Are you familiar with the replication crisis? How do you reckon that would play out in respect of this question? — Wayfarer

It plays out just fine. I don't accept claims unless there is evidence. If claims can't be reproduced they need to be shelved. Bad science exists, especially when tied to commercial stakeholders, esp drug companies. Or Young Earth Creationists. But the beauty of the method is that scientists are continually trying to falsify other scientist's results and their own. This makes it harder to justify nonsense because it will generally be exposed.

Young Earth Creationists. — Tom Storm

Young earth creationists have no evidence, obviously. Here’s a hypothetical: Dawkins always proclaims he would change his mind in the event of evidence. Now, one of the heresies inadmissible theories of evolution is called ‘orthogenesis’. This is the idea that evolution develops towards particular ends - such as for example higher intelligence or self-awareness. As we all know, h. Sapiens exhibits these attributes, and also appears at the very last stages of the billions of years of evolutionary development. So if you were to try and provide evidence for orthogenisis, what would it take to convince Richard Dawkins that it’s real?

one of the inadmissible theories of evolution is called ‘appendecto-genesis’. This is the idea that evolution develops towards particular ends - such as for example gaining then loosing the function of the appendix. As we all know, h. Sapiens exhibits these attributes, and also appears at the very last stages of the billions of years of evolutionary development. So if you were to try and provide evidence for appendecto-genesis, what would it take to convince you that it’s real?

Young earth creationists have no evidence, obviously — Wayfarer

The point is there's a lot of stuff being called scientific that isn't.

what would it take to convince Richard Dawkins that it’s real? — Wayfarer

You need to put that to Dawkins. It's not my subject. But generally science is open to revision and new information. If It Is Proven. The time to believe something is when there is evidence.

if you were to try and provide evidence for appendecto-genesis, what would it take to convince you that it’s real — Isaac

I wouldn’t bother, unless I was a bench scientist. It’s not philosophically interesting.

The time to believe something is when there is evidence. — Tom Storm

What would evidence of orthogenesis comprise? I mean, the difference between orthogenesis and mainstream theory is a process which unfolds towards an overall purpose, and a process which just happens to develop. You would agree that it’s a significant difference, would you not? I mean, in a criminal trial, ‘intent’ is often, or always, central. Here, we’re talking about the development of life generally. It’s one of the dogmas of evolutionary materialism that life is not guided, that it happens by chance, that it develops by fortuitous changes. ‘Rewind the tape of life’, said Gould, ‘and it might replay completely differently.’ Might it? What evidence is there for that?

What evidence is there for that? — Wayfarer

I don't know,I am not a biologist. But here's the thing. If we discover that something is true we accept it.

‘One funeral at a time’, according to Thomas Kuhn. :wink:

Very much appreciate your courtesy and interest.

if you were to try and provide evidence for appendecto-genesis, what would it take to convince you that it’s real — Isaac


I wouldn’t bother, unless I was a bench scientist. It’s not philosophically interesting. — Wayfarer

So what you personally find interesting is the measure of what should be globally acknowledged as acceptable theory?

Sounds very egotistical

Sounds very egotistical — Isaac

It would be from the viewpoint of the ego. But, you know, ‘He who saves his own life will lose it’. Or alternatively,

Buddha then asked, “What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say ‘I have entered the stream’?”

“No, Buddha”, Subhuti replied. “A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything.

Diamond Sutra

Very much appreciate your courtesy and interest. — Wayfarer

You too, Sir. I appreciate your patience and knowledge.

But even if you cannot accept absurdism, because it appears counter-anecdotal to any experience that you have with the universe, this still leaves the question - do you accept any ecocentric (i.e. non-antropocentric) or self-denigrating forms of theism - dystheism, panpsychism, pandeism, etc. To me, it appears that most theists are comparatively optimistic. Why? Isn't that indication for bias? — simeonz

I would still ask you, as per my above question, if you are biased to accept only optimistic resolutions of your theist concerns, why shouldn't people suspect you that you prioritize your interest in solving your existential anxiety over the stoic pursuit for truth. I am talking about priorities here, not about your potential for actual attainment of stoicism. Do you admit any potential hypothesis that doesn't grant you dignity and peace of mind?

