The mystery you are talking about is best captured by the concept of "self", supposed to explain what is it exactly that defines spatial boundaries and temporal continuity of an ‘organism’. I agree to understand goddess Nature discerning ‘biological self’ is the primary task, and trying to make sense of ‘mental-self’ without it leaves us with no background context against which mental properties can be understood.

Organisms are a starting point for any exploration of reality because we know with certainty they exist and what they are. — Barry Z

I would disagree with that. You are taking the Cartesian route here, correct? In that case, granting the soundness of this strategy for the sake of an argument, what you can know with certainty is the existence of some "self", which "self" is some pre-theoretic, folk concept of your mental being. But in order to conceive of yourself as an "organism" (as distinct from "ordinary physical matter"), you will need to grant a lot more than that. You will need to conceptualize the world at large; then you will need to conceptualize yourself and certain other entities as belonging to a distinct class of entities within that world. Of course, we also have some pre-theoretic intuitions about people and organisms in general, but even if you extend your warrant of certain knowledge to those folk concepts as well, they won't get you very far in your philosophical exploration. In order to come up with the more sophisticated concepts that you have hinted at here, you will first need all that knowledge about the world and its functioning,

I don't think it's necessary to go back to a solipsistic beginning to make statements about organisms. I'm not even saying that starting with organism is the only way to proceed. What I am saying is there are practical advantages when developing a theory of reality to start with organism.

I would actually be very interested to hear your reasons for disagreeing with the original statement?

I am not sure if it was Alfred N. Whitehead (ANW) who came up originally with the idea of "different motion type".

Atomic physics is based on quantum physics.

Chemistry is all based on atomic physics.

Biology is based on chemistry and macrophysics.

Economy and politics are based on humans.

These are identifiable and distinctly different movement types, that depend on each other, and do not negate or contradict the laws of the other movements, but each of these movements have their own laws; and the laws specific to a movement are INEXPLICABLE by the laws of the other movements.

Organisms are a starting point for any exploration of reality because we know with certainty they exist and what they are. On the other hand if one starts with God or a similar primordial force its existence is always going to be uncertain to the extent it can be inferred. More can be learned about the nature of God from having the context you can only get when starting with organism. The same is true when comparing organism with materialism. More information is gained with organism as a beginning than trying to explain how lifeless matter develops consciousness and will. — Barry Z

I hope I'm not taking this out of context but what you say comes close to Deism - that we begin with the natural world and use reason in an attempt to understand it and anything beyond. Reminds me of the proverb, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; we begin with what is accessible to us - the organism whose definition can be stretched without loss of meaning to apply to the universe itself - and get to grips with that first and only then venture out into problematic areas.

I think Deism comes to mind immediately when exploring a philosophy of organism, though other conceptions of God are not all excluded. The idea of organism on a cosmic scale and its relation to organisms familiar to us on a microcosmic scale was explored by Plato and studied widely through the Middle Ages. Do not know why this line of inquiry was abandoned, but Whitehead picked up on it again in the late 1920’s.

I think Deism comes to mind immediately when exploring a philosophy of organism, though other conceptions of God are not all excluded. The idea of organism on a cosmic scale and its relation to organisms familiar to us on a microcosmic scale was explored by Plato and studied widely through the Middle Ages. Do not know why this line of inquiry was abandoned, but Whitehead picked up on it again in the late 1920’s. — Barry Z

Deism and god does not come to my mind at all. Maybe yours, and I shan't deny that, I mean, how could I. But please accept, BarryZ, that alternate explanations exist, which have no room for the god concept in them. And people tend to believe these godless alternate theories more and more; there is wider and wider acceptance of them in the world because of their superior utility value to deism and god-worship.

More information is gained with organism as a beginning than trying to explain how lifeless matter develops consciousness and will. — Barry Z

More semantic information is gained from understanding biological information than is gained from understanding physical information, because an understanding of biological information presupposes an understanding of physical information.

But with reference to Metaphysics, a general (multi-discipline) concept of information would be more useful than an understanding of biological (or any other type of) information.

I probably should have been more precise. Deism and God are part of a larger set of concepts that may better be called simply a force, of some kind . Maybe a natural force, or cosmic force? Would you accept an explanation that is more than simply life arising from physical matter? If so perhaps we can reach agreement? If not I am happy to engage in that debate.

"But with reference to Metaphysics, a general (multi-discipline) concept of information would be more useful than an understanding of biological (or any other type of) information."

In general I agree you are correct, but just by good fortune there is very specific biological information that can set limits on metaphysical issues relating to origin of life.

In general I agree you are correct, but just by good fortune there is very specific biological information that can set limits on metaphysical issues relating to origin of life. — Barry Z

Cool. Such as?

