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.
  • #106
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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 quote myself:

Not that not having an alternative theory can ever be a counter argument, and so I am not trying to use it as such, but this comment forces me to ask: What alternative promising approaches?

there was nothing combative about that, but my very point, as TOM tried to point out, was that When there is only one horse, that horse is the most likely.
IF that horse had no legs, then you could easily argue a point, but this horse has legs, it is just possible that maybe one of them will break before he finishes the race. Nonetheless, we are still willing to bet that it will win (since there are no other horses.). It is still, even in light of your criticisms of the organisational structure of chemistry, 'the most likely'.

ALl you needed to do is present one other theory, by name, by concept, be reference alone, that was in the race, and then there would be some reason for us to start wondering if this horse wasn't the most likely horse.

Now that we all know you are writting a book on an alternative hypothesis, GREAT. I can't wait to read it (And I promise right here and right now that I will.) I am not opposed to having theories challenged, I just don't get into the habit of denying theories which are 'Most likely' at explaining the phenomenon.

See, I strongly believe Evolution is a FACT in the strongest sense of the word: But you show me an alternative theory which explains everything better: And you have a convert. Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.

If you ahve done a good job, then maybe it will have a challenger as the most likely theory very shortly.

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.
Hopefully you understand now, no one wanted to hear your theory necessarily, we just wanted to know that there was another horse in the race, and that it even might be able to keep up. You didn't show any hint at there being one.


Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas?
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.


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)

The base assumption, agreed. (Of course, assuming that you mean 'sense experience' as in "Measurable by something, which can report to our sensory perception")

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;

You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevent, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.

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).

OK, I will accept this criticism whole heartedly. It has become common practice to exagerate Abiogenesis, but in the defence of all exageraters by my side: The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one...) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumour of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it.


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.
You are justified in challenging it without an alternative model: The alternative model simply would have allowed your point to be made without necessarily breaking the horses leg.

Even if there is exageration as to how likely chemical organisation may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
OK, i am finally to the end. Hopefully what I have just said has cleared things up a little though...?

An alternative is not required for you to present an argument, but since your argument is not conclusive (even if it raises a valid point), presenting an alternative will achieve your goal nonetheless.

You criticisms of the exageration is accepted, and in the future it would probably be easier to just point those out rather than critice 'Scientism' as a whole. I think my reasons for the exageration are reasonable, but you may want to reply to them still.

Looking forward to it.
 
  • #108
How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"
 
  • #109
Originally posted by full-time-climb
How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"

Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.
 
  • #110
AG, I suspect that ultimately we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do appreciate your efforts in the last three posts to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

I am going to change the focus a little with this post to discuss what I see as the biggest communication problem we’ve been having at this thread. I hope you don’t mind that I am using your last posts as examples. I am not picking on you, but rather I think you generally reflect one side of the discussion we've been having.

I am sure you are familiar with the suffix –centric, and how it is sometimes used to describe human psychological traits, such as “ethnocentric.” I believe a lot of what you and others say here might be called empiricentric.

To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy. I was raised in a fundamentalist religious family, and when a bunch of them would get together to explain, say, the origin of the universe, the group had standards they agreed upon about what was acceptable as evidence. In the discussion, obeying the standards of evidence was more important than if the evidence was true. Further, one wasn’t allowed (as I would try to do) to challenge the standards; that was the ultimate crime against the philosophical stance they’d chosen as the “true” stance.

Similarly, those who’ve chosen empirically-supported materialism as the “true” philosophical stance (what I’ve referred to as “scientism”) have standards as well for what is acceptable as evidence. Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned. And me? Well, I commit the ultimate sin when I am in a setting where scientism belief is prevalent, and I challenge the very standards that define the scientism philosophical system. Let me see if I can clarify why am I am behaving like the proverbial tiny fly biting the big and powerful horse.

I believe the instant one assumes a philosophical stance that one claims reveals all revealable truths, one has stepped away from the truth. That’s because one now becomes more concerned with practicing, maintaining and defending the standards of the stance than one is concerned with truth finding. It’s been said that God is a jealous God, but I think the truth is even more jealous, and resists fully showing itself to any philosophy that claims it alone is the way to truth.

How specifically does assuming a philosophical stance interfere with truth finding? It acts as a filter which judges all reality by its standards, and then strains out anything which doesn’t meet the standards of the stance. Rather than creating an open objective mind, it narrows and opinionates and biases the mind. It makes one behave like (slightly adjusting an old business aphorism) someone who thinks that the only worthwhile tool is a hammer, and so goes around treating everything like a nail.

I will give a few examples before my conclusion.

You say, “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.”

I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work. In empirical research to be used in technology, for instance, it really doesn’t matter if something exists or not unless it can be detected and utilized. It is a practical matter. If as a way of remembering one needs detectable, measurable data to proceed in empirical research, one says “Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist . . .” that is fine with me.

But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.

Here’s another statement: “Even if there is exaggeration as to how likely chemical organization may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.”

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved. Well, can anyone disprove that supernatural forces did it? God? Whatever? The responsibility for proof is on whomever makes the claim something is true. Then from that to conclude “So abiogenesis is still the most likely” demonstrates empiricentrism because to whom is it “most likely”? Not to me, and not to a few billion other people on the planet. It is "most likely" to scientism devotees and their standards, period.

Another example of empiricentrism is revealed in this statement, “The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one...) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumor of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it. . . . Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.”

To whom is God in doubt? To whom has abiogenesis been the “only reasonable theory presented”? Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?

You go on to say, “You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevant, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.”

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?

Finally, you say: “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. . . .

First you define reality as only that which sense experience reveals; that consequently relieves you of investigating any other sort of experience which might provide information; and that in turn allows you to discount everything that is unable to meet the standards of scientism philosophy.

Here’s what I believe would be the proper philosophical and objective attitude.

Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes. We are NOT justified in assuming that the failure of empiricism to reveal anything metaphysical means there is nothing metaphysical.

