The Physical and Life, Etc.
Jerry Patterson
have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
following questions are addressed:
What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Adam Marczyk
news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic of
either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would make
water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
Since we do not yet know what the neural basis for any of those things is,
your question is premature.
--
a.a. #2001
"We have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night."
--Tombstone epitaph of two amateur astronomers,
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Lane Lewis
What suggest that matter can produce life, just look around.
Do you think it takes more, at any level of particulate or not.
Lane
Lilith
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life?
There are five main chemical and physical characteristics of matter,
independent of life, that makes life possible and suggest that matter
can produce life:
1) The abundance of non-metals (O, H, C, N, etc.) on Earth.
2) The complex bonding patterns of carbon and its ability to scaffold
any number of functional groups in astronomical permutations while
simultaneously being amenable to many kinds of chemical manipulations.
This is the single most compelling evidence that life must exist
elsewhere, for instance, since carbon on Earth is hopefully the same
as carbon on any other planet.
3) The power of hydrogen bonding between elements such as O and N with
H as easily reversible in a locale but globally, summing up to strong
stabilizing forces (for instance, double-stranded DNA is only held
together along the midpoint by impermanent bonds, but stays together
until pulled apart locally).
4) The instantaneous dipole effect between two neutrally-charged and
rougly electronegative-equal atoms in proximity to one another, which
in long carbon molecules can add up over the length of the molecule to
further stabilize intermolecular interactions
5) Ionic attraction (unlike charge) or repulsion (like charge)
And, of course, the Miller-Urey experiment.
> What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
See points 1-5 above, and add in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which
is the chemical thermodynamics that originates when more energy enters
a system than leaves it. Ilya Priogine showed in his work on
non-equilibrium thermodynamics that under such conditions, systems
self-organize into "dissapative structures"...order from non-order
because of the input of energy. Energy could have come from lightning,
sunlight, or geothermal sources. All are limitless sources of energy,
as far as chemical species are concerned.
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
Neurotransmitters. They're chemicals. Not even fancy chemicals,
either.
Drugs: Cocaine, Prozac, amphetamines, LSD, anaesthetics, the list is
enormous. All chemicals that can seriously impact the way a person
thinks, feels, sees, acts, or even if they're conscious. If matter was
not responsible for these things, then the mind wouldn't notice the
drugs were there. Note that these chemicals can and have been known to
influence will, reasoning, emotion, instinct, conscience, and
conciousness.
Brain damage: Lobotomies, stroke, physical damage. Damage to the brain
also seriously affects the way a person lives, thinks, feels,
breathes, has a will, a conscience, an emotion, instinct...all of
these things can be removed by certain damage to the brain, which is
known to be an assemblange of chemicals.
I just don't get why you're asking any of this, when this isn't rocket
science we're talking here...lots of publically-available papers and
websites on any of the above are available.
Sajo Markecz
"Adam Marczyk" <ad...@deletethis.ebonmusings.org> wrote in message
news:v6j9tu8...@corp.supernews.com...
Spiegelbilder des Universums ] , likened the shape of the human embryo to
Pangaea , the prehistoric world super continent that existed 200 million
years ago , before the individual continents split apart . Pangaea was
surrounded by a world ocean called Panthalassa , much as the human embryo is
surrounded in the watery womb , supplied with food , water , and oxygen by
the umbilical cord . Although Adam was made in the image of God , so was Eve
, although indirectly , since God made Eve out of one of the ribs of Adam .
I personally believe in the Creation story of the Old Testament book of
Genesis as a parable , not as literal facts of history [ see Matthew 13 :
10 - 17 , for an explanation by Jesus Christ for the purpose of parables ] .
A literal interpretation of the Bible can sometimes lead to sin . For
example , according to a literal interpretation of the Bible , the children
of Adam and Eve in order to produce offspring would have been guilty of the
sin of incest , as would the grandchildren of Noah . God warned Adam , and
Adam presumably warned Eve , not to eat the fruit of forbidden knowledge ,
that is , the knowledge of what the difference between right and wrong is ,
and the knowledge of what true death is , i.e. , eternal damnation of the
soul and body . The rest of the living things were all made good by God ,
and the animals did not lose their innocence by eating the fruit of
forbidden knowledge [ see Genesis chapters 1 - 3 ] . The talking and cunning
snake in the Garden of Eden was Satan , the fallen angel , in disguise [ see
Revelation 12 : 7 - 9 ] . When animals do something violent , they do it in
ignorance of the knowledge of what the difference between right and wrong is
, and therefore in innocence , whereas when humans do something violent ,
they do it in knowledge , and therefore with a guilty conscience . Although
eating both animals and plants is morally acceptable for humans , eating
only plants is even better . In the Roman Catholic denomination of
Christianity , the patron saint of nature and all living things is St.
