Hi Tom Storm

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? — Tom Storm

As I understood it, you were trying to argue that no form of living response based on awareness and analysis could be undertaken without a brain - and by implication pre-life chemicals or any isolated cell... such as a single celled creature.

I referred to examples which were uncovered by scientific research, and which are not denied. There is an apparent response by things without a brain that seems to apply at least some level of adaptive logic without even the hint of a chemical mechanism to do so.

Either there is such a capability that can be deployed by a bunch of chemicals without a brain - or there isn't. If you say there isn't then what is your alternate mechanism?

If it is possible - then to what extent might it apply in more generalised situations?

Materialism needs to acknowledge the things that appear to contradict it.

If many processes in life - and particularly within a cell - are shown not to be arbitrary or by chance — Gary Enfield

How would you show that?

We have to be given a process that can inevitably lead to every outcome - because that is how the laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated - using traditional mathematics with just one outcome for every scenario. — Gary Enfield

In theory, yes. But a model which gives us six out of every ten is better than one which gives only five. Materialism only need show it's a better model than alternatives.

Even in concept, can you suggest any mechanism by which these molecules adapt their behaviour to different circumstances to produce the perfect, predictable, end outcome - such as a fully repaired section of DNA with a double break and pieces missing? — Gary Enfield

Yes, the biochemistry of the components seems capable.

When anyone is able to suggest any credible way... — Gary Enfield

Here's your issue. Like Wayfarer, you're confusing what you personally find satisfying with something that should count as evidence for others. Why would I revise any of my beliefs based on what you find credible. It's only what I find credible that matters.

There are too many examples which break materialist notions. — Gary Enfield

There are none. You've simply not understood mainstream materialist claims.

We are having a debate about complex and personal things. Look out someone might get hurt! — Tom Storm

You're new to the forum, so you don't know this - I am much more civil in my discussions than I was when I started. I give the forum a lot of the credit for that. I've worked hard to keep my irritation to myself. Clearly, I'm not always successful. In that light, I have a question.

I do think your response to Wayfarer was smug. You ridiculed theists' beliefs to make a rhetorical, but not rational, point. Let's not argue about whether or not my characterization is true for now. How should I have responded to you? This is way off post, so I'll listen to what you have to say but won't respond. I don't want to send the thread off into space.

I had hardly abandoned the discussion when the original post had been just 5 days earlier! — Gary Enfield

Five days is more than the lifetime of the average thread. As I said, I went back and looked at the OP and various responses. In general, they were responsive and directly addressed the issues you raised.

This is a discussion group - so let's discuss.
Do you have any comments on the evidential subject matter? — Gary Enfield

I made responsive comments on your OP five days ago. Why would I want to repeat them now?

It's fine if you want to participate now. I respect an original poster's authority to intervene to keep the discussion on-post. I've done it myself, but you've lost standing to kvetch.

But if it can be identified and measured, it is still materialism. — Tom Storm

Wiki says :

“Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.”

Is this consonant with your view of materialism?
If so, I can give you plenty of examples of psychologists who considers themselves to be doing science but yet reject materialism. They deal with entities that can be identified and measured, but these are not ‘matter’ in a physicalistic sense but intersubjectively constructed patterns. And they do not believe these are reducible to physicalistic matter.

Empiricism subjects everything to the tribunal of 'what can be sense and quantified'. What cannot be quantified is discounted a priori.
— Wayfarer

Yes. As I just explained, this is not mindless dogma. There's a fundamental and very compelling reason why that's the case. It's because we're talking to one another, two humans. The thing we share is the material world. Anything else is not shared, so there's no fact of the matter about it to be discussed. You might feel there's a purpose to life. I might not. It's irrelevant to any discussion because there's no shared content. If you feel the cup is on the table and I don't, we can both reach for it and find out. — Isaac

We don’t ‘share’ the material world because the notion of a same world for everyone is incoherent. We each interpret a world relative to our unique vantage. This can result in communities of normative agreement because of relative interpersonal similarities in outlook. Quantitative methods in empirical research only work by masking interpersonal differences in interpretation, to provide the illusion that everyone is on the same page.
The reason there can appear to be more agreement within a scientific community than within a philosophical community is because the former uses less precise, more abstractive concepts than the latter.