There are people who a great many of us believe have achieved something metaphysical. Their expertise has not been about physical processes. The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.

In life and consciousness, there clearly are monumental amounts of physical processes going on. But there are a few things which have not been accounted for by that. There are great many educated people who think something metaphysical could be involved in certain of those unknown areas. Further, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true just because scientists can’t measure it because the metaphysical influence might not be measurable that way. Therefore, scientism devotees cannot yet say those areas are “most likely” physical since they’ve neither proven that, nor is the rest of the world in general agreement with them. Scientism devotees consequently must be content to say these horrible words -- WE DON’T KNOW – and leave the question open to other possible explanations.
 
  • #111
Originally posted by Another God
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.

Well, I still haven't understood Tom's objections in this thread and seeing these words makes me feel even more strongly. I do now understand what you mean when you say "most likely" but I have to say that it is an "extreeeeeemely deceptive" choice of words. I'll repeat what I said before, to use those words assumes that the "truth" (how life actually started) is captured in a horse that we currently know about. When in actuality, science is full of instances where new horses just popped into the race out of no where because some brilliant scientist somewhere made a discovery. In fact, this almost always happens when the current horses all have limps. By your standards, the theory that the Earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.

I'm arguing that this phrase is being used for more reasons than the fact that it is the only one we currently know of.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
I think you underestimate me Les. I have never minded admitting that I don't know. I do it quite regularly. I don't even mind finding out that I am wrong. As long as it is actually shown to me, and I am not just accused of it.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy.
...
Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned.
...
I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work.
...
But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.

It is hard to express, so i will just try to say it again in another way, and hope you get what I mean: If something, anything, has any influence on our universe...it is measurable. Whether we actually can measure it or not isn't the point here, it is whether it is measurable or not. If it has an influence, it is measurable, and so it is within the scope of empiricism, within the scope of 'scientism'. So whether you want to talk about the existence of neutrons, strings, or personal experience: They are all measurable: They all have some impact on the universe. Just as I cannot see an atom, I cannot see that you love your wife: But the existence of an atom may be measured by weight, and the presence of your love may be measured by your actions, your words, and your brain activity. (And possibly something much more sophisticate in the future)

And thus I present my bias to you out in the open, no denying it: I want to say "For everything in existence, there is a direct interaction with something else, and we can either measure that first thing, the second thing, or something else down the track of causality which in turn may indicate the existence of the first thing. And thus EVERYTHING is measurable." But that isn't entirely true. I know that. The truth is that there are probably things which don't interact, and so aren't measurable. They exist nonetheless right? And this is the important part: It is not that anyone is trying to force a philosophy into absolute acceptance here, it is just that there is no point considering those non-interactive factors. They have NO role in our universe. So we can just ignore them.

No fault in doing that, it's just practicality. All of this, is practicality to the nth degree.

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved.

It's a progression. You want us to say "Oh, we can't be certain, we should stop assuming we know anything"? We have to work with what we have, and what we have so far, is the way things seem to us. And the way things seem to us right now, are all pointing towards Abiogenesis. If everything of our current world view is pointing towards abiogenesis, then we are going to assume there is a good reason for it. And at no time does it assume that it has to be disproved. It just needs to be replaced with a better model. Same with every other theory. Until it is either disproved or replaced with a better model, then it will remain the accepted model.

Remember: That was the whole point of me asking if there was another option outside of Abiogenesis: You could achieve your point without disproving it.

...not that you need to disprove it, but its just that as long as it is the only model, and everything in it is functionally possible, and there is no conclusive evidence either way, it will be accepted as 'the most likely', and will remain so until one of those 2 elements is broken: It becomes 'not the most likely' or 'it is not functionally possible.' It's all very simple really.

OK: I ahve to sort of step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.


The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt
Sorry, i worded this terribly. I meant to say that it has been around since the single Creation event was put into doubt: ie: Since Lyel and his dynamic geology theories, and Darwin and the Origin of the Species. Of course these works were largely denied in the begining, because it didn't fit in line with the Bible world view, but the question was finally out there, and as long as a few people doubted creation, then the question was being worked on "Well, if God didn't do it, how did it come to be?"
[/quote][/b]
Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?
[/quote][/b]
You know, this is a good point, because the answer is exactly what you fear it would be: It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions (I'm sure that will get soments here...), and only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has acheived something.

Like the philosophy behind it or not, it is the human method, just refined a little.

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?
I feel like this is another one of those questions just put in here to make me answer more. Something you could have answered for yourself if you had have thought about it, but you chose not too, because the more questions you ask, the more problematic my stance appears.

That which is useful, is apparent. It is clear. It doesn't need to be explained. You know what is useful, and I know what is useful. What is useless, is everything outside of that which is useful. These things can be considered on an individual level, or they could be considered on a global level, or on a community l;evel, whatever. But for each case something can be easily chosen as useful, or useless without me needing to sit here and explain it to you.


Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes.

And because material universe is all we are interested in, who cares about the rest?

The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.
Metaphysical doesn't mean what you think it does: Materialism is a metaphysical theory. Metaphysics is the term used to refer to a philosophical world view. It comes from the naming of Aristotles books, and the book about his theories of 'how things really are' was chronicaled before his book on Physics: Hence 'Meta=physics', before physics.

Anything which is not-physical, has no role in the physical, and thus can't influence us. Since we are, physical beings. Yes, we have subjective minds, but that mind is nothing more than an emergent property of a physical body. remover the physical body and suddenly you have no subjective. Change the subjective, the physical changes. Change the physical, the subjective changes. 1 to 1 ratio all the way. We are physical, our unvierse is physical, and that which isn't physical, is of no regard to us.
 
  • #113
Originally posted by Fliption
By your standards, the theory that the Earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.
It is being used because all of the evidence thus collected points towards it. It is being used because it is logically coherent. It is being used because life is chemical, thus it makes sense that life should have come from chemicals. There is no other option presented. Chemicals, no option, had to come from somewhere...DAMN GOOD OPTION. MOST LIKELY OPTION. ONLY OPTION.

