Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

Absolutely. Most abstractions are of this sort. They are linguistic conveniences.

let me give an analogy.

Does the game of chess 'exist'? Sure. In a certain sense, we can say that it does. But, it might require no actual pieces and could be played completely in the minds of the players (with communication).

So, in what sense does it exist? Certainly not in the sense that a chair or an elephant does. And that is the appropriate definition when talking about the external world.

Now, if you want to claim that 'God' is an abstraction, similar to the number 2, I might even be able to go along with that. It is a placeholder for our desires and fears and hopes. But it doesn't exist in the 'real world'.

How can we be certain that a chair exists, independently of our ability to perceive it? Because we can sit on it, because we can see it, or both? How does the reality of a chair differ then, from that of a word? We can see a word on the page, we can hear it spoken, and we can put it to use. Can we really say more of a chair?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Aren’t such things what we call “abstractions”?

Abstractions have qualities, do they not? Qualities which define them, giving them form, even if only in the abstract.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can we be certain that a chair exists, independently of our ability to perceive it? Because we can sit on it, because we can see it, or both? How does the reality of a chair differ then, from that of a word? We can see a word on the page, we can hear it spoken, and we can put it to use. Can we really say more of a chair?

​

It is folk philosophy and psychology. Only that independent of the mind is real, but that is only real in the mind. ​

 

[RestlessSoul]

​

It is folk philosophy and psychology. Only that independent of the mind is real, but that is only real in the mind. ​

An Indian friend's not particularly religious Hindu father used to say, "We are each facets of a consciousness, experiencing life subjectively". It seems to me that all the contradictions inherent in our perception of reality stem from this realisation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An Indian friend's not particularly religious Hindu father used to say, "We are each facets of a consciousness, experiencing life subjectively". It seems to me that all the contradictions inherent in our perception of reality stem from this realisation.

In Western philosophical terms that is phenomenology in a sense.
Now personally because I can't rid myself of real, I do it as a weird version where I combine realism as faith and phenomenology as a method. But that is me.

 

[Audie]

It's not the same discussion as with @Audie as far as I remember. That was Audie trying to fit an infinite number of regresses in a finite amount of time.
If there is no start however we run into the problem of what infinity is. As a number to me it is something that you cannot add do, it cannot get bigger, it is the biggest number, it is non existent. So and infinite amount of time in the past means that we cannot be here yet..................... imo.



OK, I am no doubt wrong.



Yes it no doubt does go beyong the evidence.



The laws of physics are descriptive for those who are working them out. Initially I imagine the laws could be applied. Even what some physicists (I think it was Stephen Hawking) say seems that way when they say that given the laws of physics initially, everything could come into existence.



So the first cause might be uncaused then and might never have come into existence.
I just worked out what I probably meant by the quantum environment. That would be the initial universe, the universe in which the laws of physics had not been applied, the chaos of the initial stuff that was there after the BB. But this stuff came into existence at the BB and out of the singularity.



I have heard science and you say there is no before the BB.
So what are you saying now?



That is what happens in science. It does not mean that the spiritual does not exist, it just means that it has been defined away to make a definition that is workable.

Honestly, the people who think they can
give lessons on science!!

 

[exchemist]

Abstractions have qualities, do they not? Qualities which define them, giving them form, even if only in the abstract.

Sure they do. But they do not have a physical existence. They exist only in the world of the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure they do. But they do not have a physical existence. They exist only in the world of the mind.

So how do a physical brain create a non-physical experience? We are playing philosophy and you know how I get, when we do that.

 

[viole]

Maybe life sprang from dirt 3.5 billion years ago though abiogenesis but I’m beginning to seriously doubt it. The God theory is sounding more and more plausible.

OK. But before we start debating that, we need to set some parameters.
You say life sprang 3,5 billions years ago. Fine, we agree, according to what we know today.

Does that entail that you agree on what came next? Namely, that we all derive from that very beginning? Including you and carrots having a common ancestor?

If you confirm, we shall proceed. If you do not, then your problem is not the start of life, but what came next.
I ask that in the interest of saving time for both of us.

So, just confirm that you, rats and carrots, have a common ancestor, and we are in business.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. But before we start debating that, we need to set some parameters.
You say life sprang 3,5 billions years ago. Fine, we agree, according to what we know today.

Does that entail that you agree on what came next? Namely, that we all derive from that very beginning? Including you and carrots having a common ancestor?

If you confirm, we shall proceed. If you do not, then your problem is not the start of life, but what came next.
I ask that in the interest of saving time for both of us.

So, just confirm that you, rats and carrots, have a common ancestor, and we are in business.

Ciao

- viole

Well, remember this. I deny that and thus I am in effect un-natural, illogical, irrational and all the rest to the point that you are not even reading this.

 

[viole]

Well, remember this. I deny that and thus I am in effect un-natural, illogical, irrational and all the rest to the point that you are not even reading this.

Dear Mikky

to your comfort:

I never doubted that you are illogical, irrational and all that. Never, ever. Trust me.

So, do not ever think that you are alone, and that there is not at least one person in this world, who does not perfectly understands you.
I just hope you have nothing against Swedes, like you Southerners sometimes do.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

So how do a physical brain create a non-physical experience? We are playing philosophy and you know how I get, when we do that.