As John Shotter wrote:

“ So, although two scientists might not differ at all in doing calculations, making predictions, and in pro-explanations when working with scientific formulae, differences could still occur between them in the connections and relations they sense as existing within the phenomena of their inquiries. But these would only show up, notes Hanson (1958) in the different directions their new inquiries would take, “in ‘frontier' thinking – where the direction of new inquiry has regularly to be redetermined” (p.118).”

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry — Gary Enfield

Okay so you are retracting your earlier wild claim that "these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy." Macromolecules do not break any principles that I know of.

The variable series of activities which these things deploy to achieve a predictable complex outcome, (eg. DNA repair) rather than an arbitrary outcome has yet to be explained, and until materialism can do this - it cannot claim to have proven its case by any means. — Gary Enfield

Materialism (at least in it's eliminative, reductionist form) is self-contradictory, and therefore logically false.

I agree that reductionists in particular fail to account for the "information revolution" that biology has seen for the past 70 years. To reduce biology to billard balls rolling on a carpet is to not take what we've learnt seriously. Rest assured that most biologists agree.

It doesn't mean the gods designed us. Maybe they did, maybe not. If any god designed us, the guy was a slow learner. It took Him ages...

To me it just means philosophers need to take modern science into more serious consideration, and admit to the importance of information management as a key dimension of life.

Have you even considered the possibility that it might be you who doesn't understand? — Isaac

Sure! But the remark you made:

It's not that materialism is all that anyone thinks. It's that it all we share. The table, the cup, you me, that fact that keys I'm hitting will make the words appear on your screen. So that is all we can talk about when it comes to matters we don't already all believe in. — Isaac

I think that conveys an incorrect grasp of the point at issue. Really, I'm not just bollocking you or engaging in ad homs, but that's not the point at issue. And trying to explain the point at issue while being met with a constant spray of angry invective is not possible. So I understand that you can't stand a word I say, and I"m alright with that. It's a discussion forum, there are always going to be irreconcilable points of view being expressed.

Dualism arose from the simple notion that if we can establish characteristics which break the mould of a single type of stuff, why not have both? — Gary Enfield

Actually It arose from the observation of the duality of matter and form.

we can try to narrow in on the factors that Matter/Energy or anything else would have to overcome in order to produce (say) a mechanism based on codes. — Gary Enfield

I think the advent of the 'information paradigm' as @Olivier5 says, does that to a large extent. That is why biosemiotics is an important discipline. But notice that the source I quoted believes that the literal origin point of life can never be known in principle, that it's 'formally undecideable'. And also defends the point of view that the emergence of life really is the emergence of a completely novel kind of order in the Universe that can't be fully explained in terms of physics and chemistry alone.

That information is drawn from a great book called Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden. — Enrique

Thanks! I actually stumbled on this guy a couple of weeks ago and thought he looked pretty interesting, I will revisit him.

Let's not argue about whether or not my characterization is true for now. How should I have responded to you? — T Clark

Reflection is a good thing. I think there's an easy distinction to make - you comment on the ideas not the person's character. In this case you could have said, "To me this response sounds a little smug and satisfied.... and explained why. Reasons are important, as you know. This could then be explored.

And when I say, 'look out someone might get hurt' I am referring to the fact that when people meet ideas that challenge them, it often lands as an ontological shock. It's hard to mitigate against that.

Materialism needs to acknowledge the things that appear to contradict it. — Gary Enfield

When they contradict, perhaps. But hey, I am methodological naturalist as I have said. Not a philosophical naturalist - that would also require evidence. Few people say that materialism is the whole story, Gary - what we say is it is the only reliable model we have access to.

What I hold is that all we have access to is the physical world and the only reliable knowledge we can acquire for now (and perhaps forever) is through this lens. If tomorrow we prove there are souls or ghosts with evidence, I'll be happy to accept it.

And also defends the point of view that the emergence of life really is the emergence of a completely novel kind of order in the Universe that can't be fully explained in terms of physics and chemistry alone. — Wayfarer

(emphasis added)

Not sure Barbieri goes there. You have a quote? To me, a determinist universe could not engender life, because nothing really new happens in a determinist universe. But QM points to an indeteminist universe, open to radical novelty. A universe where a lot more things can happen than just the same old billard balls rolling eternally on the same old carpet...

