• apokrisis
    3.9k
    There is an activity which creates and interprets the information.Metaphysician Undercover

    And which bit of this creating and interpreting of genetic information can’t be explained by physicalism?

    You say logically there must be something beyond the physical goings on. And yet there is no evidence of that.

    And it wouldn’t even be hylomorphism for the formal/final aspects of substance to exist in some removed and non-substantial sense. It isn’t actually logical on that score.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4k
    And which bit of this creating and interpreting of genetic information can’t be explained by physicalism?apokrisis

    Exactly as I described, the creation of the living physical body. That is not explained by physicalism, which refers to some unsupported, random and therefore unreasonable speculation of abiogenesis.

    You say logically there must be something beyond the physical goings on. And yet there is no evidence of that.apokrisis

    There is no physical evidence of it, because it is non-physical. That's why we need logic to figure it out. And logic is non-physical, so there is your evidence. Go figure, the evidence is right in your own mind. So you ought not try to claim that there is no evidence. You can dismiss the evidence, reject it for whatever reason, but your rejection doesn't negate it, rendering it as not evidence. That's the way evidence is, we have the choice to either accept it as evidence, or not accept it as evidence. But your rejection doesn't mean it's not evidence.
  • apokrisis
    3.9k
    That is not explained by physicalism, which refers to some unsupported, random and therefore unreasonable speculation of abiogenesis.Metaphysician Undercover

    But you show no signs of being up to date on that science. @Read Parfit gave you excellent reading suggestions from a researcher in the front line. So your comment here is supported only by your ignorance of the available evidence.

    Nick Lane’s latest book indeed makes the case that life anywhere could only take the form of electron respiratory chains and proton gradients.

    This is a neat conclusion as it fits the predictions of a biosemiotic approach to abiogenesis. And it even flows from the very particle asymmetry that permits a Cosmos that is more than just a featureless bath of radiation.

    A universe with proper matter - lumpy bits of gravitating stuff with charges and sub-lightspeed inertial freedoms - is only possible because electrons wound up having the negative charge, and protons the positive charge.

    And then life also depends on this fortunate asymmetry. Because of the physical size difference, electrons could be used to capture the energy to drive life as a process. Protons then could release this energy back in a controlled fashion to spin the molecular machinery.

    So it is not all a tale of irrational randomness. That semiotic distinction between rate independent information and rate dependent process is not just about the genotype-phenotype distinction. It arises directly out of the possibilities created by fundamental particles being of different size.

    Suddenly all it took was a membrane to hold protons back and then a turnstile to let them pass in a regulated fashion.

    As accidents go, in a place like a warm alkaline sea vent, it was an accident waiting to happen. Abiogensis in this form suddenly seems so reasonable that alternative stories become matchingly hard to imagine.
  • Wayfarer
    6k
    You are aiming at the story that we aspire to the kind of rational perception that a creator would be endowed with. We are cut down gods rather than cranked up animals.apokrisis

    I find that less hubristic, really. If you think about it, there’s no biological reason why a species ought to be able to know the kinds of things we already know, purely on the basis of what is described in evolutionary theory.

    And I don’t know if the Greek philosophers really did think in terms of a ‘creator God’ - that came from the later absorption of Greek philosophy into Christian philosophy. I admit, I feel a greater affinity with Christian Platonism than with modern scientific naturalism but ‘creator god’ is not part of my philosophical lexicon.

    And regarding Meta’s statement above - I too believe, and have argued at length, that ‘logic is not physical’. In fact I’ve come to the point that this seems so obvious to me that I can’t be bothered arguing it any more. It’s like those who wish to take issue with it, really have to use the very faculty that they’re trying to explain to make the argument; every time they say ‘because’ or ‘therefore’, then they’re already appealing to the relationship of ideas, not to so-called ‘physical facts’. You need to reason in order to even establish facts. That’s why I’m putting some time into reading up on the argument from reason - sans reference to the ‘creator god’, of course. :wink:

    As accidents go, in a place like a warm alkaline sea vent, it was an accident waiting to happen.apokrisis

    Meaning, not an accident.
  • apokrisis
    3.9k
    And I don’t know if the Greek philosophers really did think in terms of a ‘creator God’Wayfarer

    OK. Blame that on the scholastic rewrite if you like.

    there’s no biological reason why a species ought to be able to know the kinds of things we already knowWayfarer

    But once culture, language and technology came along, could it have ended differently?

