Hi Wayfarer

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

It's nice to have a brief non-aggressive conversation about origins ! The original counter to Materialism was Idealism which offered examples from thought that broke the materialist/ determinist principle of causality. I personally wouldn't say that was '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. — Wayfarer

Why do you feel it is necessary to say that 'somebody else' feels it is important. Why can't any of us just say what we believe and give the evidence/examples to support that view? We are all perfectly capable of having our own opinions. What this debate needs is more evidence and examples - not bouncing theories about without any substantive corroboration.

Facts/evidence can say why one theory doesn't work, because the examples break the principles of a suggested solution. If no argument has any evidence, then it is sufficient to state the idea and wait for evidence one way or the other.... although philosophy generally requires the characteristics that would resolve the issue.

In the case of codes - there either has to be a chemical reason why a code should emerge, or some other factor must be driving its emergence.

No chemical factor has been offered for such a thing, (and we can all speculate as much as we want on this - because the properties of chemicals are well described and limited by scientific research). So the fact that there is no current chemical explanation must lead us onto a consideration of what generic factors could drive the establishment of an intricate system of inter-connected codes. We don't need to be scientific specialists in order to do this. But Philosophy has to be practical too.

One bit of speculation is that at some crude level, there might be some degree of awareness and purpose. That is certainly the only way in which we have seen codes used in any other circumstance. And while this is truly a bizarre concept - we do have the evidence referred-to elsewhere in these posts about molecules seemingly adapting their activities for the purpose of an objective. Maybe, in time, this could be tested?

That was a simple example which we might all speculate about. But I was hoping to stimulate people's thoughts on this - to delve deeper.

If you, or anyone else here, can start to apply their minds about what fundamental factors might be necessary (even in abstract) we might begin to hone in on the things that scientists have to search for.

That's confused verbiage. Give me an actual example or reference text. — Olivier5

How was my comment confused?

Oliver I have given the same example time and time again - the DNA repair mechanisms - particularly Homologous Recombination. It is there for you to look up if you care to do so.

I first found it in Finipolscie's book (well explained for laymen), and then followed his source to a leading Biochemistry text book (Alberts) in which scientists give the findings from the latest research.

...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

This was addressed to @Tom Storm.
However, I am interested and would like to reply.

I am not exactly sure what is meant by 'intersubjectively constructed patterns' ?
I think it means something like patterns of behaviour or thought which emerge from experience or awareness shared by others. This would include emotions and motivations, I guess.
And yes, they can be identified, measured and further explored.

The patterns are not 'matter' and can't be reduced as such. They are part of the natural process of life.
We can't understand human life by an analysis of physical components alone.

The origin of life remains a mystery but mystery doesn't necessarily mean supernatural.
It is something strange or not known that has not yet been explained or understood.
I responded earlier, to the best of my ability, to the questions posed in the OP:

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

Much of established science was a mystery until fairly recently.
It is a continual process dealing with problems which need to be solved.

Neuroscience combines studies of the physical and the mental in an attempt to understand consciousness, amongst other things. From wiki:

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]

How reliable it is would seem to be the question remaining.
As reliable as we can hope for ?

Studying the nervous system can only advance our understanding of biology and function.
It can shed light on what happens when there are problems related to the brain.
If researchers can find ways to prevent or treat e.g. psychiatric disorders by brain imaging coupled with physiological models, theories or mechanisms then that is all to the good.

Understanding to the best of our ability is crucial to maintain overall health and well-being.
Survival, if you like.
And this includes philosophy; reflection and discussion, even if it might be not be considered 'reliable'. For some, like Hadot, it is a way of life...

Thanks to @Gary Enfield for starting this thread. It has been informative.

Hi Pop

Are we talking at cross-purposes here?

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

I have always said that I believe in Evolution once the mechanism got going, (and as stated in the OP - there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell).

The issue is that there is no such mechanism prior to the first living cell. So what could bring life into existence without it? Chemical chance, given the odds, is not an option.

I know that you keep saying that the universe is self-organising, but you never say what might be driving that. I have tried to point out some scientifically proven traits that might illustrate what you are hinting at, but we need to narrow down, through conversation and debate, on what the core characteristics might be to achieve this.

The original theory of evolution talked of 'mistakes in chemistry' to achieve mutations, supported by a selection process based on either general survival or specifically from Thought, (ie. positive selection of a mate with desirable characteristics).

However, if we look carefully, most aspects of survival in any living organism require choices. By way of example, (poached from elsewhere), a bigger more powerful arm would be a hindrance rather than a help without Thought to guide it to achieve better survival. Thought - or at least, whatever underpins it, has been a pivotal factor in the the theory of evolution, and may be even more important before that mechanism kicked off.

