapolation is >~100 years, why not go work on something else in philosophy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les: "I simply look at what we know is present in the universe, and how the vast majority of the universe appears to work, and notice that in two instances there are major exceptions: the origin of life and the subjective aspect of consciousness."

Nereid: "Here Les and Nereid differ, enormously. In fact, we haven't a clue as to how 'the vast majority of the universe appears to work', not least because we aren't able to even 'see' it yet! (If anyone doubts this, please say so, I'd be only too happy to provide a few tiny examples). . ."

What Les means by "major exception": operating outside the boundary of any known core physical principles. What are "core" principles? Universals (remember my generalist inclinations?) such as gravity, relativity, light speed, the internal forces of matter, the relationship between energy and matter, etc. One way I'd sum up core physical principles is as "mechanistic." Yes, they can be made to behave quite strangely, but physical dynamics, once discovered, are quite predictable, methodical, and, if enduring, repetitive. Is progressive organization or the subjectivity of consciousness like that? I say no.

I realize you probably think they will prove to be mechanistic or physical in the end, while I don't think physicalists have a snowball's chance in hell of demostrating it . . . so we must disagree. But if progressive organization could be shown to sponteneously occur in chemistry, or if a computer could create subjective consciousness, then I would change my mind and acknowledge that physicalism is the explanation for life and consciousness.

. . . not least because we aren't able to even 'see' it yet! (If anyone doubts this, please say so, I'd be only too happy to provide a few tiny examples). . ."

Part of the problem is that scientists are using a method (sense-dependent empiricism) which only can "see" what is physical. Really, what else do you think they can find other than physical stuff? My point is, no matter how much they see relying only on sense experience, they will never discover anything which requires a different sort of experience to know it.

. . . From this perspective, why worry about 'something more' (or 'god in the gaps', or whatever) for just two of the hundreds (thousands?) of such 'instances [that] are major exceptions'? . . . If even the minimum estimate of any extrapolation is >~100 years, why not go work on something else in philosophy?

I am not "worried" about something more, I've limited myself to saying as little about that as possible because of the theme of this thread. If you want to know the positive reasons I believe there is something more, read my thread on panpsychism. My belief is based on an experience I've practiced daily for thirty + years. Just to make it clear, I am not religious and I don't think the "something more" is supernatural.

I am working on this aspect of philosophy because I really do believe there is something more, and I also don't think physicalists in general present the strength of their case objectively. Personally, I am not very interested in anything other than the "something more" and how it works.

 

[loseyourname]

Also, although I realize mutation is commonly attributed to pure chance, I don't believe that is necessarily so. The "pure chance" principle is naked physicalism, and so an a priori assumption about how change must occur in an adapting system. But if there is a progressively organizing force present in life, then it could tip the "chance" scales in favor of change which leads to an organized, adaptive mutation.

To be fair, a mutation is only a substitution or deletion of one or several bases in a polynucleotide chain. There is absolutely no way to predict which base (out of the billions in an entire genome) will be changed or deleted, and if changed, what it will be changed to. Uncertainty really rules out the possibility of even trying to predict this process. By any definition of the word, it is a random process. Even if "something more" was responsible for directing these mutations, the very amount of information needed to make this direction purposeful would be astounding. You would need to know exactly where in a given gene the base was located, and what amino acid it coded for. You would need to know what amino acid a gene with the given substitution or deletion would code for. You would need to know exactly how the new amino acid would change the conformation of the protein it is a part of. You would need to know how this changes the enzymatic or structural properties of the protein. You would need to know how this change in property would affect the overall process of structure that the protein is a part of, then know exactly how that translates into changes on the cellular, tissue, organ, and organismic levels. We don't even understand fully how a given protein attains its conformation, so we'd be stuck on step two here.

Another thing is that the vast majority of mutations are not harmful or helpful. The vast majority of mutations have no effect on conformation whatsoever. Let's take the amino acid Arginine, for example. There are four different codons that all code for Arginine. They are CGU, CGC, CGA, and CGG. These are the mRNA sequences, of course, and the corresponding DNA sequences are GCA, GCG, GCT, and GCC. Any change in the first two bases will produce a different codon, but any change in the third will not. So 1 out of every 3 mutations in this case will not even change the codon.

