No, I'm not - I'm an agnostic. I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe. — Chris Hughes

Do you think this is the kind of process that science could explore? If not, why not? You mentioned maths being the mere scaffolding.

But even if maths/science doesn't give us the kind of answers we want, they seem more trustworthy than more poetic answers that may make us feel better. When I hear critiques of science in regards to origins or ultimate meanings, I often get the impression that those criticizing would somehow like the trustworthiness of science on the side of their preferred poetic 'explanations.'

We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is — I like sushi

No such inference is justified by any empirical facts or set of facts. The opposite is true; the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention".

What is meaning is a matter for epistemology. — I like sushi

Epistemology deals with empirical investigation and observation. Semantics deals with definition and stipulation. So, what is meaning is dealt with by the latter, not the former.

Design presupposes a designer... Same ground. Logical possibility.

That’s simply wrong. Epistemology is a broad area inclusive of what I said - if you look up any definition of epistemology you’ll see this (take wiki, Stanford or Britannia as examples) they all state that part of epistemology is the question of what ‘knowledge’ means. It is possible to ask a question that dips into differing subject areas.

Design presupposes a designer.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a brilliant design process that requires no designer.

When I hear critiques of science in regards to origins or ultimate meanings, I often get the impression that those criticizing would somehow like the trustworthiness of science on the side of their preferred poetic 'explanations.'

How true! We pompously say, "science hasn't yet discovered...". Yes, I like to imagine that, say, cosmology or particle physics will (eventually!) confirm my metaphysical speculation.

... the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention".

I haven't invoked supernatural intervention. (However, as an agnostic, I don't rule it out.)

Re "meaning" and which academic field it belongs to, I'm suggesting that the improbablity of the occurrence of DNA inplies the possibility of a meaningful universal consciousness - and that that "meaning" is the same quality as that behind the creation of the works of Shakespeare, which makes their reproduction by randomness as improbable as the ocurrence of DNA.

Not interested. Like I said, try someone else.

Good luck :)

Thanks. :cool:

Was it predictable that a life form would get the ability to use complex language? — Chris Hughes

When we have just one example, a fairly difficult question. Just as difficult as the question how probable is life to emerge when a planet has the ingredients needed for life (as we know it) and is in the "goldilocks-zone".

Any kind of trace of life (past or present) in our solar system would obviously radically change our ideas about this.

Not enough. There's no possible way in which we can exist. — R3DNAX3LA9

I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe. — Chris Hughes

Probabilities are only probable when you don't incorporate all the facts. — Harry Hindu

How do you know how probable, or possible, the occurrence of DNA is? It doesn't seem to occur out in the vacuum of space, but on certain planets with certain conditions, it seems certain that it does.

Well, you've done better than anyone else - come up with the explanation for the origin of DNA. — Chris Hughes

You're asking a very tough question. No one knows the answer right now, but we also didn't know that we evolved until someone did the hard work of observing nature for many years and documenting everything and offering up the idea that has now been tested for a 160 years. Doing a quick Google came up with this that seems to suggest that viruses may have had a role to play:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

If the complexity of some system requires a designer, then why wouldn't the designer require a designer? The design argument leads to an infinite regress of designers.

It seems like a better explanation would be that the (multi-)universe is a certain way and is all there is, and we are discovering (through consistent observation and trying to limit our biases of how we want it to be) how things are. When I say that it's a certain way, I don't mean to imply that it could be any other way. That would just be our anthropomorphic tendency to project our imagination onto the universe and use our ignorance as a basis for the existence of possibilities, which are really just imaginings that don't take into consideration, or have access to, how things actually are.

How do you know how probable, or possible, the occurrence of DNA is?

It's high improbability arises from the difficulty of getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA).

Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA. — Banno

Don't look to meaning, look to use. — Banno

That your OP stands on a misconstrual of meaning. Meanign is constructed by people; DNA has no meaning.

You might be able to build a similar argument using information instead, but you will still have to avoid the further objection of teleology. Causation does not work backwards; The desirability of a certain outcome does not bring that outcome about. — Banno

What do you mean by "use"?

"Use" for me entails causation. You conceive of a goal, then you use your brain, words, screwdriver, etc. to achieve the goal, observe the effects of your action and if the goal hasn't been realized then adjust your plan and repeat until it is.