Francis of Assisi . Proverbs 12 : 10 says that " A righteous man regards the
life of his animal , but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel ."
Animals are neither to be tortured nor neglected , and they are to be killed
as quickly and as painlessly as possible only for the sake of food and
commercial items . Animals are not to be hunted to extinction . Revelation
11 : 18 says that God will destroy those who destroy the earth . Psalm 104
and Psalm 148 in the Old Testament have many uplifting verses praising the
beauty of God's creation , which , according to Genesis chapters 1 - 2 , God
made all of it to be good .
One day the seas might be turned into large lakes . Some of the verses of
Ezekiel , chapter 47 , say that the Dead Sea , an extremely salty lake ,
will one day be turned into a fresh water lake with an abundant amount of
fish living in its waters . Jesus Christ , who was God Himself in the body
of a man when He was on earth [ the Gospel of St. John 1 : 1 - 5 ] , once
miraculously fed 5000 adult males , besides the women and children , on the
shores of the large fresh water lake called the Sea of Galilee , also known
as Lake Gennesaret or Lake Tiberias , and He also walked on the surface of
Lake Galilee by means of a miracle [ Matthew 14 : 13 - 36 ] . If God wanted
to , He could make whales live in large fresh water lakes with a never
ending supply of food , because nothing is impossible with God [ see Mark 10
: 27 ] . Somewhere in the verses of Isaiah , chapter 11 , it is said that
one day the lion will be turned into a harmless herbivore , and that
children will play with poisonous snakes , and not be hurt by them . The
Caspian Sea , a large salt lake that is about nine tenths the size of the
state of California in area , has seals , porpoises , tortoises , and
alligators living in its waters , although over the last few centuries they
have nearly been hunted to extinction . The Caspian Sea was once connected
to the Seven Seas in prehistoric times , although continental drift
eventually enclosed the prehistoric Tethys Sea . Lake Baikal or Baykal , a
large fresh water lake that is little bit more than three quarters the size
of Switzerland in area , also has seals living in its waters . Lake Baikal
is located far inland in Russian Siberia , and is connected to the distant
Arctic Ocean by the Angara River , which was much wider in prehistoric times
before continental plate movement or tectonics narrowed the river . God ,
who was powerful enough to create the universe out of the nothingness of
space by the Big Bang event many billions of years ago , is also powerful
enough to suspend the laws of physics , which He created , or at least
allowed to evolve within certain set rules , by means of miracles . God is
indeed the eternal , with no beginning and no end , timeless , omnipotent ,
omniscient , perfect being who is the uncaused first cause of Aristotle [
see the Acts of the Apostles , chapter 17 : 16 - 34 ] . St. Paul said in 2
Thessalonians 3 : 2 that his brethren should pray for Christian evangelists
to be saved from "unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith." So
reason and faith do go together.
>
Sajo Markecz
Sajo Markecz
"Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_Lkaa.26662$lW3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Sajo Markecz
Sajo Markecz
Sajo Markecz
"Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_Lkaa.26662$lW3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
Sajo Markecz
AC
Define "thought". If this debate is going to be reopened, then I think some
firm definitions should be put in place. For instance, does my computer
"think"?
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Lane Lewis
"Sajo Markecz" <zilm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e69e...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
snip Sajo's view on things
I promise I'll never do it again, Honest!
Lane
Bobby D. Bryant
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
IOW, you didn't like the answers you got last month.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
eyelessgame
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
The fact that life is made out of matter would seem to settle that
question decisively. Those characteristics of the physical which
permit N, O, H, C, K, and other atoms to form and combine in the
manners in which they do are the characteristics that produce life.
We *see* that this is so.
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
Rather an elementary question, I think.
We observe that human beings are made of matter, and (in some cases at
least) human beings can think. Therefore, the characteristics of
matter that suggest to me that it can think are: those characteristics
that permit matter to combine in such a way as to form a human being.