Let's take the codon CGG, which corresponds to the DNA sequence GCC. Given that any change in the third base will result in the same amino acid, let's look at changes to the first two bases. Changing the first base to A, so that we have the codon AGG, still results in a codon for Arginine. UGG results in Tryptophan, and GGG results in Glycine. Now let's change the second base. CAG results in Glutamine, CCG results in Proline, and CUG results in Leucine. So we have 9 possible ways of mutating this codon (by a single substitution), 5 of which results in a different amino acid being expressed, and 4 of which result in the same amino acid being expressed. You will find similar results for base-substitutions in other codons as well. However, even changing the amino acid will not necessarily change the conformation of the protein coded for. Let's say you have Tryptophan in the original protein. You can substitute in any of the other 19 amino acids through a proper number of mutations, but only 11 of them will certainly change the conformation. Because Tryptophan is nonpolar, substituting in any other nonpolar amino acid is likely to produce exactly the same conformation (with the possible exceptions of Glycine and Alanine, because they are a good deal smaller).

Now if you start multiplying these respective probabilities together, you will see that the probability of actually getting any noticeable change in the function or structure of the organism itself is very low. Most mutations are simply neutral.

 

[loseyourname]

Another little caveat: in order to make a mutation purposeful, you would also need to know the future environmental pressures on a given population. So not only would "something more" need to know an astounding amount of molecular, cellular, physiological, and organismic biology, it would also need to be able to predict the future.

 

[Nereid]

Hey Les, I really do hope you stick around, this is really a very interesting discussion!

What Les means by "major exception": operating outside the boundary of any known core physical principles. What are "core" principles? Universals (remember my generalist inclinations?) such as gravity, relativity, light speed, the internal forces of matter, the relationship between energy and matter, etc. One way I'd sum up core physical principles is as "mechanistic."

But even here, I would say we really don't have a clue about the universals; we merely know something about what seems to work across a dozen or so OOM of time and space. For example, what sort of processes - mechanistic or otherwise - rule for dark energy and dark matter? What goes on in spaces smaller than a Planck 'metre' or between Planck 'seconds'?

Yes, they can be made to behave quite strangely, but physical dynamics, once discovered, are quite predictable, methodical, and, if enduring, repetitive. Is progressive organization or the subjectivity of consciousness like that? I say no.

But aren't you then jumping to conclusions? If it takes another 200 years to nail down even the outline of how life got going (from various chemicals, in a particular set of environments); or 300 years to be able to explain the subjectivity of consciousness, why do you say 'no'? Imagine your great-(great) grandmother and my great (etc) grandfather having a debate about the source of light and heat in the Sun - how would that differ from the debate we're having here today? Of course, science (and philosophy?) have moved on a tad since then, but otherwise? (Side note: it seems I've misunderstood your 'progressive organisation' idea; I'll need to go back and read the threads again).

I realize you probably think they will prove to be mechanistic or physical in the end, while I don't think physicalists have a snowball's chance in hell of demostrating it . . . so we must disagree.

Yes, I do think that, but I'm not worried about it (sorry, I see that 'worry' means something stronger for you than it does for me); what really matters is that the questions are still open, and may very well stay open until well after I'm gone.

But if progressive organization could be shown to sponteneously occur in chemistry, or if a computer could create subjective consciousness, then I would change my mind and acknowledge that physicalism is the explanation for life and consciousness.

That's good, and I applaud the sentiment. However, one of the things I am trying to point out - badly, as usual, it seems - is that by the time something like your test might be feasible, it's entirely possible that the very concepts will have changed so much as to make your test hopelessly ambiguous (or worse). The best analogy I can think of right now is phlogiston.

Part of the problem is that scientists are using a method (sense-dependent empiricism) which only can "see" what is physical. Really, what else do you think they can find other than physical stuff? My point is, no matter how much they see relying only on sense experience, they will never discover anything which requires a different sort of experience to know it.

Fair comment. That suggests, however, that a) this can't be studied scientifically (why not?), or b) science will never expand to encompass a deep understanding of all other sorts of experience (why not?), or c) ...

I am working on this aspect of philosophy because I really do believe there is something more, and I also don't think physicalists in general present the strength of their case objectively. Personally, I am not very interested in anything other than the "something more" and how it works.

Are there any good reasons why any 'something mores' can't be studied scientifically?

 

[Fliption]

really:
some of you objective people and also physicalists out there should read it... at least if you know your physics and science, cause this guy clearly doesn't...

I consider myself objective so I can respond.

he claims the world of physics to consist of bare differences (in the life world that equals on and off, on is different from off and vice versa) but in real life physics, a particle can be in two different states... even a rather large molecule like C60 has been observed to be in two places at once! He should read some quantum mechanics and write a new book...

Several things...

1) Does stating that the world of physics is made up of bare differences "on" and "off" and then defining them as opposites necessarily imply that they cannot both be true at the same time? I've read the text many times and I don't see this implication.

2) I've had to read this part of the text many times to even comprehend all the points. The text even admits the concept of bare differences is difficult to grasp.(I'm impressed you came to such a definitive understanding and conclusion so quickly) I'm not even sure that the "bare differences" that the author is referring to even relate to states dealt with in quantum physics(like position).

