What do you think about abiogenesis?

[Saint Frankenstein]

What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future? Did it exist in the distant past?

Well, as an animist I think the name is a misnomer.

 

[Valjean]

How is it not?
Evidence is irrelevant. This is not a scientific or legal discussion. This is a philosophical discussion. It's not about evidence, it's about reasoning.

I don't see much difference, in this case. What am I to reason from, if not facts and their evidence? Where do I get facts and evidence, if not science/sophos?
A philosophic discussion isn't "I feel X, so it's real -- for me."

I am not responsible for what you don't/won't 'see'. I am telling you what I and billions of other humans 'see' when they look at and consider the nature of existence. They see the strong possibility of will and intent being exhibited, existentially, and they want to know the intended purpose that's motivating it all (if there is one).

"if there is one" being the operative question.
Seeing a strong possibility is all well and good, but it's insubstantial. In a philosophic -- or scientific -- discussion, the possibility must be backed by evidence if there's going to be any fodder for discussion. I can't discuss a whim or feeling.

And you don't see this is a bias on your part because it has blinded you to there being any other valid possibilities. I'm sorry, but I can't help you with that.

I'm fine with other possibilities, but you'll have to back them up -- with something tangible, like facts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You can do more than that. You can watch the process in the lab. It's simple; a freshman high school project.

I'm not saying you can't cause or observe abiogenesis in a lab. I'm saying you still cannot say how life appeared specifically. Maybe it was by a different kind of abiogenesis that hasn't occured in your lab. You also can't say that your lab abiogenesis could have resulted in cells. You can only argue that you have found a plausible way that it could have happened. All of evolution points back to a life beginning, but there is not a specimen of the original first cell. There are still other plausible explanations such as microbes that came to Earth from meteors. You don't know specifically how life appeared.

 

[Howard Is]

Linguistics has a lot to answer for



Look at the word “law” for example.
In science, a law is not the decree of a ruler, but our cultural history works like a subliminal, by association, in public discourse.

Not quite following.

I see no evidence or need for an invisible puppet-master.

My comment re linguistics meant that words develop new meanings, and can also retain a previous, and in this case concurrent one.

In the days before science, ‘laws’ were the decrees of whoever was lord and master - God or king.

As you are saying, ‘laws of the universe’ in a scientific sense means the observably inevitable behaviours of matter/energy.

But the other meaning, the cultural/religious meaning of intentional, prescribed conduct, is conflated with the scientific meaning, perhaps unconsciously.

 

[atanu]

No, it makes you feel good.
"Sensual delight" is usually dopamine mediated.
I still don't see your point.

You don’t see the point? You only brought in dopamine. I suggested that it was self evident that living beings are intentional beings who strive for sensual delight

The steps of what, the origin of life, or the origin of intentionality in living things?
'Don't have a clue about the latter.

It is good that you agree that you have no clue about the origin of intentionality in living beings. But two points arise. First. Do you have clue regarding origin of life? Second. Do you think that life and intentionality are unrelated aspects?

 

[ecco]

How could everything add up to such perfection? Symmetry

Does your god make each of these individually?

...Or are snowflakes just an indication of nature being orderly?

 

[ecco]

You say "capacity for doing work" and I say, "the will for change to occur". How are these descriptions meaningfully different?

The word "will" has many different definitions. In the context of your usage, I believe the definition you are using is:

will2
/wil/
noun
noun: will; plural noun: wills

1. 1.
   the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
   "she has an iron will"
   synonyms: determination, firmness of purpose, fixity of purpose, will power, strength of character, resolution, resolve, resoluteness, purposefulness, single-mindedness, drive, commitment, dedication, doggedness, tenacity, tenaciousness, staying power, backbone, spine; More
   
   
   
   • control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.
     "a stupendous effort of will"
   • a deliberate or fixed desire or intention.
     "Jane had not wanted them to stay against their will"
     synonyms: desire, wish, preference, inclination, mind, disposition; More
     
     
   • the thing that one desires or ordains.
     "the disaster was God's will"
     synonyms: wish, desire, decision, choice, intention; More

If this is the definition you are working with, you will note that there must be some living thing involved (even if we need to stretch that to a god). What living thing is associated with your usage?



If you have another definition in mind we can discuss that.

 

[PureX]

Energy isn't a function of will, it's just physics -- automatic.

... Again with the bias. And I suspect you are not capable of thinking past it.

The expressions are different because you're making an extraordinary claim that there's a conscious, intentional entity behind it all, creating the change, apparently by willing it.

I made no such claim. I simply am pointing out that a great many humans perceive a strong possibility of there being a purpose for existence, from the way existence, exists. What is determining that purpose, or what that purpose is, is anyone's guess. We don't even know for sure that there is a purpose.

Me, I see no evidence or need for an invisible puppet-master. My claim is the default position. The burden of proof is yours.

No evidence logically leads to the "default position" of unknown. But that is not the position you have chosen.

 

[PureX]

Does your god make each of these individually?

...Or are snowflakes just an indication of nature being orderly?

 

[PureX]

I don't see much difference, in this case. What am I to reason from, if not facts and their evidence?

Experience, intuition, imagination, need, desire: these are all fodder for logical reasoning, for most humans.

A philosophic discussion isn't "I feel X, so it's real -- for me."

And no one here has asserted that position.

"if there is one" being the operative question.

That's only a part of the conceptual inquisition. It's the part YOU hold onto to the exclusion of all else, because it allows for you to be 'right'.