The problem of /how/ it comes about is a fascinating one, but it is,
on its face, obvious that certain arrangements of matter can think.
There's some right here typing into my keyboard.
Leonardo Dasso
This is a bit like the classic locked-room crime thriller. Somebody in
the room must have done it.
regards
leo
John Wilkins
But I will answer Jerry's question: thermodynamics is the characteristic
of matter that combines to produce thought. Specifically, the use of
glucose and other energy sources to allow neurons to exchange signals.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
AC
I think Jerry actually owes us some evidence that something other than
physical forces are at work. Of course, I'm quite certain he'll just start
up the word game machine again. I think I'd rather debate with Busterboo.
Cyde Weys
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life?
Uhhh, duhhh. Lets take a look at a simple bacterium. Put it in a closed
environment, wait for a bit, and ... BAM! Two bacteria! It's obvious
that a bacteria is _only_ made of physical matter and it's obvious that
the second bacteria came as a result of the first bacteria acquiring
more material from its environment and "transforming" the unliving
matter into living matter. Actually, there is nothing special about
life. It is just chemicals, following all the physical laws. "Life" is
just an emergent phenomenon that we attribute special properties to,
when none really exist. Is a bacteria any more intelligent than a fire?
They both reproduce.
> What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
LIFE = MATTER, period. There is nothing in this universe that is not
made out of matter, of some form (baryonic, dark matter, and dark energy
are of course included here).
>
>
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think?
Chemical reactions. I am "thinking" right now. Really all that is
occurring is electrical charges moving through the neurons in my brain.
We don't totally understand the brain yet (like so many other things),
but I am confident that one day we will totally understand the brain and
be able to explain every single "metaphysical phenomenon" as a result of
a chemical process in the brain.
> What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
You're repeating yourself, sorry.
--
-/ Cyde Weys -/
Attacking your views sideways since before I was sensitive.
No, I'm not 90! To send me an email remove every 90.
Sajo Markecz
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.03.08....@mail.utexas.edu...
Sajo Markecz
Sajo Markecz
"Leonardo Dasso" <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b4dvoc$2019gf$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
Sajo Markecz
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1frjwx6.1jbi9kq75kuh2N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
Sajo Markecz
AC
<snip>
>>
> Albrecht Ploum in his book called " Natural Mirrors of the Universe "
<snip>
Now that you've established that you have mastered copying and pasting,
perhaps you might try to find something useful to paste into this
newsgroup.
Lenny Flank
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements.
What do you propose we add to those "physical elements". NON-physical
elements? Where can we see some of THOSE.
Oh, and you seem not to have answered my simple questions yet, Jerry,
even after you lied to me and said you WOULD answer them if I started
a new thread on it. I'll be charitable and assume that your lack of
response was an innocent oversight and NOT just dishonest evasion on
your part. So I'll ask again. And again. And again. Until you
answer.
*ahem*
What is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design.
What, according to this scientific theory of creation/intelligent
design, is the creator/intelligent designer.
What does the creator/intelligent designer DO, precisely, according to
this scientific theory of creation/intelligent design--what mechanisms
does the creator/intelligent designer use, and where can we see these
mechanisms operating today.
What scientific data or evidence is presented by the
scientific theory of creation/intelligent design to demonstrate that
there is only one creator/intelligent designer, and not, say, ten or
fifty of them.
Oh, and why should we not conclude, based on creation/intelligent
designer "theory", that the Raelians are correct, and humans were
produced by a race of space aliens with advanced technology who
designed us for a science project or something, and therefore no
supernatural gods are necessary or required.
I look forward to your evading these simple questions.
Again.
I can think of only three possible reason for your continuing refusal
to answer my simple questions. Either (1) there IS NO scientific
theory of creation/intelligent design, or (2) there IS a scientific
theory of creation/intelligent design, but you are too uninformed to
know what it is, or (3) there IS a scientific theory of
creation/intelligent design and you DO know what it is, but for some
unknown and unfathomable reason, you don't want anyone to know what it
is.
If you won't answer my simple questions, would you at least tell me
WHY you won't answer them? My money, of course, is on number 1.
Justin Emalius
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
SNIP
As a vitalist, I agree with you in part. I don't think we will ever fully
understand living things only in terms of their physical properties.
I don't think it's necessary, however, to postulate the existence of some
omnipotent and omniscient creative intelligence outside of ourselves to
explain the existence of living things. I am perfectly content with the
notion that living things can spring into existence in the random collisions
and chemical interactions of bits of nonliving matter [abiogenesis] without
divine intervention.