Not sure Barbieri goes there. You have a quote? — Olivier5

Maybe you mean when he says that life = matter + energy + information. This implies that biology has some exclusivity on information, which is incorrect. As Aristotle found, there's no matter without form, and thus without information.

Inanimate matter as we know it has structure, and novel structures emerge spontaneously from it all the time, snowflakes being the classic example.

And like snowflake are all unique in their shape, in their morphology, biological information is extremely diverse and expresses itself in physical forms or shapes, generally produced by some protein folding. The term biochemists use is steric. It's about the shapes of macromolecules, central to their effectiveness. But steric effects exist in inorganic chemistry too.

Life did not invent information, it found it already there all around, as the geometric shapes of things, and how these shapes can do certain things that other shapes can't. It used information, managed it, magnified it, mirrored it infinitely, gave it meaning, and ultimately transcended it with consciousness. But it did not really create a new physical force.

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? — Gary Enfield

Evolution is well established from observation of evolving organic systems like Covid19, so the proposition in the OP "without evolution" is not an option.

Evolution has been extensively described and documented in detail, in countless studies. It is not theory but fact. The greatest surprise is how quickly it occurs. The evolution of human consciousness is surely something everybody can immediately relate to.

It is easy to forget that everything is evolving, not just living things but the entire universe is in motion and evolving, and emerging, and natural selection acts on everything, not just animate matter, but all matter - it culls non viable form.

This is the mind that you are looking for - that drives better ordered states.

The universe is a self organizing system, and as a consequence, all of its component parts are also self organizing - in an interrelational manner, and according to the constraints and possibilities presented by the situation things find themselves in.

Pockets of the universe that are not chaotic, are ordered ( self organized ). There is no upper limit to this ordering. In goldilocks pockets of order where liquid water is present such as the earth, the self ordering continues seemingly without possibility of end.

Self organization is the driver of evolution, and natural selection determines what survives - this is the omnipresent dynamic everything finds itself in, and I think it is enough to describe how inanimate matter becomes animate. To impress that this is the process we should focus on, I assert that human consciousness is entirely a process of self organization - it is not possible for a human being to do anything outside the purpose of self organization. At the other extreme we need simply to place a boundary around random elements, and the elements within the boundary must self organize - this leads to a notion of how a cell might form.

All that is left is the simple task of describing all the steps in between! :sad:

Not sure Barbieri goes there. You have a quote? — Olivier5

Read the section under the heading The Chemical Paradigm. It concludes:

This is the ontological claim of the chemical paradigm, the idea that all natural processes are completely described, in principle, by physical quantities. This view is also known as physicalism, and it is based on the fact that biological information is not a physical quantity. So, what is it? A similar problem arises with the rules of the genetic code: they cannot be measured and cannot be reduced to physical quantities, so what are they?

According to physicalism, biological information and the genetic code are mere metaphors. They are like those computer programs that allow us to write our instructions in English, thus saving us the trouble of writing them in the binary digits of the machine language. Ultimately, however, there are only binary digits in the machine language of the computer, and in the same way, it is argued, there are only physical quantities at the most fundamental level of Nature.

This conclusion, known as the physicalist thesis, has been proposed in various ways by a number of scientists and philosophers [8–14] and is equivalent to the thesis that ‘life is chemistry’.

Barbieri then remarks 'This is one of the most deeply dividing issues of modern science' - as can be seen in this discussion.

He then proposes the 'information paradigm' which includes this paragraph:

Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the view that life is fundamentally different from inanimate matter. In The growth of biological thought [15], p. 124, he made this point in no uncertain terms: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

Bolds added. So I think that validates what I claimed he said, doesn't it? That said, Barbieri has no interest in anything supernatural. II read another paper of his where he explained why he resigned as editor of the Biosemios Journal because he thought it had become too influenced by C S Pierce and was drifting towards philosophical idealism ( here.) He is adamantly naturalist, but not reductionist. That's what is interesting about him.

What I hold is that all we have access to is the physical world and the only reliable knowledge we can acquire for now (and perhaps forever) is through this lens. If tomorrow we prove there are souls or ghosts with evidence, I'll be happy to accept it. — Tom Storm

I think it's significant that you see the problem in terms of immaterial beings conceived as ghosts or souls. I see that as due to the influence of Descartes' particular form of dualism. As Edmund Husserl notes in The Crisis of Western Science, Descartes' intuition of consciousness as the fundamental ground of existence is profound and basically true, but he errs in treating the 'cogito' as an object, 'a little tag end of the world', is how he puts it.

