The argument that life can arise out of inanimate matter without intervention seems more than plausible to me. — T Clark

It's just a story. The story of how chemicals mysticaly began to think, imagine, feel, emote, and create, encouraged by Cosmic Goals and Thermodynamic Purpose. Pure mythology. A game of hide-and-seek which is a direct derivative of God and God's Natural Laws. It is a religion.

What's going on is the quantum mechanics pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of materialism, physicalism, and determinism. Now is time to begin developing an ontology that describes nature and life as we experience it and not the way scientists dream about it.

Bohm's interpretation of QM is a good place to start.

Many people consider most religions what you describe as "mythology." — T Clark

As it may be. I am describing what philosophy means to me.

Back to the Tao Te Ching again - It is human awareness, consciousness, that brings the 10,000 things, t0m's brute facts, — T Clark

That we exist and continue to create is an observation of life. That there is purpose, novelty, and potential is also a matter of observation. It is what is.

A soup of chemicals gathering together and magically/mystically deciding that they are going to have a barbecue with another soup of chemicals is pure mythology. It is conjured up literally out of thin air so that scientists can claim supremacy over material "facts" and "truth" and tuck everything that we experience under the rug of illusion. Everything that science can't explain becomes mystical while at the same time science explains nothing. Just stories.

May I suggest, as Sheldrake suggests, that science is now suffering from its own delusions brought about by the love of money.

So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it. — MikeL

Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life.

What's more since SR only applies to non-accelerating (inertial) frames of references, which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, all of its peculiar paradoxical implications can be discarded into the junk pile. Its only application is science fiction literature.

What is left is GR which had a rather obscure and obtuse expression of time that has nothing to do with time as we experience it or even measure it. If there is something there it will have to be ultimately radically reformulated to describe anything meaningful from an ontological point of view. Gravity remains mysterious.

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect not SR and GR and for good reason, these theories contradict each other and are a mess, which is the real reason no one understands them or can explain them. SR is irrelevant and GR is a mass of impenetrable equations that say something about the actions of gravity but say nothing about life.

Sometimes I get the sense that you would like the creativity to stop, since you're sometimes dismissive of truly creative posts. — t0m

What distinguishes philosophy from mythology is the former should be peering into existence while the later exercises pure imagination. That is why philosophy occupies different bookshelves from fiction and science fiction in the library.

But what I really object to is pure fiction being hidden under the umbrella of science. Scientists, as of recent, have become quite accept at declaring pure fiction as "fact" in their non-stop drive for billions of dollars in government and industry funding. It's quite pathetic.

Philosophy should be bound by the quest to understand the nature of nature and the nature of life, not by how much money a department can raise from the pharmaceutical/medical industry or the government departments that they control.

. Must the fact of our personal experience of creative evolution negate narratives of the emergence of this personal experience that are woven in with physical science? I don't think so. — t0m

What physical science is attempting to do is to negate personal experiences, and turning it into some sort of illusion, purely to suit its own materialist biases. Only material is real because science can only deal with material? Do we have a new kind of Church with a new set of priests? I object when a search for understanding is replaced with a search for more money and when those who place understanding in a higher regard than money are marginalized, ostracized, and vilified. There is something really wrong with the science industry nowadays which is why I have several friends who quit it. They were disgusted.

Hi, Rich. I can't help but point out that this looks like slapping the name "God" on brute fact. — t0m

Whitehead calls it God. Bergson the Elan Vital. Einstein "the God of Spinoza". Peirce the Mind. The ancients The Dao.

It is the Creative Force that is peering out of the eyes that gives the Universe potentiality and novelty.

There is no getting away from it unless one plays the spiritual hide-and-seek game of Thermodynamic Purpose and Cosmic Goals within thousands of words of saying nothing. It is always there.

You know nothing about Whitehead or what he perceived. You only know your tales about Cosmic Purpose that allow you to hide your spirituality under a rug.

Yep. The story has to be told in a way that slips God and soul-stuff in through the back door even when talking about causality from a systems perspective. The Church was hardly going to take the set-back of the Enlightenment lying down. — apokrisis

So did Einstein when he spoke of the God of Spinoza. It is called intellectual honesty.

http://www.wayofspinoza.com/einstein-shares-his-belief-in-spinozas-god/

But then Whitehead just pastes "mental" over everything in unwarranted fashion. Everything gets labelled as "experiential". — apokrisis

Because he is honest to himself. He doesn't run away from the obvious not does he concoct wild tales to cover up what is there.

One cannot speak of Whitehead's philosophy without referring to most primordial element if his philosophy. Without this primordial element, his metaphysics is incomplete if not totally empty.

Following is an excerpt which describes the necessity of any Creative Force in a complete metaphysics, which was why it is primordial Whitehead's process metaphysics.