You're aware of the phrase 'the hermeneutics of suspicion'? What if the motivation of this criticism arises not from science per se, but from the 'Enlightenment values' which seek to objectify and instrumentalise. — Wayfarer

There is difference between unfounded suspicion and reasonable suspicion. Suspicion is reasonable when you have already observed the deceptiveness of confidence from our mental faculties or when we have no prior experience with the analysis of phenomena of some kind. Do you mean to propose that human beings are not biased towards self-affirmation and that vanity does not distort their perception? You haven't encountered it in your routine interactions with people? Why not be consequently at least somewhat skeptical about the optimism in your own convictions?

'Cosmos is all there is' saith Carl Sagan. But this is again just scientism speaking - 'cosmos' means 'an ordered whole', and that concept can hardly be maintained in modern cosmology, which according to some critics is Lost in Math. — Wayfarer

I said, might be, but I am not sure. What I don't understand is how such hypothesis, as the idea that the universe is self-contained, can be so decisively and completely negated in favor of another similarly unproven hypothesis. I may have my inclinations, but as you can see, I practice what I preach. I am skeptical. Theism may be right and there might be benevolent deity, but in consideration of all the possible theist possibilities, being so specific about aspects of the universe of which we have no prior perception whatsoever is not just biased, it is extravagant. Hypotheses have to be made with minimalism at mind. I would always ask question for each assumed property of theism.
Why antropocentrism and not ecocentrism? Why benevolent and not immoral deity? Why singularly directed omnipotent will and not many conflicting potencies? Why reasonable and not unreasonable foundation?

All I am saying is that the scientific method remains the single most reliable pathway to truth. Can you name an alternative that can provide us with reliable knowledge about the world? — Tom Storm

I see that this thread has moved on apace since last I joined the party. Really informative and enjoyable posts :) For someone who has just stepped into the Philosophy of Science for the first time I appreciate
the clarity and ease of communication.
I will venture a response:

First - not really comfortable with the word 'truth'. How do you understand it ? Is it about getting things right or the reaching of a specific goal, a solution to a problem or knowledge of how the world is ?

From what I understand so far, the realist position is that evidence or measurable data is key.
So, we are talking about objective, quantitative elements. That is one way of knowing.
In this respect, I agree that scientific practices are powerful in informing us about e.g. viruses and vaccines. Certain truths about the natural world. Reliable in that it can be shown to work - a current and wonderful way to diagnose and help heal. But is it uniformly reliable across the board ?

Next - Can I name an alternative that can provide us with reliable knowledge about the world ?
Not immediately but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Is measurement the only way that scientists reach solutions to problems ?
If I look at the question from a different perspective.
From the goal of 'truth' to that of reaching a specific goal - a solution to a problem.

There are 7 examples of scientific discoveries made in dreams.
https://www.famousscientists.org/7-great-examples-of-scientific-discoveries-made-in-dreams/

The one I remember from previous studies is that of August Kekulé and the problem of how the atoms in benzene are arranged.

He began dreaming of atoms dancing. Gradually the atoms arranged themselves into the shape of a snake. Then the snake turned around and bit its own tail.

The image of the snake, tail in its mouth, continued to dance before his eyes. When Kekulé awoke, he realized what the dream had been telling him:

Benzene molecules are made up of rings of carbon atoms.

Understanding these aromatic rings opened up an enormously important new field of chemistry – aromatic chemistry – and a new understanding of chemical bonding. — The Doc

So, a different pathway - things that inspire geniuses from the subconscious.

Quantitative data collection and measurement is fine as a bedrock of scientific progress.
Qualitative, subjective elements also enter the picture.

