It was a thousand monkey typing of typewriters that inevitably created Shakespeare. The successful combinations of atoms, molecules, cycles, systems, cells, tissues, organs and organisms was fated given enough time. There is no need to invoke composers of symphonies to account for the music. But don't you feel that maybe, you're not getting the whole picture T Clark?

You forgot about time Rich. That's the key to the solution. Enough time to work through every conceivable combination. Of course that fact that it has, from the quanta up, the intrinsic property to be manipulated in this way is a topic for another discussion.

Do you understand what we're saying T Clark?

We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other. In what way is that not a scientific question? — T Clark

Good point and question.

Can the OP be reduced to an hypothesis, such as:
1) Life evolves from non-life, or
2) Inanimate matter creates conscious agency.

Assuming the hypothesis makes sense by definition (which is doubtful in the case of the two examples provided above), can an experiment be designed to test the hypothesis?

If not, the OP poses a conceptual, not empirical, question.

How do you know it's not? — T Clark

Did you click the link and read the article?

not — Wayfarer

The simplicity of a lipid.

Why complicate a simple understanding with unnecessary decoration? — T Clark

This argument goes two ways. It is impossible to have a simple understanding when the thing to be understood is complex. The "simple understanding" is necessarily a misunderstanding when the thing is complex.

You didn't answer my question. Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process? — T Clark

Have you never considered the non-physical, immaterial aspect of life, all those things in your mind which are immaterial?

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other. In what way is that not a scientific question? — T Clark

But it's those very processes that then culminate in symphonies and every other human cultural artefact.

And It's the very simplicity of life that makes it hard to fathom. Even though single-called organisms are 'simple' in comparison to animals, the degree of complexity involved in metabolism, reproduction and cellular mitosis in such simple things, are orders of magnitude more complicated than anything observed in inorganic chemistry. (One of my younger relatives failed medical school because of the difficulty of organic chemistry.)

Furthermore the preconditions for the formation of organic life to form go back to the lifecycle of stars, the collapse and death of which are the factories for carbon, heavy metals and indeed most of the existing matter in the cosmos ('we are stardust'). So if you try and pinpoint the 'origin of life', the causal chain that gives rise to it seems to begin at the origin of the Universe itself (which then is one of the implications of the 'anthropic principle').

And the complexities involved in understanding all of those questions are such that it would take years of study across many different disciplines to discuss them coherently. One of the books I once tackled on the subject was the cosmological anthropic principle, an immensely detailed and encyclopedic volume. And all in the attempt to understand the 'simplicity of life'.

Even thenm this is still being understood from only one perspective, namely, that of the natural sciences. And that perspective carries philosophical implications, which many of its enthusiasts are unaware of. Hence the bromide, hey it's just simple physics and chemistry.

It sounds like you already know. Atoms self-organised into molecules, molecules self-organised into cycles, cycles self-organised into systems, complex systems self-organised into cells and cell groups. Cell groups self-organised into tissues, tissues self-organised into organs, organs self-organised into organisms. Whalla, here we both are. — MikeL

Now you're being needlessly contentious. You know I didn't say that self-organization of minerals is what caused life to begin. I said it was a plausible explanation, i.e. it sounds like it could be true, not that it is. I don't know how the transition from non-living to living took place.

It was a thousand monkey typing of typewriters that inevitably created Shakespeare. The successful combinations of atoms, molecules, cycles, systems, cells, tissues, organs and organisms was fated given enough time. There is no need to invoke composers of symphonies to account for the music. But don't you feel that maybe, you're not getting the whole picture T Clark? — MikeL

I read an evaluation of the monkey/Shakespeare scenario somewhere. The conclusion was that all the monkeys in the world typing for as long as the universe has been in existence would not produce even just Hamlet.

Do you understand what we're saying T Clark? — MikeL

No, sorry.

Can the OP be reduced to an hypothesis, such as:
1) Life evolves from non-life, or
2) Inanimate matter creates conscious agency.

