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.

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.

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.

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.

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 know — Wayfarer

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?

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.

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

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. :(.

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. — Read Parfit

Did you read the argument? It's not a theory, it's a logical argument. You haven't yet addressed it. As it's a very simple argument, you ought to be able to easily refute it if it's not sound logic. Instead you ignore it and keep pushing the unreasonable abiogenesis

.

You find broadly plausible scientific theories related to abiogenesis “uninteresting”, and “don’t like that” I refer you to the source of my claims. — Read Parfit

That's right, because abiogenesis is an unreasonable starting point. So reading authors who use science in an attempt to support this nonsense speculation is just a waste of time. As I've explained to you, there's very simple, and sound logic which demonstrates that there is necessarily a non-physical agent which is prior to, as the cause of, the living physical body.

I'll spell it out again so you don't have to go back. The living physical body came into existence as an organized structure. Therefore the "organizer" precedes the physical body. It is well known from the observation of inanimate physical things, that no inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. Therefore the organizer must be non-physical. The only objection came from apokrisis who said that there is no evidence of anything "non-physical". But both wayfarer and I replied by referring to the fact that the evidence of the non-physical is right there within our own minds. So not only do we have a sound logical argument, but it is also supported by evidence as well. What more could you ask for?

To simply ignore this logic, and proceed to adopt abiogenesis as a principle, and then attempt in some haphazard way to support abiogenesis with science, is nothing other than unreasonable behaviour. Did you read my reply to apokrisis, who postulates the magical appearance of a membrane?

The living physical body came into existence as an organized structure — Metaphysician Undercover

By “the living body” do you mean the first living bodies? By that I mean bacteria and their predecessors existing ~3 billion years ago?

I will give you a detailed reply to the rest of your stated logic, I just want to hit some terra firma with you first.

By “the living body” do you mean the first living bodies? By that I mean bacteria and their predecessors existing ~3 billion years ago? — Read Parfit

Yes, the very first, as the argument is that prior to the physical existence of life there is necessarily a non-physical agent. That's the basis for my claim that abiogenesis is unreasonable. And the educated metaphysician will seek to understand the nature of the non-physical rather than wasting time speculating about abiogenesis. .

I'll spell it out again so you don't have to go back. The living physical body came into existence as an organized structure. Therefore the "organizer" precedes the physical body. It is well known from the observation of inanimate physical things, that no inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. Therefore the organizer must be non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, here is a breakdown of your argument:

A) The living physical body came into existence as an organized structure.
B) Therefore the "organizer" precedes the physical body.
C) It is well known from the observation of inanimate physical things, that no inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing.
D) Therefore the organizer must be non-physical.

Logically, I agree with A and B.

Logically, C could be tossed. Whether or not something is “well known” does not make it true or false, and we have already established a physical body needing an “organizer” in A and B.

Logically, D is pulled from thin air. You made no case why the “organiser” “must be non-physical”. You did not even use the term “non-physical“ until after your last 'Therefore'. You did not establish how a non-physical "organizer" exists or explain how it would interact with the physical in the way you say it must have done.

Your use of the word “must” in D is further called into question given an alternate "organizer" has been described as alkaline hydrothermal vents in a broadly plausible scientific theory that does not require any non-physical entities. This theory details how the tiny krebs cycle (with membrane) could be forged in alkaline hydrothermal vents which just happen to have all the necessary molecular components and millions of tiny pockets that are the same size as bacteria.

This is just one example of a theory makes the use of "must" in D pretty flimsy. There are other theories like "we're living in a simulation" and "aliens seeded earth" that could just as easily be substituted for "be non-physical" in D.