The question arises as to whether a naturalist or materialist can account for subjective experience, that is consciousness. Clearly, we don't have a satisfactory explanation...yet.
Where the solution might come from...is probably science...but not necessarily so.

Do you mean to propose that human beings are not biased towards self-affirmation and that vanity does not distort their perception? — simeonz

Don't you think Socrates or the Buddha would not be aware of this? Don't you think philosophers consider this? In our age, science is held up as this kind of impartial arbiter of everything real, but whose measure is that, really? Whose units make the measurement, who decides what is worthy of study?

You haven't encountered it in your routine interactions with people? Why not be consequently at least somewhat skeptical about the optimism in your own convictions? — simeonz

The convictions I truly trust are not merely originating from myself, I hope. Being self-critical is part of the path. That is why the true philosopher 'abandons herself'. It's actually the same as in science. When a scientist reports some result to get a grant or publish something, then they're no longer disinterested. They might still do something important, but the motivation is incorrect.

Theism may be right and there might be benevolent deity, but in consideration of all the possible theist possibilities, being so specific about aspects of the universe of which we have no prior perception whatsoever is not just biased, it is extravagant. — simeonz

The benevolent deity of Christianity is not a reassuring hotel manager who ensures that all the guests are comfortable. His benevolence might destroy everything you hold dear - only to finally show you something which is more important than what you hold dear. But there is no gaurantee. You can lose everything, that is the point. Otherwise, what are you risking? (This is something I learned from the Hindu teaching of Siva.) My reading of the God of Christianity is that God is often terrible, he's often not 'a nice guy' or a reassuring presence, and those who seek to know him are put through ordeals. Whereas, the devil is a nice guy. He makes you feel as though everything is OK. That says something about the culture we live in.

By the way, I like your posts.

not really comfortable with the word 'truth'. How do you understand it ? Is it about getting things right or the reaching of a specific goal, a solution to a problem or knowledge of how the world is ? — Amity

I like the Sansrkit expression, being-knowing-bliss, sat-chit-ananda. In this compound, 'sat' is 'what is' meaning 'truth' not in the sense of 'a true proposition' but vision of the totality. This of course is generally alien to analytic philosophy, it's much more theosophical.

First - not really comfortable with the word 'truth'. How do you understand it ? Is it about getting things right or the reaching of a specific goal, a solution to a problem or knowledge of how the world is ? — Amity

A sign of the times. Postmodernism has 'taught' us that we live in a relativist world and for at least 40 years many people have been afraid to call anything truth or a fact for fear of offending or being wrong. And there's the whole post-truth, alternative facts, science denying caper. As the man said to his doctor when told to quit smoking for health reasons, "That's just your opinion, Man."

Truth to me is small t not big T. As I wrote before - we were able to send men to the moon and back and yet some wonder if reality really exists or if it is really possible to make secure predictions using inductive reasoning.

When it comes to making choices in life we can determine what ideas are helpful or even probable based upon evidence. It's a fact that if you swallow certain poisons you die. It's a fact that people with type 1 diabetes require insulin. If you are going to cross a busy road, do you use faith and close your eyes as you step into the traffic or do you use careful observation with experience and then cross?

And sure, we can all make mistakes or get things wrong and there is no such thing as 100% certainty. And not everything may be knowable and just because it isn't knowable right now doesn't mean we are at liberty to insert a fallacy from incredulity and determine that the only explanation we can think of is the spirit world or magic.

So, a different pathway - things that inspire geniuses from the subconscious. — Amity

There are a plethora of stories about dreams and coincidence and happy magical accidents impacting on the arts or discoveries or life altering events. Jung was fond of synchronicity. I generally say, so what? Can we actually test if such whimsical stories are true? And even if they are, do they really offer us a method for determining what actions to take and what to believe? I say no. The problem with thinking you are inspired by visions is, firstly this can't be tested, and secondly this could make you either Gandhi or Charles Manson.

I like the Sansrkit expression, being-knowing-bliss, sat-chit-ananda. In this compound, 'sat' is 'what is' meaning 'truth' not in the sense of 'a true proposition' but vision of the totality. This of course is generally alien to analytic philosophy, it's much more theosophical. — Wayfarer

A sign of the times. — Tom Storm

OK. Thanks to both for your different perspectives. I think I will leave it there for now.

The problem with thinking you are inspired by visions is, firstly this can't be tested, and secondly this could make you either Gandhi or Charles Manson. — Tom Storm

And secular culture has no way of differentiating the two!

And secular culture has no way of differentiating the two! — Wayfarer

Well I just did, so that can't be right. Even the secular world has access to the homily: 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.'

Through subjects including cognitive science and psychology, although there will always be a controversy about the degree to which psychology is real science. And what these approaches 'leaves out' is precisely the subject of Chalmer's paper, 'Facing up to the Hard Problem of Consciousness'. — Wayfarer

Their criticism applies equally to this general picture, it is true. But it is that general picture that Chalmers' criticism is addressing. — Wayfarer

So are you saying that Chalmers is arguing the following?:

“One way of formulating the hard problem is to ask: if we had a complete, canonical, objective, physicalist account of the natural world, including all the physical facts of the brain and the organism, would it conceptually or logically entail the subjective facts of consciousness? If this account would not entail these facts, then consciousness must be an additional, non-natural property of the world.”

Or that he is agreeing with this?:

“One problem with this whole way of setting up the issue, however, is that it presupposes we can make sense of the very notion of a single, canonical, physicalist description of the world, which is highly doubtful, and that in arriving (or at any rate approaching) such a description, we are attaining a viewpoint that does not in any way presuppose our own cognition and lived experience. In other words, the hard problem seems to depend for its very formulation on the philosophical position known as transcendental or metaphysical realism.”

My impression was that Chalmers is sympathetic to the first position,not the second , that he is arguing from a realist perspective that consciousness is an additional property in the world.

Well I just did, so that can't be right. Even the secular world has access to the homily: 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' — Tom Storm

Fair point.

I don’t see consciousness as ‘an additional property in the world’, and I don’t think that’s how Chalmers depicts it. Chalmers' issue is the how to provide an explanation of 'what it is like to be' something. 'In this central sense of "consciousness",' he says, 'an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience".'

This has been also been validated scientifically. If you look at this paper, you will see that this cognitive scientist acknowledges the cogency of the 'hard problem' which appears as the 'neural binding problem' in neuroscience:

There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function.

I don’t see consciousness as ‘an additional property in the world’, and I don’t think that’s how Chalmers depicts it. Chalmers' issue is the how to provide an explanation of 'what it is like to be' something. — Wayfarer

Zahavi argues that Chalmers sees intentionality and phenomenology as separable properties in the world. It seems to me the paper you linked to also does this.

“Chalmers's discussion of the hard problem has identified and labeled an aspect of consciousness that cannot be ignored. However, his way of defining and distinguishing the hard problem from the easy problems seems in many ways indebted to the very reductionism that he is out to oppose. If one thinks that cognition and intentionality is basically a matter of information processing and causal co-variation that could in principle just as well go on in a mindless computer–or to use Chalmers' own favored example, in an experienceless zombie–then one is left with the impression that all that is really distinctive about consciousness is its qualitative or phenomenal aspect. But this seems to suggest that with the exception of some evanescent qualia everything about consciousness including intentionality can be explained in reductive (computational or neural) terms; and in this case, epiphenomenalism threatens.

To put it differently, Chalmers's distinction between the hard and the easy problems of consciousness shares a common feature with many other recent analytical attempts to defend consciousness against the onslaught of reductionism: They all grant far too much to the other side. Reductionism has typically proceeded with a classical divide and rule strategy. There are basically two sides to consciousness: Intentionality and phenomenality. We don't currently know how to reduce the latter aspect, so let us separate the two sides, and concentrate on the first. If we then succeed in explaining intentionality reductively, the aspect of phenomenality cannot be all that significant. Many non-reductive materialists have uncritically adopted the very same strategy. They have marginalized subjectivity by identifying it with epiphenomenal qualia and have then claimed that it is this aspect which eludes reductionism. But is this partition really acceptable, are we really dealing with two separate problems, or is experience and intentionality on the contrary intimately connected“

https://www.academia.edu/9561065/Intentionality_and_phenomenality_A_phenomenological_take_on_the_hard_problem

the 'hard problem' which appears as the 'neural binding problem' in neuroscience — Wayfarer

This resolves the neural binding problem:

In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. Initially, electrical properties in aggregates of tissue such as the brain needed to be robust enough that a stable supervenience of electromagnetic field (EMF) was created by systematic electron fluxing. Quantum effects in molecules of the body are sensitive to trace EMF energy sources, creating a structural complex of relatively thermodynamic mass containing pockets of relatively quantum biochemistry integrated by sustained radiation.

EMF/quantum hybridization is likely responsible for our synthetic experience of qualia, how we perceive unfathomably minute and diverse fluctuating in environments as a perpetualized substrate, perturbed by its surroundings but never vanishing while we are awake and lucid, the essence of perceptual “stream of consciousness”.

Nonlocal phenomena are ever underlying the macroscopic substance of qualitative consciousness, its EMF properties as well as bulked matter in which nonlocality is partially dampened, and quantum processes in cells interface perception instantiated in bodies with nonlocality of the natural world which is still enigmatic to scientific knowledge.

Quantum features of biochemistry have likely been refined evolutionarily so that mechanisms by which relative nonlocality affects organisms, mechanisms of EMF/matter interfacing, mechanisms targeting particular environmental stimuli via functionally tailored pigments along with further classes of molecules and cellular tissues, and mechanisms for translation of stimulus into representational memory all became increasingly coordinated until an arrangement involving what we call ‘intentionality’ emerged, a mind with executive functions of deliberative interpretation and strategizing, beyond mere reflex-centric memory conjoined to stimulus/response.

Qualitative consciousness precedes the degree of unification we experience as humanlike awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of nonlocal reality while an organism is almost entirely lacking the centralized control we would classify as intention.

Perhaps include electric charge distribution as an EMF mechanism and you've got a viable model, with intentionality being an emergent property of neuromaterial structure infused by qualia, which as I said earlier are additive superpositions amongst entangled waves and wavicles, not an epiphenomenon but a facet of matter's causation in similarity to shape and size.

You can't reject this idea while giving consideration to the hard problem of consciousness unless you're totally screwing around lol

and all other contributors

I have watched with interest and awe at the passionate exchanges which you have conducted on theoretical and principled grounds, but I feel that you have largely strayed from the original topic.

There have been comments about commentators, and the appropriate use of different philosophies and methodologies. You have strayed into trying to distinguish life from no life, and huge diversions into the nature of consciousness, along with some attempts to smear the debate by trying to say that there are hidden agendas to justify God and creationism if we dare to stray beyond the boundaries of materialism.

On that last point I feel obliged to point out that there are several other potentially valid philosophical options across the range of thinking. You may have a preference from within the range, (materialism included), but if the evidence does not disprove a workable option, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

I should also correct one point that seems to recur – Dualism does not advocate God or spirit, it only says that there is a second type of stuff underpinning our existence (beyond matter/energy). What characteristics that other stuff may have is open to secondary debate, but inevitably those characteristics must seek to plug apparent gaps in the principles that restrict Matter/Energy as we know it.

Your debates were intriguing to watch but they were also the reason why I stayed out of the fray until now. To me it all seemed to miss the purpose of the debate. However I sense that we are beginning to return to some practical issues and real evidence. So here are some further contributions from me.

Enrique, (if I understood him correctly), initially offered the suggestion that some of the early developments in the mechanisms of life might have emerged as a result of superpositions within the sterile chemical environment that could ‘consider’ a myriad of permutations simultaneously, allowing some more advanced molecules to emerge in rapid timeframes.