Desire, or intent, does play a role in the outcomes of the world - or else how can you accuse people of say, racism?

Meaning/information is an inherent part of reality as the relationship between cause and effect, and as being part of this reality we are effects of prior causes and are causes of new effects. The rings in the tree stump mean the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year, whether some observer is there using that information to achieve some goal or not.

It's high improbability arises from the difficulty of getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA). — Chris Hughes

Difficulty is another anthropomorphic projection. Difficulty lies in our ability to understand the processes that actually did happen due to the lack of observational evidence, not in the actual process.

Difficulty lies in our ability to understand the processes that actually did happen due to the lack of observational evidence

The difficulty with tbe origin of DNA lies not in the (inevitable!) lack of observation, but in the lack of a plausible theory.

I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it.

I'm grateful for the four pages of responses, but there's a lot of unimaginative knee-jerk mechanism.

That’s simply wrong. Epistemology is a broad area inclusive of what I said - if you look up any definition of epistemology you’ll see this (take wiki, Stanford or Britannia as examples) they all state that part of epistemology is the question of what ‘knowledge’ means. It is possible to ask a question that dips into differing subject areas. — I like sushi

Is it a matter of epistemology as to whether "what 'knowledge' means" is a matter of epistemology? How would you determine a definitive answer? It's a matter of interpretation: a semantic, hermeneutical or phenomenological matter, I would say. Or you might say it is a meta-epistemological matter.

I haven't invoked supernatural intervention. (However, as an agnostic, I don't rule it out.) — Chris Hughes

Read the exchange again.

We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is — I like sushi


No such inference is justified by any empirical facts or set of facts. The opposite is true; the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention". — Janus

I haven't said you invoked supernatural intervention. You said we know enough about chemistry to infer that no supernatural intervention is involved. I said that we do not know enough to infer that, and that, on the contrary, the empirical facts we do know and the fact of our lack of comprehensive understanding of those facts give us no reason to invoke supernatural intervention.

I am not opposed to "magical thinking"; on the contrary I think it is indispensable to human life; what I am opposed to is the reification of magical thinking exemplified in such ideas as "the supernatural".

"meaning" is the same quality as that behind the creation of the works of Shakespeare, which makes their reproduction by randomness as improbable as the ocurrence of DNA. — Chris Hughes

I don't know what this even means, let alone whether I think it is true or not. Perhaps your notion of "randomness' or chaos is somewhat literal, that is unnuanced?

The works of Shakespeare exist because they have meaning. That meaning comes from human consciousness and its medium, language. — Chris Hughes

meaning is meaningless

meaning is mysticism

anytime anyone is talking about meaning (mental masturbation) they are not talking about what actually exists and in what way it exists.

language has no intrinsic meaning, its just shapes and sounds.

knowledge has no meaning its just a map of the territory

there is no meaning outside of the mind nor inside of it. its just an ambiguous word used by the ignorant to support their magical mysticism.

when people talk about meaning its like talking about superman. sure you can talk about it but its not actually real. the smart thing to do would be to break meaning down into what it actually is. explain the processes of the mind and how they work.

I give up. Delete me now.

getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA). — Chris Hughes

Evolution isn't impossible without DNA. I posted about this upthread, let me quote myself:

all it would take is some circular chain of chemical reactions (A + B + energy = C + D, C + D + energy = E + F, E + F + energy = A + B, etc) to start off an evolutionary process, where the chemicals in those chains proliferate more and any chemicals that enable faster/shorter/more efficient chains would then proliferate even more until you end up with some kind of self-replicating molecule dominating the environment, and what we ended up with was DNA in that role. The question is just which steps exactly lead to that particular outcome. — Pfhorrest

If the complexity of some system requires a designer, then why wouldn't the designer require a designer? The design argument leads to an infinite regress of designers. — Harry Hindu

Or, also popular, properties attributed to the Designer that we can't really make sense of. An explanation that's no longer intelligible is no longer an explanation. And that offends because it dresses up we-don't-know in the trappings of clarification.

The difficulty with tbe origin of DNA lies not in the (inevitable!) lack of observation, but in the lack of a plausible theory. — Chris Hughes

Theories are based on observations.