Assuming the hypothesis makes sense by definition (which is doubtful in the case of the two examples provided above), can an experiment be designed to test the hypothesis?

If not, the OP poses a conceptual, not empirical, question. — Galuchat

Here are the steps that seem likely to me.

[1] The big bang; expanding universe; yada, yada, yada; and we have the world as it was 3.5 billion years ago.
[2] Inanimate matter interacted through (currently) unknown processes to create a substance/organism we would classify as alive.
[3] Living organisms grew, spread, and evolved from one or a few initial organisms over the course of billions of years to create the variety of life we now see.
[4] Somewhere along the line; some organisms's nervous systems evolved the capacity for awareness, consciousness, mind, soul, what? through (currently) unknown processes.
[5] Here we are now

I think all these steps are at least potentially empirically testable.

all we would need, is to observe how a number of universes and/or life-bearing planets evolved over a number of cycles.

Did you click the link and read the article? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't realize it was a link. Now I've read it. Here is my (unfair) summary. If you take the chemicals required for life and dump them in a beaker, life will never form. Therefore, "The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense."

This argument goes two ways. It is impossible to have a simple understanding when the thing to be understood is complex. The "simple understanding" is necessarily a misunderstanding when the thing is complex. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, maybe. Here is the equation for the Mandelbrot set - z(n+1)=zn^2+C. You've seen the picture - swirly circles with points that turn out to be more swirly circles off into the infinitely small. I don't know crap about fractal mathematics, but sometimes complexity us underlain by simplicity.

Have you never considered the non-physical, immaterial aspect of life, all those things in your mind which are immaterial? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but we are talking about an historic event, a fact - the time the first non-living matter became animate. It happened sometime about 3.5 billion years ago. The matter changed in ways that were physical and chemical to become biological. Matter, energy, cells, organisms - these are material things I deal with everyday. Why do I need to consider non-material factors? I'm willing to if you give me a reason.

all we would need, is to observe how a number of universes and/or life-bearing planets evolved over a number of cycles. — Wayfarer

Exactly! But until we find life on other worlds, we'll need to do the best we can with what we have here.

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.

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. — Rich

Sorry. I don't understand your objections.

Inanimate matter interacted through (currently) unknown processes to create a substance/organism we would classify as alive. — T Clark

Without testable hypotheses, Science only contributes relevant established facts to the problem space.

And I suspect that the only contribution Philosophy will make is to determine that the OP is incoherent. The two hypotheses I was able to extract from it seem to be self-contradictory, to wit:
1) Life evolves from non-life.
2) Inanimate matter creates conscious agency.

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.

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

I've never denied the existence of the mind. I'm still not clear on your objections.

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.

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 if chemicals to magically come together, create a mind, and then start arguing with themselves - of course without any purpose. It is quite literally greater than a miracle, and reserved for those who can believe in such a tale. — Rich

It's possible that consciousness has evolved independently twice in the history of life on Earth. Among vertebrates, several animals other than humans may be self-conscious, including dolphins, crows, and mynah birds. There is also speculation that octopuses, with completely different nervous systems, may also be conscious of themselves. It is my understanding that the most recent common ancestor between octopuses and humans was a worm that lived more than 500 million years ago.

So maybe it doesn't take a miracle. Maybe consciousness is a common landmark on the landscape of life. Maybe not.

Ixnay with the aithfay.

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.

Sure, but we are talking about an historic event, a fact - the time the first non-living matter became animate. It happened sometime about 3.5 billion years ago. The matter changed in ways that were physical and chemical to become biological. Matter, energy, cells, organisms - these are material things I deal with everyday. Why do I need to consider non-material factors? I'm willing to if you give me a reason. — T Clark

Why do you describe this event as "non-living matter became animate"? Why would you not describe this in the way that biological science actually understands it, as the coming into existence of living matter? When you describe it in the appropriate way, then the question is where did living matter come from, not how did inanimate matter become living. And since we know that there is an immaterial aspect of life, which is exemplified by the creative faculty known as free will, it is very easy to answer the question. The living matter was created by the immaterial aspect of life.