As a toxicologist, I have seen the opposite of abiogenesis occur with some
frequency. It's called "poisoning" - the phenomenon of a living thing being
injured interacting chemically with some nonliving thing in the world around
it. What happens when a living thing dies of poisoning? It suddenly loses
its life interacting chemically with the agent of poisoning and becomes a
corpse - a lump of nonliving matter. Where does the host's life go? It
certainly isn't transferred to the agent - the last I heard, no one has ever
seen signs of life in a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. Is it somehow taken
back by the Creator or in this case, the Destroyer? No, it just disappears
without a trace. Does anyone see a divine hand in this. I don't.
Justin Emalius
SNIP
Nothing in the universe that is not matter? Are you sure? Wouldn't you
agree that ideas and concepts are "things". We can talk to one another
about them just as we are doing here. Are we talking about nothing? It
seems to me that ideas and concepts are real things that exist in the
universe - and it is just as clear to me that they are not made of matter.
Ideas don't possess the property of mass-energy, and as a result their
behavior is not governed by any of the laws of physical science. But ideas
move from one person to another. If they didn't, how could we be talking
about them here? Don't look to the laws of physics to explain that motion.
Justin
Stanley Friesen
>Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>exclusively of physical elements.
I would put it slightly less emphatically. I would say: there is no
evidence that any human function has anything other than a physical
cause, so I tentatively conclude there are no such. this is called
Occam's razor, which is one of the core components of modern science.
>To those holding that viewpoint the
>following questions are addressed:
>
>What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>suggests that matter can produce life?
All of them.
Really, this question is too broad to answer effectively. (Besides, I
have already answered a variant of it several times - why start over now
when you can just use the archives to locate my previous answers to you
on this issue).
> What characteristic of matter,
>at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
The answer to this is to study biochemistry and physiology. the
properties that are found in the components of life of the ones that
produce life. When we construct a biochemical system with these
components we will have produced life. (Note, I say *when*, and I mean
that - it *will* happen unless civilization is destroyed - a living
thing will be constructed in a lab within a century, probably within 20
years).
>
>What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
>suggests that matter can think?
The structure and properties of a brain.
>What characteristic of matter, at any
>level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
>with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
>emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
A brain.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Jerry Patterson
JP
What is the conclusion of the above with respect to this topic?
Jerry Patterson
<zilm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
JP
I don't respond to more than one post on the same thread by the same
poster on the same posting day.
Jerry Patterson
<l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>>
>> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
>> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
>> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>>
>>
>
>What suggest that matter can produce life, just look around.
>
>Do you think it takes more, at any level of particulate or not.
>
>Lane
JP
Do you have any scientific comments, Lane?
Jerry Patterson
JP
That's not very specific, John! Can you get more scientific on just
how thoughts are produced? Life produced?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life?
>
>
>Uhhh, duhhh. Lets take a look at a simple bacterium. Put it in a closed
>environment, wait for a bit, and ... BAM! Two bacteria! It's obvious
>that a bacteria is _only_ made of physical matter and it's obvious that
>the second bacteria came as a result of the first bacteria acquiring
>more material from its environment and "transforming" the unliving
>matter into living matter. Actually, there is nothing special about
>life. It is just chemicals, following all the physical laws. "Life" is
>just an emergent phenomenon that we attribute special properties to,
>when none really exist. Is a bacteria any more intelligent than a fire?
> They both reproduce.
JP
That's not very specific, Cyde! Can you get more scientific on just
how thoughts are produced? Life produced? Any proof that they are of
physical causes?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Jerry Patterson
JP
It seems, Bobby, you paid insufficient attention before. This subject
is about the physical.
The answers to the last threads were among the most unscientific I
have read. Since this thread is more akin to your thinking, I am
hoping for more scientific content.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com>...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life?
>
>There are five main chemical and physical characteristics of matter,
>independent of life, that makes life possible and suggest that matter
>can produce life:
>
>1) The abundance of non-metals (O, H, C, N, etc.) on Earth.
>
>2) The complex bonding patterns of carbon and its ability to scaffold
>any number of functional groups in astronomical permutations while
>simultaneously being amenable to many kinds of chemical manipulations.
