It was the Nazi point of view. It's perfectly fine as long as you are in pulverizing side and not the one being pulverized. I think the Nazis killed over 50 million people - with advanced technology. Millions of people died defending themselves from this POV.

It most definitely can happen again as the OP becomes more acceptable. For me, it is quite disgusting.

I'm pro-technology, regardless of consequences for humans — TheMadFool

This is very informative and should not be ignored. The OP is willing to do anything without regard to the consequences to human life or a human life. It's this POV becoming more prevalent because of the way science is dehumanizing people? Millions upon millions have been murdered as a result of this POV throughout history.

It is very easy for science to explain everything on paper. It simply injects human capabilities and qualities into chemicals and removes all mention of the Mind. And Poof! it all just happens naturally, including machines arguing among each other.

But among all of this story telling, there is a real mind and a real purpose. Science had become a mass marketer of drug chemicals. The $trillion pharmaceutical industry depends upon people buying into this story - that they are just some chemical machines that can be fixed by other chemical machines using chemicals. That is why Big Pharm is everywhere now - in educational institutions, in government, in NGOs, it is ubiquitous. It funds everything that suits its purpose and goals. But dehumization has its costs. Tens of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands are being killed by pharmaceuticals every year and it is being done with impunity. As for the health of humans, it is retrograding:

http://www.newsweek.com/unhealthy-food-choices-contribute-one-five-deaths-globally-665957

"The findings also showed that while people are living longer, more years of their lives are spent being sick."

It should also be noted that the U.S, which is by far the biggest user of pharmaceutical chemicals among developed nations has the absolute worse life expectancy. This is a direct result of the Science Delusion. Science it's different when it crosses the ocean. It is not merely a philosophical parlor game. This is literally about life and death.

Molecular machinery, created out of thin air by some story teller. Science knows how to spin a good yarn. They get lots of practice from fundraising in order to keep their jobs.

The Story

The human body just miraculously all came together. All it is self-made machine. Yes, the molecules began to talk to each other, and look at each other, and love each other, and argue with each other and at times they would hold hands and sing to the Lord. Oh yes, that Mind. That is just an illusion. As for this story, it is just part of the Science Delusion.

Infodynamics is information and dynamics — apokrisis

Double talking is all about using big words and talking fast in such a way that people can't trap the misdirection.

Information is Mind. Only in your world does a tube of sulfur process information. Any philosopher can easily point out the Science Delusion. Every explanation from science must have it. Mind has to be hidden somewhere, whether it be selfish, dedicated, milking, kicking, or information processing.

At least Whitehead was intellectually honest and not trying to hide Mind somewhere in some verbs and adjectives.

Anything is better than milking chemicals. Do they do it on a stool?

One doesn't have to have any background in science to read any of these books. All you need to do is look for the first sentence in the book where chemicals become "dedicated". It's right there where the miracle begins.

informational mechanism can milk the — apokrisis

Ah! A change of story. Chemicals have morphed into an informational mechanism that milks. Isn't a mind required to create information and for milking? No matter, transforming chemicals into humans is easy when all you need is a few words.

Any other stories you wish to share?

But even if I could explain how the entropic gradients were overcome, how life managed to breach boundary after boundary, — MikeL

It's simple. The chemicals get together and become "dedicated". After that It All Just Happens Naturally.

The question is exactly how fantastic a story is one willing to accept to eliminate the Mind. One way or another, no matter how many big words science makes up (and this is totally limited by their imagination and the funding they receive), ultimately their explanation is and has to be, It Just Miraculously Happened".

Yes. Every double talker always tries to misdirect.

Let me give you a different story. You see you have a group of chemicals and they all got together, he is hands, and began to sing, You Gotta Have Heart. That's the gist if the scientific story. What a bunch of hogwash. Lacks any intellectual honesty and is totally goal seeking: No Mind! Just proteins that are "dedicated to using and kicking out stuff". This is the kind of stories that Sheldrake and many other philosophers object to and why Shekdrake calls it the Science Delusion.

Life begins when there is the first semiotic step - a membrane pump protein dedicated to maintaining a metabolism sustaining flow by kicking out enough sodium ions, using the energy being released by the consequent redox reaction. — apokrisis

So you just have this mix of chemicals that all of a sudden is "dedicated to maintaining a metabolism". What's more it is "kicking out stuff"" and "using stuff" and all kinds of things. Science had miraculously, with a single sentence created an intelligent mind.

Who needs evidence when it is so much easier to use words. Science cute when it comes to its sleight of hand. Tell me, it's this the famous "selfish gene" or i did you just make it up yourself? This "dedication" you speak of, It just Happened" right or was it just made up because you need to insert the miracle of self-organization some where?

