News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

  • Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flash News
In summary, the article argues that chemogenesis cannot be based on chemistry alone, and that the organizational complexity of life is not based on chemical or physical potentials, but rather on spontaneous organizing behavior.
  • #71
Originally posted by Another God
Well obviously I don't get something here. What self organisation? What is being questioned?

The normal stuff is normal, and you agree with that... but you don't agree that the organisation is happening, yet all I have said is that this normal stuff, IS the organisation. Thats all that 'life' is. The normal stuff over and over again, layer upon layer upon layer. How it started is just a drawn out process of layering.

What else do you want?

I want to amend what I said to the above point of yours.

You are right to say life is layer upon layer, and that chemistry is the mechanical basis for achieving that layering. You are also right to say that the chemistry involved through every layer and type of process is "normal."

But you would admit that the layering is not just repetitive stacking wouldn't you? Each layer is adaptive and normally helps the over all system of layers survive better. So, clearly the layering process is quite unsual in this physical universe where we have never seen anything like it outside of life.

Here is what the question is:

What is causing that virtually perpetual and adaptive layering? Is it chemistry itself?

If you say yes, and because you say this chemistry some billions of years ago began that perpetual, adaptive, layering process all on its own, then that means chemistry has to possesses the inherent potential for perpetual, adaptive, layering self organization.

Demonstrate it.

The examples you and others give do not demonstrate that ability. Instead your examples show that chemistry can be made to head in that direction.

To that I say, well of course! Chemistry is fundamental to all life processes. Why shouldn't the chemistry of a planet where life is so abundant exhibit the potential to be formed into cellular components.

The problem chemogenesis theorists have is that they cannot get chemistry to keep on "going" by itself, without their help, or even very far with their help.

What does "going" mean? It means achieve the perpetual, adaptive, layering process without turning merely repetitive.

IT CAN'T BE DONE (now at least)! And you need to prove chemistry can do that, by itself, before you tell the world chemogenesis is the "most likely" cause of the perpetual, adaptive, layering process.

Until you do prove chemistry can self organize itself like that, it remains just as possible that another force/influence is responsible for the perpetual, adaptive, layering process that lead to life.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Originally posted by Fliption
Wow. Mentat you really need to find a way to increase your time online or decrease the number of posts.

What are you talkin' about? I was serious about that: He made the statement, "A cell is performing tasks that no mere collection of chemicals could perform" and I said that that was a non-sensical statement, since a cell is a collection of chemicals.

What's your beef?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are wrong about how a cell is defined. However, you have joined the group who wants to ignore the organizational quality present in a cell.

I'm not ignoring it's functionality, merely explaining that there is no gestalt from "complex chemical process" to "living cell".

Talk about arrogating a principle!

I apologize for having sounded too confident, but you haven't proved that this didn't happen, so I went with science on that one :smile:.

That's because a dog is too stupid to notice. We aren't.

Or because we are assigning extra properties to things that don't really have them. My guess should be as good as yours, shouldn't it?

I didn't say a thing about "purpose." I simply am pointing to how the organizational effectiveness of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own. It doesn't take a genius to notice that (fortunately for me).

How can you say that the organization of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own, when science is postulating that biology is chemistry left on it's own. Aren't you "arrogating" just as much as I was? Your statement sounds like the creationists who say that the "complex elegance of the Universe is uncharacteristic of physics left on its own"; or the new-agers who say that "the consciousness is uncharacteristic of 'mere machines'".

What is the similarity? All three statements (yours and my two examples) require from the start that we separate what they view as "special" from that which its definition, and all studies done about it, indicate that it is just another example of.

Viruses do not from chemistry alone . . . they require remnant DNA which was once part of life. No virus has ever been observed spontaneously forming from raw materials.

We've only been "observing" for a few decades, and under oxygen-rich (unpreferable to newly forming life) circumstances, looking for something that happened in utterly different circumstances, and took (probably) millions of years to happen.

Okay, demonstrate that.

I don't need to; it's a logically valid assumption, and science theorizes that that's exactly what happened billions of years ago. Logic allows it, science promotes it, and I don't see the flaw in it. Yes, common sense may dictate that it is impossible, but common sense is irrelevant to philosophical inquiry.

Besides, I don't think a cell needs to come together all at once.

What would it come from, then? You seem to think there is some synergy of the processes that the cell performs, that produces a **cell**, so how could it have come from any thing "less"?

Long time or not, the theory is that is physical conditions and chemical potential started it spontaneously (spontaneous is not the same thing as instantaneous).

Yes, and you have not disproved that theory. Spontaneous generation is the best theory (with the least assumptions, mind you) that we've come up with.

I might have, but right now I am questioning the faith materialists have in the theory. I say the faith we see them exhibit, and that they often recommend that others should have in chemogenesis theory, is exaggerated because they are pre-committed to a philosophical position. It taints their objectivity and makes them diminish or ignore the problems with the theory.

I think you mean "credulity", where you've put "faith", since faith in science is perfectly justifiable, while credulity would indeed be blinding us, as you indicate.

As I see it, you can either make an assumption (whether for chemogenesis or against it), or you can be scientific about it, and form "current assumptions" based on the empirical data.

Natural selection is how a living animal evolves, it is not how chemogenesis occurred.

Is that so? That doesn't seem to be what biologists think. After all, natural selection even works in the realm of memes, which aren't living animals. It also works at the level of planets (which is why all planets are round (since that is the most energy efficient configuration, and any planets that started out irregular, would right themselves, or else they would not hold together...simplistic example, but it seems to work)).

It certainly is. But we aren't debating what is enough, we are discussing if the chemogenesis theory holds water.

True. But it wouldn't be "enough" if it didn't "hold water", would it? That's what I meant to imply by "enough".

That's a strange thing to say Mentat . . . 6000 years?

A biblical thing...I was just giving it as a generalization; it could be 9,000 or 10,000, but it's in that ballpark.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't have any doubts about evolution. What started life is what I question.

I understand. As it is, I don't see the flaw with Science's current model (except that it is sometimes counter-intuitive, but that's not a flaw at all, and most of the better theories are counter-intuitive anyway).
 
  • #75
So what's all the fuss about? Why is it that nothing I read make such light of it as gets made on this forum?
Because this only illustrates the possibility of abiogenesis. We don't actually have evidence this is what actually happened. This examples shows that the behaviour in cells is not miles above "chemistry", but it is still argued over whether we used the same sort of concrete.

From what you say, you are dependent on others' agreement to decide what is true.
Actually, I think you misunderstand. Everyone has a personal conception of the way the world works. When we talk, our goal is to share and change our own conceptions. But if there are no empirics to agree on, no conception can have a real reason to change, so we do get nowhere.