> This is the single most compelling evidence that life must exist
>elsewhere, for instance, since carbon on Earth is hopefully the same
>as carbon on any other planet.
>
>3) The power of hydrogen bonding between elements such as O and N with
>H as easily reversible in a locale but globally, summing up to strong
>stabilizing forces (for instance, double-stranded DNA is only held
>together along the midpoint by impermanent bonds, but stays together
>until pulled apart locally).
>
>4) The instantaneous dipole effect between two neutrally-charged and
>rougly electronegative-equal atoms in proximity to one another, which
>in long carbon molecules can add up over the length of the molecule to
>further stabilize intermolecular interactions
>
>5) Ionic attraction (unlike charge) or repulsion (like charge)
>
>And, of course, the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
>
>> What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
>See points 1-5 above, and add in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which
>is the chemical thermodynamics that originates when more energy enters
>a system than leaves it. Ilya Priogine showed in his work on
>non-equilibrium thermodynamics that under such conditions, systems
>self-organize into "dissapative structures"...order from non-order
>because of the input of energy. Energy could have come from lightning,
>sunlight, or geothermal sources. All are limitless sources of energy,
>as far as chemical species are concerned.
>
>> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
>> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
>> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
>
>Neurotransmitters. They're chemicals. Not even fancy chemicals,
>either.
>
>Drugs: Cocaine, Prozac, amphetamines, LSD, anaesthetics, the list is
>enormous. All chemicals that can seriously impact the way a person
>thinks, feels, sees, acts, or even if they're conscious. If matter was
>not responsible for these things, then the mind wouldn't notice the
>drugs were there. Note that these chemicals can and have been known to
>influence will, reasoning, emotion, instinct, conscience, and
>conciousness.
>
>Brain damage: Lobotomies, stroke, physical damage. Damage to the brain
>also seriously affects the way a person lives, thinks, feels,
>breathes, has a will, a conscience, an emotion, instinct...all of
>these things can be removed by certain damage to the brain, which is
>known to be an assemblange of chemicals.
>
>I just don't get why you're asking any of this, when this isn't rocket
>science we're talking here...lots of publically-available papers and
>websites on any of the above are available.
JP
Being quite familiar with rocket science, I agree with you. What I
want to read in response to these topics is the lab report that
aggregates the sum of your above comments and how they are used to
produce life in a lab. Until then, your "scientific collection" is
without meaning with respect to this subject.
Jerry Patterson
<ad...@deletethis.ebonmusings.org> wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
>I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic of
>either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would make
>water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
JP
Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical and there they
self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
life. Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
mankind.
Until such properties are discovered,the thought that the cause of
life is physical remains a giddy notion.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
>> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
>> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
>
>Since we do not yet know what the neural basis for any of those things is,
>your question is premature.
Jerry Patterson
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com>...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
>The fact that life is made out of matter would seem to settle that
>question decisively. Those characteristics of the physical which
>permit N, O, H, C, K, and other atoms to form and combine in the
>manners in which they do are the characteristics that produce life.
>We *see* that this is so.
JP
Oh? Until your hypothesis is proven by "making" life in a lab, you
will be unable to answer these questions. Vague generalities are not
of scientific content.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
dkomo
A request for more scientific content seems like a strange request
coming from someone whose web site is a long sequence of completely
non-scientific religious rantings. Please explain how you reconcile
your rantings with an interest in scientific content. Do you have a
split personality?
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
The rantings are here:
Bobby D. Bryant
> Oh? Until your hypothesis is proven by "making" life in a lab, you will
> be unable to answer these questions. Vague generalities are not of
> scientific content.
So the burden of proof is on everyone else, eh? Why not show us up by
making your immaterial stuff think?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical and there they
> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
> life. Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
> mankind.
>
> Until such properties are discovered,the thought that the cause of
> life is physical remains a giddy notion.
The problem for you is that invoking some completely unobserved
"immaterial component" doesn't explain life either. You're arguing "I
don't know what makes X happen, but I propose that there exists some Y
that makes it happen. And by the way, Y is immaterial."
That last qualification is completely unsupported, and adds more stuff to
explain than when you started. Ockham's Razor says it should go.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>>Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>>have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>>exclusively of physical elements.
>
> I would put it slightly less emphatically. I would say: there is no
> evidence that any human function has anything other than a physical
> cause, so I tentatively conclude there are no such. this is called
> Occam's razor, which is one of the core components of modern science.