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, let's pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?

It is the Most Likely theory, because when u consider everything, it IS bloody likely. It is just not certain.

A better analogy than the flat Earth one (because that was never a theory), would be the EArthcentric view. When Ptolemy made his solar model, it was most likely that Earth was the center, and I will stand by that. It has since been proven 'Wrong', but that doesn't stop it from having been the most likely at the time. It was a good model. It was consistent, it explained everything reasonably well. It was only better by ...that guy with the steel nose. Copernicus worked under him for a while: He propossed that the sun went around the earth, and everything else went around the sun. That was a great model because it explained everything that they saw, and it had less premises than Ptolemys model did. So it was 'the most likely' for a while, but it also was wrong.

Abiogensis isn't certain. Nothing is. But when u look at everything, it is the most likely. The phrase is no more misleading than you try to make it. It means exactly what it sounds like it means: It is more than likely TRUE, but not certainly so.
 
  • #114
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.
What assumption? Have you taken the LW Sleeth who has been participating in this thread, and replaced him?

Since when did we assume it was a one horse race? Haven't we asked, like..i dunno...10 times now for any nominations as a potential other candidate? There are none.

Creation isn't a theory, its an empty claim. It explains nothing, and relies on nothing.

Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Another God

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, let's pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?

I don't think you understand my objection. Let me say that I think it is purely semantic. I don't have a problem with anything you have said here. If it's the only theory we have then it is the best theory we have. That makes sense to me. But the words "most likely" don't mean that to me. It's probably just the way we define words and phrases differently, but to me "most likely" means this theory is the best theory of all theories that will ever be known. Again, to use it the way you have and say that it was most likely back then but it turned out not to be true makes that phrase a meaningless one. Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead? You accomplish the same thing without the semantic confusion.

BTW, whether flat Earth was a theory or not is completely irrelevant to my point. That's why I wasn't picky with the example. Just want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.
 
  • #116
Originally posted by Another God
Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.

I'm not necessaily a proponent of any of these theories you've blasted but where is the rule that's says the truth has to have immediate explanatory value? Perhaps the very loose guide of Occams Razor but that is all I can think of. The fact that these theories aren't testable is probably closer to the real reason why they aren't on your radar screen. Which really just takes us back to LWS's point.
 
  • #117
Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead?
Fine we'll say that. Whatever.

This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.
 
  • #118
Originally posted by Another God
This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.

I agree. People debating something that amounts to mere definition differences is a complete waste of time. Which is why I pointed it out. It is my opinion that the reason you rarely see progress made or minds changed in these topics is because this medium of communication is very weak in sorting out semantic problems. But that's why I'm here. PF Doesn't pay me to do this for nothing:smile:

Now if you meant that me pointing this out was a waste of time, then I think I have another theory as to why little progress is ever made.
 
  • #119
We talk as though the universe exists in a random state. If Albert E has taught me anything it is that "the multiverse exists in perfect harmony." Therefore if chemo genesis is "it" then not to worry as it will reveil itself as did E=MC^2.
In the mean time we need to cherish that "which is not" as it is the only thing that will lead us to "that which is"

I expect that "that which is" will also come from a "Dream state" and then be validated in the laboratory and not the other way around.

This discussion has not been a waste of time unless that is the meaning you give it.

John
"Canadian Idle"
 
  • #120
Originally posted by Another God
OK: I ahve to sort of step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.


The reason I “push points” is because you seem unable to acknowledge that there might other points of view besides your own which are as valid. Then, at 20-something years old, you condescend to tell me I have a crusade complex (not to mention to explain metaphysical to me . . . give me a break AG). The theme of this thread wasn’t your idea you know, it was mine, and I started it to push the very points I am pushing.

Think about how I’ve debated you. I have never ever denied the validity of what science actually achieves. I believe in science, and love it dearly. I hope through it we are able to understand the universe and humanity much better. But I don’t think your attitude reflects good science, it reflects the materialist religion, cloaked in science; and I also think what you are doing is going on quite a bit in the science community.

I just about despise religion no matter what guise it comes in because in my experience it is never objective; thus you have the reason for this thread: to argue for objectivity in science claims. That’s it, no other motivation. NONE. It is precisely because I love science that I question how honest some scientism devotees are being in their claims, and how fairly they look at other points of views. I suppose “crusade” is how it sounds when I explain what I have to say a dozen different ways trying to connect, only to have you once again repeat your own views without the slightest acknowledgment you’ve understood me.

Because you think you have the only way to the truth, you don’t feel like you have to listen. Yet I know for a fact there is at least one other way to explore the universe besides through science, and just because you “aren’t interested” in and refuse to investigate that possibility doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Great tactic . . . “I won’t look, and it ain’t relevant anyway.”

And do I have evidence of your attitude? Why yes, you provided it yourself:

“It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions . . . only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has achieved something.”

Just in case you’ve forgotten, you are member of that stupid human race. And thank you for helping us all understand how to judge who’s “achieved something.” I now see that what is important to you to achieve is the standard for achievement the whole world should live by. I wish the Buddha were still alive so I could explain to him what he should have achieved instead of dumb, er stupid, ol' enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
  • #121
Cool it, Les. I don't want this thread to be locked yet; I'm enjoying the posts quite a bit.
 
  • #122
To put it very simply, every craftsman knows that we must use the right tool for the right job. I do not use a thermometer to measure how much carpet I will need to cover my bedroom floor; nor, do I use a ruler to measure the temperature of my oven.
Why then do we attempt to use emperical measurement to measure that which is non-physical, subjective and or metaphysical (I use that term only in want of a better more acceptable term).

If I say that the most likely cause of life is the intent and will of God or any other consciousness in the universe, you will deny it and say there is no evidence of such a being or such a happening. There is also no evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, none; nor has even been shown that it is possible.