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/whitehead.htm

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

The Necessity of God and the Divine Natures

"The system thus far described is incomplete in that it cannot adequately explain the foundations of the creative advance into novelty which characterizes the universe. As Hosinski points out, there are three questions which remain unresolved (see Hosinski, 156-163). The first relates to potentiality. If actual occasions merely prehend the objective forms of the past, the world would be a very dull place."

"The second as-of-yet unanswered question regards the origin of subjectivity. One can explain the steps involved in the development of a subjective aim in the process of concrescence, but one still needs to locate the origin of the initial subjective aim."

"The final question which remains unanswered is as to the order and value evident in creation. Whitehead asserts that there must be certain categorial conditions which undergird the unfolding of the creative process."

"The answer to these questions as to the origins of potential, the initial subjective aim, and order and value is God. God is the atemporal actual occasion which provides the world with its aims and with the eternal objects which guide creation. God must be an actual occasion, for according to the ontological principle, the reality of the initial aim, general potential and order and value must issue forth from an object of experience. God is not an afterthought to the system, but rather an integral part to its operation and description of both process and reality. God is the reason (and therefore the entity) which makes the existence of other actual entities possible. God "provides the limitation for which no reason can be given: for all reason flows from it. God is the ultimate limitation, and His existence is the ultimate irrationality" (SMW, 257). This is not to suggest that God is truly irrational, but God is the precondition for the existence of rationality."

Everyone observes life differently. The more one practices observation the more skilled one becomes with it. There are no shortcuts.

Anticipation is the ground of all meaning. — bloodninja

You might want to try out mediation or Tai Chi.

This is what I'm talking about. Philosophers need to spend more time observing and experiencing, and less time reading the stories written by others (mostly for the purpose of building a career in academia).

The learned patterns that are associated with other learned patterns.

Floridi defines information as well-formed data which is meaningful. — Galuchat

This is only understood after the fact. Information to Sherlock Holmes' mind is due to the skill developed to discern. It only becomes information once the mind had grasped something that it had found meaningful. Other minds may differ. Information is not an intrinsic property and well-formed has no meaning outside of an individual mind that perceives.

It is the mind that forms and creates information as memory.

How, then, could the information be physical? — Wayfarer

Sand in the beach is not information, nor are rings of a tree.

However, patterns noticed in the sand or in the rings may be information if the mind can find similarities and differences. A singularity and a multiplicity are transformed into information by differentiated patterns. On their own they are as much information as the symbol 1 and 2, that is meaningless scribbles such as so :;+'"""*"'-&""':::;;;-"""&&.

Each mind anticipates differently.

I expect that we will always be discovering new things. I discover new things every day in my life.

As for God, I see no need to create something to replace my own mind. My mind is more than happy to acknowledge itself and everything it does.

Anticipation provides the impetus to flow forward and evolve? It is our imagination creating something new.

The universe is awesome in what sense? We're alive but life exists on only one planet and that too confined to certain areas on the globe. Could it be that our awe is misplaced and that we should actually rue our miniscule solitary existence in the universe? — TheMadFool

We c are still discovering new types of life on this planet in areas we thought life couldn't exist. Have patience. The universe is quite large and there is plenty of time to explore it.

It is as you described. One note moving into the next continuously, all being perceived as music in the mind's memory.

Musical notes played by an orchestra is an excellent example. In fact, it is precisely the example used by Bergson in his classic Creative Evolution.

How is this not absurd? — bloodninja

It's memory morphing into something new but as it is happening it is already in memory. Potential actions are already in memory.

It is not absurd because it is what is happening. What would be absurd is if I claimed my memory is somehow in the future.

To be clear, Whitehead was intellectually honest to himself and concluded that there is a God that can be considered one with creative transformation. His philosophy was directly influenced by Bergson.

I find it hard to imagine having a mind without any body or other sensory input. In particular not even concepts such as simple numbers would be unobtainable by "pure mentality". Such a thing is surely unimaginable. — Jake Tarragon

Of course, it is all as we experience it. Exactly and precisely. No illusions. No supernatural forces of any kind.

If one wishes to understand the nature of transformation, it is necessary to continue to peer deeper. Exactly what is quanta and how does the mind interact with it too create the sense of solidity where there is only the quantum cloud? There is much more to discover but mind is not an illusion and it is in constant play throughout our life, and it is most certainly not a soup of chemicals dining at a McDonald's.

one is the future existingly — bloodninja

Only as possible intent to action, but it is past as it happens.

Philosophy has an ancient tradition of observing life and nature as it is experienced and understanding it to build life navigational skills, not some storytelling in some academic classroom. Storytelling is easy and provides no value to understanding life though it is amusing around campfires.

Tell me more about the nature of this "mental". — apokrisis

It is what created that post you wrote. Or do you think a group of chemicals got together over tea and decided to write it? Incredible what academia can do to minds.

Does anyone seriously, I mean seriously, doubt they have a mind or do they think it is a matter of Cosmic Thermodynamic Destiny to enjoy hot dogs with mustard and sauerkraut?