I agree, but would go further and point out that invoking immaterial
causes actually *adds* to what needs to be explained, without actually
explaining anything we've already got.
What is it about the immaterial that gives it the ability to cause stuff
that the material can't cause? Without an answer to that, invoking the
immaterial explains nothing.
How does the material influence the immaterial, and vice versa? These are
new questions that didn't even exist before the non-answer of
immaterialism was invoked.
Invoking the immaterial leaves us worse off than before. Let's defer to
Ockham and ditch the unmotivated explanations.
[...]
>>What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate, suggests
>>that matter can think?
>
> The structure and properties of a brain.
And observed operations.
Bobby D. Bryant
> That's not very specific, Cyde! Can you get more scientific on just
> how thoughts are produced? Life produced? Any proof that they are of
> physical causes?
Can ***you*** get mmore specific on how your non-physical stuff produces
life and thought?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Being quite familiar with rocket science, I agree with you. What I want
> to read in response to these topics is the lab report that aggregates
> the sum of your above comments and how they are used to produce life in
> a lab. Until then, your "scientific collection" is without meaning with
> respect to this subject.
And we, in turn, would like to see you demonstrate how your non-physical
"stuff" can create life in the lab.
Bobby D. Bryant
> It seems, Bobby, you paid insufficient attention before. This subject is
> about the physical.
>
> The answers to the last threads were among the most unscientific I have
> read. Since this thread is more akin to your thinking, I am hoping for
> more scientific content.
Good, I look forward to seeing your answers to the scientific questions
I've just now posted in this thread.
But I'm not holding my breath.
AC
I see you're working back towards the god of the gaps argument here. Just
because we cannot explain all of the activities that go on in the brain to
produce what we call "thought" doesn't mean that we must invoke immaterial
explanations. YOu do understand that a god of the gaps can only shrink as
knowledge increases. But then again, Jerry, this was all hashed over in the
last series of threads. So, if you can produce evidence that something
other than the purely physical is required to create thought, then please do
so. Otherwise, this just looks like "You don't know the answer so my ideas
must be correct". Science is not afraid of the phrase "We don't know".
AC
<snip>
> JP
> I don't respond to more than one post on the same thread by the same
> poster on the same posting day.
Yes, we're aware of that Jerry. It's a way for you to avoid answering any
questions.
John Wilkins
Not without a primer on neurophysiology, Jerry. But even if I could,
would it change your mind? You have an a priori definition, or rather
intuition, of what thinking is, and *that* will never be found in a
physical description, of course. Your problem, and the problem of those
who argue from such things as subjective states (like qualia) is that
you define the problem in a way that is insoluble. But there is no such
*thing* as "thinking", there is only a series of acts and processes we
call "thoughts", not all alike.
But that is not what you asked - you wanted to know what *properties* of
matter (OK, you used the word "characteristics", but I took it that way)
made it possible for matter to think. The answer is that different
configurations of matter capture and release energy in different ways.
Some of them manage to do this in ways that make it possible for
organisms to respond to their world through learning. Some of *them*
manage to model their world internally using the same neural tissues, so
that they can anticipate their world's behaviour in many cases. Of that
set, some of them manage to model abstractions. All of this is done
through the exchange of molecules between neurons and through the use of
biochemical energy to do so.
There are gaps in our knowledge of how this happens, but they get
smaller daily. There are aspects of it that are sketchy. If you choose
to locate this immaterial soul or reason in these gaps, then like
Cartesian dualists before you you will find less and less room for it.
Every time a gap is filled out in detail, you have less and less reason
to believe in this immaterial soul. This has been the trend *since*
Descartes, but particularly since Luria in the mid 20thC.
Alan Turing, the founder of modern computing, believed that machines
will one day think because he believed that brains do something that can
be modelled on a computer, and if you can model something on a computer
then it is computable (and hence describable entirely in terms of a
Universal Turing Machine). I think that he oversimpified the problem,
but that something like it is true.
Beware also of the Turing Syllogism...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
eyelessgame
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:58:02 +0000 (UTC), aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com>...
> >> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> >> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> >> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> >> following questions are addressed:
> >>
> >> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> >> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> >> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> >> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> >
> >The fact that life is made out of matter would seem to settle that
> >question decisively. Those characteristics of the physical which
> >permit N, O, H, C, K, and other atoms to form and combine in the
> >manners in which they do are the characteristics that produce life.
> >We *see* that this is so.
>
> JP
> Oh? Until your hypothesis is proven by "making" life in a lab, you
> will be unable to answer these questions. Vague generalities are not
> of scientific content.
I beg your pardon? We can determine precisely what a human body -- or
any other sort of living thing -- is made of: it's made of matter, the
same sorts of matter as in the rest of the environment around us.
Moreover, the elementary particles within a living thing behave in
precise accord with the same laws of physics and chemistry as hold
outside of living things.
Therefore, matter acting in accord with the laws of physics and
chemistry can, prima facie, produce life. Under *what* conditions it
can arrange itself into patterns that we would call living is a good
question, but that's not what you asked. (Your question, by the way,
falls under the category of "vague generality". What sort of answer
were you looking for?)
We don't need to produce a star in a laboratory to know what's in a
star, nor to determine that stars form and behave in accord with the
same physical laws as hold outside of stars. Why do you think we have
to "reproduce life" in a laboratory -- a process that, by the way,
seems to have taken about half a billion years in nature -- in order
to know that it follows the laws of chemistry and physics? We can
*look* at living things and observe that they follow the laws of
chemistry and physics; therefore those laws are sufficient to produce
living things under the right circumstances.
Leonardo Dasso
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1frjwx6.1jbi9kq75kuh2N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Leonardo Dasso <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> > news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
> > > Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human
functions
> > > have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> > > exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint
the
> > > following questions are addressed:
> > >
> > > What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> > > suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of
matter,
> > > at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be
combined
> > > with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> > >
> > > suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at
any
> > > level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be
combined
> > > with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> > > emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
> > > Blessings,
> > > Jerry
> >
in
> > the room must have done it.
> > regards
> > leo
>
> But I will answer Jerry's question: thermodynamics is the
characteristic
> of matter that combines to produce thought. Specifically, the use of
> glucose and other energy sources to allow neurons to exchange signals.
> John Wilkins
Thermodynamics is a characteristic of matter? And it combines? with
whom?
Fosters must be coming stronger this season.
regards
leo
joe blow
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 05:31:53 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>
>IOW, you didn't like the answers you got last month.
I am independent, but I have not yet read an answer to the question he
posed? IS THERE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF to defend what school children
are forcibly taught?
I also liked the question of what is thought. How can we prove
thought exists or if it exists how does it die?
You have no knowledge or thought of what you had for lunch yesterday
until the question is asked and you remember. Prior to the question
it did not exist. It has no shape or size or color, or weight, and
is not radioactive, or emit sound or heat so prove a thought.
But as you can prove a hair is on your head, you can not prove a
thought. What makes a man different from and ape? Is it is not the
recorded thoughts of a lifetime, that make you different from me?
If you thought cannot be proved, how can you prove thought dies?
I thought, therefore I am!
John Wilkins
Pedant. Scope error: thermodynamic properties of <matter that combines>
enable matter to produce thought. OK?
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Cyde Weys
> Sajo Markecz wrote:
>
> >"Cyde Weys" wrote in message
> >news:a6xaa.4761$p2....@nwrddc1.gnilink.net...
> >
> >>Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human
> >>>functions have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are
> >>>constituted exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that
> >>>viewpoint the following questions are addressed:
> >>>
> >>>What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> >>>suggests that matter can produce life?
> >>
> >>
> >>Uhhh, duhhh. Lets take a look at a simple bacterium. Put it in a
> >>closed environment, wait for a bit, and ... BAM! Two bacteria!
> >>It's obvious that a bacteria is _only_ made of physical matter and
> >>it's obvious that the second bacteria came as a result of the first
> >>bacteria acquiring
> >>more material from its environment and "transforming" the unliving
> >>matter into living matter. Actually, there is nothing special about
> >>life. It is just chemicals, following all the physical laws.
> >>"Life" is just an emergent phenomenon that we attribute special
> >>properties to,
> >>when none really exist. Is a bacteria any more intelligent than a
> >> fire? They both reproduce.
> >>
> >>
> >>>What characteristic of matter,
> >>>at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> >>>with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> >>
> >>
> >>LIFE = MATTER, period. There is nothing in this universe that is not
> >>made out of matter, of some form (baryonic, dark matter, and dark
> >>energy are of course included here).