But what about those things which only I can know? Like I asked earlier, how can you know if I love my wife? And really, why should I care if you know that? Clearly there is an inner knowing which does not reveal its veracity through objective methods.
This was the option I gave to you, when I talked about the necessary vagueness of life's definition. Life, by that idea, is neccessarily a subjective entity - like the concept of love. It differs by opinion, and feeling from person to person, and there is no real truth one way or the other. It is only valid if we put the deciders in the frame: your love is not neccessarily the same as mine, or a biologists.

But you did reject this option consistently. Because you stated repeatedly that life must have an empirical basis as a real property that divides it from "chemistry", then this empirical property must neccessarily be found by empirical methods - ie. science. Even if not by chemogenesis, some sort of material entity must then be around to make the empirical life, and this being must be materialistic - it must leave a fingerprint.

If any aspect of reality has come about in some way which can only be understood through that subjective discipline . . . well, forget about it because we can't talk and we can't share.
We can talk, but we can't share - because there is no reason at all for me to agree. Suppose I say that I have found a deep and internal realisation that life arose by chemistry? How much does that help to compel you to agree?
 
  • #76
That "something" is that living chemstry "keeps going" and on its own. What you do in the laboratory is merely get chemistry "going" for some limited number of steps before, and this happens every single time, it gets repetitive.
Er... I thought I had shown this to be false. Biological systems are repetitive - the irregularity comes from changes in the external chemistry/physics, all come from chaos etc. Just as crystals/fire are repetive until flaws/mutations inevitably occur.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by FZ+
Er... I thought I had shown this to be false. Biological systems are repetitive - the irregularity comes from changes in the external chemistry/physics, all come from chaos etc. Just as crystals/fire are repetive until flaws/mutations inevitably occur.

Are they only repetitive? This argument is typical. Point to one similarity, and ignore what is utterly uncommon in non-living chemistry. A crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal is a crystal . . . and always will be.

That first living cell . . .look at what it became. Are you really saying the change each is capable of is comparable?
 
  • #78
It looks like this thread is just about over. It's subject is a contentious one, as a subject usually is when the parties involved in the discussion have strong opinions. My main focus has been about bias and objectivity.

But I do have an opinion about chemogenesis too, which is that it hasn't been achieved because that isn't how life began. But of course I don't know, so if chemogenesis turns out to be the way life began, then so be it.

I've argued that to verify the chemogenesis hypothesis, life has to form from scratch in conditions similar to Earth's billions of years ago. But I would liberalize the rules and offer another challenge.

Take every constituent of a cell, or billions of cells, or trillions --. their DNA, mitochondrion, ribosomes, all their chemicals, etc., make sure sources of energy are present, manipulate environmental conditions anyway one pleases -- and bring it all together.

Using the definition of life stated before (the ability to evolve by natural selection . . . so phages are not life) can we expect life to ever form? You'd think with a head start like that (especially the DNA), and if chemistry really is capable of organizing itself, it wouldn't take long for life to develop.

What happens instead? Chemistry, but not life. So until life does spontaneously arise out of chemistry, I will continue to believe it is possible another force/influence is present in life that is not present in non-living chemistry.

That belief in it being "possible" is what distingishes an open opinion from the biased opinion which refuses to consider any possibility that might interfere with one's belief system.
 
  • #79
That first living cell . . .look at what it became.
In general, the cell has remained a cell. It's colour and some other behaviour have changed, but that is akin the the crystal adopting different chemicals from its surroundings. So, what is utterly uncommon in "nonliving" chemistry?

So yes, it is comparable. Objectively comparable. The only problems come from the subjective vagueness...

What happens instead? Chemistry, but not life.
Isn't that rather presumptious? The "bringing it all together with adjusted environment" has been done. Scientists have created artificial viruses, and soon artifical bacteria, by that means.(Though their adjustment of the environment is rather more tight than I think you meant.) Earlier chemicals are thought to be almost certainly more hardy, and behave differently from current DNA.

Using the definition of life stated before (the ability to evolve by natural selection . . . so phages are not life) can we expect life to ever form?
Using the objective objections I gave, it already has again and again and again. It is different from the precise path we took, and we lack the subjective empathy to understand it - but by an objective definition given, it is life. So what is it to be? Invoke the subjective non-science method now?

What do you mean, phages aren't life? They do evolve, if HIV is any indicator.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First of all, no one has denied that life orginated in Earth's prebiotic soup, and no one disputes chemistry is the means by which life participates in existence. So it should be no surprise that cellular bits and pieces can be made to form through chemical manipulation.
...
Now if chemistry turns repetitive, how will it ever achieve the seemingly perpetual adaptibility that life needs to evolve? Since no can demonstrate what I am calling "progressive" organization (versus repetitive), that is why I say materialists are either not recognizing or downright ignoring something they need (to prove chemogenesis) but are no closer to than they ever were.
But the original reply, one which you are choosing to deny from your own personal bias, is that these attempts to demostrate it aren't given enough time or space. The earth, over millions of years, is significantly quantitatively different, to "a ditillation apparatus in a lab for a couple of years".

Besides, the lab scenario's cannot possibly include all of the variety of the earth. They don't have clay ground involved, with lava flows, lightning (something different to electrical shocks), the complete solar spectrum of radiation, heating, cooling, different types of rocks, different chemicals in different concentrations at different areas.

Just because someone sets up an experimentm, with very specific parameters and it goes repetitive (for the short period of time it is watched), does not mean that 'in the wild' it would stay repetitive with all of the change in scenery.




To be honest, having thought about the 'Science could be practiced in the matrix' point raised above, I have forgotten what the objection to materialism is. It is the study of how things appear to be. Isn't that what we are afterall interested in?

The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.
Your Conclusion: Materialism is not to be trusted because it doesn't consider the things which cannot be measured.
The materialist reply: Who cares about those things? They don't affect anything. (If they did, they would be measurable.

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn succseful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, let's get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

I don't get it at all.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

What is causing that virtually perpetual and adaptive layering? Is it chemistry itself?

I have a personal theory that answers this, and apparently my personal theory is also well published in various books. I don't know of its status as a scientific theory, but it seems incredibly logical to me, and so I will breifly describe it here.

The force that drives that perpetual adaptive layering, is the most fundamental force of the universe: A methematical logic princinple in essence. It doesn't really 'drive' the layering process, just as Natural selection couldn't be said to drive the adaptive process of evolution. Instead, it allows those which are adapted to proceed. So to with this mathematic principle, those things which 'make the cut' are able to proceed, while those which don't, fall to the wayside and remain unnoticed by beings such as ourself for eternity.

This process is present in every level of physical existence that we have measured (in my theory), and if I was a mathematician I would create a formula which expresses that the 'succesfulness' of a particular entity would be calculated by the availability of its constituents, plus the likelyhood that those constituents would come together in the way that forms the entity, plus the stability of that entity once it is formed. The more constituents there are, the more likely they are to form the entity, and the more stable the entity is: The more the entity will come to be and numerate throughout the universe.