You know it could be argued that 'life' as a disparate entity from chemistry doesn't really exist at all and everything is in an unbroken continuum from atoms to us. Life is simply an explicate order of the complicated processes arising out of organic chemistry.

Life and consciousness itself might be an illusion created by a superfluous energy state in the senses (a boundary breach). — MikeL

Of course. People have been making up stories from the dawn of time. Most stories have Maker, since intelligence, involved in the creation of everything. But science is alone on creating a story, without any evidence whatsoever, that It All Just Happened, because the primary goal of science is to eliminate the Mind from everything. The shear chutzpah of such a story is breathtaking. That people actually have such faith in it and repeat it is mind-blowing.

More double talk. Just tell the world how, without any Mind, it all started? We've got the Big Bang which just happened. Now what?

No proof perhaps, but zero evidence is a pathetic claim. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence for both sides of the debate — noAxioms

Fine, then give some evidence for determinism. Do so without being in conflict with quantum physics.

But it didn't just happen — apokrisis

Truly laughable. Don't tell me you are going to call upon God? Or maybe the Mythical Laws of Nature that guide everything. No, let me see. There was a biologist in a lab smack dab in the middle of the Big Bang that started it all. Genies are a possibility. Everything except the mind. Never a mind.

Nah, nothing that silly. Why don't you share with the world your story of How It All Happened. The story of how the Big Bang created everything and then everything just came together and created everything. Not even a child would find this story the least but interesting or believable. But then again, it is just a story.

And you repeat the mistake again.
Determinism makes no claim of predictability, and lack of predictability is zero evidence against determinism. Is that the 'quite clear' evidence against it? — noAxioms

The standard determinism story (and all if it is just a story) is that if everything is known coupled with the mythical Laws of Nature then everything can be known. The problem, as the story goes, is that it just soooooo complicated, we can't predict - but it is all fated. As such, determinists must revert to blind faith in their story because there is nothing too support their story. I don't care what Determinists believe. Faith is everywhere in abundance. I just don't know what materialists-determinists have such a problem admitting to their faith.

Now, to answer the OP, the probabilistic universe is baked in to quantum physics. As for determinism, there is zero evidence to support it, so don't try looking for any. Stripped of any evidence whatever, if you are a determinist, you are one based on your faith in the story that everything is fated, just as others have faith in God. One can choose either as they wish. All one needs is very strong beliefs.

Try your story on elementary grade students who have no choice but to swallow it.

There is not one shred of evidence supporting the It Just Happened Theory of Everything. But like every religion, it's hard to shake the faith of the adherents. Religion, is religion, is religion.

Yes, materialists are acting on faith in the Miracle of the Spontaneous Everything. It's a beautiful model. When compared to Greek Mythology and Biblical Genesis, no more complicated though far more fantastical.

I don't argue with faith. When faith pretends to be science, then there is a problem.

The Spontaneous Genesis of Everything is pretty much the core of the whole scientific Genesis story and runs through all disciplines other than physics, and at the end there is nothing but faith. Just like the Black Holes achieve loves to talk about, science sucks in everything (especially money) and nothing comes out. Just lots of hope.

Fine. Science offers no concrete model and materialists are acting upon faith. I'm good with that.

Nice. So the Theory of Spontaneous Everything is a matter of faith and science just wants everyone to buy into it hoping that big words will cover up the religious overtones. Sorry, not to my taste. I'll pass. But if you ever have a photo of spontaneous eruption of life please do share. We'll just put it on Pinterest right along side other miracles of faith.

But chemistry can also model the emergent or self-organising behaviour of systems that are not at equilibrium. Or even better, are active dissipative structures. — apokrisis

Sure, as long as there is a chemist around all kinds of things can be created.

But this is not what science is pushing. They want us to believe it all happens without any chemist being necessary. They want people to have faith that the mind is completely unnecessary and is simply a by-product of this Grand Vision of Spontaneous Everything. Needless to say, the granddaddy of biological Spontaneous Everything is the astronomical Spontaneous Everything otherwise known as the Big Bang.

So, in a nutshell, It Just Happened. This is the Grand Theory of Science. Ok. Now, who among us shares this faith?

Now, do you have faith or do you actually have some evidence for Spontaneous Everything?

I mean it has been 65 years since Miller and Urey produced some amino acids by zapping a flask of methane, ammonia and other basic compounds with "primordial lightning". — apokrisis

The mind is constantly creating new things. You see, Miller and Urey have minds. But science would have us believe it magically just happens. That some lifeless matter spontaneously bursts to life, mind and all. Now, repeat the above experiment without any minds involved and observe what happens, for as long as you like. I'm saying that God is far more plausible. Of course the most plausible is that mind created it v all, just as Miller and Urey did it in the lab.