Why then is one highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support more likely than another highly unlikely pure speculation without proof or support? The answer is bias. Your bias makes abiogenesis most likely because that is the only one you will accept.
My bias makes the will and intent of a creator most likely because science has not shown me any viable alternative.

Science refuses to consider or acknowledge any other alternative. Science then loses any veracity it may have had in this area and in this instance becomes no more an authority on the subject than the good revend Billy Joe Bob who at least has some evidence and support in his bible.
 
  • #123
Originally posted by Mentat
Cool it, Les. I don't want this thread to be locked yet; I'm enjoying the posts quite a bit.

Yeah, my temper got the best of me. I came back to delete that post before anybody read it, but I guess it's too late.
 
  • #124
Science is a tool, only a tool and only one tool that we have to investigate the universe and reality. It is not the only way to know or learn something. Some one earlier said scientist out of nowhere come up with new ideas, solutions and hypothesis; and that new theories are popping up all of the time. They are then varified or disproven in the lab. Where do these things come from if not our minds? If our minds are capable of making such leaps in science why do we think that only in science are such leaps meaningful? If our minds are capable of logic and reason and capable of coming up with new ideas why is it only science and materialism that hold any reality.
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs. A metaphysical philosophy the discounts the metaphysical. A subjective idea that only the material and not the subjective are real. If we can only know anything by subjective perceptions in our minds Then how can we say that such subjectiveness has no reality?
As Les said you are a man with only one tool. The only tool that you really have however is not the hammer of science but your mind.
Our minds are not limited by nature to only the material objective reality. That is an artificial blinder that we put on ourselves.
The same is true of religion. Why do we limit ourselves?
Why do we refuse to consider any and all possibilities? How can we explore the unknown if the unknown is not allowed to exist?
 
  • #125
Originally posted by Royce
It seems to me that materialism is self contradictory. It is a set of beliefs that do not believe in the reality of beliefs.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how subjective perspectives are the result of material processes but yet have no place in discovering truth because they cannot in principle be measured and assigned a truth value.
 
  • #126
We are sujective creatures trapped in an objective world, and we have to deal with that. Nothing 'comes from' our subjective, our subjective is always the result of the objective. If you know the objective, you know the cause of the subjective. If you know the subjective, then that is all you know.

We don't use physical measurement methods to measure that which is non-physical. We only measure the physical because that is all there is to measure. Everything else is an intangible consequence of the physical.

What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.

I play the science game, as I see it. I am a philosopher and a scientist. I think for myself to the extent where I have decided up on my own metaphysics. I know what i believe and why i believe it. I rationalise out every one of my beliefs because I don't accept any general belief system which gets handed to you by other people.

And yet, the whole time, whenever I try to explain to anybody why it is that I believe what I do and how I rationalise the standpoint, my reasons are either ignored, or just mentally skipped over and replaced with the accepted typical 'scientism' reasons, which I am not sure if they even exist.

I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i believe this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.

Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.

FFS, my signature is serious. PROVE ME WRONG. I am sick of people just accusing me of it, and never backing up their words with anything meaningful.

And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.
 
  • #127
Okay I won't bash materialism anymore on this thread.
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.
It is pure speculation and as such has no more credence or validity than any other pure speculation that cannot be tested. I do not support the biblical creationist; nor anyone theory or hypothesis.
My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen.
Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has physical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.
Althought I am reluctant to speak for Les, I think that we both agree that the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explanation that has been thought up. It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.
This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.

To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that anyone of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum.
 
  • #128
Originally posted by Royce
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it.
Logic supports it. Occams razor supports it. Reasonablenes supports it.
There is no way to test it.
If you can create life from chemicals, then you can show it (that is a test). If you can set up the individual steps that led to the formation of life, and let them happen by themselves, then you can show it (that is a test). If someone can show that life can be formed from non-life, then you can show it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested.

It predicts that there is nothing more to life than chemical organisation. But I can't be sure whether this was predicted and then shown, or known and thus part of the predicitons of Abiogenesis. It predicts that non-life, under the right conditions, can give rise to life eventually.

It has never been duplicated in the lab.

So the final clincher test hasn't been achieved yet. Doesn't mean it won't happen. There is goo dreason to believe that this fact is a result of incorrect initial conditions, not enough time, not enough material etc.

there is no way to measure it.

measure what? Non-lifeness and lifeness? This has already been discussed and agreed upon. this point is meaningless as far as I can tell.

It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely.
So, so far we have the facts: Life is chemical in nature. There was a time when there was no life. We now have life. Life has been advancing the whole time, getting more and more complicated: it is as if it is advancing from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A => ? => C... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B, but it must have happened somehow. yes, there is a degree of speculation, but saying 'pure speculation' and 'extremely unlikely' are just empty claims on your behalf which hold no weight.

Just because you have decided that I am biased towards material explanations..(Something which I am still unsure as to why that is a bad thing), doesn't mean an argument can't be rationalised out on logical ground. Don't let this decline into Claim - Counterclaim.

I do not support the biblical creationist; nor anyone theory or hypothesis.
I don't believe that for a second.


My own bias leans me toward life being started by intent and that the DNA had encoded within it all that was necessary for life to sustain itself and evolve into sentient beings. But that is my bias and I readily admit it and admit that it is pure speculation not the most likely of an extremely unlikely event simply because I can't think of any other acceptable means for life to happen.
Bias or not, I can attempt to argue against this rationally, rather than just accusing you of being biased and ignoring your claims/arguments.

Life was started by intent? What intent? Where did this intent come from? How is it manifest? How does this intent interact with the Molecules that lead to life? How do you know life started with DNA? There are many reasons to suppose that life started out nothing like what we know life to be now, and if it was in any way similar, it would probably be RNA based.

If you know it is extremely unlikely, then why do you claim to think that it happened? Surely you can think of a much more reasonable method of life starting: Try cutting out all of the speculation, and look at what is staring you straight in the face, and work with that.