"" In general I agree you are correct, but just by good fortune there is very specific biological information that can set limits on metaphysical issues relating to origin of life. — Barry Z""

"Cool. Such as?"

Here is a good example of the value of input from biology on metaphysical thought.

In examining the question of whether life can develop from purely physical matter the first thing is to state the means by how this could happen. In a physical world without organisms this could only occur by matter acting in a way that obeys all the physical and chemical laws. We know from physics and chemistry that matter will organize itself into elements and molecules. It does this without purpose through random action, based on the properties of atoms, the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. For atoms to become molecules somewhat similar chemical forces cause their formation. All without purpose. This takes place by random action of atoms and molecules.

In a pre-life environment the only way for molecules to be formed is through random process. All organic compounds which are necessary for life must be assembled by a random process. One of the key organic molecules central to all life is the DNA molecule. It contains the code for everything necessary for life from the production of proteins to the metabolism of the organism. The DNA molecule is a polymer, that is a chain molecule made up of individual monomers known as nucleotides. There are four different nucleotide molecules designated A C G and T. These monomers due to their chemical structures are naturally prone to form chains of DNA. With a single nucleotide substitution polymers of RNA can also be formed. The chains that are formed by these monomers provide a more or less equal attraction to potential additions to the chain. If this were not true DNA would not be a good vehicle to store the code for life.

Strands of DNA range from about 160,000 base pairs (of monomers) for the most basic one celled organism to approx. 3 billion for higher organisms like humans. The probability to produce a particular human DNA chain would be 4^3 billion. Of course lots of other human beings could be produced with the same size DNA strand, but that only reduces the probability to something like 4^2.99 billion a number that is similar to 10^1.799 billion to put in a base ten frame of reference.

So for the smallest presently known one celled life form: each base pair has a one in four chance of being produced by random process. The odds of each successive base pair in the polymer is 1 in 4. So multiplying ¼ 160,000 times yields a probability of 1 in 4^160,000 or 1 in 10^96,000 a very large number. Using a similar kind of argument as originally used by Fred Hoyle, when you compare this to the fact there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe it can be seen by inspection that it will take an extremely long time to produce such a DNA strand by random process. Even allowing for the fact that there could be a trillion or more sustainable life forms that could come from reaching a chain of 160,000 pairs. The end result is it will take many orders of magnitude more time than the 14 billion years old the universe is currently estimated to be for life to originate from a pre life environment. From this point it can be shown that not only should a much older finite universe be considered, but an infinite aged universe should be considered as well. This demonstrates the impact that empirical biological information could have on metaphysical thought.

In a pre-life environment the only way for molecules to be formed is through random process. All organic compounds which are necessary for life must be assembled by a random process.

Randomness is on a different level, not chemistry or biology. Atoms and molecules are bound to strict rules with limited possibilities, and they actively seek to form those possibilities, which is rather opposite of 'random'.

Randomness is on a different level, not chemistry or biology. — Zelebg

Which level? Physics?

Atoms and molecules are bound to strict rules with limited possibilities, and they actively seek to form those possibilities, which is rather opposite of 'random'. — Zelebg

Are:
1) Atoms not considered in Quantum Mechanics (e.g., random decay)?
2) Molecules not considered in Thermodynamics (e.g., random motion)?
3) Random mutations not considered in Evolutionary Theory (Biology)?

Which level? Physics?

Initial conditions mostly. Internal accidents due to radioactive decay, accidents due to external radiation, comet impacts, and such, is randomness chemical determinism is working against and apparently succeeds, around this planet at least, otherwise living cells would fall apart during or even before their first reproduction.

There is randomness, sure, but provided a certain range of ecosystem conditions with certain maximum level of external randomization, then determinacy of chemical reactions will prevail, converging away from random and into inevitable.

This demonstrates the impact that empirical biological information could have on metaphysical thought. — Barry Z

This rather demonstrates a poor understanding of natural sciences. And that in turn underlines the point that I made earlier: before you can understand an organism qua organism, you need to have some understanding of the world around you. Lacking such an understanding, you are apt to come up with the sort of silliness that you wrote above about the origin of life.

Perhaps instead of just telling me of my deficiencies in understanding natural sciences you can explain what made you reach that conclusion?

I would love to hear also how I can understand "organism qua organism" better? Perhaps you can start by explaining what "organism qua organism" means to you?