I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it. — Chris Hughes

The problem isn't that others aren't getting what you are saying. If that was the problem, then why didn't you say so earlier rather than respond to me as if I understood what you were saying? You never led me to believe that I didn't understand what you were saying. There comes a point where you should re-think your position - not grip tighter to a position that is fallacious.

I'm grateful for the four pages of responses, but there's a lot of unimaginative knee-jerk mechanism. — Chris Hughes

By who?

Or, also popular, properties attributed to the Designer that we can't really make sense of. An explanation that's no longer intelligible is no longer an explanation. And that offends because it dresses up we-don't-know in the trappings of clarification. — Eee

Yes, that too. :up: It offends me because it insults my intelligence to use explanations that aren't intelligible.

Yes, that too. :up: It offends me because it insults my intelligence to use explanations that aren't intelligible. — Harry Hindu

To clarify the offensiveness, perhaps it's also about the apparent self-deception of those that employ it. I am invested in not being self-deceived --or at least minimizing self-deception.So it pains me to see unclarity presented as rationality. I don't believe perfect clarity is possible, but the pursuit of clarity seems to distinguish philosophy from religion.

Yes, they are not being intellectually honest with themselves, so how would one expect them to intellectually honest with me? They aren't asking the questions I asked myself and others when I did believe and sought clarity. It's not just religion, but in politics as well. Politics is just another form of religion and I consider myself apolitical. Most, if not all, political discussions are based on subjective emotions and devolve into an emotional shouting match based on this idea that we are different when we aren't. We are made to think that we are thanks to those elitists in the nation's capital who manipulate citizens into pointing the finger at each other rather than at them where the blame for how things are belongs. Many athiests have simply swapped one Big Brother for another.

I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it. — Chris Hughes

You could use the property of Quantum Mechanical systems to evolve through time through the simple act of observation. Hope that's not too New Age for your sensibilities. A lot of physicists hate people doing this, and I don't really get why...

They aren't asking the questions I asked myself and others when I did believe and sought clarity. — Harry Hindu

Indeed. I started from belief, brought up a certain way. But, as Zizek jokes somewhere, it's the believers that the faith should watch out for. Because the believers, if they are possessed by the philosophical urge for clarity, will actually think about those beliefs. And that's when they fall apart.

Politics is just another form of religion — Harry Hindu

I agree, and I think this should be obvious. But the confused concept of the supernatural obscures how religion organizes group activity in the real world in the same way that a politics based on unquestioned secular concept/ideals does. Transcendence, justice, freedom, fairness, etc. Their force remains, even if one withdraws a traditional religious imagery from them.

I consider myself apolitical. — Harry Hindu

I relate to this, though it's complex. As a philosopher, I feel that I must be, in some sense, apolitical. I need distance from the fevers that insist on taking this or that 'magic word' for granted, as unquestionable, as an absolute. At the same time, I still vote for the lesser evil, knowing, however, that my vote is highly unlikely to make a difference. I worry far more about how I spend my money and treat others within my tiny little piece of the world.

Most, if not all, political discussions are based on subjective emotions and devolve into an emotional shouting match based on this idea that we are different when we aren't. We are made to think that we are thanks to those elitists in the nation's capital who manipulate citizens into pointing the finger at each other rather than at them where the blame for how things are belongs. — Harry Hindu

I think sometimes how simple the situation is. All the working people, the vast majority of us, could just tax the rich more. But the culture war distracts and seduces us. I think this is because: Once a person attains a certain level of material comfort, they tend to prioritize symbols of virtual superiority. You mention that we are made to exaggerate our differences. While I do think our tendency to do so serves the elite, I also think it's a natural tendency, a natural human vanity. We need an out-group. Perhaps the essence of any group is not what it includes but what it excludes.

Many athiests have simply swapped one Big Brother for another. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Behind it all, I see humanism, even if it doesn't go by that name. Feuerbach & Stirner offer a portrait of the conflict at its birth or rebirth. And I too, a philosophy-loving atheist, am also a humanist. So, from my point of view, our position is an internal criticism. I 'accuse' (with a triple smile) some of my fellow humanists of being insufficiently self-conscious.