The way I would explain it, is that the subject, the 'res cogitans', is never an object of cognition, except metaphorically. You can never actually make an object of the knowing subject. And there's no such thing as 'mind', either, except by inference. Mind is the subject of experience, or the subjective pole of experience, but is never an object of cognition, as such (which is why eliminativists insist it can't be considered as real.)

This has resulted in a deep-seated tendency in modern thought which was described by the philosopher Richard Bernstein as:

Cartesian anxiety, which refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other".

As Aristotle found, there's not matter without form, and thus without information. — Olivier5

:up: That is correct. It is not really a material universe as the relationship of information and energy is matter. It is really an information and energy in a relationship universe.

Evolution is well established from observation of evolving organic systems like Covid19, so the proposition in the OP "without evolution" is not an option. — Pop

From the original post, Gary Enfield has mistaken the process by which already living species are modified over time, evolution by natural selection, from the process by which life is first made from inanimate matter. Evolution as discussed by Darwin does not create life. Darwin was aware of that.

It is easy to forget that everything is evolving, not just living things but the entire universe is in motion and evolving, and emerging, and natural selection acts on everything, not just animate matter, but all matter - it culls non viable form. — Pop

I'm not sure what this means, but the claim that natural selection acts on non-living matter is not supported by any science I've ever heard of. That's my non-dogmatic way of saying it's not true.

I think it is enough to describe how inanimate matter becomes animate. — Pop

No. It's not.

I'm not sure what this means, but the claim that natural selection acts on non-living matter is not supported by any science I've ever heard of. That's my non-dogmatic way of saying it's not true. — T Clark

Are you arguing that inanimate matte dose not evolve? If so what is your argument? Describe one instance of inanimate matter that has not evolved.

It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

We derive the information of the evolution of the universe from its present state. So the information of the 14 billion years or so of universal evolution is contained in its present state.

Are you arguing that inanimate matte dose not evolve? If so what is your argument? Describe one instance of inanimate matter that has not evolved. — Pop

The word "evolution" has a very specific meaning in biology. Darwin called it "descent with modification." It is a process that describes how undirected genetic changes in organisms are passed on to an organism's offspring through the mechanism of natural selection. No inanimate matter has evolved in that sense, by definition. If it had, it would be alive.

You seem to be using "evolve" as a synonym for "change." That's incorrect usage in this context.

So the information of the 14 billion years or so of universal evolution is contained in its present state. — Pop

The argument about biological information is however that organic life retains memory in a sense that inorganic matter does not.

The word "evolution" has a very specific meaning in biology — T Clark

Obviously I'm not using it to refer specifically to biology! I'm saying everything evolves.

No inanimate matter has evolved in that sense, by definition. If it had, it would be alive. — T Clark

You seem to overlook that you are made entirely of inanimate matter - that has evolved to life.

You seem to overlook that you are made entirely of inanimate matter - that has evolved to life. — Pop

Again, when I use the term "evolution," in this thread I mean descent with modification.

The argument about biological information is however that organic life retains memory in a sense that inorganic matter does not. — Wayfarer

There is no solution to the OP from a dualist perspective. Not even a hint of a solution. There is a possible solution from a monist perspective. It will not work for everyone of course.

I think it's significant that you see the problem in terms of immaterial beings conceived as ghosts or souls. I see that as due to the influence of Descartes' particular form of dualism. As Edmund Husserl notes in The Crisis of Western Science, Descartes' intuition of consciousness as the fundamental ground of existence is profound and basically true, but he errs in treating the 'cogito' as an object, 'a little tag end of the world', is how he puts it.

The way I would explain it, is that the subject, the 'res cogitans', is never an object of cognition, except metaphorically. You can never actually make an object of the knowing subject. And there's no such thing as 'mind', either, except by inference. Mind is the subject of experience, or the subjective pole of experience, but is never an object of cognition, as such (which is why eliminativists insist it can't be considered as real.)

This has resulted in a deep-seated tendency in modern thought which was described by the philosopher Richard Bernstein as:

Cartesian anxiety, which refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other". — Wayfarer

I only raise souls or ghosts because they often come up, and these ideas can stand in as place holders for pretty much any claim of access to a different realm outside naturalism.

I've already addressed the limits of materialism elsewhere and that is not the key subject. The subject/question is what can we demonstrate to be the most reliable source of information about the world? No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism.

No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism. — Tom Storm

Sorry about that. I'll try and sharpen it up next time.

A similar problem arises with the rules of the genetic code: they cannot be measured and cannot be reduced to physical quantities, so what are they?

A lot of measurement is done on the genetic code, eg one can compute the genetic distance between two organisms and derive from that a crude estimate of when was their last common ancestor. Similarly, one can measure the number of words in a novel or count the amount of bits in a computer programme. Codes are measurable alright, with sui generis variables.

The subject/question is what can we demonstrate to be the most reliable source of information about the world? No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism. — Tom Storm

You are basically an information management system, which is precisely why you need reliable information about the world. A stone wouldn't.

Hi Isaac

If many processes in life - and particularly within a cell - are shown not to be arbitrary or by chance
— Gary Enfield

How would you show that? — Isaac

It has been shown many times through the action of (say) the enzymes which repair DNA. The same enzymes do different things in response to different circumstances, but always in order to re-create the original strand of DNA exactly, (seemingly a purpose or objective) - despite bits being knocked out and missing from the DNA sequence which they effectively have to re-create. They do this by trying to find other templates to copy, matching them up, and then exactly filling-in the gaps.

That is not arbitrary by any standard. To the observation of even the scientists who discovered it, and who have been desperately seeking an answer to how it is done for decades now, they are exercising purposeful control... even awareness, because the small number of enzymes that do this have to recognise each unique circumstance before being able to fix it.

We have to be given a process that can inevitably lead to every outcome - because that is how the laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated - using traditional mathematics with just one outcome for every scenario.
— Gary Enfield

In theory, yes. But a model which gives us six out of every ten is better than one which gives only five. Materialism only need show it's a better model than alternatives. — Isaac

It doesn't give 6 out of 10 - it is barely able to give odds of 1 in a billion. In the case of forming a single protein (as stated in the OP) it is odds of 1 vs the number of atoms in the Universe (10 to the power 260). We can see that the processes of replication which operate in our cells today have been set up to operate with near certainty, per the laws of physics and chemistry, but when you look at what that set-up represents it pushes us back onto what could possibly establish the base position before life existed and indeed before any known method of evolution. That is the issue I was raising in the OP.

And by the way - you do not do yourself any favours by ridiculing the Laws of Physics and Chemistry - which are, in their practical application very real and the very basis of materialist thinking... (providing one inevitable outcome).... but with limited application.,,, ie. only as far as they claim to apply.

When anyone is able to suggest any credible way...
— Gary Enfield

Here's your issue. Like Wayfarer, you're confusing what you personally find satisfying with something that should count as evidence for others. Why would I revise any of my beliefs based on what you find credible. It's only what I find credible that matters. — Isaac

What rubbish! The explanations offered do not satisfy because they have not answered the question being asked. That is plain for anyone to see, (if they care to look), and it is why scientists researching the issue are still looking themselves.

There are too many examples which break materialist notions.
— Gary Enfield

There are none. You've simply not understood mainstream materialist claims. — Isaac

I haven't misunderstood, but your ill informed comment suggests that you haven't looked and are content to go with a myth before validating your comments. From the loophole free Bell Test experiments, to the accelerating expansion of the universe, to the dilemmas around the origin of the universe, the origin of life, navigation within cells, DNA repair, and every example of the use of probabilities within QM - the whole range of science is riddled with examples that seem to break the materialist mould.

Hi OliverS

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry
— Gary Enfield

Okay so you are retracting your earlier wild claim that "these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy." Macromolecules do not break any principles that I know of. — Olivier5

My comments are perfectly clear and consistent if you read the second part of the statement I made, rather than just quote the first part in isolation. Chemists can describe chemistry, but if what they describe doesn't answer the point then the issue remains valid.

As in the examples which I did quote, these molecules which, (according to the Laws of Physics and Chemistry), should just do one thing in an inevitable way, are clearly shown to do more than one thing, and even seem to be working out puzzles. They break the rules.

These are single molecules without any other perceived interaction that could cause a different outcome

These are single molecules without any other perceived interaction that could cause a different outcome — Gary Enfield

That's confused verbiage. Give me an actual example or reference text.