Even if that was correct, it is the distinguishing factors between 'one outcome that was ignored' and 'another that was progressed', that intrigues me, but which has not been explored by any of you – ie. what is the basis of such non-conscious factors…. before any life existed.

Your references in the previous post to the operations of the brain and quantum fluxing etc. are again beyond the point of this topic because the brain is based on a myriad of living cells, when the emergence of life did not have the luxury of any previously existing cell - just sterile chemicals.

Again - even if the original superposition mechanism did apply, it would still need to provide several examples of the same molecules for nature to experiment with them, and see if different proteins or RNA could work together.

Of course we know that some of them would ultimately produce such pairings, but even the simplest processes of life would require many such pairings to form a chain of chemical activity - all working together to achieve something bigger, whether intentionally or not.

The significance of this is that something has to bring the whole lot together because it is only as a whole, that life has viability - and therefore some mechanism/process needs to bring all the separate elements together in one place. But what could drive that circumstance other than chance?
We need to have suggestions if the materialist notion is to become viable. On such a glaring matter – assumptions that one will appear in favour of materialism, are far from guaranteed.

I asked for some brain-storming about what such influences might be in the absence of a ‘survival instinct’, but I can only see one vague referral to a possibility that it might somehow relate to chemical and energy equilibrium and stability. But is that enough?

The concept behind the basic evolutionary mechanism we know of, means that we do need to show how one random mutation could be preferred over another. Could energy stability really do this?

As you will all know from my previous postings, I base a lot of my comments on proven evidence, but I also feel that it is valid to interpret such evidence. As I have said in other posts, (which reflects my basic training and understanding)...

... the role of philosophy is to put a framework around the unknown: thereby establishing the range of possible explanations, and the criteria that can prove or disprove any set of beliefs. In contrast, the role of science is simply to provide relevant facts to narrow the range of options.

When scientists apply an interpretation to their findings, they are applying a philosophical judgement, and until their case is proven, there will always be alternate explanations from across the range of possibility. Yet 'Facts' remain unchanged, for ever, and therefore every philosophical interpretation must accommodate every relevant fact if it is to be held as potentially valid.

So can we please try to find solutions based on what the evidence and research tell us, and apply that principle in a consistent manner?

I think Tom Storm said that there was no possibility of applying logic without a brain because there was no example of a mind without a physical brain. Therefore logic and awareness could not apply at the level of the sterile chemical environment, pre-life.

Yet if we leave aside the nuance that a Mind is a very complex thing, and boil his basic principle down to more simple factors that might be present in reality without a brain, then I'm afraid there are many proven examples that go against his suggestion.

As a start, there are a number of single celled creatures which do show crude awareness and possibly even a small degree of intelligence without a brain. The single celled amoeba – Didinium swims around and preys on other cells – paralysing them with darts that it fires before it eats them… implying intent, targeting, and recognition.

As mentioned in other posts, it is also clearly demonstrated that some of the activities of enzyme molecules undertaking DNA repair, do seem to display the characteristics of awareness without any known chemical or computational mechanism, even in theory, to explain it.

That doesn’t mean that a materialist solution won’t be found, but as things stand after decades of research, the evidence shows that these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy.

The evidence that counters materialism should be recognised as much as the examples which might support it.

More significantly, when it is undeniable that DNA represents a template, and the cellular mechanism for reproduction involves 3 sets of coded interactions and translations – what chemical factor could possibly result in a need to preserve and maintain a template, while linking it to complex multi-layer codes being applied as a standard. Nobody seems to have commented on this.

That is not a factor to be ignored, and again the potential implications should be recognised and not swept under the carpet by materialists hoping for a solution that may not come. We should be debating potential solutions openly and then seeking evidence to test out the different options.

Philosophy allows us to explore potential avenues of exploration by structured speculation which can be tested.

So can we please speculate about solutions that have practical application in the circumstances of the examples, rather than endless debates about methods?