3) And does it even matter? You're suggesting that states of ON and OFF cannot entail consciousness but a combination of ON and OFF can? You will need to explain how this happens. I think the author's point is that these bare differences cannot entail consciousness regardless of how you mix the bag.

and the simplicity with which he governs his experiments is just amazing... circular arguments and quite blatant subjective statements that you then are supposed to take as the truth... how can any objective person read this, and still claim that this is not just another mind game? I'm really curious... his argument is ridiculously simplified and filled with subjective statements that backs up his claims, and not to mention quite obvious flaws in his knowledge about physical science...

Speaking of subjectivity...this paragraph above is full of it. You may be correct but it helps in a response if you can point to specific statesments of subjectivity. Also make sure the subjective pieces are relevant to the conclusions of the text.

i'm quite offended that he calls himself a "scientist"... this has nothing to do with science...

This is a philosophy text. Not science. The author's scope is vastly different from a scientist's. But again, it would help if you pointed to specific facts of physics that are contradicted. The one above about bare differences and quantum physics seem a bit interpretive and possibly misunderstood.

Also, if you don't agree with some of the basic assumptions of this paper in the end, then you'll need to be prepared to explain how you will someday be able to communicate the experience of red to a blind man with your facts of physics. To me, this text simply documents in a philosophical manner the "whys" and "hows" of what we all know to be obviously true.

Oh yeah. Don't forget to be objective.

 

[FZ+]

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.

Come on! Don't patronise me. That isn't a definition at all. That's just an unsupported assertion of a need for a so-called demonstration of progressive organisation, without actually identifying what progressive organisation is. Try defining progressive organisation without referring to progressive organizing (which is tautological), complexity (which means different things to different people), higher (which misses the whole point of evolution, and also is specific to a set of criteria) and life. (which is circular logic)

A small percentage of evolution is due to randomness;

Which tape measure are you using? How on Earth can you talk about percentages?

Evolution =

Inheritance
Randomness
Selection

All 3 have a 100% role.

First of all, you are the only one here maintaining that life isn't primarily the result of exceptional organization.

Your logic is out of date. Chaos and organisation go hand in hand. The issue I am attacking is this special case you raise of "progressive organisation". Evolution isn't magic. Neither is life. They follow the laws of a chaotic universe - that, under certain circumstances, they undergo changes in their system, and that under changing circumstances, they keep changing. What my attacks centre on is the notion that you can generate this holy progressive organisation, and allow life, and life only. To do this, it seems to me that you can only inject gigantic volumes of subjectivity to keep things afloat. Physicalism is entirely self consistent.

 

[FZ+]

My only point to Les has been made into a mountain. If I change the words to say "human" designer versus random chance, then I say you would choose random chance for the car on Mars for all the reasons I stated. Is that better?

No, because that question is still loaded.

Imagine if I asked you this question:
A car is found by Mars. Why was it there? An unconscious physical human, or another unconscious cause.

Would you accept it? By the phrasing of the question, you assume a difference, when the whole point of my viewpoint is that there is no difference. To me, a valid option-list would be: "human" designer versus *another example* of random chance

To which, my answer would be: I don't know, since both look pretty unlikely, and I can only give a quick, and probably inaccurate guess. I won't treat human design causes any differently to how I would treat other so-called random chance effects.

I'm not sure if you're going to go down the infinite path of asking for definitions like "what is willful?"

Don't tempt me... To me, something done willfully implies that it was done to fulfil the goal of that will, however abstract that maybe. Hence, if we want a design-based debate at all, we need a designer, and a particular viewpoint by which we can assess how well it fulfills a goal. If we have never seen a human, if we cannot even concieve of the need for personal transport, we can't say the car looks like it has been designed.

Surely you aren't denying a correlation? One does not lead to the other I agree but one only has to look at the fact that things designed by conscious beings have a tendency to be very rare where there are no conscious beings.

But that doesn't work the other way round. Because it is rare, we can't say is must be designed by conscious beings which gave up on it. Because it is not rare, we can't say that it must have been mass-produced by conscious beings. Same for probability.

I have never argued for that.

Well, there you go. The sum result of that particular argument was that the Design Argument doesn't work. That was all I was trying to say.

 

[balkan]

I consider myself objective so I can respond.



Several things...

1) Does stating that the world of physics is made up of bare differences "on" and "off" and then defining them as opposites necessarily imply that they cannot both be true at the same time? I've read the text many times and I don't see this implication.

2) I've had to read this part of the text many times to even comprehend all the points. The text even admits the concept of bare differences is difficult to grasp.(I'm impressed you came to such a definitive understanding and conclusion so quickly) I'm not even sure that the "bare differences" that the author is referring to even relate to states dealt with in quantum physics(like position).