Everyone needs to really ruminate over the scientific Genesis story. I mean really digest it fully. There is no tale ever told that is more fantastic.

They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability. — noAxioms

I guess if everything is unpredictable then there is zero evidence to support determinism. Anyone can believe what they want though. It just becomes a matter of faith, which is what I said. Determinists simply have a very strong belief that everything is determined. This isn't even philosophy. It is flat out religious in nature, which is fine with me. Determinist dogma is that everything is fated. For further reference, please Google Calvinism.

There are no Laws. There are some equations that roughly approximate physical conditions for non-living matter. And as science understands the behavior of matter it all probabilistic, which hopefully answers the OP.

I believe it is helpful to fully digest the Scientific Genesis story: A soup of chemicals came together and spontaneously created all life that we see, feel, and acts. Everything.

Now, if one gives this soup a name God, we have exactly the same Biblical Genesis story but at least we have some intelligence and purpose by way of God. In either case, one needs to have faith in their belief.

So, putting these two stories side by side, and understanding there is no evidence whatsoever to favor one story over an other, just pure unadulterated faith, which story is more plausible. I favor the Biblical Genesis over the Scientific Genesis just on the basis of how thoroughly fantastical is the Scientific Genesis story. It requires too much faith for my taste.

Who is clinging to these old ideas of perfect predictability? Anybody who knows their mathematics, never mind their physics? — noAxioms

Determinists? You know, all those who believe that everything is fated ever since the Big Bang blew its top.

In any case, science is quite clear, there is no determinism though it doesn't stop scientists and educators from perpetuating the belief. Where do you think the OP got the belief from?

but I don't see any evidence for it myself. — T Clark

There is the observation of the every day creative mind that is self-organizing and working to continue its existence so to create, learn and evolve. In other words, every day existence would be the evidence.

Compare this to the chemicals that spontaneously came together and created it all - the God parable. Yes this is what science it's proposing which then begs the question how much faith should we put in conventional biological science?

If there is such things as a miracle, your story certainly qualities. No different than God creating everything. There is no evidence for either of these stories and there can never be. One has to accept either based upon faith.

But, faith is part of life and you have yours. I hope it gives you some insight into why others have their own.

Great. So there is a mind. Fine.

Now, all we have to do is wait until all mind is extinguished and then see if it once again spontaneously emerges from some soup of chemicals. In a way it is like the Second Coming and with enough patience we'll have the answer.

In the meantime, the idea that such a thing happened and will happen again is fantastical, and reserved for those with great faith in the ability of chemicals to magically come together, create a mind, and then start arguing among themselves (such a viewpoint is minimally great science fiction) - and of course without any purpose. It is quite literally greater than a miracle, and reserved for those who can believe in such a tale.

You are of course welcome to as are all those who believe in miracles. It's at least that since there isn't a shred of evidence to believe in such a story. It is all faith based. Faith is something that seems to be part of life.

Try doing an experiment without any mind. This is the requirement.

To put it another way, all chemicals who are trying to prove there is no mind would have to extinguish all consciousness and then miraculously bring it back again without a mind being involved in the process. This is the hypotheses.

Do you figure the chemicals are up to the task? I imagine they could pull off this second miracle if they really wanted to prove to themselves that everything was material. My chemicals don't believe in miracles but yours does, so wishing them the best of luck.

What a fantastical description of life and mind.

They can determine the distance from a point on the earth to the moon within centimeters. — T Clark

Great. But it is just an approximation. Everything is always an approximation because everything is in continuous flux. The measurement is "old" before it is even made.

Reading anything more into it is an act of faith based upon some hope that everything is fated. Many religions share this point of view and are quite comfortable with it. Materialists-Determinists who view themselves as objective scientists seem to have a very difficult time with their faith.

Exactly how do you test without a human mind intervention? One must take the fantastical view that the mind is an illusion, testing is an illusion, and somehow consciousness erupts without the illusion.

This "likely scenario" is predicted on some fantasy of what the mind must be. But if course it all seems reasonable if one doesn't ruminate on what is precisely being proposed. It creates a new category that subsumes the miraculous.

That's exactly the problem. Probability is arrived upon through two processes:

1. Approximation of complex deterministic processes e.g. coin tosses and dice rolls

2. By a process of elimination i.e. we first look for deterministic processes and, upon finding none, conclude the phenomena to be probabilistic. And this elimination method can never be exhaustive - there's always the possibility that we've overlooked something. See the flaw? — TheMadFool

Since there is no evidence of this and all evidence is to the contrary, it would be best if you end such statements with an Amen - for accuracy sake.