Thanks.

I have watched with interest and awe at the passionate exchanges which you have conducted on theoretical and principled grounds, but I feel that you have largely strayed from the original topic. — Gary Enfield

I went back and reread the original post and quickly scanned the other posts in the thread, mine and other peoples. I think the thread is surprisingly on target with the OP given 142 posts. You abandoned the thread, not participating after the first couple. That is generally considered inconsiderate behavior. Not collegial, which is the goal, if not usually the result, here. It takes a lot of nerve for you to come back now and complain. You've lost any authority over the thread due to an original poster.

So can we please speculate about solutions that have practical application in the circumstances of the examples, rather than endless debates about methods? — Gary Enfield

You had your chance. Go fry ice.

Regarding the formation of the "living cell", I think is best to start from things we know and one important key fact is that human body is made by 60% water for adult male and 55% water for adult female.
Kids have ~ 75% water in their body when they are born.
So i strongly believe water had a crucial role in forming the "living cell".
Water has some strange properties, that not even today are fully understood.

One key thing is that water has memory, meaning it can keep a lot of information in it.
Ex.: Think of it as water is an 100000 TerraBytes hard drive that can store a lot of data and information, even more(the above terrabytes was just a sample as i don't know exactly how much data you can store in it, it could be trillions of terrabytes ??? ).
Because of this water property of "storing information", if you throw a small rock(a pebble) into a lake or a river .That water surface can remember almost forever that a "specific small stone" had fall in it.
It can also sense vibrations or sounds and store it as an information, so an erupting volcano, earthquakes or meteor crashes can be stored in water.
Sound, music and vibrations had also a vital role in forming the "living cell".
Dont think of it as only water with mixed chemical elements, vibrations and sounds are important.
Of course if the water has evaporated that information is mostly gone.

Now If you add all the millions years since the Earth has formed and all the meteors, asteroids that hit it.
All that information was stored in our rivers, lake and oceans.

So to summary this the "Living Cell" is made by water with a lot of mixed information in it from : chemical elements, vibrations and sounds from asteroid collisions.


One type of "cell" was used for evolution of vegetation(trees,grass, plants) and the second type "living cell" for evolution of fish.Then from fish surfaced from water in time: the reptiles, the dinosaurs and finally the animals.
This is only my theory, it will be hard to back it all by science.
I really like to see your opinions on this, or maybe to see other theories that i did not think of and could have a little logic as well.

I really like to see your opinions on this, or maybe to see other theories that i did not think of and could have a little logic as well. — Adughep

I suggest you go back and read some of the posts in this thread, especially those at the beginning. Your theory is not consistent with the current scientific understanding of life, or water for that matter.

I should also correct one point that seems to recur – Dualism does not advocate God or spirit, it only says that there is a second type of stuff underpinning our existence (beyond matter/energy). What characteristics that other stuff may have is open to secondary debate, but inevitably those characteristics must seek to plug apparent gaps in the principles that restrict Matter/Energy as we know it. — Gary Enfield

But materialism is a form of monism. To admit that there’s something real other than matter-energy us to reject materialism and open the door to all manner of speculations. That is the point of the Richard Lewontin quote I mentioned to @Tom Storm:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. — Richard Lewontin

And this single-mindedness is because scientific materialism is a direct descendant of the belief in the 'jealous God'. Just as the 'jealous God' allowed no worship of anyone but Him, so the scientific philosophy that Christendom gave rise to, insists that there is but a single Substance, and to admit of any form of dualism is to lapse into idolatory or heresy. The 'jealous God' dies hard!

Enrique, (if I understood him correctly), initially offered the suggestion that some of the early developments in the mechanisms of life might have emerged as a result of superpositions within the sterile chemical environment that could ‘consider’ a myriad of permutations simultaneously, allowing some more advanced molecules to emerge in rapid timeframes. — Gary Enfield

Those scare quotes immediately put us in the territory of metaphysics, like or not. I said @Enrique's suggestion seemed like pseudo-science to me, perhaps it's not, but to be convinced I would have to se reference to something published, other than a Forum contributor's opinion as I'm in no position to judge it.