Science starts from an assumption that all is physical and has physical causes that can be known and measured and considers no other possiblity. I personally start from the assumption that I do not know and am willing to consider any and all possibilities no matter how unlikely; and, that there is more to reality than the physical world.
Oh I am sure science considers all, no matter how unlikely: Its just that if there is no REASON to investigate further, there is no point wasting time. Given reason, anything is worth investigating.

More to reality than the physical, like what? Sure, we have our 'minds', but they are inextricably linked to the physical, so much so that it is reasonably to think that they are an illusion of sorts, or just an emergent property of the brain. There is nothing more to them. They are isolated pools of 'seeming' in a world of brutal meaningless facts.

the paradigm of abiogenesis is just that, a paradigm, not an open minded inquiery into all possiblities but a mind set that it must be so because it is the only physical explanation that has been thought up.
Well der. It isn't the job of a theory to be open minded about all possibilities. It is up to a theory to propose an explanation for some phenomenon as best it can. Abiogenesis does that, and people tend to agree with it.

it is up to people to be open minded that it might not be correct, but so far there is no conclusive evidence to make them do so. So far Abiogenesis is still possible, it is still logically consistent, and there is still no other alternative.

It is the narrow mindedness of "scientist" that we object to and their sometimes fanatical adherence to their one view of reality to the point that the deny any other reality and ridicule those who are at least open minded enough to consider other possiblities. The parallelism to religious fanatics is striking and laughable. I, at least, if not we, am idealistic enough to think that science should do better and be more open minded.

I am all with you in agreeence that Scientists need to be open to alternative possibilities, and that they should not be fanatical about anything. And I will claim right here and right now that I believe I am not. To be honest, I don't give a crap whether Abiogenesis is true or not: But I am still yet to hear one good reason why I should deny its validity. And that is the reason I am starting to find this all very very tedious. I hear lots of accusations and lots of bashing, but nothing practical. No reasons. No logic. No basis. No Evidence. Oh sure, lots of time is spent questioning the validity of the evidence that is accepted, but stop talking all airy fairy, and deal with the case at hand.

Using analogies, and talking in vague reference to concepts is useful at times, but now we are dealing with a very specific topic, that deals with a specific claim: Can't we keep it real? Talk about what we want to deal with?


This is not a personal attack or judment agains you personally. I have told you before that I respect your thinking and writing and you seem to be one of the more open minded scientist/philosophers hear.
No fear, I tend to keep my self as much out of this as possible, and thank you. I have to ask you something though: Have you gone through a change recently? I recall having you arguing somewhat different several months back? I'm just curious, you know, wondering if I am still sane or just losing my memory.


To answer your question;"What am I doing wrong?" You keep repeating over and over that abiogenesis is the most likely scenario dispite what anyone else brings up. We don't think that it is the most likely just becuase it is the only possiblity that is considered. You personally will not admit that anyone of us, much less Les, have a valid point. This of course is just my personal observation and opinion and I am sure others will disagree with me and/or have there own observations and opinions. This is after all a forum, a philosophy forum.
But what has been brought up? All i have noticed that has been brought up, is that there might be semantic confusion as to what 'most likely' means. Les has pointed out that no one has made it happen in a lab yet (not a conclusive argument against the theory: No one could measure the speed of light for many hundreds of years but it was still a likely theory that light wasn't infinitely fast for example...)...what else has been brought up?

No, i do not think that those two points are reason enough for me to admit that there is a valid claim against Abiogenesis. I don't believe Abiogenesis is Factually Established, but it is the most likely option available: Not just because it is the only horse in the race, but because it is a logically consistent, valid, reasoned explanation.

And that is my standpoint.
 
  • #129
Ever fall off a horse? Get ready.

Originally posted by Another God
What is so stupid about all of this, this thread, the last 'why the bias against materialism' thread started by Zero that went for 17 pages etc etc, is that I feel like the whole thing is a strawman argument, painting 'Materialism' as some big domineering figure, shaping the minds of everyone it enters, changing them irrevercibly so that they are no longer cappable of rational thought because they only think in one way... And yet, I don't feel like 'Materialism' has ever even entered my mind.

I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows.

I have spent pages here, replying individually to things that have been said. "Oh, you said this about materialism: But i believe this, and this is why I do that etc etc." "You believe that, but that makes no sense because of this and this", but all i get in return is avoidance of the point. No one seems to deal with what I have said directly, but instead swopps on to my posts in big grand intakes, and comments on my style, the concept and how 'I'm still missing the point'.

I hear you. Unfortunately I don't think you're as open as you think you are. I was not trying to nitpick you with semantics. I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood. This is all very simple. So why debate on abiogensis when we all agree on it's validity as a scientific theory? You keep demanding that someone give you a criticism of it and the only criticism is that it is NOT "most likely"(as that term is being used by most of us) But very well may be one day.

Start getting into details and tell me what I am doing wrong. Tell me where I am missing the point. Tell me where my beliefs don't mean anything.

Realize that without semantic understanding, debate is meaningless. This is such a problem on this forum. I will keep beating this drum until either people get it or they get into their 30's LOL. Thank god the two usually go hand in hand.

And please stop with the general 'Materialism Bashing' posts. They are getting tedious to read through. They prove nothing, and we all know who here doesn't like materialism and who does, so you don't need to indicate yourself every couple of pages.

I agree. I'd like to request that no one ever use the word materialism again in a thread until everyone has had a crash course explaining what it actually means.
 
Last edited:
  • #130
Originally posted by Another God
]Logic supports it. Occams razor supports it. Reasonablenes supports it.

Two out of the three are subjective tools and I'm assuming meaningless since subjectivity is useless.

It predicts that there is nothing more to life than chemical organisation.
It predicts more than this because no one here denies this I don't think.

It predicts that non-life, under the right conditions, can give rise to life eventually.