Indeed I do - which is why I have stayed out of discussing this with you.

But OK, just this once........The biochemical patterns in the brain that form when I think of the term "cat" are not a cat.

 

[Valjean]

And that shows science cannot test for spirits and cannot say whether they are real or not and cannot say that chemistry is all that is needed.
Having evidence for God that science cannot use does not go beyond the realm of reason unless you think that only those things that science can find and test are reasonable to believe in.

What evidence for God would that be? What empirical, objective evidence do you have, that we could all perceive?

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is fine. I don't look for science to approve of my belief in God.
But you do understand that science not being able to test something does not tell us if it exists or not don't you?

Yes, but reason dictates withholding belief until there is evidence, no? Belief without evidence is unreasonable.

OK, forget my last question above.
But yes, faith is a personal opinion and the object of faith is not classed as fact. That does not mean that it is not fact or that a person is delusional for believing however.

It means it might be a fact, but that there is currently no rational reason to believe it. Faith-based belief is irrational/unreasonable.

If you mean by that, that God is not proven by reason to exist then it goes beyond reason just as not believing goes beyond reason. And we have to disagree about only science being able to say what is real and what is not real.

No. Lack of belief in the not-objectively-evidenced is the epitome of reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed I do - which is why I have stayed out of discussing this with you.

But OK, just this once........The biochemical patterns in the brain that form when I think of the term "cat" are not a cat.

Yes, and real is in your mind as it has no objective referent like a cat.
So "real" and real are not real, but the cat is real, because of reasons.

 

[Valjean]

All word don't have objective referents.
The problem is that for " It is simply useful for our descriptions." is not out there for useful or our. That is a case of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and in effect a limited opinion in you as it is not an objective fact. That is your trick. You declare an in effect universal our and useful, that is not there.
You are a scientific skeptic and I am a general one, so I can catch your individual opinions.
You can be objective for all that is universal for humans, but as soon as we hit variations, I can catch you.

And the bold one is garbage in garbage out as that is metaphysics and not science. We can go over how it ends up as absurd through reductio ad absurdum. You are doing folk dualism in effect.

Mikkel, you argue at the wrong metaphysical level; the wrong level of reality.
In discussions of physical reality or the material world, you bring in neurology, metaphysics or theoretical physics. These are fine, in their place, but you are abstracting to a level that obviates the whole discussion.

This is not to say you are entirely wrong, just wrong at the level being discussed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So there are things which do not exist, but which are nonetheless functional, recognisable and communicable?

I think you're making this unnecessarily complex. Ideas can exist. When they do, they exist in minds in a time and place, and can inform action that changes perceptible reality, making them real.

But to what do they refer outside of the mind? Some ideas are abstracted from experience, including facts and inductions, and thus have a real, external referent. Love is often offered as an a example. The observable facts are that some protect and provide for others for no apparent personal benefit, and if we are among them, we also understand the motivation. The idea of love only exists in heads, but what the idea refers to exists in the world and can be observed.

The number two is such an idea - an induction derived from experiencing twoness in nature, as in two ears - distinct from oneness (left ear) or threeness (inner ear bones in the left ear). The numbers are ideas abstracted from reason applied to experience (empiricism).

By contrast, some ideas have no known external referent. They are creations of imagination, like vampires and leprechauns. Nobody has ever experienced either. Critical thinkers include gods among such ideas.

Thus ideas can exist, and sometime, their referents exist as well.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure they do. But they do not have a physical existence. They exist only in the world of the mind.

‘The stuff of the world is mind stuff’

Arthur Eddington, from his famous ‘Table’ lecture

 

[exchemist]

‘The stuff of the world is mind stuff’

Arthur Eddington, from his famous ‘Table’ lecture

Er no.

 

[Polymath257]

‘The stuff of the world is mind stuff’

Arthur Eddington, from his famous ‘Table’ lecture

So do leprechauns and unicorns exist? The *ideas* certainly exist, but do those ideas refer to some things that actually exist?

Most people would answer no, they do not.

Now the question is why not? What is it that separates ideas that refer to something that exists and those that do not?

The obvious answer is that no unicorns or leprechauns have actually been detected. And, in the absence of such detection, their non-existence is far more likely than their existence.

Now, in what way is the idea of God different than that of a leprechaun? I would argue that there is no difference in any way that is relevant to actual existence. God is certainly given more properties, and often quite bizarre properties. But that makes God *less* likely to actually exist, not more so.

Arguing about 'timeless existence' is irrelevant unless you can *independently* justify the existence of such timelessness. Otherwise is becomes simply another prop to an already doubtful existence claim. And that prop, because it is not known to exist, makes the existence of God less likely again. Any time you explain away an argument by claiming God has another unusual property, without showing that the property actually manifests in the real world, only makes the existence of God *less* reasonable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Er no.

Well experientially, yes actually. Our internal perception of the external world is the mind’s interpretation of information conveyed by the senses. Beyond that, we have the capacity to enlarge our understanding through the use of abstract thought.

So our experience of the world happens in the mind. And our understanding of that world is predicated at least in part, on abstractions. This does not btw, necessitate solipsism; I absolutely do believe in the existence of an objective reality that exists outside of my own subjective awareness. But I can only ever experience that subjectively. And my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith.