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. — Wayfarer
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. — Wayfarer
That's confused verbiage. Give me an actual example or reference text. — Olivier5
...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.”
... 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. — Joshs
So the mystery of the origin of life is very real.
Even if you could find an alternate mechanism for accurate chemical reproduction - what could give it its sense of direction before life had an in interest in preserving itself. Whatever factor could apply to chemicals alone, to start giving an evolutionary direction in favour of life? — Gary Enfield
Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science, mathematical modeling, and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.[2][3][4][5][6] The understanding of the biological basis of learning, memory, behavior, perception, and consciousness has been described by Eric Kandel as the "ultimate challenge" of the biological sciences.[7]
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. — Pop
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. — Gary Enfield
DNA repair mechanisms - particularly Homologous Recombination — Gary Enfield
You have misrepresented the current scientific understanding of potential mechanisms for abiogenesis. No current biologist proposes that cells are built up from constituent chemicals "by chance alone." The only ones I've seen who do are creationism apologists trying to undermine the credibility of current science. — T Clark
the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed to come up with an alternate evolutionary mechanism (they are not even close) is not a misrepresentation by me. — Gary Enfield
Homologous recombination does not break any rule. Rather, it creates a new rule, which is that diploid organisms -- those having two genomes instead of one; two sets of chromosomes, one inherited from the mother and the other from the father of the organism -- can repair one broken chromosome by copying the corresponding section of the other. — Olivier5
The chemistry described says how some chemical bonds can be reformed, but is says nothing about how sterile chemicals - single molecules - identify what might be missing and then go looking for the appropriate piece of code that is missing in order to replicate it (not a simple process in itself).
You just admit that the enzymes are observed to undertake a series of logical steps, adapting their behaviour, but offer no suggestion as to what guides them - when there is no known chemistry or computer to undertake the logical process involved. — Gary Enfield
I have no problem with the suggestion, but it's only a theory, and does nothing to explain the origin of RNA or any ability to reproduce in isolation. — Gary Enfield
But there is plenty of that. DNA and their proteinic maintenance machinery has be used to make computers. — Olivier5
And does your theory explain the origin of RNA, pray tell? — Olivier5
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. — Olivier5
↪Present awareness
I'm sorry but are you trying to argue that life predates the the big bang?
In fact it feels like you're saying that the universe outdates the big bang??
I must explain that nothing outdates the big bang as it is the first event in any history, present or future.
Carbon based life forms, as you can tell from the name, evolve from carbon, which was only created after the big bang. — scientia de summis
That said - until the emergence of Abiogenesis some 40 years ago, there were plenty of scientists arguing that we need look no further than evolution with a smattering of 'spontaneous creation' re: Amino Acids. — Gary Enfield
I was was hoping that you'd since realised this was gibberish and I was hoping to spare your blushes by not specifically pointing it out. But if you insist....
Creationists believe that there is no chance mechanism, and that there is a bigger mind/influence at play - generally a God figure to bring about life.. So your logic is out by some 180 degrees. — Gary Enfield
To return to your comment, biologists may believe that there is some underlying process that avoids chance - but the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed to come up with an alternate evolutionary mechanism (they are not even close) is not a misrepresentation by me. — Gary Enfield
I have no problem with the suggestion, but it's only a theory, and does nothing to explain the origin of RNA or any ability to reproduce in isolation.
It also doesn't explain the origin of the proteins that are the actual work horses of life, which can only be conceived to naturally experiment with each other once they exist. — Gary Enfield
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. — Tom Storm
Do you have a link to the source or sources for your description? I've read "Life's Ratchet" but I wouldn't mind going deeper. — T Clark
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. — Gary Enfield
In my opinion, — Enrique
Spiritual causes are not immaterial, they are natural and must participate in evolution defined broadly as organized, self-selective change in substance. If spirits drive change in substance, that will eventually show up as a facet of the theory of evolution. — Enrique
Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing? — Tom Storm
That's like asking if there is one robust documented example of anything scientific existing — T Clark
My problem is when people make truth claims they cannot justify - such as there is a higher consciousness that they can access. That there is reincarnation. That there is a soul. Etc. I have no quarrel with people who enjoy Zen mysticism or similar practices and quietly feel better about their lives as a consequence. — Tom Storm
Are you even qualified to venture an opinion on this subject - what science qualification do you have? — Tom Storm
Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing? — Tom Storm
Science does not have a privileged viewpoint on reality. It's a way of seeing things, but not the only, and not always the best, way.
I'm just repeating myself. — T Clark
Can you describe these other was of seeing briefly — Tom Storm
That's where I am now. The rest is a long story. — T Clark
So the mystery of the origin of life is very real.
Even if you could find an alternate mechanism for accurate chemical reproduction - what could give it its sense of direction before life had an in interest in preserving itself. Whatever factor could apply to chemicals alone, to start giving an evolutionary direction in favour of life? — Gary Enfield
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.