Philosophy allows us to explore potential avenues of exploration by structured speculation which can be tested. — Gary Enfield

You're describing empiricism, or perhaps natural philosophy, but not philosophy as such.

can we please try to find solutions based on what the evidence and research tell us, and apply that principle in a consistent manner? — Gary Enfield

None of us here are specialists in biochemistry or organic chemistry, and besides, it's a philosophy forum, not a science or chemistry forum. Nobody here is going to solve this problem, but we can discuss the philosophical implications, which is what we're doing.

when it is undeniable that DNA represents a template, and the cellular mechanism for reproduction involves 3 sets of coded interactions and translations – what chemical factor could possibly result in a need to preserve and maintain a template, while linking it to complex multi-layer codes being applied as a standard. Nobody seems to have commented on this. — Gary Enfield

I provided a reference to, and quotes from, Marcello Barbieri, biochemist, on what is information? He explicitly addresses these questions. He also notes that Hubert Yockey, a pioneering author in the field of information science applied to biology, claimed

that the origin of life is unknowable, in the same sense that there are propositions of logic that are undecidable. This amounts to saying that we do not know how linear and digital entities came into being; all we can say is that they were not the result of spontaneous chemical reactions. The information paradigm, in other words, has not been able to prove its ontological claim, and that is why the chemical paradigm has not been abandoned.

'Facts' remain unchanged, for ever, and therefore every philosophical interpretation must accommodate every relevant fact if it is to be held as potentially valid. — Gary Enfield

You can't be too positivist about that.



From John Wheeler, Law without Law

And this single-mindedness is because scientific materialism is a direct descendant of the belief in the 'jealous God'. — Wayfarer

There's an awful lot of work put in by theists and other spear carriers for the supernatural to try to show that atheism is just bad religion. But this is no argument, it is just simple name calling. It's understandable, there's a lot of anger towards science because it has destroyed the fantasy life of many people.

The problem is no one has yet provided any evidence that there is a God or any kind of supernatural realm. And no one has found a pathway to any reliable knowledge other than though methodological realism. I would never say that science is 100% certain or that humans can have access to capital T truth. But we know what works and what is merely speculation or fantasy.

It's understandable, there's a lot of anger towards science because it has destroyed the fantasy life of many people.

The problem is no one has yet provided any evidence that there is a God or any kind of supernatural realm. And no one has found a pathway to any reliable knowledge other than though methodological realism. I would never say that science is 100% certain or that humans can have access to capital T truth. But we know what works and what is merely speculation or fantasy. — Tom Storm

Smug and self-satisfied, but wrong, or at least not right. I think there is a strong metaphysical, but not supernatural, argument for God, or at least god. I've made it before in this forum. I know it's right, because neither theists nor atheists like it. This is not the place to go into it.

As a start, there are a number of single celled creatures which do show crude awareness and possibly even a small degree of intelligence without a brain. The single celled amoeba – Didinium swims around and preys on other cells – paralysing them with darts that it fires before it eats them… implying intent, targeting, and recognition. — Gary Enfield

When I said no consciousness without a brain I was not referring to simple celled creatures which may or may not have awareness or brains. Given I believe in evolution, there would no doubt have been a point when nascent 'not quite' consciousness went with nascent 'not quite' brains. Not really a useful distinction in my mind. Maybe I should have said where is consciousness without a material host?

Smug and self-satisfied, but wrong, — T Clark

T Clark - have some respect and do not resort to name calling. If you think what I said about science destroying the fantasy life of many people isn't true or 'smug' then listen to the stories of people who attend Recovering from Religion a large world-wide peer support group who document precisely this phenomenon. That's where I heard this expression. Surviving religion is a very hard struggle for many people and to call this insight self-satisfied is quite wrong.