There we go. Probably requires something said about chance and natural processes but this will do.
So, so far we have the facts: Life is chemical in nature. There was a time when there was no life. We now have life. Life has been advancing the whole time, getting more and more complicated: it is as if it is advancing from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A => ? => C... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B, but it must have happened somehow. yes, there is a degree of speculation, but saying 'pure speculation' and 'extremely unlikely' are just empty claims on your behalf which hold no weight.

So, so far we have the facts: My house is made of wood. There was a time when my house didn't exists. My house went through several stages of development getting more complicated; it is as if it was advanced from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A=> ?=> C ... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B but it either is the result of trees falling in bad storms in a perfect arrangement by chance or someone built this beautiful house.

Was this logic supposed to point us in a direction for what B is?

Just because you have decided that I am biased towards material explanations..(Something which I am still unsure as to why that is a bad thing)
Think about this. If you are biased in a certain direction, of course you aren't going to understand why that is a bad thing! That's what it means to be biased.

I don't believe that for a second.
Calling him a liar?:smile: I'm sure Mentat will come in now and tell you to knock it off. Unless, of course, he is biased toward materialists.

Try cutting out all of the speculation, and look at what is staring you straight in the face, and work with that.

I agree with this but I think it applies to everyone involved here. Your casual explanation for what life is, simplifying it to nothing but: 5: Attach simple process
10: Goto 5


is not consistent with anything that I have ever read on this topic. In all honesty, when I see words like yours I think that either you aren't educated on the matter or you only see what you want to see. I could be wrong on both counts. I'm just telling you what my thoughts are because I don't see this view of yours anywhere else but in this forum. I'm not suggesting that scientists don't think this is a theory with potential and worthy of research. But I see them honestly dealing with a theory that has some major hurdles to overcome. And none of them ever shrug off life's complexity with such little respect; as if the road to explanation is paved and clear. Now I still think that Les's point stands about how even though all these problems exist, there is little doubt in their minds that abiogensis is correct.

Sure, we have our 'minds', but they are inextricably linked to the physical, so much so that it is reasonably to think that they are an illusion of sorts, or just an emergent property of the brain. There is nothing more to them. They are isolated pools of 'seeming' in a world of brutal meaningless facts.
And here is a statement of fact about another area that has more questions then answers. I don't understand how anyone can be so certain about anything in this crazy universe and still have clear glasses on.

To be honest, I don't give a crap whether Abiogenesis is true or not:
I don't believe that for a second. (I just copied and pasted this:smile:)

But I am still yet to hear one good reason why I should deny its validity. And that is the reason I am starting to find this all very very tedious. I hear lots of accusations and lots of bashing, but nothing practical. No reasons. No logic. No basis. No Evidence. Oh sure, lots of time is spent questioning the validity of the evidence that is accepted, but stop talking all airy fairy, and deal with the case at hand.
This relates to my previous thread. I say get your definitions consistent with all involved first and then deal with this other stuff. Either we are all talking a different language or everybody but you really is a dumba**.

Have you gone through a change recently? I recall having you arguing somewhat different several months back?
Wow! Someone at PF changing their mind? Is that allowed?

But what has been brought up? All i have noticed that has been brought up, is that there might be semantic confusion as to what 'most likely' means. Les has pointed out that no one has made it happen in a lab yet what else has been brought up?
Grrrrr

No, i do not think that those two points are reason enough for me to admit that there is a valid claim against Abiogenesis.
Good thing they weren't intended to.
 
  • #131
Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen you claim to be a materialist many times. Personally, I wish this word would never get used. Mostly because the people who claim it as their belief don't have the slightest clue what it is. As that thread by Zero so clearly shows.
Ironically, i have only ever used the term because of these forums. I don't really consider myself a 'materialist', I just have my beliefs. This has been explained several times, while you were present, and so I'd think you would know it by now. I don't care whether I really know what a materialist is or not, I just continue thinking the way I think, trying to rationalise out everything I can. I choose to use my perception of reality to do this, and no 'spiritual' claims.


I was trying to show you that the reason for this whole thread was not so much a debate on the validity of abiogensis (as you keep wanting it to be)as it is a semantic problem. I'm gather that Les doesn't have a problem with the theory of abiogensis being a current hot research area. I understood his beef to be that "AS OF TODAY" it cannot be shown to deserve the label "Most likely". That's the beef. You debated that it is "mostly likely" and I showed you that it isn't if you use the term the way it is commonly understood.
If knowledge is never certain, and we can never truly know anything, then every truth claim can only be accepted in degree's of likelihood. Abiogenesis isn't the most likely just because it is the only horse in the race. It is most likely also because it fits the facts thus far presented. Even in its most common usage of the phrase, Abiogenesis is still most likely.

And so, if we all agree on its scientific validity, and there might be a little contention as to its status as 'most likely', but in general we all agree it isn't impossible...What is this all about?
 
  • #132
Originally posted by Fliption
Two out of the three are subjective tools and I'm assuming meaningless since subjectivity is useless.
We are subjective creatures. We have to use subjective methods. The key is to apply them to objective facts. In this case, they are.

There is no meaning without subjectivity. There is nothing to be made meaningful without the Objective reality.


So, so far we have the facts: My house is made of wood. There was a time when my house didn't exists. My house went through several stages of development getting more complicated; it is as if it was advanced from an original form.

Filling in the gap is obvious. It is a logical step. A=> ?=> C ... B must fit in there somewhere. We aren't sure about the details of B but it either is the result of trees falling in bad storms in a perfect arrangement by chance or someone built this beautiful house.

Was this logic supposed to point us in a direction for what B is?
That sounds like a great analogy, but the context is entirely different. In your example, the context is loaded, so that the obvious answer is that Humans built your house: but the very purpose of the original question is to find out where the humans came from. So your analogy doesn't help.

In the original example, there is nothing around which could 'create' stuff. There was only chemicals. And thus, the logic is made once again, much more apparent.