Seeing a strong possibility is all well and good, but it's insubstantial.

Not being omniscient, the reasoned probability of an apparent possibility are all the "substantiation" we humans are ever going to get.

In a philosophic -- or scientific -- discussion, the possibility must be backed by evidence if there's going to be any fodder for discussion. I can't discuss a whim or feeling.

No, it must be backed by logical reasoning, derived from actual experience. You seem to have turned "evidence" into some sort of divine totem. It's not. All evidence is, is observed experience subjected to logical reasoning. It's not the holy grail of truth. And it's certainly not "objective".

I'm fine with other possibilities, but you'll have to back them up -- with something tangible, like facts.

At this point it's becoming apparent that you have defined your criteria out of the realm of possibility, guaranteeing that only your biased opinion can be 'right'. So what do you suggest I do in response to this insurmountable "wall of bias" you've built for yourself?

 

[PureX]

The word "will" has many different definitions. In the context of your usage, I believe the definition you are using is:

will2
/wil/
noun
noun: will; plural noun: wills

1. 1.
   the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
   "she has an iron will"
   synonyms: determination, firmness of purpose, fixity of purpose, will power, strength of character, resolution, resolve, resoluteness, purposefulness, single-mindedness, drive, commitment, dedication, doggedness, tenacity, tenaciousness, staying power, backbone, spine; More
   
   • control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.
     "a stupendous effort of will"
   • a deliberate or fixed desire or intention.
     "Jane had not wanted them to stay against their will"
     synonyms: desire, wish, preference, inclination, mind, disposition; More
     
     
   • the thing that one desires or ordains.
     "the disaster was God's will"
     synonyms: wish, desire, decision, choice, intention; More

If this is the definition you are working with, you will note that there must be some living thing involved (even if we need to stretch that to a god). What living thing is associated with your usage?



If you have another definition in mind we can discuss that.

Gravity "wills" mass to attract mass. Energy "wills" change to occur. Momentum "wills" to express itself in a strait line. None of these require life forms or consciousness as we perceive it. And yet they express a specific 'intention', which implies purposefulness.

 

[ecco]

Gravity "wills" mass to attract mass. Energy "wills" change to occur. Momentum "wills" to express itself in a strait line. None of these require life forms or consciousness as we perceive it. And yet they express a specific 'intention', which implies purposefulness.

Oky Doky. Now that I know that you believe that gravity can think, I'll move you up a few notches on my list of woosters.

 

[ecco]

Experience, intuition, imagination, need, desire: these are all fodder for logical reasoning, for most humans.

Believing that intuition, imagination, need, and desire are related to logical reasoning make it understandable why you believe gravity can think.

Does gravity, in addition to having a will, also have intuition, imagination, need, and desire?

What does gravity desire? A long nap?

 

[Neutral Name]

Does your god make each of these individually?

...Or are snowflakes just an indication of nature being orderly?

Well, I know the scientific answer but I would say, yes, God makes them because, to me, again, there could not be such perfection without God.

 

[PureX]

Oky Doky. Now that I know that you believe that gravity can think, I'll move you up a few notches on my list of woosters.

That response is a very good example of how philosophical materialism closes off the mind to any possibility that transcends it.

 

[PureX]

Believing that intuition, imagination, need, and desire are related to logical reasoning make it understandable why you believe gravity can think.

Does gravity, in addition to having a will, also have intuition, imagination, need, and desire?

What does gravity desire? A long nap?

You're only making yourself look foolish, here.

 

[Howard Is]

That response is a very good example of how philosophical materialism closes off the mind to any possibility that transcends it.

You may not use these terms, but I am wondering if you consider your view to be pantheism, panentheism, pandeism or panendeism.

 

[PureX]

You may not use these terms, but I am wondering if you consider your view to be pantheism, panentheism, pandeism or panendeism.

My personal views morph, constantly, according to any number of factors. As a human I accept my 'unknowing' as a gift of my nature. So I take advantage of it, gratefully.

My point on this thread is more about how I think humanity in general perceives existence. And I think we do overwhelmingly perceive it as an expression of some sort of consciousness. This may only be the reflection of our own consciousness, coming back at us through the perceptual mechanisms that we possess. Or it may just be our desire not to be alone and meaningless in the universe, or it may be because the universe does exhibit some implications of an existential consciousness. But to me, that's mostly irrelevant, because we just don't know. And it's in our 'unknowing' that we humans gain our greatest assets. (Which is why I tend to detest philosophical materialism: it's just another attempt at pretending that we can or have figured it all out. And that's the same addictive intellectual delusion that a lot of religions try to sell us.)

 

[ecco]

Well, I know the scientific answer but I would say, yes, God makes them because, to me, again, there could not be such perfection without God.

I guess that's why the world is in such bad shape - God is busy making individual snowflakes.

 

[ecco]

That response is a very good example of how philosophical materialism closes off the mind to any possibility that transcends it.

One of the favorite retorts of woosters is that non-woosters have closed minds.

How many times does one have to be assualted with nonsense, investigate the nonsense with an open mind, and conclude that it is nonsense? Nothing in your beliefs is new. Nothing in your beliefs isn't something I haven't heard before, many, many times.

Your self-serving defense, that people who don't believe as you do is because they never looked with an open mind, is beyond silly.

It isn't that I have a philosophical materialistic closed off mind, it's that you have a need that your everyday life isn't fulfilling, so you have this need to want there to be something more.