I am oriented towards the future not the present. — bloodninja

Your mind perceives possible actions, but that is all happening in memory flowing into the present. The present is always in the process of becoming but never there long enough as discussed passes into memory.

I have no idea how one places oneself in the future unless one has some sort of psychic ability which I haven't experienced.

With habit, it can well be argued that former consciously willed actions between teloi have become repeated so often that they become automated relative to conscious awareness. — javra

Agreed. They are learned and are in memory and will repeat unless overruled.

Your description is a precise description that can be directly observed by any individual who wishes to spend the time observing it. It is life as we experience it.

The action will always be concurrent with the actuality of teloi, but the teloi will be a priori to the possibility of action. — javra

With the proviso of actions out of learned habit.

Is temporality not primordial in your view? — bloodninja

Time or more specifically duration is experienced as a flow of memory pressing into the present. That is what we feel as time. To make things a little more complicated, the sense of duration changes when unconscious, when dreaming, and when asleep (non-dreaming).

To understand time (duration), one must directly observe it.

I think it's only fair to ask you for the results of doing philosophy this way. — t0m

Having a deeper understanding of life allows one to find a healthier and qualitatively more nourishing life with broad implications. It is analogous to becoming a more skilled sailor with greater navigational abilities.

What I have learned is meaningless to you. One must learn for themselves. If I told you I understand how to navigate better, does this have meaning to you? There are no shortcuts, not for music, not for arts, not for sports, and not for the philosophy of life. To achieve this one must have desire because it takes great patience and lots of attention.

My vision for life is to explore, learn, share, care, nurture, and grow (evolve).

If no one is smarter than anyone else, then why would you need to tell me this? — t0m

You brought it up.

Why would you need to explain to me, an equally smart person, what philosophy is really about? — t0m

Learning to observe has nothing to do with being smart. Learning to pause and ruminate has nothing to do with being smart. Learning has nothing to do with being smart.

Finally, good fiction tends to reveal life. It is hyper-real. Dostoevsky comes to mind. — t0m

It reveals oneself which provides clues to the nature of life, but it still requires observation and even more so intuition. It's detective work not free flowing imagination. They are different.

But they disagree about what they think actually happened in the past, implying they assume there is actually a fact about what happened. It's not just a game where they pretend there's facts just so they can have a job. — darthbarracuda

In a way it is a game and in a way it isn't. They are doing what historians do.

As a simple experiment, trying putting together what happened in your life yesterday, or maybe an hour ago. Memory is a funny thing.

But historians go about business with the assumption that there is, actually, a fact of the matter as to what happened. Things can't be evidence if there aren't any facts. — darthbarracuda

I think most historians will say in their preface that they are presenting the situation as they understand it. They will footnote and refer to conflicting information. Historians are forever in disagreement about almost everything.

Materialism requires that we jump across an epistemic chasm, unwarranted. — darthbarracuda

Yes. The materialist explanation is: "Don't ask how, it just happen(s)". That's it. The contortions in language that are used in the other similar thread to hide this simple statement are mind-boggling.

It is our minds that are exploring and creating as we live. Why deny this continuous experience of life?

Then how can we say anything true about the past? — darthbarracuda

We can't. We explore, compare and interpret notes and come up with something based upon all the of assumptions and biases. History is basically the study of the past as is archeology. It is always changing. A never-ending process of change.

One cannot find certainty anywhere because everything is in constant flux.

the facts about the past (and future) exist (in some way). — darthbarracuda

The are no facts about the past. Just what is remembered and shared in individual memories.

They are certainly no facts or memory or anything else about the future. There are only possibilities that we imagine.

Somewhere, deep in the past, victims of the Holocaust are still "hurting". — darthbarracuda

Only in memory of memory is persistent through multiple physical lives.

Although space is continuous and infinitely divisible in quantum physics, and any spacial interval can be expressed there without a problem, the theory undermines the idea of the world consisting of sharp-edged objects with definite sizes. — SophistiCat

The problem of using discrete symbolism to express reality.

The quantity wave is continuous and indivisible. Had anyone actually split a quantum want? What would lie in between? Any attempt to create certainty using measurement or mathematics simply creates greater uncertainty somewhere else. Ontologically the wave cannot be divided. Too often, philosophical precision is disregarded in order to arrive at a pre-set objective. As a result, the nature of nature is not understood.

You understand yourself to be an especially patient, curious, and experienced student of the patterns of life. Great. The implication, however, may be that others here are not. You are welcome to that belief. In my experience, lots of guys think they are the smartest person they know. I know I do. — t0m

There is no one smarter than anyone else.

Philosophy is about developing the observational skills about nature and life, the life we are experiencing. It is the only way to understand life. Developing such skills takes patience and practice as does everything else in life. Those who wish to skip the process simply become storytellers.

I'm interested in experiences of others and myself, other than the experience of creating stories. I know all about this, I read fiction all of the time.