What do you think about abiogenesis?

[Neutral Name]

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

In reality, God is allowing man to be man, unfortunately.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Please explain how one would "demonstrate" the intelligence (complex inter-functionality, and purpose) being expressed in a strand of DNA to your satisfaction. (Because I suspect it is not possible to do, to your satisfaction.)

It is not up to me to set a standard for you. You have to provide your own standard, and I have to examine it to see whether it is flawed or not. It's not a matter of conflicting standards - it's a matter of whether the reasoning provided is flawed or not.

Do you think that typing this somehow makes it true? Because billions of humans perceive the nature of existence as implying purpose. Again, I wonder, what is the criteria that would need to be met for you to recognize such an implication, yourself? As I suspect you have rendered it ideologically unattainable.

This is not a good faith argument. You are not providing an actual refutation to, or even addressing, what I have written.

Objectivity is not a requirement of truth, nor of existence. It's just another conceptual tool we can use to help us cognate our experience of being. But purpose is not an "objective" phenomena even when the fulfillment of that purpose is an objective phenomenon. So there's never going to be a logical objective criteria for determining the presence of an organized, focused, intent.

Then you cannot assert that intent is implied in reality.

All cognition IS imaginary.

Please demonstrate this.

Then please do not read my posts solely for the purpose of negating my intellectual perspective. That's just a waste of both our time. If you were not doing this, then I apologize.

I'm addressing what I see as flaws in your logic and bad faith in your arguments. I've been polite and reasonable - you have gotten personal and accused me of saying things I never said. You'r the one wasting our time.

There is no alternative. "Objectivity" is an illusion. It does not "exist" beyond our cognition of it.

This is another claim you have to demonstrate.

EVERYTHING IS COGNITIVE from the human perspective. So arguments based on the subjective nature of human cognition are logically incoherent. There is no avoiding the subjective nature of our experience and understanding of being ... delusions of an 'objective reality' not withstanding.

The difference is the assertion that our cognition is therefore necessarily imaginary or unable to assess objective facts. It is one thing to point out that our cognition is flawed, and therefore subject to interpretation and lacking in true objectivity - and asserting that we, on no level, perceive or are capable of cognitively understanding or acknowledging reality on some level. In other words, there can still be an objective reality and, until you demonstrate otherwise, we have good reason to believe our cognitive experiences are directly related to it.

If design is not an "inherent facet of the universe", what is it that you think scientists are seeking knowledge of? How can existence exhibit a pattern without it following a set of design parameters? How do you explain genetic replication if DNA is not a biochemical mechanism (expression of) of design?

Equivocation. I am clearly referring to "design" as act of intellectual intent or cognitive will.

Please stop and consider these instances more carefully.
This is just semantics. The question is: If existence has a purpose, what is it? Or, from the (semi-articulate) individual human's perspective: why am I here? Apart from that we're just sliding into the 'rabbit hole' of possibility vs. probability.

Sure, I'd accept the former question as valid.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Of course words can have multiple meanings, but it's hard to believe anyone would find talk about scientific or mathematical laws ambiguous. We hear about all sorts of natural laws everyday.

 

[Valjean]

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

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?

My mention of dopamine was tongue-in cheek.
Yes, I have many clues about the origin of life. There's been a lot of research about it. Didn't you Google?

Well, it's hard to ascribe intention to something non-living. On the other hand, It's hard to ascribe it to most living things, as well. I doubt if an amoeba or sponge has anything like our concept of intention.

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

What bias? Energy has a clear definition, and it has nothing to do with intention. You're the one redefining 'energy'.
Didn't you learn about energy and matter in school? It's you who've come up with a strange, new conception of energy.

I made no such claim.

You're ascribing qualities of consciousness to 'energy'; "the will for change to occur" --?? how can a non living stuff have a will?

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.

A great many people are wrong. They don't think. They don't base their opinions on evidence, but on feelings and tradition.
It's only due to the efforts of a small contingent of intellectuals that we're not still living in caves.

"What is determining that purpose" assumes this popular sentiment is correct. This is illogical. It must first be determined if there is purpose. You propose an argumentum ad populum.

We don't even know for sure that there is a purpose.

Exactly! If we don't know, the logical position is "I don't know." This is what I've been saying. It doesn't matter how many popular opinions are out there, until we have empirical evidence we must, logically, assume no-thing.

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

Exactly! That's what a default position is. That's why I say "unknown". You don't need evidence for "unknown." "Unknown" is what you start with, pending evidence, ie: a default position.

 

[Valjean]

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

No, these result in false premises. With a false premise, it doesn't matter how logical your processing is. Garbage in -- garbage out.
Most humans have, historically, lived lives of ignorance and superstition -- precisely because they put their faith in "experience, intuition,imagination, need and desire."
Our remarkable progress over the past couple hundred years is due to a movement to abandon these, in favor of empirical evidence evaluated scientifically.

And no one here has asserted that position.
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'.

No -- because it's the only reasonable conclusion, when you exclude intuition, imagination and desire; these are not evidence.

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

Therefore, as long as we have no empirical evidence, as you say, the logical position is "I don't know." Pulling magical deities out of your hat as "explanations" is decidedly not reasonable.

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".

It must be backed by logical reasoning backed by actual evidence, not intuition and imagination. We've always had these, and where did they get us? Evidence isn't a totem, but science's sine qua non.
You overvalue "experience" and misconstrue "evidence."

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?

Mine are the standard definitions and criteria. They are effective because they avoid the bias of "most people: Experience, intuition, imagination, need, desire." They're the definitions that launched the scientific revolution -- and the computer you're typing on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I'm not particularly interested, actually.
I sure acknowledge it would be an immens accomplishment of science if they succeed in unraveling the processes involved, but I don't really get that excited about it.
Sounds a bit boring to me. I'm more fascinated by space weirdness like black holes and stuff

Did it exist in the distant past?

Obviously. At one time there was no life on earth and then there was. It came about, necessarily, in some way or another.
First no life, then life = that's pretty much what the word "abiogenesis" means.

That life came about is a fact.
The question is how.

 

[Wandering Monk]

But we're an acquisitive species.

I love that about us.