Calling him a liar?:smile: I'm sure Mentat will come in now and tell you to knock it off. Unless, of course, he is biased toward materialists.
No I am not, but you already know that. I am just saying that he, like the rest of us, may occasionally post something in the heat of the moment, and then upon further reflection realize that that doesn't actually reflect their views.

Now I still think that Les's point stands about how even though all these problems exist, there is little doubt in their minds that abiogensis is correct.
But even with problems to overcome, there is no reason to doubt that it happened. That is basically what it comes down to. Life wasn't there, it is now. It had to come from somewhere, and so somewhere down the path it self-organised. HOW EXACTLY it did that, is a challenging task, I agree with that, but I have no reason to doubt that it happened.

The strange thing that I find, is that people seem stuck on thinking of life as something similar to what we know it to be. I doubt ever so much that life was anything like what we think of life as for many millions of years. And I feel safe in thinking that the precursors for life were around for many millions of years too, doing their little 'not quite actually life' types of things that they do.

But how that happened, I have no real idea. I just know that there is nothing difficult to grasp about the idea. There is nothing unheard of that needs to occur in the process.


"All those problems" are problems of how to explain it, not problems of whether it actually happened.
 
  • #133
Originally posted by Another God
[/b]We are subjective creatures. We have to use subjective methods. The key is to apply them to objective facts. In this case, they are. There is no meaning without subjectivity. There is nothing to be made meaningful without the Objective reality.

Then I don't understand. How is the subjective tools you mentioned any better than the subjective tools that Les has mentioned?

That sounds like a great analogy, but the context is entirely different. In your example, the context is loaded, so that the obvious answer is that Humans built your house: but the very purpose of the original question is to find out where the humans came from. So your analogy doesn't help.

Actually, the analogy did exactly what it was intended to do. It was designed to expose the built in assumption that you apparently have that only humans can design things.

In the original example, there is nothing around which could 'create' stuff. There was only chemicals. And thus, the logic is made once again, much more apparent.

How do you know this? How do you know that an alien life form from a neighboring planet didn't exists? Granted, I'm not arguing that this is the case nor that there is evidence of such. I am merely suggesting that huge gaps of abiogensis needn't be ignored simply because it's the only theory available on the basis of the assumption that no creative entity existed before Earth life. Because that assumption just might be wrong!

No I am not, but you already know that. I am just saying that he, like the rest of us, may occasionally post something in the heat of the moment, and then upon further reflection realize that that doesn't actually reflect their views.

True. But I don't think I've ever seen Royce being a victim of the "heat of the moment". As a matter of fact I would guess that this response of yours to him is more a candidate for that than his original comment.:smile:

But even with problems to overcome, there is no reason to doubt that it happened. That is basically what it comes down to. Life wasn't there, it is now. It had to come from somewhere, and so somewhere down the path it self-organised. HOW EXACTLY it did that, is a challenging task, I agree with that, but I have no reason to doubt that it happened.

It seems we are having semantic problems again. I'm not sure what others here would say but I agree with you that life came from non-life. So I agree that "it happened". But I don't think that's what abiogensis is. Even God in the book of Genesis created life from non-life but we don't call that abiogensis. So abiogensis is a theory on "how" it happened. So we aren't talking about explaining "how" abiogensis happens. We're talking about "how" life comes from non-life. And abiogensis is one of the answers to that. Abiogensis would answer "self organization". Now of course science goes on to learn "how" it self organizes but that's asking questions at a more detailed level. You seem to be interchanging these 2 levels and it seems a bit confusing.

So where you and I would part ways in your comments above is that I don't know that the "self-organized" part is as obvious as the rest. That really is the main issue being presented here by Les. I don't think that he would deny that life is made up of non living things. It's the method of organization that we all differ on. Not the beginning ingredients. Just so you know, I'm not saying that I believe abiogensis isn't true. I am simply saying that I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me it is either.

The strange thing that I find, is that people seem stuck on thinking of life as something similar to what we know it to be. I doubt ever so much that life was anything like what we think of life as for many millions of years. And I feel safe in thinking that the precursors for life were around for many millions of years too, doing their little 'not quite actually life' types of things that they do.

Not I. I am completely open to these ideas. In fact, they only make sense. But I don't see this as a relevant issue in defense of abiogensis.

But how that happened, I have no real idea. I just know that there is nothing difficult to grasp about the idea. There is nothing unheard of that needs to occur in the process.
Les is arguing that there are things unheard of that is required. This is a key issue.


"All those problems" are problems of how to explain it, not problems of whether it actually happened.

Again, the word "it" here is referring to life coming from non-life. Not abiogensis or self organization. That's where more proof is needed before you can say it "actually happened". I would say that life coming from nonlife actually happened. I can't say that about self oganization.
 
Last edited:
  • #134
Quick-read a hundred posts or so...

Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes. We are NOT justified in assuming that the failure of empiricism to reveal anything metaphysical means there is nothing metaphysical...
Further, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true just because scientists can’t measure it because the metaphysical influence might not be measurable that way.
Scientism devotees are already committed to explaining things empirically, and so refuse to look at anything not empirical.

Certainly not. Science doesn't make that presumption. Materialists make an alternative pronouncement - anything that has an influence is defined as physical. So, if we assert that an metaphysical entity created the universe/life, then to the materialist, we have merely extended the domain of physical to include that entity.

In short, materialism is not about denying that which prior physical evidence failed to show, but rather to extend the realms of the physical to include all necessary possibilities. God, as creator, is not neccessarily a bad thing to a materialist. Just look at the Spinoza-esque ideas many scientists follow. A God creation theory is in the race, but there is no empirical evidence as yet at all to confirm it, and has low fecundity because we still have to explain where God came from, though as with chemogenesis it has both subjective "evidence" and no disproof as of yet. So, at present, it is behind in the race.