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

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. More generally, in diploids, genetic information can move from one chromosome to the other homologous chromosome in the same cell. This is critical especially during gamete production, as another tool for shuffling the genetic cards, but also in repair DNA in all cells.

This provides an excellent example for where I disagree with the thesis that life breaks the laws of physics. It doesn't, really. What it does is add new rules. Life creates its own set of rules, in addition to those of physics, as it moves along.

You heard of "eat or be eaten"? That's a rule of life that was created the moment one species started to eat another. Predation is a great energy acquisition strategy and once it appeared somewhere, it quickly became a universal feature of the life game, shaping defence and attack strategies by the millions.

Note that predation does not contradict the laws of physics. Rather, it means absolutely nothing outside of life. It is made possible and conceivable only by life itself. You could say that black holes 'eat' stars but it would be nothing more than a metaphor.

Biology does not contradict physics and chemistry. It adds to them, quite a lot in fact. What it adds cannot be understood with the conceptual tools of physics but it does not contradict them.

T Clark

I have looked back at your single post to me at the start of this debate, and you basically said that you agreed with the point that the evolutionary mechanism couldn't account for the origin of life, but that no reputable biologist had ever stated that claim. Fine - but I never made that comment about biologists.

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. Several of these scientists were very eminent, even if you obviously do not regard them as reputable!

Did you really need me to make that point again when others had done so?

The other point you made was...

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

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.

You also do yourself a disservice by implying that any argument that challenges the current materialist thinking must be creationist. You are either badly informed or worse, deliberately trying to smear others..... as was also pointed out by others.

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.

Indeed, my example of the 22 Amino Acids referred to the emergence of the basic components of proteins (which incidentally are not simple molecules in themselves), because Stanley Miller's experiments were held out as the excuse for saying that the spontaneous emergence of life was chemically simple and expected - when that was a complete fallacy, put forward by materialists.

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

You haven't addressed the RNA world hypothesis, though...

Oliver - RNA hypothesis works on the concept that if RNA is the intermediate code between DNA and Proteins, it is likely to come first, and that DNA (a more stable but less reactive form) is more likely to be a later development.

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.

So no, I don't believe that my summary ignores anything.

Oliver, I find it bizarre that you still don't see the issues.

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. When one is offered, then fine. But ignoring the issue because it doesn't suit your philosophy isn't helpful.

How can you make a statement like "it creates a new rule" when materialism says that nothing in life can break free of the one set of rules that underpin Matter/Energy?

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

But there is plenty of that. DNA and their proteinic maintenance machinery has be used to make computers. We come across new mechanisms everyday and we try and understand them. Sometimes it looks pretty much "designed" or "intentional", until you discover how it works.

Then, something funny happens: we can better understand how those biological systems can fail, and how we can repair them when they do.

The issue I have with intelligent design, is that life as we know it fails all the sodding time. These macromolecules can run haywire. Organisms get sick and die as a result. It's been known to happen. I would expect an intelligent designer to do better than that.

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

And does your theory explain the origin of RNA, pray tell?

But there is plenty of that. DNA and their proteinic maintenance machinery has be used to make computers. — Olivier5

What on earth does that mean?

DNA is a static template for a design. It has no logic and just leads to the manufacture of new cellular components using a fixed process with a mysterious and unexplained origin.

There is no computer - so how does the logic of the HR process work, in purely chemical terms? There is no explanation from science - so what did you mean when you said "there is plenty of that".

The whole purpose of the continuing research is because they have found nothing to explain it.

And does your theory explain the origin of RNA, pray tell? — Olivier5

I have not offered a solution, and as you will see from the other posts - I am wanting us to try to identify the base-level points that need to be resolved.

What I can say, like anyone else who is able to understand the evidence, is that we know that your claims of a certain type of solution are no more than wishful thinking. If you want to prove your case, please try to narrow-in on the factors that chemistry has to solve within your concept.

Okay so you are arguing from a position of ignorance, saying in essence "I don't know therefore nobody will ever know".

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

... Let me rephrase. You are, among other things, an information management system, as all living creature, which is precisely why you need reliable information about the world. A stone wouldn't.

People (and other species) are probably more than just information management systems. The "information paradigm" is just that: a human, limited way if seeing life. An angle.

Essentialism is a bitch.

↪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

It is my philosophy that the Big Bang is a local event in an infinite universe. The vast distances involved, means that the light from the next closest universe has not even arrived here yet. Our universe is only a teenager, roughly 13.7 billion years old, however there are possibly billions of other universes of different ages scattered throughout infinity. It is not possible to prove any of this of course, it’s just a theory, like our current Big Bang, is only just a theory.