But I don't think you'll listen to me. You cannot fathom the immaterial, so you'll keep asking the impossible question to answer, how matter changed from being inanimate to animate. It's impossible to answer because it didn't happen. So you won't ever ask the real question, the interesting question of how living things create matter, because you're afraid of the immaterial and will not face the reality of the immaterial. Do you know how plants create matter from energy in photosynthesis?

Why do you describe this event as "non-living matter became animate"? Why would you not describe this in the way that biological science actually understands it, as the coming into existence of living matter? When you describe it in the appropriate way, then the question is where did living matter come from, not how did inanimate matter become living. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make - "non-living matter became animate" vs. "the coming into existence of living matter."

And since we know that there is an immaterial aspect of life, which is exemplified by the creative faculty known as free will, it is very easy to answer the question. The living matter was created by the immaterial aspect of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, no. We don't know that there is an immaterial aspect of life. You believe that but I don't.

But I don't think you'll listen to me. You cannot fathom the immaterial, so you'll keep asking the impossible question to answer, how matter changed from being inanimate to animate. It's impossible to answer because it didn't happen. So you won't ever ask the real question, the interesting question of how living things create matter, because you're afraid of the immaterial and will not face the reality of the immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do listen to you, I just don't agree with you. Why is that hard to understand. I don't think the question is impossible to answer. What will you do if it is? When you say "immaterial" do you mean God? If so, why not say it? Why would you think I'm afraid? I don't think you are. We just disagree. Why do you need to attribute negative motivation to my disagreement with you?

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.

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. — Rich

For a laugh, can you find a recent paper from the field of abiogenesis which makes such an out-dated claim?

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".

So is 1952 really when you last checked out the literature? :-d

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.

Well, no. We don't know that there is an immaterial aspect of life. You believe that but I don't. — T Clark

All this indicates is that I know something which you don't, so you're excluded from the "we" in my statement. Do you know about the existence of ideas and concepts, and how these things are immaterial objects? Suppose I describe to you a project which I will do tomorrow, a box I will make, out of wood. The idea of the box exists, as described, but the material box does not. Do you agree that the idea of the box, the immaterial form of the box, as the plan or blueprints, exists prior to the material box itself.

I do listen to you, I just don't agree with you. — T Clark

Actually, you seem to be having difficulty understanding, as is evidenced by the following:

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make - "non-living matter became animate" vs. "the coming into existence of living matter." — T Clark

Consider these two statements, and let me explain the difference between them.:
1) Non-living matter became animate.
2) The coming into existence of living matter.
The first implies that there is a change to something which has continuous existence, matter. Matter changes from being inanimate to being animate. The second does not necessarily imply such a continuity, it implies a beginning of something. The thing which comes into existence (begins), in the second, is living matter. In this second statement, the living matter may or may not have come from already existing matter. So when you choose statement #1, as your description of the event, you already exclude in a prejudiced way, the possibility that living matter came into existence from something other than pre-existing matter.

Why do you need to attribute negative motivation to my disagreement with you? — T Clark

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you, but you had disclosed your prejudice.

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. — Rich

Yeah. But you don't appear to have a clue about what science claims.

Chemistry might well regard "a soup" to be in a lifeless and mindless state, as that would be talking about some chemical mixture at equilibrium. 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.

So your basic ignorance of the facts of science are just going to keep tripping you up in these discussions.

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?

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you, but you had disclosed your prejudice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not insulted, I just don't understand why you have to attribute negative motivation. You say "prejudice," I say "belief." Why do you take our disagreement personally? You came to a place where you know people will disagree with you. I'm sure it's one of the reasons you come here.

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

You seem to be lost as usual. The question was about the transition from non-living to living. So how to get from chemistry to biology.

If you have some specific criticism of current abiogenetic thinking about that, now would be the time to air it. So far you are only parading your ignorance on what is actually being suggested.