A very simple mathematic truth (do you doubt it?) could be used to describe why Hydrogen is the most abundant Element in the universe (Heaps of Neturons/Protons/Electrons, it forms readily and it is incredibly stable. Of course there is tons of it) Whereas Oxygen has the same availability of constituents, it is somewhat less easy to form, and (I think) a little less stable.

Anyway, the same mathematical principle would relate to the formation of protons, neutrons etc, and also to the formation of molecules, and the formation of molecular interactions.

But it is in the molecular world where things start tobecome interesting, because here, molecules may be formed by the effect of other molecules. And so now, it is no longer just about which entities are the easiest formed and most stable etc, it is also about those which are created the most regularly, or those which replicate the most readily. If a molecule happens to be created a lot, then it will numerate. If this molecule happens to replicate itself, then it will numerate far more than every other one.

Anyway, I am going into this further than I need to/should at this instance, because I know you have probably already dismissed it. Yes, this does lead to the theory of evolution. In fact, you could say that the whole thing is 'evolution' in one of its various forms.

You want a layering force? There is no force other than variety of interaction. The force is entropy. The progressive element: Is a mathematical relationship which in one form is known as Selection. That which is able to numerate, will. This will seem repetitive at first (I think from the first Hydrogen formation until today, the formation of Hydrogen has been a pretty damn repetitive process), but that is just part of the process.
Until you do prove chemistry can self organize itself like that, it remains just as possible that another force/influence is responsible for the perpetual, adaptive, layering process that lead to life.
I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation. And then chemogenesis maybe won't quite get so much attention. It gets all this attention currently, because it is the ONLY likely explanation. Not because we have assumed its truth, and then denied all else.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

Take every constituent of a cell, or billions of cells, or trillions --. their DNA, mitochondrion, ribosomes, all their chemicals, etc., make sure sources of energy are present, manipulate environmental conditions anyway one pleases -- and bring it all together.
...
You'd think with a head start like that (especially the DNA), and if chemistry really is capable of organizing itself, it wouldn't take long for life to develop.

But in all likelihood, Life never started with those organlles present. Life started out of something much more basic. The chance of complex, relation dependent organelles self-organising is much less likely than having self-dependent chemicals self-organising themselves.

Once again: Just because we haven't got it done, doesn't mean it can't be done. We don't know the exact starting situation, we don't know what happened, how it happened, how long it took, or under what conditions. And here you are presuming what type of form it took when it started was something similar to what is present today.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by FZ+
In general, the cell has remained a cell. It's colour and some other behaviour have changed, but that is akin the the crystal adopting different chemicals from its surroundings. So, what is utterly uncommon in "nonliving" chemistry?

So yes, it is comparable. Objectively comparable. The only problems come from the subjective vagueness...

Statements like this is what made me suspect "denial" in the first place. The first living, reproducing, adapting cell is what was able to evolve into all the life forms we see today. Unlike a crystal, which is still a relatively simple and utterly stupid rock, that first evolving cell had enough "evolving potential" to eventually lead to consciousness.

But if you want to continue to assert that the type of change present in life is no different than that of a crystal, then show me a reproducing, metabolizing, system-building, conscious crystal . . . I want to have a talk with him. I mean, we can assume crystals have been around long enough to achieve that can't we?

Originally posted by FZ+
Using the objective objections I gave, it already has again and again and again. It is different from the precise path we took, and we lack the subjective empathy to understand it - but by an objective definition given, it is life. So what is it to be? Invoke the subjective non-science method now?

What do you mean, phages aren't life? They do evolve, if HIV is any indicator.

Sure, why not call anything life that changes? As you pointed out earlier, everything that changes, in one way or another, is responding to the environment, so a glacier is alive, a fire is alive, clouds are alive . . .

A virus can't do anything, including evolve, until it becomes part of a living system. It is that living system which is providing the evolving power for that virus. The majority of biologists I read do not claim a virus is alive.

Again, I say what distinguishes life is its ability to keep on evolving in the right conditions. And let me add this, in the case of this planet, that evolution has the potenial to "keep going" so far as to attain consciousness. It is because no one can demostrate any non-living chemistry that keeps evolving sufficiently that I say it is premature for materialist thinkers to say chemistry is most likely the only cause of life.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Forgive me if I sound pushy or impatient, but I was kind of hoping that you could counter my post, LW Sleeth - when you get the time, that is. You see, I don't settle on ideas "for sure", and so I'd like to see if this "current assumption" (my term for assumptions that I make in a debate, that I don't really "believe" in, but hold for the sake of debate) should be discarded.
 
  • #85
This post is a bit off topic but I must reply to it since I was heavily involved in the 17+ page thread mentioned. IMO, this post is filled with semantical problems.

Originally posted by Another God



To be honest, having thought about the 'Science could be practiced in the matrix' point raised above, I have forgotten what the objection to materialism is. It is the study of how things appear to be. Isn't that what we are afterall interested in?
My comment about the matrix was not an objection to materialism. And materialism is not a study of how things appear to be. It isn't a study of anything. It is a philosophical belief about the way things are. What you have descibed is what we call science. This was my objection in that antagonizing thread from zero. The definition that you choose for your philosophical beliefs is worded is such a way that it cannot be wrong. Who would deny a belief in a study of the way things appear to be? No one would rationally do this. So if you really must know what someone's objection to materialism is then you might want to know what they mean when they say materialism. Because I can almost guarantee it's not the same definition you're using.

The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.
This is what everyone is interested in. Has nothing to do with materialism.

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn succseful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, let's get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

I don't get it at all. [/B]

And after my comments above, the view and attitude in these comments are really what drives most of the debates here. Lack of understanding, semantic problems etc etc. My comment about the matrix was attempting to make the point that science and materialism are not the same things. No objections; just definition corrections.

Also, LWSleeth has not citicized materialism. It is obvious to me that his biggest beef is with what he perceives as a dogmatic attitude of materialists. There is a difference. So again, I think we should stay focused on the issue being presented in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
But if you want to continue to assert that the type of change present in life is no different than that of a crystal, then show me a reproducing, metabolizing, system-building, conscious crystal . . . I want to have a talk with him.

I have shown this already... And you can't talk to someone who doesn't speak your language either - conclusion: foreigners aren't alive?

I think you are still stumbling into the same pit - that any life has to be life like us.

A virus can't do anything, including evolve, until it becomes part of a living system.
This is an inconsistent position. By that argument, the world's animals have all become non-living.

Let me repeat my central complaint:

You are exhibiting a contradictory argument.

On the one hand, you claim to strive for objectivity and unbias, against dogma subjectivity and faith. You attack strongly my proposal that the life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views of how we are, not as an actual physical materialistic difference. Ok enough, that is not an uncommon position to take.

On the other hand, you reject that argument that chemogenesis must be followed because it is the only emprical method of analysing it, and say that a subjective method that views life as a spiritual subjective entity is unfairly unused. Again, not an uncommon position.

But when you put them together, the two contradict each other. On the one hand, you constrain the possibilities into life only as an empirical property, and thus limit us to only science as a possibility for examining it. (Since even if we were to invoke a supernatural physics principle, it's evidence will eventually be found by further research into the only road of chemogenesis.) On the other, you say it is unfair that we only use science when the problem can clearly be treated subjectively!

In effect, you have created an impossible position...
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Another God
The assumption: We are studying the way things appear to be, because that is what we are interested in.
Your Conclusion: Materialism is not to be trusted because it doesn't consider the things which cannot be measured.
The materialist reply: Who cares about those things? They don't affect anything. (If they did, they would be measurable.

Nonsense! It is perfectly fine with me if science at least only concerns itself with what can be measured; it has proven to be quite a valuable way to research. But the notion that what cannot be measured cannot have any “apparent” effect or reality doesn’t follow. What if, for instance, string theory is true, yet can never be measured? Your statement should say, “if it cannot be measured, science has no way of definitively verifying whether it is true or not.” In the realm of theory development, one might inductively or mathematically develop an immeasurable theory that fits the facts, and allow time and the discovery of new facts to decide if the theory continues to account for stuff.

Originally posted by Another God
The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get with this whole Anti-Materialism thing. This is what Zero was complaining about in that 17 page long thread "Why the bias against materialism?" Why do people feel a need to make such non-sense accusation about materialism just because it is so damn successful? materialism isn't hiding anything. It isn't pretending. It says "This is what we have to work with, let's get on with the Job." It doesn't make stuff up. It doesn't lie. => People lie. The whole point of maintaining the materialist POV, is to find a way around the lying people.

So, materialism is merely reactionary?

Originally posted by Another God
And after a couple hundred years of our biggest run of success, we start to see a rise in people like you, who want to decry it, bring it down, and replace it with the old style "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH" method, which failed for thousands of years to provide us with anything practical or anything near the truth.

“People like me”? You and FZ have straw-manned me to pieces in this thread. When did I advocate the verification principle of "Trust what I say: Because I am telling the TRUTH"? Where have I suggested we go back to deciding what is true by papal or emperor decree, by divining, through mystical visions, by holy books . . . ?

You know, there is a big difference between empiricism and materialism. I will explain what I mean in my next answer to FZ.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Mentat
Forgive me if I sound pushy or impatient, but I was kind of hoping that you could counter my post, LW Sleeth - when you get the time, that is. You see, I don't settle on ideas "for sure", and so I'd like to see if this "current assumption" (my term for assumptions that I make in a debate, that I don't really "believe" in, but hold for the sake of debate) should be discarded.

I don't think I understand what your "current assumption" is. In your previous post I didn't feel any of your arguments addressed my point, which is that materialist leanings are affecting the objectivity of certain empiricial claims. If you read my next response to FZ, possibly that will answer your question.
 
  • #89
Originally posted by FZ+
I have shown this already... And you can't talk to someone who doesn't speak your language either - conclusion: foreigners aren't alive?
I think you are still stumbling into the same pit - that any life has to be life like us.

I understand at least enough about the field to know that the definition of life is not that open to debate. This is why we have a discipline known as “biology,” why we can say something is “dead,” why we could state clearly after the Mars visit no life was found, etc.

Are we going to discuss life by the general definitions of science, or do you get to make up your own rules? The life we have here is the only life we know, and it may just be the only life in the entire universe. In fact, from what we actually know it is the only life (you are probably familiar with Ward and Brownlee’s book “Rare Earth – Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe”).

Life does a number of things, not just one, that are all necessary for it to be “alive.” So taking rocks or a single chemical process and showing the similarity to one life process does not make a rock or chemical process alive! Life is a system, not just a collection of stuff, that metabolizes, reproduces, and evolves . . . all of which allows it to participate in natural selection. The most primitive single cell can do that -- a virus alone or crystal cannot.

The chemogenesis question raised here was whether or not chemistry and physical processes alone can create the living system we call a cell AND (and regarding this thread, that is a big “and”) if those scientists who claim chemogenesis is the “most likely” origin of life are exaggerating when they make that claim.

Originally posted by FZ+
On the one hand, you claim to strive for objectivity and unbiased, against dogma subjectivity and faith. You attack strongly my proposal that the life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views of how we are, not as an actual physical materialistic difference. Ok enough, that is not an uncommon position to take.

On the other hand, you reject that argument that chemogenesis must be followed because it is the only empirical method of analyzing it, and say that a subjective method that views life as a spiritual subjective entity is unfairly unused. Again, not an uncommon position.

But when you put them together, the two contradict each other. On the one hand, you constrain the possibilities into life only as an empirical property, and thus limit us to only science as a possibility for examining it. (Since even if we were to invoke a supernatural physics principle, it's evidence will eventually be found by further research into the only road of chemogenesis.) On the other, you say it is unfair that we only use science when the problem can clearly be treated subjectively!

In effect, you have created an impossible position...

It is your description of my point that has “created an impossible position,” not me.

First, let me further clarify why I reject your proposal that the “life/unlife distinction draws from our personal subjective views.” It’s because I consider your argument sophistry. It looks to me like a debating tactic you are using in order to blur the boundaries of life so you can then claim life is nothing unique. But for the reasons I gave above, and more, most biologists would not agree with you.

Molecular biologist Hahlon Hoagland in his book “The Way Life Works” lists 16 patterns of life:
1. Life builds from the bottom up
2. Life assembles itself in the chains
3. Life needs and inside and an outside
4. Life uses a few themes to generate many variations
5. Life organizes with information
6. Life encourages variety by reshuffling information
7. Life creates with mistakes
8. Life occurs in water
9. Life runs on sugar
10. Life works in cycles
11. Life recycles everything in uses
12. Life maintains itself by turnover
13. Life tends to optimize rather than maximize
14. Life is opportunistic
15. Life competes within a cooperative framework
16. Life is interconnected and interdependent

Apparently also more impressed than you with the uniqueness of life is Stephan Jay Gould who writes, “[Nobody knows] . . . any formula that can account for the amount of change and almost inexhaustible variety that have written life’s adventures all across our planet. That story is a mystery locked into deeps of time that are mostly beyond our reach. . . . Our life dwells at the interplay between supreme cosmic forces and the ever-changing history of chemical and physical events . . .”

Lynn Margulis says, “Islands of order in an ocean of chaos, organisms are far superior to human-built machines. . . . Life is a single expanding organization . . . It is matter gone wild, capable of choosing its own direction in order to indefinitely forestall . . . death.” (By the way, Margulis also agrees viruses are not alive saying, “In our view, viruses are not [alive]. . . . Biological viruses reproduce within their hosts in the same way that digital viruses reproduce within computers. Without an autopoietic organic being, a biological virus is a mere collection of chemicals . . .”)

Notice how she says “mere collection of chemicals”? And “expanding organization”? Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.

So no one knows what makes non-living chemistry become living chemistry. One theory is that chemistry shapes itself into life, or chemogenesis, but it isn’t the only theory. It is just the theory that materialist thinkers believe most because they are not willing to consider any evidence other than material evidence. There are empirical researchers who have non-materialist theories; not every scientist buys the chemogenesis theory.

Separate from the issue of one’s favorite theory is claims made about how likely some theory is true. Yes, I am of the non-chemogenesis persuasion, but I realize I cannot prove my theory is correct. Yes, you and others are of the chemogenesis persuasion, and you cannot prove your theory is correct either.

However, you don’t hear me telling the world in science documentaries, writing in textbooks, or in public interviews that my theory is “most likely” how life came about. I might say that, if asked, “in my opinion . . .” But there are scientists saying chemogenesis is “most likely” all the time, and not just to each other either, but to anybody who will listen. Do they have enough evidence for that “most likely” label? I say they aren’t even close to having it, and what they are doing is using the current popularity of science as a bully pulpit to preach the doctrine of materialism.

As I said to AG, there is a big difference between empiricism and materialism. The former investigates reality by way of a logical and experience-based method that hypothesizes with the expectation of observing what has been hypothesized. Ideally empiricism is a neutral practice and does not assume what cannot be discovered through it does not exist, but rather assumes it is simply unavailable to senses and or logical analysis. But the materialist goes further to assume that what is unavailable to senses and or logical analysis does not and cannot exist. Because the only thing revealed through the senses and logical analysis are material processes, the materialist concludes existence is purely physical.

Now, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. My objection is when materialist philosophy starts to influence empirical objectivity, so that the so-called “objective” opinions we are expecting really are tainted by the materialist faith in matter as God.

What do I want? I want scientists to acknowledge that chemogenesis is only a working hypothesis for some of them, to be 100% objective about how close they are to proving chemogenesis, to openly say what the difficulties are with the theory, and to stop saying chemogenesis is “most likely” until they can demonstrate non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry.

As of now, all they’ve managed to achieve is a “mere collection of chemicals.”
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Pardon me for butting in. I've been reading along, and I am keen to see this answered:

Originally posted by Another God
I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation.

Well?
 
  • #91
Originally posted by Tom Pardon me for butting in. I've been reading along, and I am keen to see this answered:

[Originally posted by Another God] “I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation.”

Well?

You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims? Similarly, am I required to offer an alternative explanation before I’m allowed notice chemistry’s lack of ability to get “progressive” outside of life, and consequently to wonder if some unrecognized force/influence is present in life? Such wonderings about unseen influences happen all the time, such as when the orbits of Uranus and Neptune did not behave as expected. If I were a scientist working in the field, I suppose I should be expected to predict what was causing the perturbations (Pluto). But what if I weren’t a scientist -- am I prohibited from noticing irregular behavior?

But then, possibly your “Well?” is a bit of indignation over the fact that a lot of dedicated people are working hard to understand how life works, and they are theorizing with the best information they have. While how life originated may not be understood, what has been discovered about life processes has contributed to humanity in many ways. I love all that, and I fully support the effort to figure out how everything works in the universe.

However, life’s origin and nature is not only a science issue, yet more and more materialist-oriented science devotees are claiming it is. I am just old enough to remember when behaviorists (e.g., Skinner, Hull, and others) were so sure they could explain all there is to explain about human psychology. What gave them that confidence? Well, behavior actually can reveal quite a bit of human psychology. The problem they had is a general one that arises when someone dedicated to a field of study comes to believe, prematurely, that they can explain every single thing with their favorite theory. The truth is, it takes several theories to explain human psychology, and I think life might as well.

So my main argument is really about objectivity, and to point out that if one only studies physical processes, using an investigative method which only reveals physical processes, then it is logical that physical processes is all one will find. I suspect your “Well?” means, “Well, what else is there but physical processes?” Because I wouldn’t expect you to believe or consider reasonable something you’ve not experienced, to your “Well?” I might say, “Well, how am I supposed to supplement your depth of life experience so that what I say makes sense to you?”

There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?). But let me try a small thought experiment.

We know experience is the basis of knowing, and that sense experience is what we rely on in empiricism. We are born with our senses working, so it is easy to use them. The senses are oriented “outward” and away from us . . . we don’t see or hear “inward.” That outward orientation reveals a physical universe.

Yet for the last 3000 years or so has been a class of researchers who decided, for whatever reason, to exactly reverse the direction of their attention. Not all the time, but for awhile each day. Behind the splitting of our sensitivity into our senses, they claim there is an area of human sensitivity that is undivided, whole, unified. By learning to develop how to use that unified sensitivity, they say, one can experience an element of reality unavailable to fragmented sense experience.

They claim that with this “conscious oneness,” one can experience an element of reality that is also one, or undivided, and that it sits beneath all the manifold aspects of reality. In fact, manifold reality rises up out of this oneness, and eventually will return to it. This is what Zen practitioner Sengtsan meant when he said “One thing is all things, all things are one thing.”

Ok, let’s return to life. I’ve claimed what is lacking in the current model is something that will pull together disparate processes into the unified whole we call “life.” Possibly what the inner practitioners learn to experience is an integrating influence that manifests when conditions are right.

But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what most materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky. They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice and uninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance. The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing. It is the experience, in my opinion, that should be studied, and not any of the personality, philosophical or cultural elements which so often seem to capture people’s attention.

If one believes that experience is the basis of knowing, and if one is after the truth, then I cannot see how any variety of experience can be overlooked as a possibility for helping us understand reality. Reality and our nature decides what we can know, and how we can know. What if there is no other way to know the unified aspect except to turn inward? Then it is not about fairness, it is not about how we wish it were . . . it is about reality dictating to us how it is. And for me, it is about wanting the truth no matter how it comes, or what I have to do to taste a little of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims?

No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.

There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?).

That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.

But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what the materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky.

Not religious, but subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.

They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice anduninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance.

The word I would use is, "skepticism". More below.

The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing.

How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

edit: fixed italics bracket
 
Last edited:
  • #93
FZ, please stop talking to me like I am ignorant. I am university educated, and one of my majors was biology, plus I’ve studied regularly since those days. I understand at least enough about the field to know that the definition of life is not that open to debate. This is why we have a discipline known as “biology,” why we can say something is “dead,” why we could state clearly after the Mars visit no life was found, etc.
But I'm not saying you are ignorant - I am saying that you are making the same mistake you are accusing materialists of. It's a judgement question, it's not a matter of quoting the beliefs of others.

Are we going to discuss life by the general definitions of science, or do you get to make up your own rules? The life we have here is the only life we know, and it may just be the only life in the entire universe.
I think you will find that people broadly disagree with that - that's why we have SETI, for example. It's not a matter of taking it as rote - do we understand the justification behind them? Is there a real empirical difference, or are these ultimately rooted in subjectivity? This is a question that deserves answering, not just brushed aside by selective quoting.

So taking rocks or a single chemical process and showing the similarity to one life process does not make a rock or chemical process alive!
I don't think you have read my posts fully. Let's have a reminder...
In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".


The chemogenesis question raised here was whether or not chemistry and physical processes alone can create the living system we call a cell AND (and regarding this thread, that is a big “and”) if those scientists who claim chemogenesis is the “most likely” origin of life are exaggerating when they make that claim.
Yes they can because as an argument of possibility, all cases of probability remain open until proved otherwise. And yes it is the most likely, as long as you think life is empirical in nature.

---

It’s because I consider your argument sophistry. It looks to me like a debating tactic you are using in order to blur the boundaries of life so you can then claim life is nothing unique.
It is merely an option, and an option that has not been closed. And making it a debating tactic does little to undermine any truthfulness, if that exists, in it.

Molecular biologist Hahlon Hoagland in his book “The Way Life Works” lists 16 patterns of life:
Look at the word, patterns here. That is the first critical distinction I make. We are not talking about patterns - anything has an infinity of patterns. We are talking about criteria, and whether they are arbitary. This is critical. Stuff like "use of sugars" are not only incorrect (sulphur digesting bacteria being a counter example), but are also irrelevant.

Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.
As I said, this is not an uncommon position. But look at the second automatic conclusion - the validity of science as the only method to plumb this mystery. In these cases then mysteries represent something we do not know - it is not that there is no formula, but we have not found it. By saying that life is unique and real, the hunt is on. Chemogenesis is most likely, as the materialist concludes that life is something to find, and chemogenesis is the first candidate. Gould also said:

"Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again."

There are empirical researchers who have non-materialist theories; not every scientist buys the chemogenesis theory.
I am assuming that the idea of materialist is that empirical is the same as material. In essence, even a special principle of life is materialist, as long as we continue to insist life is definitely empirical. Immaterial evidence, evidence like that you give for the idea of love for your wife, is only useful for subjectivism.

But there are scientists saying chemogenesis is “most likely” all the time, and not just to each other either, but to anybody who will listen. Do they have enough evidence for that “most likely” label?
You want to name an alternative?

Ideally empiricism is a neutral practice and does not assume what cannot be discovered through it does not exist, but rather assumes it is simply unavailable to senses and or logical analysis.
I do not agree with this. Empiricalism claims the significance of entities depends on their influence, however indirect, on the universe. There is no use hypothesising an entity that does not do anything. The materialist defines reality by this method - as everything is observed by the effects it has, the two mesh together. Even a thunder and lightning God is materialist. If any evidence of process has some influence on the real world, it is a physical process. Even if it is currently unavailable, it is held off until it is. Hence the acceptance by materialists of string theory etc, as long as it can be assured that the extra dimensions actually make a difference.

My objection is when materialist philosophy starts to influence empirical objectivity, so that the so-called “objective” opinions we are expecting really are tainted by the materialist faith in matter as God.
Rather the reverse. God is matter.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Tom No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it. It is about assumptions of what is worthy of evidence, and the dubious practice of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit one’s philosophy of knowledge. Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”? AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!

Originally posted by Tom Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

Do you blame someone who only reads the Bible if they come here and argue they only see creationism? Why is it an okay to insist that everyone be up on their science, but not any other area of human accomplishment which might have bearing on understanding reality?

In a marriage between two immature people, a common fight one often hears could be entitled “what about me?” With maturity, one detaches from one’s preferences and learns to be open to anything valuable anyone might offer. So, what has been the case here? Have I resisted the rules of logic, evidence and proof? Have I failed to study other perspectives? Have I argued from a biased point of view? Or have I argued for objectivity? Really, who is most on the side of the empirical standard?

Originally posted by Tom You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.

Why do I have to show that? I haven’t asserted chemogenesis theory. I’ve simply complained that awarding the “most likely” prize to abiogenesis is something materialists are overly eager to do. Plenty of others have reservations.

Originally posted by Tom That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.

You’ll have to wait for the book.

Originally posted by Tom Not religious, but subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.


Sorry Tom, but objectivity (or pseudo-objectivity) can be just as unreliable. Check out all the advertising on TV, how politicians justify their actions, how attorney’s argue cases, and so on . . . What you see is people using other’s faith in objective standards to deceive.

You might say that those instances are not “true” objectivity, and you would be right. But if someone had only seen that sort of objective baloney, they might claim objectivity is “notoriously deceptive.” Similarly, there might be improper subjectivity and proper subjectivity. Further, as science is actually an advanced form of objectivity, there might also be an advanced form of subjectivity.

Regarding how subjectivity is “impossible to quantify and measure” . . . you are trying to evaluate ideal subjectivity by objective standards, and so again revealing your bias. Ideal subjectivity has its own standards. Do you care to know about that, or must this remain only what objective standards are about?

Originally posted by Tom How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

It is determined similar to how one determines things objectively. One experiences what is claimed possible, and then one allows the experience, or lack of it, to create one’s opinion.

You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience; and I am not saying the abiogenesis model is wrong. I am disturbed at what I see as materialists claiming they are most likely correct when there are plenty of intelligent people around who still want to leave the question a lot more open than that. I would be a lot more receptive to the abiogenesis point of view if I ever heard one abiogenesis devotee, JUST ONE, who had actually studied all perspectives with an open mind, and argued his/her case both informed and objective.

So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view. To me, that is bad philosophizing.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it.

For the first 55 posts in this thread, as well as for a good part of the thread thereafter, you were arguing on the basis of the available physical evidence. You were arguing that, since no one has ever created life in a vat of chemicals, there is no basis for claiming that it can be done. It was not until post 56 that you first mentioned other types of evidence (namely, that evidence obtained from introspection).

So, it is not difficult to understand that people are so keen to present pro-chemogenesis arguments to you. You have, after all, spent a great deal of effort arguing against it.

Actually, I thought that that part was the most viable part of your case.

It is about assumptions of what is worthy of evidence, and the dubious practice of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit one’s philosophy of knowledge.

I'm with you so far.

Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”?

Oh, now that's real constructive. You certainly have turned fault-finding into a fine art. Now if you can just become as good at explaining why others are at fault, you'll be getting somewhere.

That's the difference between a discussion forum and a soap box.

AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!