I don’t believe it is possible for something to come from nothing and so everything that exist now, has always existed in some form. Forms are constantly changing, no form is permanent, even the sun itself is middle aged and will die out at some time billions of years in the future.

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

"Spontaneous generation" is another word for "abiogenesis." They mean the same thing. Darwin was very clear in his writings that some mechanism other than evolution by natural selection was required to explain the origin of life. He acknowledged that science in his day had not advanced far enough to discover what that mechanism is. And what the frick frack does "a smattering" mean here?

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

Here is a link to an article that uses the purported impossibility of life self-generating to support the young earth argument. The process described is similar to the one you describe in the OP.

http://members.toast.net/puritan/Articles/HowOldIsTheEarth_A.htm

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

A quibble - It is misleading use the word "evolutionary" in this context. It leads to confusion between two completely different processes - evolution and abiogenesis. The heart of our dispute seems to be that you are unwilling to acknowledge that.

As for the rest - Scientists know enough to identify plausible mechanisms by which abiogenesis may have taken place. In 1859, Darwin recognized and acknowledged that science in as "not even close" to understanding the mechanism by which traits were passed from one organism to its offspring. The beginnings of that knowledge didn't become public until the early 1900s. Was that a valid argument against evolutionary theory? If it was valid, it was also wrong, as we now know.

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

If an evolutionary account of life's origins is valid, this is what it has to account for and what chemistry experiments have to generate in some form:


Rudiments of life began as some form of reaction cycle, refined billions of years ago in conjunction with growingly complex membranes and carbon-based molecules until evolutionary independence from fully inorganic features of the environment arose. Though all the molecular parts of recycling biochemical loops were interdependent, these first membrane-parsed solutions, even when their protocells were clumped together, must have been more like an ecosystem than a mechanized factory, with chemical bonds breaking, forming and adaptively transforming as energized quanta of matter flowed at the nanoscale.

This streamlining of dynamic equilibrium was punctuated at times by key evolutionary events, simple subunits of molecular ecosystems coalescing into more complex macromolecules, segments of reaction pathways refined by natural selection for greater efficiency until stabilized as persisting, relatively large three dimensional structures. Evolving macromolecules would have become loci of intramembrane ecosystems, primary drivers of pathways in energized mass that brought overall chemistry into their orbit.

Apex molecules must have reached a stage where structural integrity was no longer especially vulnerable to decomposition via any surrounding chemical reactions, but instead mostly recycled from smaller building blocks of matter or sustained by repetitiously drawing energy out of atoms and radiation in the environment, graduating from basic chemistry to what we might call functional mechanisms. This would have been the beginning of metabolism, primordial macromolecules utilizing quantized matter for replenishment, as nutrient sources.

At some stage, molecules in these metabolic systems gained the capacity to not just generally exploit environments for energy, but also precisely replicate external subunits, which was a huge evolutionary advance, surpassing mere utilization of various smaller molecules to the point of finely controlling their concentrations, regulating nutrient supplies as the first primitive enzymes, a sort of inanimate farming based around feedback mechanisms. Paralleling this outcome, some molecules became capable of introducing to the environment stretches of their own structure, built out of surrounding molecules, the ancestors of RNA.

How these two threads of evolution - enzymatic and self-replicative activity - gelled into a stable genetic system is unclear, but judging from the nature of modern cells, it seems this process must have been complex, as molecules currently carrying out these activities span a rather broad spectrum. The following all exist in sizable amounts: self-replicators and the enzymes that catalyze their reproductive processes, partially self-replicating enzymes in likeness to the ribozyme, and the much greater quantity of enzymes not directly involved in self-replication, but which produce components of recyclitive biochemical pathways.

If we can regard this evolutionary process as having an overall direction rather than serendipitous cooccurrence, a claim about relative progress vs. relative chance which pends further research into modern cells and their processes of adaptation, it seems biochemical pathways generally settled into a division of labor, where some molecules are specialized for self-replication, some for metabolism, and relatively few a limited capacity for both. The most sophisticated forms of this cellular behavior, which are inextricably linked in modern cell types by biochemical pathways, seem to have first evolved in ways that were isolated from each other, in separate membranes, with the fate of macromolecules, already partially streamlined for function, conjoined in symbiotic relationships when cells engulfed each other without digestion as in the case of what became nuclei, mitochondria and chloroplasts.

At any rate, self-replicators advanced from modest regulation of intracellular environments to such precise control of biochemical ingredients and pathways that molecules of RNA and DNA can be analogized to hubs of information storage, the primary blueprints for cellular biochemistry, with DNA molecules duplicated almost exactly upon mitosis and templating most of the astounding variability in an organism’s physiology.