3) And does it even matter? You're suggesting that states of ON and OFF cannot entail consciousness but a combination of ON and OFF can? You will need to explain how this happens. I think the author's point is that these bare differences cannot entail consciousness regardless of how you mix the bag.



Speaking of subjectivity...this paragraph above is full of it. You may be correct but it helps in a response if you can point to specific statesments of subjectivity. Also make sure the subjective pieces are relevant to the conclusions of the text.



This is a philosophy text. Not science. The author's scope is vastly different from a scientist's. But again, it would help if you pointed to specific facts of physics that are contradicted. The one above about bare differences and quantum physics seem a bit interpretive and possibly misunderstood.

Also, if you don't agree with some of the basic assumptions of this paper in the end, then you'll need to be prepared to explain how you will someday be able to communicate the experience of red to a blind man with your facts of physics. To me, this text simply documents in a philosophical manner the "whys" and "hows" of what we all know to be obviously true.

Oh yeah. Don't forget to be objective.

does it matter?
he's leaving out an entire dimension! and have somehow managed to get in his head, that a world of stationary cells that are on or off, can be a representation of a world of particles and motion... that's pretty astounding... and let's not forget both the uncertainty principle which cannot be related in any way to the life game, but plays a huge part in real life physics...
there's no probability involved either, which is mega essential to everything related to physics, and even if there was probability involved, this would require something to randomly decide which event should be chosen... and if this should not be a pattern based random number generator like we use in our computers, then we have a problem cause that would mean that the computer either conciously had to choose (at which point you would have intelligence in the computer) or that you would have to draw from a real life measured source with exactly the same properties as the one in the computer...
and let's not forget, that even while only being a one dimensional program, and infinite grid is highly hypothetical and that there cause of that is no possible way of having infinite complexity...

moreover:
i have yet to learn about a game of life type program that could actually successfully represent something physical, except for hypothetical and theoretical things like fluctuations in the economy, which isn't in any way related to physics...
so wow... he proved by using an example that cannot represent anything physical, that since it cannot explain conciousness, physics can either...
what an accomplishment...

if there was a game of life in that regard, that followed all my requirements for being a physical representation, it would only be responsive to what the computer tells it to, and thus, the game of life wouldn't be conscious, the computer would...

 

[Fliption]

To me, a valid option-list would be: "human" designer versus *another example* of random chance

This is all you had to say, FZ.

So Les, If I factor in this text that FZ has presented above... his view is the sort that will choose a non-human random process for what is clearly an automobile created by a human to the rest of us, simply because he doesn't want his subjective Earth notions of what an automobile is to be projected onto Mars.

Don't tempt me... To me, something done willfully implies that it was done to fulfil the goal of that will, however abstract that maybe. Hence, if we want a design-based debate at all, we need a designer, and a particular viewpoint by which we can assess how well it fulfills a goal. If we have never seen a human, if we cannot even concieve of the need for personal transport, we can't say the car looks like it has been designed.

I mentioned the concepts 'conscious' and 'will'. I don't believe they need to equate to a goal other than fulfilling a conscious desire. I really don't understand the extreme you have to go to here to keep your views intact. This might amuse anyone else reading...

If FZ came home one day and found all his things thrown outside and torn up he would have this dialogue with the police.

Police: So FZ, do you think a storm reached down into your chimney and pulled all these things out or do you think that someone intentionally did this?

FZ: I don't understand the question officer. How can anything be more intentional then a storm? Everything is random chance.

Policeman(after glancing at his partner with a "what a nutjob" glance): So you don't want to investigate and press charges?

FZ: Against a storm? Of course not. It would never show up into court anyway.

But that doesn't work the other way round. Because it is rare, we can't say is must be designed by conscious beings which gave up on it. Because it is not rare, we can't say that it must have been mass-produced by conscious beings. Same for probability.

Of course it doesn't work the other way around. Who said it did? Who's talking about a "Design" argument? You're equating me to some preconceived notion of what a design argument is. Your comments above are quite obvious and I can't really understand why you think it needs to be pointed out. Unless you aren't understanding my point. My only point on this issue has always been that while odds cannot be conclusive, for all the reasons you state, they should not be totally ignored either. When a decision needs to be made about which direction scientific inquiry should go, the correlation that the odds of something existing have with "how" those things come into existence, should be a weighing factor. It is only another tool, a possible indicator. We have a whole branch of mathematics that tells us these correlations are useful called "statistics". I don't understand why it doesn't apply in FZ's PF world because I know it does in his real world.

Well, there you go. The sum result of that particular argument was that the Design Argument doesn't work. That was all I was trying to say.

What design argument? You're swatting invisible flies. I'll argue that odds should be used as an indicator regardless of what the topic is...design, dogs, or pea gravy; You name it.