The only objection came from apokrisis who said that there is no evidence of anything "non-physical". But both wayfarer and I replied by referring to the fact that the evidence of the non-physical is right there within our own minds. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I owe Wayfarer a response on this subject a few pages back. Regardless, I don’t think you are going to get to a “must” in D from “non-physical in right there within our own minds”, but try me :)

To simply ignore this logic, and proceed to adopt abiogenesis as a principle, and then attempt in some haphazard way to support abiogenesis with science, is nothing other than unreasonable behaviour. Did you read my reply to apokrisis, who postulates the magical appearance of a membrane? — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope you will not continue to say I ignore your logic. I admit my description is somewhat haphazard when compared to someone with scientific training, but I think it is unfair to say that pointing to leading scientific theories on the subject is unreasonable behavior.

Did you read my reply to apokrisis, who postulates the magical appearance of a membrane? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I thought your use of the word "magical" was an attempt to substitute sarcasm for an actual counter argument.

Logically, C could be tossed. Whether or not something is “well known” does not make it true or false, and we have already established a physical body needing an “organizer” in A and B. — Read Parfit

OK, so your dismissing inductive reasoning as not capable of assuring truth. That's not an unusual tactic, but we might just as well say that we can never be sure that a premise is true.

Logically, D is pulled from thin air. You made no case why the “organiser” “must be non-physical”. — Read Parfit

There is an organizer and the organizer is not physical. Therefore the organizer is non-physical. Sounds like a valid conclusion to me. You just do not make that conclusion because you reject the truth of C, the inductive conclusion that inanimate physical substance is not capable of such organization. Inductive reasoning does not suffice to produce a valid premise for you.

Your use of the word “must” in D is further called into question given an alternate "organizer" has been described as alkaline hydrothermal vents in a broadly plausible scientific theory that does not require any non-physical entities. — Read Parfit

Fiction and fantasy, what you call "a broadly plausible scientific theory" does not suffice as evidence against C. Anyone can create a fictional scenario under which any inductive conclusion is falsified, and claim it to be a plausible scientific theory. But of course that doesn't really falsify the inductive logic, it just proves that inductive logic cannot exclude the possibility of error.

I think I owe Wayfarer a response on this subject a few pages back. Regardless, I don’t think you are going to get to a “must” in D from “non-physical in right there within our own minds”, but try me :) — Read Parfit

OK then, here's the issue. We observe all sorts of things which have been created artificially through human activity. I think you will agree with that. The dualist apprehends what is obvious, that non-physical things like ideas and concepts, and the associated activities of reason, logic, intention and will, are responsible for the coming into being of these artificial things. The physicalist, for some unknown reason denies the obvious, that these things are non-physical, but then has no real way to account for the coming into being of artificial things. Artificial things are seen as natural, coming into being as a natural effect of living things. This just defers the problem because the coming into being of living things needs to be accounted for.

However, the coming into being of living things cannot be accounted for by the physicalists, so they posit abiogenesis. And abiogenesis is just a fancy word for spontaneous generation, which has long ago been dismissed as an appeal to magic. Now the physicalists in a state of jealous hypocrisy tend to accuse the dualists as conjuring up magic, when really the hypocrisy is that it is the physicalists who turn to magic, spontaneous generation. And the physicalist's jealousy is of the dualist's solid principles, grounded in sound logic and abundant evidence. So they resort to ploys like denying the reliability of inductive reasoning.

Yes, and I thought your use of the word "magical" was an attempt to substitute sarcasm for an actual counter argument. — Read Parfit

My use of "magic" was warranted. Apokrisis described at length, how the existence of life is dependent on an asymmetrical relation between protons and electrons, as if this were the essence of life. Then apokriisis casually added "suddenly all it took was a membrane". So the key feature, which accounts for the emergence of life is not the asymmetrical relation between photons and electrons, but the magical appearance of this special membrane. It's not hard to refute an argument for abiogenesis which relies on the magical appearance of a special membrane.

I found it wildly speculative, as I said, and uninteresting. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have to admit that given our recent conversation I am surprised by this. When talking about God and timelessness and eternity, your interest was enough to make a question meaningful, and you were generally resistant to providing some groundedness, preferring, instead, to say that questions are like poetry to which we bring our own meaning. My quest for some grounding on this question was met with the idea that I had a prejudice against finding meaning in it.

And now here I see that you are uninterested in this particular hypothesis because it is "wildly speculative". Do you think you might have two different sets of standards that you apply depending on whether the argument relates to God?

Logically, C could be tossed. Whether or not something is “well known” does not make it true or false, and we have already established a physical body needing an “organizer” in A and B.
— Read Parfit

OK, so your dismissing inductive reasoning as not capable of assuring truth. That's not an unusual tactic, but we might just as well say that we can never be sure that a premise is true. — Metaphysician Undercover

The logical problem with C is that it is not even wrong. C only argues that it is well known that no inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing.

The most you can infer from C is:

Therefore it must be well known that the organizer was non-physical.

Not exactly the truth you are shooting for?

Would you be open to rewording C?

It was impossible for pre-existing physical processes on Earth to have organized the first living organisms.

I think that is your intended point, and gives you a more plausible line to keeping D intact?

The rest of your post raises some deep and important issues. I doubt I will be able to reply to them until this weekend.

I think I owe Wayfarer a response on this subject a few pages back. Regardless, I don’t think you are going to get to a “must” in D from “non-physical in right there within our own minds”, but try me :)
— Read Parfit

OK then, here's the issue. We observe all sorts of things which have been created artificially through human activity. I think you will agree with that. The dualist apprehends what is obvious, that non-physical things like ideas and concepts, and the associated activities of reason, logic, intention and will, are responsible for the coming into being of these artificial things. The physicalist, for some unknown reason denies the obvious, that these things are non-physical, but then has no real way to account for the coming into being of artificial things. Artificial things are seen as natural, coming into being as a natural effect of living things. This just defers the problem because the coming into being of living things needs to be accounted for. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the interest of giving you a concise response, can you give a couple of examples of artificially created things you are referring to? If you are talking about maths, for instance, I think abstract is more concise term than artificial.

The logical problem with C is that it is not even wrong. C only argues that it is well known that no inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. — Read Parfit

Let me rephrase C then, if you want to nit pick. No inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. C, as is customary in premises of deductive logic is supported by inductive reasoning. I would not go so far as to accept your suggestion of "it is impossible..." because inductive reasoning doesn't ever give us that degree of certainty. For example, we say that the sky is blue, and this is known from inductive reasoning, "the sky is blue", we could use that as a premise in a deductive argument. But this does not mean that it is impossible that I might wake up one morning and find that the sky is some other colour. Inductive reasoning doesn't give us the certainty required for "it is impossible..."

I think that is your intended point, and gives you a more plausible line to keeping D intact? — Read Parfit

A deductive argument cannot produce a conclusion which is more certain than any of its premises. The premises are generally inductive conclusions, which have varying degrees of certainty. Since the deductive argument uses multiple premises, the conclusion will always have a lower degree of certainty than any of its premises. So my intended point is not to say with absolutely certainty that something non-physical is the cause of the physical living body, but that it is probable, and therefore the most plausible avenue for the metaphysician to explore.

In the interest of giving you a concise response, can you give a couple of examples of artificially created things you are referring to? If you are talking about maths, for instance, I think abstract is more concise term than artificial. — Read Parfit

Actually, I was talking about physical things, cars, trains, planes, buildings etc.. You can observe the existence of these things, and know that they are artificial, created by human beings. To account for the existence of these things, we may to turn to the non-physical, mathematics for example. We can see that these non-physical things are essential for such creations. The dualist metaphysician will pursue this line of inquiry, how non-physical things like ideas and concepts can act to cause the existence of physical things. We see that intention and will are at the point of interaction where the non-physical bears upon the physical, to bring into existence the various physical objects. So the dualist already apprehends the world in such a way as to understand that the non-physical has causal priority over the physical. This is the observed relationship between the nonphysical and the physical in such things as art, construction, manufacturing and production, the idea, plan, or concept (non-physical), is prior to the physical thing which is produced. That is the basis for the concept of final cause.

The physicalist metaphysician on the other hand will not pursue the existence of nonphysical things. So the existence of artificial things must be accounted for in terms of physics. Then the capacity of the human brain to create these things needs to be explained. You might turn to biology, and evolution, but we see within all the living things, this same type of creative activity, constructing, manufacturing, producing, all these forms of organizing occurring within the living bodies, similar to what human beings do in the external world. Now we still have to account for the capacity of living things to do this at the most fundamental level, and when we get to the beginning of evolution, the proposed first life form, there is still the issue of determining where this capacity came from. The dualist already has the jump on this problem because the dualist apprehends the non-physical as causally prior to the physical.

.

.

Yes, and I thought your use of the word "magical" was an attempt to substitute sarcasm for an actual counter argument.— Read Parfit

My use of "magic" was warranted. Apokrisis described at length, how the existence of life is dependent on an asymmetrical relation between protons and electrons, as if this were the essence of life. Then apokriisis casually added "suddenly all it took was a membrane". So the key feature, which accounts for the emergence of life is not the asymmetrical relation between photons and electrons, but the magical appearance of this special membrane. It's not hard to refute an argument for abiogenesis which relies on the magical appearance of a special membrane. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your use of the word “magic” in relation to membrane assembly reveals a lack of understanding in how atoms and molecules ‘want’ to act according to these forces apokriisis described.

If you take a spoonful of lipids and place them in a cup of water that is in the right temperature range, these lipids will quickly assemble into the same type of membrane that encase our cells.

Check out figure 17.3.2 entitled “Spontaneously Formed Polar Lipid Structures in Water: Monolayer, Micelle, and Bilayer”. Our cells are encased in a Bilayer.

https://chem.libretexts.org/LibreTexts/University_of_South_Carolina_-_Upstate/USC_Upstate%3A_CHEM_U109%2C_Chemistry_of_Living_Things_(Mueller)/17%3A_Lipids/17.3%3A_Membranes_and_Membrane_Lipids

Your use of the word “magic” in relation to membrane assembly reveals a lack of understanding in how atoms and molecules ‘want’ to act according to these forces apokriisis described.

If you take a spoonful of lipids and place them in a cup of water that is in the right temperature range, these lipids will quickly assemble into the same type of membrane that encase our cells. — Read Parfit

Sure, but they are already lipids. I used "magic" to refer to apokrisis' description of the appearance of the membrane, as if it just suddenly appeared without the need for any prior lipids or proteins. if you want to go further and talk about the creation of lipids and proteins, prior to the creation of a membrane I'm still going to ask the same questions, where did the lipids come from, spontaneous generation (magic)?

Sure, but they are already lipids. I used "magic" to refer to apokrisis' description of the appearance of the membrane, as if it just suddenly appeared without the need for any prior lipids or proteins. if you want to go further and talk about the creation of lipids and proteins, prior to the creation of a membrane I'm still going to ask the same questions, where did the lipids come from, spontaneous generation (magic)? — Metaphysician Undercover

I’ll take your moving the label “magic” from spontaneous membrane formation to spontaneous lipid formation as a small amount of progress :)

Of course, in the right conditions, molecules like a lipid also spontaneously form through the chemical bonds of their constituent atoms.

At the moment, I am reading Nick Lane’s new book “The Vital Question, Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life.” which I highly recommend if you want to get past looking at this stuff as magic.