    That was the further level of semiosis that laid the ground. What then prevented a mathematical/rational level emerging on top of that?

    So as soon as language became a thing, a formal grammar was on the cards, no?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4k
    But you show no signs of being up to date on that science. Read Parfit gave you excellent reading suggestions from a researcher in the front line. So your comment here is supported only by your ignorance of the available evidence.apokrisis

    I read some of the referrals, I found it wildly speculative, as I said, and uninteresting. Read Parfit seems to try to make a point by referral, and I don't like that form of argument. If Read understands the material, why not explain it to me in a way which relates to my point, rather than referring me to various articles, which don't seem to be relevant to the point I am making.

    Nick Lane’s latest book indeed makes the case that life anywhere could only take the form of electron respiratory chains and proton gradients.apokrisis

    This is consistent with my claim. At the bottom of such physical activity, the most fundamental, there is still a need to conclude existence of the non-physical to account for the cause of existence of such physical activity.

    This is a neat conclusion as it fits the predictions of a biosemiotic approach to abiogenesis.apokrisis

    One problem though, the proper conclusion to draw from this knowledge concerning the degree of complexity at this fundamental level, is that abiogenesis is even less likely, and is therefore even more unreasonable as a speculation. So to use this knowledge as an "approach to abiogenesis" is misguided speculation, unreasonable.

    And it even flows from the very particle asymmetry that permits a Cosmos that is more than just a featureless bath of radiation.

    A universe with proper matter - lumpy bits of gravitating stuff with charges and sub-lightspeed inertial freedoms - is only possible because electrons wound up having the negative charge, and protons the positive charge.

    And then life also depends on this fortunate asymmetry. Because of the physical size difference, electrons could be used to capture the energy to drive life as a process. Protons then could release this energy back in a controlled fashion to spin the molecular machinery.

    So it is not all a tale of irrational randomness.
    apokrisis

    You have replaced my terms, "irrational randomness" with "fortunate asymmetry". Thanks for the laugh, "lumpy bits of gravitating stuff" sounds like the cheerios floating on my milk this morning.

    Suddenly all it took was a membrane to hold protons back and then a turnstile to let them pass in a regulated fashion.apokrisis

    Oh, the membrane! A complex filter for atoms. It seems like you almost forgot the most important part, in the reciting of your joke.

    As accidents go, in a place like a warm alkaline sea vent, it was an accident waiting to happen.apokrisis

    An accident waiting for the substance, "a membrane", to magically appear. I see said the blind man.
  • Read Parfit
    18
    “Nick Lane’s latest book indeed makes the case that life anywhere could only take the form of electron respiratory chains and proton gradients.”


    I was not aware of his new book. Thanks!

    “This is consistent with my claim. At the bottom of such physical activity, the most fundamental, there is still a need to conclude existence of the non-physical to account for the cause of existence of such physical activity.”


    There is no logical “need” to conclude the existence of “non-physical” entities being the cause of physical activity. That is just a theory with without meat on the bone.

    “Abiogenesis is unsupported, random speculation, therefore unreasonable.”


    Unike your theory of intent filled non-physical entities, the alkaline hydrothermal vent theory provides a level of detail that is falsifiable.

    I agree with apokrisis that you need to get caught up with the advances in scientific theory in this area.

    “I read some of the referrals, I found it wildly speculative, as I said, and uninteresting. Read Parfit seems to try to make a point by referral, and I don't like that form of argument. If Read understands the material, why not explain it to me in a way which relates to my point, rather than referring me to various articles, which don't seem to be relevant to the point I am making.”


    You find broadly plausible scientific theories related to abiogenesis “uninteresting”, and “don’t like that” I refer you to the source of my claims. These statements make me wonder how much effort you put into your "wildly speculative" conclusion. :(.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.