Humans are amazing when it comes to faith.

Faith? My statements, hopefully, are based on facts. Also, what are your beliefs based on? — TheMadFool

"Hopefully" is the operative word.

Everything I say is a belief subject to change and revision. Everything is constantly in flux.

Even in hard deterministic universe without QM, such predictability is easily disproved. Inability to predict has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it. You seem pretty bent on a different stance. — noAxioms

If course. Old ideas die hard. There is no such thing as precise prediction of anything. And all Laws are just approximations that are practical. I have no idea why they are called Laws. They are just practical equations.

Not that big. Have you noticed when you kick a ball that it moves with a certain speed, in a certain direction and with a specific spin - all of which can be calcualted, thus predicted, in Newtonian terms. — TheMadFool

Approximately. That is all.

Pick up a science book and you'll see them. Newton's laws, Pascal's law, Boyle's law, etc. etc. — TheMadFool

All approximate. None complete. Certainly none that govern human behavior.

Again, did you research this or are you just repeating something, maybe something often heard on this forum? Materialism-determinism survives based upon faith.

I'm saying that probability is deeply linked to ignorance. — TheMadFool

This is fine. It is your faith. Quantum physics says the opposite.

What I mean is, first, we assume the existence of a general law that governs a process — TheMadFool

Ok. This is called quantum physics. There is no other. It says the universe is probabilistic. Now you can override this with a materialistic-deterministic determination (Einstein held to this faith until he died, so you would be in good company), or you can set aside your faith. Change is difficult but you have a choice. Based upon that you have a very strong faith in materialism-determinism (as do others) you probably will not change, but you might. Such is the probabilistic nature of the universe. You might change, because you have a choice, but probably not because of habits.

Can you please explain the probabilistic nature of QM to me. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Quantum physics is quite similar the Schrodinger (or Bohm's) probabilistic equations. It supplanted Newton's equations 90 years ago though Newton's approximations are still used because it is simpler and good enough for practical purposes. Remember, it only takes one, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny probabilistic event anywhere in the universe to eliminate determinism. Quantum physics says they are happening everywhere, all the time. Materialist-Determinists tend to ignore this.

Gravity doesn't apply to all matter? — TheMadFool

Gravity is everywhere.

Everything is an illusion doesn't make sense. An illusion, to exist, must have a real counterpart. — TheMadFool

Of course. Claiming an illusion is a cop out, but that's the best biological sciences has to offer now for human consciousness, which is why I ignore it.

If you are interested in learning about the nature of life, it is necessary to experience it and this takes lots of patience and study. There are no shortcuts. Choose a subject area you enjoy and begin studying it deeply. It's not what someone else said or wrote. It is what you experience.

That sounds like a good thing. Why hasn't it been embraced and become an area of research? Or has it? — MikeL

It takes a very brave person to challenge the materialistic-determinist priests that rule academia. Bell and Aspect did, and much to the consternation of materialist-determinists, found that that the non-local aspects of Bohm's quantum potential is observable in laboratory experiments at the molecular level and at great distances (the recent Chinese experiment from satellites). Pop goes "quantum doesn't affect the macro" mantra.

But no worry, materialist-determinists hold fast to their faith. Their faith is strong.

The quantum potential is the probabilistic initial conditions which are equivalent to the Schrodinger equation. It is this probabilistic aspect that Bohm suggests opens up the possibility of a consciousness that then becomes imbedded in what he called the Implicate/Explicate Order which is Bohm's ontology. This metaphysics goes far beyond the limits of the quantum mechanical equation. Ultimately, Bohm is relying on creative intuition in formulating his metaphysics if the universe.

There are no equations that describe life. A little issue that materialists-determinists like to avoid mentioning.

You know what I think would make life so much easier for people on both sides? To invoke a new force called the life force and give it some Greek letter. — MikeL

Bohm imbedded it in the quantum potential initial variable of his quantum mechanics equation, but I don't believe such an approach had merit. Mathematical equations are symbolic and are not ontological. The only way to understand nature is by direct observation, not symbolic substitution. Symbols freeze, make immobile, into the discontinuous while life is continuous.

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right? — MikeL

He is restating a 17th century philosophical faith that someday science will discover the Laws of Nature that will enable scientists to predict everything. It is the Materialist Determinist faith. Unfortunately, all hopes were pretty much pulverized 100 years ago, but old ideas die hard and materialist-determinists keep faith alive in all levels of education. The problem is you can't put quantum theory aside, even if it is only 100 years old.

How do materialist-determinists keep hope alive? It's tough. I empathize with their efforts. Everyone needs hope in their lives.