Here's what I find in review of the book on Wikipedia:

Tim Requarth, reviewing The Vital Question for The New York Times, notes that Charles Darwin had speculated that life might have begun in some "warm little pond", but Lane shows this could not have happened. Instead, Lane argues that, in Requarth's words, "life emerged from towering rock formations on the ocean floor, where heated, mineral-laden water spewed from the inner Earth through the rock’s hollow network of cell-size compartments. These rocks contained the ingredients necessary for life’s start, but most important, their natural temperature and energy gradients favored the formation of large molecules." The resulting proton gradient drives "a remarkable, turbinelike protein, ATP synthase" to rotate, capturing energy in usable chemical form. "This bizarre mechanism, as universal as DNA, is as counterintuitive as anything in science", observes Requarth, who finds the book "seductive and often convincing, though speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book’s passages. But perhaps for a biological theory of everything, that’s to be expected, even welcomed.

Notice the quote "speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book's passages". As I explained to you, it is a waste of time to read speculation which goes in the wrong direction. The evidence is on the side of the non-physical.

Notice the quote "speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book's passages". As I explained to you, it is a waste of time to read speculation which goes in the wrong direction. The evidence is on the side of the non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Have we put to bed the issue of whether lipids and lipid membranes can spontaneously form in the right conditions through atomic forces?

As for the book review, I’ll let Requarth finish. “But perhaps for a biological theory of everything, that’s to be expected, even welcomed.” Lane's book is also filled with lots of hard science, and to the degree he advances unproven theory, these theories will be arbitrated through the hard work of science, as they should be.

For a moment, I imagined a Requarth critique of your one paragraph metaphysical logic concluding the non-physical did it, but that too is speculation.

Let me rephrase C then, if you want to nit pick. No inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am a little surprised a self described Metaphysician would call a textbook flaw in logic “nit picking.” How about we refer to your revision as C2?

A) The living physical body came into existence as an organized structure.
B) Therefore the "organizer" precedes the physical body.
C2) No inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing.
D) Therefore the organizer must be non-physical.

I'll start my critique of C2 by pointing out that “inanimate” can have multiple meanings. I suspect you mean the old school ‘there is no life in an element on the periodic table’ kind of definition, but that does not explain how lipids can spontaneously form, in the right conditions, and then organize themselves into membranes. If you peer into the world of protons and electrons, one finds their actions far from inanimate. So in a very important sense, there is no such thing as an “inanimate physical thing.”

If you are trying to use a strict definition of life as he threshold for animate, Nick Lane points out in his book that life is a spectrum rather than some hard line. Take a mushroom spore, in the right conditions it can can exist indefinitely as a static collection of molecules. Is that spore alive? If so, how?

Every so called “inanimate” component inside a ‘living’ cell physically acts and reacts on its own, in accordance with the atomic forces of the molecules they are comprised of and surrounded by, and the cell itself is acting and reacting with atomic forces in its environment.

Have we put to bed the issue of whether lipids and lipid membranes can spontaneously form in the right conditions through atomic forces? — Read Parfit

I would call that magic.

I'll start my critique of C2 by pointing out that “inanimate” can have multiple meanings. — Read Parfit

OK, you leave my argument inconclusive due to ambiguity as to the difference between living and non-living. That's fine for the physicalist, but the dualist accepts no such ambiguity. The ambiguity you describe is just the result of a failure of physicalist metaphysics to be able to distinguish between living and not-living through disrespect for the non-physical. So the ambiguity you refer to is just evidence of physicalist deficiencies.

I suspect you mean the old school ‘there is no life in an element on the periodic table’ kind of definition, but that does not explain how lipids can spontaneously form, in the right conditions, and then organize themselves into membranes. If you peer into the world of protons and electrons, one finds their actions far from inanimate. — Read Parfit

But lipids cannot spontaneously form from inanimate matter, and organize themselves into membranes, that's fiction. So you create ambiguity through reference to fiction, then you use that ambiguity to claim my argument is inconclusive.

You could use that ploy against any argument. You could refer to some fiction, and say that the possibility of this fiction being true renders premise X as unsound, therefore we must dismiss the argument. But all you are really doing is pointing out the weakness in inductive reasoning. You are saying that some "instance of occurrence" could happen along to disprove the inductive premise, so we ought to dismiss the premise as unsound. But this "instance of occurrence" is just fiction so it doesn't really serve the purpose you want it to.

Every so called “inanimate” component inside a ‘living’ cell physically acts and reacts on its own, in accordance with the atomic forces of the molecules they are comprised of and surrounded by, and the cell itself is acting and reacting with atomic forces in its environment. — Read Parfit

This is exactly why we need to refer to the non-physical to account for the unity of "being" displayed by a living being.

Have we put to bed the issue of whether lipids and lipid membranes can spontaneously form in the right conditions through atomic forces?
— Read Parfit

I would call that magic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seriously? If you are using magic for a metaphor for atomic forces, then you are just playing word games. If you think atomic forces are actual magic, you need to take a high school chemistry class. Your metaphysical argument puts great weight on the term “inanimate physical thing”. The least you could do is brush up on the underlying forces behind physical things before you start making wholesale assumptions reflected in D.

I'm educated in high school chemistry, biology, and physics. The existence of lipids is not caused by "atomic forces". You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I'm educated in high school chemistry, biology, and physics. The existence of lipids is not caused by "atomic forces". You really don't seem to know what you're talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

https://www.ck12.org/c/physical-science/atomic-forces/lesson/Atomic-Forces-MS-PS/

@MU

I'm not gonna lie, I meant to refer to molecular forces, which, no doubt, are influenced by atomic forces. I'm obviously not a chemistry expert. Regardless, I think the facts support my assertion that lipids spontaneously form in the right conditions like those that exist in a alkaline hydrothermal vent.

I think the facts support my assertion that lipids spontaneously form in the right conditions like those that exist in a alkaline hydrothermal vent. — Read Parfit

That's why Requarth said "speculation far outpaces evidence" in Lane's book, and why I say you invoke the magical appearance of a membrane.

I think the facts support my assertion that lipids spontaneously form in the right conditions like those that exist in a alkaline hydrothermal vent.
— Read Parfit

That's why Requarth said "speculation far outpaces evidence" in Lane's book, and why I say you invoke the magical appearance of a membrane. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is interesting that you know Requarth was referring to lipid membrane formation when he said that. To hear Nick Lane tell it, the tougher question about the hydrothermal vent theory is how the CO2 and H2 reaction became mechanized. There is considerable scientific debate on this point. Nick stakes out a position, other prominent scientists disagree. They are all scrambling to be the first to demonstrate their ideas in the lab. I would suspect that Requarth was referring to this speculation, but his sentence is vague.

I find it a little embarrassing for you that you deny that lipids can spontaneously from in the right conditions. While you do posses notable debating skills, no amount of diversion or word twisting can change how the lipid molecule does or does not form.

Notice the quote "speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book's passages". — Metaphysician Undercover

Who would'a thunk? Science has to generate speculation to give its experiments something to knock down.

I guess some folk still believes science works the other way. First up pops some significant experimental fact, some inconvenient laboratory truth, and everyone gathers around to invent a new theory.

But the efficient way to search for answers is to have formed a clear idea of what you might be looking for.

If you read Lane, you might be impressed by the way science works to narrow the options. It used to be thought that life would have to start with little fatty vesicles - spontaneously developing proto-cells.

But in considering the problems of life beginning on boiling hot ocean floor vents, that narrowed attention to luke-warm alkaline ones. And that in turn threw up the speculative possibility that the porous mineral structure of those vents already gave you the kind of reaction chambers you need. Even before fatty vesicles, the right kind of material constraints would be in place to get the barest form of metabolic reaction going.

Of course the only way to judge the reasonableness of such speculation - which ran ahead of the experiments now being done by Lane and others - would be to actually read his book.

A revolutionary concept, I guess.

At the moment, I am reading Nick Lane’s new book “The Vital Question, Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life.” — Read Parfit

Another really important popular science account - maybe even more important as a glimpse into the future of biology - is Peter Hoffman's Life's Ratchet. See http://lifesratchet.com/