AG has openly rebutted your claim that introspection constitutes evidence by citing the fact that mental states can be affected by external stimuli.

Your response was along the lines of, "Well, if you won't look into it, then you are ignorant".

Sadly, this attitude has typified your posts in this thread.

Do you blame someone who only reads the Bible if they come here and argue they only see creationism? Why is it an okay to insist that everyone be up on their science, but not any other area of human accomplishment which might have bearing on understanding reality?

Other areas of human accomplishment will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. As for the specific example you mention, I reject the Bible because (among other reasons) it makes no predictions, only postdictions (eg: See the sun? God put it there.). That is of no interest to either the scientist or the philosopher.

In a marriage between two immature people, a common fight one often hears could be entitled “what about me?” With maturity, one detaches from one’s preferences and learns to be open to anything valuable anyone might offer. So, what has been the case here? Have I resisted the rules of logic, evidence and proof?

Yes, you have resisted them tooth and nail.

AG is not asking, "what about me?". You are, and AG is asking, "how can I know that the standard of evidence you are presenting is valid?". You seem loathe to answer this perfectly reasonable question because you have already decided that no one will listen to the answer.

Have I failed to study other perspectives? Have I argued from a biased point of view? Or have I argued for objectivity? Really, who is most on the side of the empirical standard?

You have not failed to study other perspectives. As for the rest of the questions, I cannot answer them, because you will not tell us why you think as you do regarding standards of evidence.

Tom: You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.

LW Sleeth: Why do I have to show that? I haven’t asserted chemogenesis theory. I’ve simply complained that awarding the “most likely” prize to abiogenesis is something materialists are overly eager to do. Plenty of others have reservations.


Ah, more constructive input.

I have already tried to explain to you that people who claim that chemogenesis is "most likely" do so because they do not see an alternative. AG has asked you twice for one, and I have asked you once. Since there is only one possibility in view, it follows that that one is "most likely".

To that, you respond with, "No, it is not most likely, and I am not going to explain why."

You’ll have to wait for the book.

Does that mean that you are coming up with the first alternative to chemogenesis? If not, then can you cite another one?

Sorry Tom, but objectivity (or pseudo-objectivity) can be just as unreliable. Check out all the advertising on TV, how politicians justify their actions, how attorney’s argue cases, and so on . . . What you see is people using other’s faith in objective standards to deceive.

You are comparing "TV spin" (which is by its nature deliberately deceptive) with the carefully scrutinized data taken by scientists (which is deliberatly neutral).

What am I supposed to say to that?

You might say that those instances are not “true” objectivity, and you would be right. But if someone had only seen that sort of objective baloney, they might claim objectivity is “notoriously deceptive.” Similarly, there might be improper subjectivity and proper subjectivity. Further, as science is actually an advanced form of objectivity, there might also be an advanced form of subjectivity.

OK, care to present it?

Regarding how subjectivity is “impossible to quantify and measure” . . . you are trying to evaluate ideal subjectivity by objective standards, and so again revealing your bias. Ideal subjectivity has its own standards. Do you care to know about that, or must this remain only what objective standards are about?

Why don't you just say what you mean, rather than vaguely allude to it?

It is determined similar to how one determines things objectively. One experiences what is claimed possible, and then one allows the experience, or lack of it, to create one’s opinion.

That is way too vague. How does one "allow the experience, or lack of it, to create one's opinion"? There has to be something more to it than that, because two people's expeiences can lead them do different conclusions.

You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience;

Yes, you are. You opened this post criticizing the fact that they do not consider ceratin forms of evidence valid. You specifically cited one of these forms of evidence as "inner experience", and have branded as ignorant those who do not consider it.

But rather than explain what you mean, you have been content to regard yourself as the only wise man around.

and I am not saying the abiogenesis model is wrong. I am disturbed at what I see as materialists claiming they are most likely correct when there are plenty of intelligent people around who still want to leave the question a lot more open than that.

You could help the others here leave it open by presenting an alternative.

I would be a lot more receptive to the abiogenesis point of view if I ever heard one abiogenesis devotee, JUST ONE, who had actually studied all perspectives with an open mind, and argued his/her case both informed and objective.

Come on, Les. There is no way anyone could study all the perspectives with an open mind. There are literally an infinite number of them. But I don't think that's what you really want, anyway.

What you seem to really want is for a "abiogenesis devotee" to consider *your* perspective ("What about me?") And right now, with not one iota of explanatin offered for it, your "inner experience" line is just as easily written off as "God did it."

An appeal to be "unbiased" is not enough. You can only get others to see your perspective by changing minds, and you can only change minds by convincing minds. Sitting on your hands and asking, "why should I have to convince you?" will not cut it.

So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view.

Well, what I see are FZ+ and Mentat making forgivable mistakes typical of people their age (16 years old). Those kinds of mistakes are a necessary part of their development.

I also see AG asking you to explain to him why he should accept inner experience as evidence, in view of the fact that inner experience is so easily manipulated by external influence, while the converse is not true.

And I also see you, on your high horse. When an explanation or an argument is called for, you offer nothing but criticism. You prefer to call someone "ignorant" than to show them why you think they are wrong. You seem to think that that burden does not rest on you, but remember *you* are the one who started this thread, with its dopey title that was obviously designed specifically attract attention. And now that you have people's attention, and are being presented with arguments, you don't want to actually *discuss* any of the points of contention. What really galls me is not the content of your position, but how puffed up your ego is. I've got news for you: you are the only one who thinks that your contribution to this thread is reasonable, unbiased, and in line with the rules of logic and evidence. If anything, you are just preaching.

To me, that is bad philosophizing.

Indeed!

The way I see it, you can either make a renewed effort to try to reach the goal of mutual understanding, or you can keep sitting there doing nothing, all the while thinking that you are the only reasonable person here. It's up to you.
 
  • #96
Originally posted by Tom For the first 55 posts in this thread, as well as for a good part of the thread thereafter, you were arguing on the basis of the available physical evidence. You were arguing that, since no one has ever created life in a vat of chemicals, there is no basis for claiming that it can be done. It was not until post 56 that you first mentioned other types of evidence (namely, that evidence obtained from introspection).

So, it is not difficult to understand that people are so keen to present pro-chemogenesis arguments to you. You have, after all, spent a great deal of effort arguing against it.

Actually, I thought that that part was the most viable part of your case.

Your response was along the lines of, "Well, if you won't look into it, then you are ignorant". Sadly, this attitude has typified your posts in this thread.

Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Tom
How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?
Yes, and this is the whole crux of the matter, for without "introspection" one would never know.

Indeed, how can you "know" the truth of anything if you can't see it for yourself? At which point do you stop taking "someone else's" word for it? :wink:
 
  • #98
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.

Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo
 
  • #99
Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.
Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo

I have little time right now so this will be short for now. But in fairness to Les, I don't think you can judge the attitudes and approach from the context of this thread alone. This topic has been discussed in many other threads with the exact same participants. Much of the attitudes present here are carry overs from tactics and behaviour exhibited in those other threads. At some point everyone has to decide when they are casting their pearls before swine and move on.
 
  • #100
Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?

However, I will admit to a couple of points you made. This thread hasn’t been exactly on subject, at least as stated, the whole time. It did start out as challenging chemogenesis (I am going to switch to the more accurate term “abiogenesis”), but that came about from frustration with what I see as denial. So the reason the “most likely” issue came up is because to me that characterizes my complaint. If you read some of my past posts, it has been my most repeated (and virtually only) complaint about the science community, so for me it isn’t just a way to pass the time, it really bothers me. Saying that means I also should also admit that I’ve debated here in a combative way at times, allowing my frustration to show more than I probably should.

In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding. I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.

Let me summarize why I don’t think I should have to present an alternative model, even if I do have one. As a thinking human being discussing ideas in a forum, I question inconsistencies in people’s propositions. But by your standards, I shouldn’t be allowed to question unless I can provide an alternative. How does that make sense? Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas? Don’t you ever say, “that doesn’t make sense” without feeling the need to develop a replacement theory?

My objection overall is not that there is an abiogenesis model, just like I don’t object to someone having a creationist or intelligent design model. My objection is to an attitude I run into with science-oriented materialist philosophy (I’ll just call that scientism). One way this attitude is reflected is in the statement “. . . there is no evidence.”

“Oh really,” I like to say. Now, the scientism devotees are the ones saying there “is no evidence,” not me. When I try to point them to where there might be evidence I am told they are not interested in looking; and the implication why they won’t look is usually because they do not consider it evidence.

That leads to a side discussion, which I usually argue by pointing out that experience is the basis of knowing, and therefore evidence too. I challenge the notion that sense experience is the only experience ever to produce knowledge about reality. That is why, I say, one must broaden one’s education if one is going to make the statement “there is no evidence.”

If there is such evidence, and I attempt to point to where to look, and no one listens, how is it my responsibility to get that evidence into their head? Even if I did come up with an alternative model, that resistance to any evidence except which scientism devotees deem acceptable is going to be challenged every step of the way.

And then comes the next step, and a further source of frustration. Now fully cloaked in scientism evidence, and shielded from any other possible sort of evidence, scientism devotees proclaim in public settings (like Discovery science specials, etc.) or in textbooks educating our children, that abiogenesis is “most likely.” But what should be said instead is that scientism’s theory is abiogenesis.

I dislike that “most likely” because I think the question is still very open. I would like to believe scientism devotees say it because they can’t see any better idea, but I read science and watch science specials incessantly, and I am always seeing an assumption in place of “we are right.” That same attitude shows up here too when someone demands that everything be subjected to empirical standards. The clear message is, if it doesn’t show up through empirical study, it doesn’t exist. Now, if you are a scientism devotee, that is pretty convenient isn’t it?

To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes), it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer; and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).

Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with.
 
  • #101
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?
Now why does this all tend to ring a bell with me? Hmm ... Perhaps like Les, these are my own feelings of inadequacy speaking here? Or, perhaps not? I don't know, it just all sounds kind of familiar.

But then again I'm not as well spoken as Les, neither do I take the whole thing quite so seriously, so maybe I have no business butting in. However, I do know what it feels like to get run over by a truck, and it ain't a pretty sight!
 
  • #102
I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Fliption
I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be. [/B]

Yes, I agree. I presented the horse race analogy not to justify labeling the theory as "most likely correct", but to bridge the gap between AG and LW Sleeth. If you follow AG's discussion, you will see that that is what he means, as evidenced by his asking Les twice for an alternative model.
 
  • #104
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?

I didn't ignore any of your reasons for not answering my questions. I countered them by noting that the "other side" doesn't see another option, and that is why an answer is needed.

As for that "hammer", that was in response to what I saw in this thread. I see AG asking you to give him something to consider as a competitor to the model he considers most likely correct, and I see you not wanting to enlighten him, calling those like him ignorant for not being so enlightened, and complaining that he is not open to your perspective. When I see things like that, you can be sure I will step in and intervene. If you knock it off, then so will I.

In any case, I am glad you decided to be more forthcoming. I'll get to the rest of your post later.
 
  • #105
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
\Notice how she says “mere collection of chemicals”? And “expanding organization”? Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.
Accepted, there is something different between 'living' and 'non-living', but I thought we had already covered this, and decided to move on from it. Life does having something more to it, but that doesn't stop it from being nothing more than chemicals (in a physical sense). It is just a fact about those chemicals, that they happen to be in a particular system that repeats a particular process that results in copies of itself (or something that gives rise to itself) to be created. (Where 'itself' is the system at large).

Life is just chemicals, but chemicals that acheives a particular system dynamic. There is no definite line that separates these two ideas, there is no line that demarcates 'cyclical system that gives rise to offspring' and 'everything else'. We just happen to be able to easily observe when it does happen, and when it does not. When the line is blurred, (such as in the case of viruses) we debate pointlessly over a definition which isn't necessary.


the materialist goes further to assume that what is unavailable to senses and or logical analysis does not and cannot exist.

I wouldn't say that they assume that exactly. And if they do, then I am not a materialist, so whatever.

What I would say, is that what cannot be measured, is of no interest to anyone, and so may as well not exist. Materialism never claimed to be able to look at the workings of Heaven, or of hell, it's goal is to look at the reality that we experience.

Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist within our universe. It exists somewhere else, and it has no consequences on our lives. String theory is either untrue (for our universe), or it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then it is having no effect. If it has an effect, then it can be measured. Materialism concerns itself, with that which is measurable (empirically), and pays no head to that which cannot be. (For good reason)


Because the only thing revealed through the senses and logical analysis are material processes, the materialist concludes existence is purely physical.
The materialist concludes, in their premise, that nothing other than the physical (ie: Everything measurable (Energy included)) matters to us. Whether there is something outside of that, is irrelevent.

It may be interesting, but the Philosophers are the only people who could possibly hypothesise about it: Not that anyone hypothesis has any credit over any other. Outside of the interest factor, it is irrelevent.


What do I want? I want scientists to acknowledge that chemogenesis is only a working hypothesis for some of them, to be 100% objective about how close they are to proving chemogenesis, to openly say what the difficulties are with the theory, and to stop saying chemogenesis is “most likely” until they can demonstrate non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry.
Tom asks this in his next post, so I will have to keep reading (Sorry, been gone for the weekend, catching up), but in the absence of any other theory, considering that life is just chemicals doing something particularly specialised, and that there is some reason to think that it may have happened by organised chance interactions: Chemogenesis IS the most likely option.
 

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
850
Replies
1
Views
724
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
5
Replies
163
Views
22K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top