In my opinion, an alternative could not possibly exist, as the intermediate steps will have to be mechanisms of this type, unless we are going to assume some magical hocus pocus causality. Its a matter of refining theory so that our knowledge of causation is accurate, which may admittedly include an element of what is commonly regarded as the spiritual. 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.

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.

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

The source is me! lol If you want to get the whole deal, check out my blog at philosophyofhumanism.com, particularly the posts Quantum Biology, The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter and The Nature and Human Impact of Qualia. I admit my writing isn't quite professional polish, but I think you'll find the ideas interesting. Most of my postings are chapters from a book I wrote titled Standards for Behavioral Commitments: Philosophy of Humanism, available for free download at same site.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

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

Could you elaborate a bit more on your philosophy of science stance with regard to your assertion that facts remain unchanged forever?

Are you saying that scientific progress is cumulative, with every new set of facts added onto the previous body of scientific knowledge?

In my opinion, — Enrique

Are you even qualified to venture an opinion on this subject - what science qualification do you have?

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?

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. Science is a way of knowing, not a phenomenon. Ditto with spiritual knowing. Science deals with so-called "objective reality." Spiritual knowledge deals with awareness and internal experience. I'm sure many people don't agree with that characterization.

And now we have crossed the border out of this thread.

That's like asking if there is one robust documented example of anything scientific existing — T Clark

You're right, I expressed this poorly. I have no problem with meditation and focused self-awareness and contemplation. Some atheist materialists practice mediation and even accept models of non-duality.

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.

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

I make no claims about God, gods, souls, reincarnation, or any so-called mystical phenomena. I started as a materialist as a kid and I've never gotten out of sight of that way of looking at things. But it is just one way of looking at things. 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.

Are you even qualified to venture an opinion on this subject - what science qualification do you have? — Tom Storm

I've got the science and philosophy foundation from college, with a bunch of additional reading on the subject. I'm not a professor if that's what your curious about. I'm as qualified as anyone with a liberal arts education and a philosophy degree plus a lifetime of meticulous study.

Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing? — Tom Storm

I think its obvious that spiritual phenomena exist, but I presume all of this can be explained naturalistically. As one of the more mundane instances, statistically significant correlation between the brainwaves of meditators has been recorded with EEG, an objectively observed synchronicity.

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

You're not repeating, you're clarifying. I would argue that science does have a privileged position - that's one area we differ. Can you describe these other was of seeing briefly or in dot points and outline what was seen exactly? What can you know spiritually speaking (or whatever word you wish to use by contrast with science.

Can you describe these other was of seeing briefly — Tom Storm

You're asking me to describe my whole understanding of reality. Something I've spent the last 30 years thinking about. I came from somewhere probably not very different from you. I was always good at science and math. When I was really young, materialism seemed self-evident to me. I never really lost that. I still get science. After fiddling around for a few years, I went back and got my civil/environmental engineering degree and worked for more than 30 years.

Somewhere along the line I came to see that a materialist understanding of the universe was a small part of the picture. I think maybe it was because my job for 30 years was to know things and know how I knew them. I used to joke that my business cards should say "Environmental Epistemologist." I don't remember how, but I got a copy of Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. Things it said seemed just as real to me as science. They felt as if they belonged together as a single view of reality.

That's where I am now. The rest is a long story.

That's where I am now. The rest is a long story. — T Clark

Thanks for that response. My problem is that people feel or experience all manner of things, from the risen Christ to self transcendence and connection with higher consciousness. And being creative beings, people make all-sorts of connections and symbolic meaning. We are meaning making animals - that much seems clear.

Problem is how do we determine something that is real or useful from something which is an internal conscious state, a hallucination, or a belief, or a feeling?

There are atheists like Dr Susan Blackmore and Sam Harris who practice contemplative techniques, mindfulness, mediation, Dzogchen, Zazen - whatever it might be - and they do not come to the conclusion that science is anything but the primary mode of acquiring reliable knowledge. And all their critics will do is resort to ad hominem attacks - 'they are doing it wrong' or 'they are blocked'.

Seems that introspective experiences like intuitions of transcendence have no more impact on a belief in a higher consciousness or the notion of one mind, say, than an LSD trip. And the frequent connection of these subjective experiences to spooky physics and this or that spiritual tradition does not seem warranted.

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

Does the macrocosmos produce the microcosmos through involution or does the microcosmos produce the macrocosmos through evolution? Does a drop of water produce the sea or does the sea produce a drop of water?

It seems far more logical for the macrocosmos to produce the microcosmsos through involution but it requires a process initiated by a conscious source rejected by much of science in favor of accepting an absurdity as the only alternative.