I probably should have been more precise. Deism and God are part of a larger set of concepts that may better be called simply a force, of some kind . Maybe a natural force, or cosmic force? Would you accept an explanation that is more than simply life arising from physical matter? If so perhaps we can reach agreement? If not I am happy to engage in that debate. — Barry Z

I am on the firm stance that life can happen by combining elements in a random fashion. I have no need for god in my world view. I accept that it is not impossible for god to exist, but if it does, it has shown no sign, no information on its own self to man. Consequently, all beliefs are equally valid, with regard to god, but no belief is more than simply belief, without any substantiation whatsoever.

This is a given, I shan't be deterred from believing what I wrote is true, unless a convincing argument comes along, which has nevertheless so far never been forthcoming.

Even allowing for the fact that there could be a trillion or more sustainable life forms that could come from reaching a chain of 160,000 pairs. The end result is it will take many orders of magnitude more time than the 14 billion years old the universe is currently estimated to be for life to originate from a pre life environment. — Barry Z

This estimate is wrong, by its being random. You don't know how random works; random is not "let's exhaust all possibilities before we reach one that works." Random can happen on the 10^199 millionth attempt, but it is RANDOM, so it can occur on the first attempt, as well as on the second, or not even until the 10^333333th attempt is reached.

You are misrepresenting the math, that's all, or you have been lead astray by someone else who also does not understand the power and actual meaning of RANDOM.

I think Deism comes to mind immediately — Barry Z

I would venture to say that to your mind Deism comes immediately, no matter what the topic of discussion or contention is.

I am not fighting to suppress your reaction to have Deism come to your mind. At all. I am just simply showing you alternative ways to explain what you can only explain with Deism.

Deism is a valid, albeit useless belief. You can do nothing with it, except having it come to your mind.

Deism is a valid, albeit useless belief. You can do nothing with it, except having it come to your mind. — god must be atheist

Let me put it to you why I said that, lest you mistakenly believe I'm mocking you. I am not mocking you nor deism.

But you really can't do too much with it, if anything at all.

Let's show this with the same example of how organisms developed.

We, scientific types, have thoughts that come to mind, that combine and analyze and synthesise processes and events and elements; we try to make some sense of it, with the basis of manipulating only physical stuff.

On the other hand, what if we pulled Deism or the image of god into this? "Well, god formed life. how did he do it? We are rejecting the possibility that matter formed itself, by random combination of elements and molecules, into organisms. We reject that, that did not happen. So there was a lot of elements on earth and in the universe. How did god make it into organisms? What processes did he use?"

The bible gives examples of those processes. We can't replicate those processes. Those are impossible.They are failed examples of how to create life.

So we don't know at all how God created organisms. Do we. No, we don't.

Now let's reverse our rejection of the possibility of the random process. We now accept it.

We have two explanations on our hands:
1. Random processes that are explicable, happening in the physical world.
2. God's work, of which we know nothing about, whatsoever.

Which is more useful, from the looks of it? I'd say 1. is by far and easily the winner over 2.

This is what I mean by the uselessness of Deism. It is not impossible; it is just simply useless for the purpose of man.

Perhaps instead of just telling me of my deficiencies in understanding natural sciences you can explain what made you reach that conclusion? — Barry Z

Sorry to be abrupt, but it's not like you are breaking new ground here. Origin of life research has been under way for close to a century, and there are plenty of sources available to an interested layperson, from online articles and videos to books for any educational level. If the topic interests you, why not read up on it? I am not saying that science has all the answers, but it can do a lot better than the sort of armchair reasoning that you present here.

Off the top of my head, I could point to your implicit assumption that the first organism was similar to one of the presently existing organisms, and that it popped out fully formed, all at once. No one really thinks that that is how first life started. But the more glaring problems with your thesis are even more basic flaws of reasoning.

You are equivocating between two senses of random. One sense is the one with which you start when you mention physics and chemistry: here random means purposeless, unintentional. In this sense, almost everything in the universe is random (aka natural), as far as we can tell. But then, when you talk about DNA "being produced by random process," your sense of random shifts towards unorganized, patternless, chaotic. The impressively large numbers that you cite are produced using the assumption of a very simple combinatorial process, which of course is not how even the simplest physics and chemistry works.

You wouldn't say of stars, planets, mountains and rivers - or even of the dirt under your feet - that they were produced by a process resembling "a tornado in a junkyard" (to use Hoyle's infamous metaphor)? Then why would you propose such a "theory" for the formation of first DNA?

Note that what we've been discussing is not metaphysics - it is just basic science and basic reasoning.

But let's say that you are right in a sense, and that the formation of life by natural means is an extremely unlikely event, given generic conditions on Earth or in the universe at large (although the fact that the first life on Earth seems to have appeared almost as soon as its surface cooled off and stabilized enough to allow even the barest possibility of life kind of suggests otherwise). What conclusion does this warrant?

https://youtu.be/KdocQHsPCNM?t=174

"A force, of some kind," you say. What kind of force? A forcey-force? Is this what you call metaphysics?