This applies equally to the matter of meditation, and so on. Let me, just point out that I do practice meditation myself, though I do not think of it as sensing but more with a goal of understanding. The point with meditation is that if it did have real meaning, then it would be by the materialist way of thought a physical process. Therefore, the idea of "scientism" ignoring non-empirical evidence is absurd, as all evidence is to the materialist by definition empirical. The issue is then whether meditation matters empirically, and in this the evidence is weak.

I am merely suggesting that huge gaps of abiogensis needn't be ignored simply because it's the only theory available on the basis of the assumption that no creative entity existed before Earth life. Because that assumption just might be wrong!
I will now bash abiogenesis as the most likely precusur to life. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it.
It makes no predictions that can be tested. It has never been duplicated in the lab. her is no way to measure it. It is pure speculation and is extremely unlikely. I think that about sums up to points against abiogenesis in this thread.

Firstly, if we accept LWSleeth's assertion that life is real, as far as the materialist is concerned it must be measurable. Measurable, or influence and reality are in materialist terms the same thing.

Secondly, we must accept abiogenesis is incomplete. Certainly, as a theory, there are gaps. But there is no reason to consider them unsurmountable. In scientific terms, clearly these gaps cannot be ignored, because finding and plugging the gaps is what science is about.

There is evidence to support abiogenesis. There is no conclusive evidence, that's all.

consequently must be content to say these horrible words -- WE DON’T KNOW – and leave the question open to other possible explanations.
I accept this fully. But people will always have opinions, and will always express that opinion. In sort, I agree completely that an absolutist statement on a scientific theory is an insult to the idea of science. I also think it is unfair to apply the label of materialist to those that do so, since they are simultaneously insulting materialism. Whenever anyone says that, try to subconciously add the phrase... IMHO.
 
Last edited:
  • #135
Originally posted by FZ+
accept this fully. But people will always have opinions, and will always express that opinion. In sort, I agree completely that an absolutist statement on a scientific theory is an insult to the idea of science. I also think it is unfair to apply the label of materialist to those that do so, since they are simultaneously insulting materialism. Whenever anyone says that, try to subconciously add the phrase... IMHO.

Since you've posted this FZ, I assume it is obvious to you that few people here use the word materialism correctly or consistently with one another. I tried to show this in that "Bias against materialism" thread for over twenty pages but got no where.

Despite what AG has claimed a few post above, he most certainly HAS claimed himself to be a materialists. I remember reading it specifically. So the word materialism enters the debate usually because people are claiming it as their belief. And to the point about consistency, the people that are most active in claiming materialism in this forum would not agree with much of what you've said. There is no way Zero would allow materialism to be open to a creator. So I think that whenever you see people bashing materialism here, they are really bashing much of the shallow, dogmatic, idealism that generally comes from people in this forum who claim to be materialists.

So while people bashing materialism may be bashing the wrong label, I think the fault generally falls into the other camp for resisting the idea that they aren't labeling themselves properly or consistently.
 
  • #136
There is no way Zero would allow materialism to be open to a creator.
IMHO, I do not think you have understood Zero properly here. Zero, and most materialists oppose a theory of God on the connotation of undetectability. In effect, the god of gaps idea. In effect, you you reword the idea of God creating the universe to Giant Alien with super powers (and a beard :wink:) created the universe, then from purely materialist perspectives there is no problem. The idea may be rather forcibly rejected for other reasons, like there being no evidence such a giant alien exists, but it isn't materialistically invalid. Or the idea that a knowable, but not yet found fundamental law created the universe, which has in fact being the driving hypothesis of many materialist thinkers. In fact many very much materialist thinkers have dispensed with any distinction and simply called such universal codes God.

"God does not play dice."

The problem with many instances of God is that in many cases it is set up as a moving target - we get the additional assertion that God is not provable/disprovable by empirical, and so materialistically real, methods. In terms of materialism, such an entity, if considered real, is a contradiction in terms.

Why not ask Zero?
 
Last edited:
  • #137
Originally posted by FZ+
IMHO, I do not think you have understood Zero properly here. Zero, and most materialists oppose a theory of God on the connotation of undetectability.

Then what you are telling me is that you agree with Zero's definition of materialism. Upon re-reading your post again, I see that your view does indeed resemble his. Unfortunately, this cannot be the proper definition of materialism. It's a little off topic here and we spent over 20 pages on it in that other thread but I will try to point out the obvious. If everything that is measurable and "can be shown to exists" then becomes physical and material by definition, why would anyone ever reject materialism? It is correct by definition. But sure enough philsophy is full of arguments for things other than the material. How can this be when you are defining materialism to mean the same thing as the word 'existence'? Could it be they are using a different definition? I suspect so. If something that exists is by definition material then why would anyone believe that something non-material actually exists when if it did exists it would be material by definition? Why would people believe in something that cannot exists?

Heusdens eventually joined in and agreed with me by explaining that there is a scientific definition and a philosophical definition of materialism and they are not the same. But no one would listen.

Why not ask Zero?

I understand Zero's position fine. I just didn't understand yours. Now I see they are the same.
 
  • #138
Originally posted by Fliption
I would like to re-iterate my point from another thread. I agree with Tom when he says that science does NOT assume materialism. It can be practiced in the matrix as well.
But the Matrix is a strictly materialist metaphor.

LWSleeth

I think your problem with systems of life is the same as that which crops up all over in complexity theory, and it hasn't been solved.

“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman quoted in ‘Complexity' – Roger Lewin)

Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer
 
  • #139
Vitalism isn't quite dead yet, and some recently published papers argue that 'microphenomenalism' or panpsychism is the answer

Sounds like god of the gaps to me. The closer we study life, the more clearly we see it's nothing but chemistry. The problems if there are any with complexity will be solved not by speculation but by empirical investigation.
 
  • #140
Perhaps you're right, but some people argue that there's a logical problem at the bottom of this, and two and two won't make five however much empirical investigation one does.
 

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
855
Replies
1
Views
726
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