I would love to hear also how I can understand "organism qua organism" better? Perhaps you can start by explaining what "organism qua organism" means to you? — Barry Z

Oh, I don't mean anything different than what you mean: a particular kind of object in the world, an entity that, using certain diagnostic criteria, can be distinguished from other, non-living entities. The precise definition doesn't matter. My point was to contrast this perspective with that of Descartes' cogito or with later thinkers' reasoning that seeks to privilege the experience of self as the most certain knowledge that you can have. By contrast, if you consider organisms the way you consider everything else out there in the world, it is not at all clear why you would want privilege them in your epistemological scheme. They certainly don't seem to be the most basic or the most intelligible things in the world (people can't even agree as to what they are, exactly).

"You are misrepresenting the math, that's all, or you have been lead astray by someone else who also does not understand the power and actual meaning of RANDOM. "

You left off the most probable alternative, I simply don't know what I'm talking about!
The problem with the argument that regardless of how improbable something is, "it can always happen on the first try" is that in some situations like this it is always going to be a "correct argument". If i were to add in degradation of the DNA and the primordial pools and then the probability of producing proteins and other necessary precursors of life I suspect no matter how long the odds became from having necessary concurrent and successive processes in place your answer would be the same.

The problem with that type of argument is that it becomes much more probable that in this case an argument for the most theistic God is a lot more probable.

I would venture to say that to your mind Deism comes immediately, no matter what the topic of discussion or contention is.

Deism is a valid, albeit useless belief. You can do nothing with it, except having it come to your mind. — god must be atheist

I am not a Deist. I do find pandeism to have certain attractive aspects, but am not a pandeist either. I do think that if you take pandeism and change the age of the world from finite to infinite on both ends, a lot of very attractive things can fall into place as with organism. Many but the most committed materialists might find such a philosophy interesting.

As for usefulness, I don't think metaphysics is about usefulness. To me it is about curiosity. I just want to know what this is all about.

I would ask you what is the value of knowing the age of the universe? This estimate has come about as a result of considerable scientific effort.

If i were to add in degradation of the DNA and the primordial pools and then the probability of producing proteins and other necessary precursors of life I suspect no matter how long the odds became from having necessary concurrent and successive processes in place your answer would be the same.

Didn't I explain there is no randomness in chemistry or biology? H and O will always produce H2O, and never H4O3 or HO5. Chemical formulas are deterministic like 1+1=2, you know? So what odds are you talking about?

Didn't I explain there is no randomness in chemistry or biology? H and O will always produce H2O, and never H4O3 or HO5. Chemical formulas are deterministic like 1+1=2, you know? So what odds are you talking about? — Zelebg

Yes, but randomness applies to chemical action in a solution, colloid, and perhaps a mixture, how the particles come in contact in order to get to the point where they can interact. Think Brownian motion.

Ahead of its time. I wonder how this fits into string theory.

Yes, but randomness applies to chemical action in a solution, colloid, and perhaps a mixture, how the particles come in contact in order to get to the point where they can interact. Think Brownian motion.

That’s the situation in every living cell. Everything floats entangled in a mess, stuff just bumping around randomly, and yet we do not fall apart. Determinism is maintained through saturation levels of necessary compounds, so on average molecules will find the place where they belong in a certain period of time.

There is both attraction and repulsion at play here, so molecules are not only attracted to the places where they are wanted, they are also repulsed away from the places where they do not belong.

So what about abiogenesis? Provided some chemical environment with certain dynamics, temperature, and certain saturation levels of certain compounds, what results is not different random mess every next time, but the same thing every single time, with only slight variations.

Just like snowflakes, they are all “random”, and yet none fail to become a beautiful crystal pattern. The chance, or set of coincidences responsible for life on Earth has to do with the planet itself, with its formation and cosmic geology on a larger scale. Once certain conditions were met, life simply had no choice but to happen.

The only odds working against aggregation of molecules into living things are the odds of a certain planet not providing necessary conditions, but if it does the chemistry will lift off and fly into biology. What is the chance of such planets in this universe? Larger than zero, apparently.

I would ask you what is the value of knowing the age of the universe? This estimate has come about as a result of considerable scientific effort. — Barry Z

I'd say about $25.77, plus tax.

(This was sarcasm, and an attempt at humour. How do you put a value on something like that? And why exactly am I, and not you, for instance, tasked to answer that question? What sort of a puzzle is this? Are you trying to catch me on saying something stupid for an unanswerable question? Well I did say something stupid... that must be of SOME value to you, otherwise you woudn't have asked me to do it.)