> >>
>
>
> SNIP
>
> Nothing in the universe that is not matter? Are you sure? Wouldn't you
> agree that ideas and concepts are "things".
To me, a thing is something made of matter. There is no such "thing" as
the ideological: thoughts, ideas, etc. Thoughts and ideas really aren't
anything except for neural patterns in the brain that let us talk to and
discuss them with others.
> We can talk to one another
> about them just as we are doing here. Are we talking about nothing? It
> seems to me that ideas and concepts are real things that exist in the
> universe - and it is just as clear to me that they are not made of matter.
> Ideas don't possess the property of mass-energy, and as a result their
> behavior is not governed by any of the laws of physical science. But
> ideas
> move from one person to another. If they didn't, how could we be talking
> about them here? Don't look to the laws of physics to explain that
> motion.
In summary, you are still looking at the universe at a too-high level.
Delve deeper, and ideas, thoughts, etc., are meaningless: what is a
"thought"? Just a neurochemical pattern in the brain. Without brains
there would be no such "things" as "thoughts". I'm a strict
materialist, in case you didn't notice.
--
-/ Cyde Weys -/
Attacking your views sideways since before I was sensitive.
No, I'm not 90! To send me an email remove every 90.
Adam Marczyk
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:06:00 +0000 (UTC), "Adam Marczyk"
> <ad...@deletethis.ebonmusings.org> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> >news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
> >> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> >> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> >> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> >> following questions are addressed:
> >>
> >> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> >> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> >> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> >> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> >
> >I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic of
> >either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would
make
> >water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
>
> JP
> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical
As are carbon and nitrogen, and together those four elements (along with
some others in smaller quantities) make up all living things we know about.
By contrast, I know of no scientific evidence suggesting the necessity of
some immaterial and conveniently undetectable "soul-stuff," nor in fact any
evidence suggesting that such a thing even exists.
> and there they
> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
> life.
Which was exactly the point of my analogy, hence it does not "fail".
> Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
> mankind.
That statement is demonstrably false. Human beings have synthesized viruses
from scratch in the lab; we have created bacteria that use new amino acids
not found in nature as part of their fundamental genetic code; we have
produced proteinoid microspheres that have a metabolism and can grow and
reproduce; we have created hypercycles of self-replicating RNA molecules.
> Until such properties are discovered,
What properties? Are you just cutting and pasting this from somewhere?
> the thought that the cause of
> life is physical remains a giddy notion.
www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
Try finding the soul in there.
--
a.a. #2001
"Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot... make a triangle
whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai
and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved
surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even
approximately gods." --Carl Sagan, _Broca's Brain_
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Lilith
So why don't you just come out and say that in the first place? "I
want to see how we can create life in a lab because I know so far that
nobody has." Be truthful. Be honest.
And we'll all come back to you and tell you that there's no blueprint
for creating life in a lab. The science of complexity, and
non-equilibrium chemical dynamics is only decades old. You'll have to
wait a bit longer.
As for all my other points, they're easily accessible on PubMed.
Lane Lewis
Do you have any scientific questions?
MY first comment is scientific, observation is the key here. Have you
noticed anything besides matter forming life.
The second was a mostly a sarcastic remark on your use of the word
particulate. Humans are made of atoms which can be considered particles
or waves. "Level of particulate" when referring to life is nonsensical.
Would you care to try again.
Lane
Bobby D. Bryant
> The second was a mostly a sarcastic remark on your use of the word
> particulate. Humans are made of atoms which can be considered particles
> or waves. "Level of particulate" when referring to life is nonsensical.
Maybe he was planning on using filter paper to separate the life from the
insensate matter.
Bill Rogers
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Welcome back. Do we really need to start from scratch, though? Here's
my response to the end of the thread before you traveled, in case you
want to take up where we left off.
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<dlai5vcgic31s92ps...@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:30:11 +0000 (UTC), bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
> (Bill Rogers) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<fdk55vgs6toteavks...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:07:53 +0000 (UTC), nick.k...@marconi.com
> >> (Nick Keighley) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<mlvp4v8ut9b2d3q80...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Ken Cope"
> >> >> <fil...@ozcot.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:5ego4vcm8sdqk8sa3...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:03:30 +0000 (UTC), catshark
> >> >> >> <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> <snip>> <snip>
> >
> >Certainly, the mind, emotions, instincts, conscience, etc are "real"
> >things. Either they are physical things or at least some of them are
> >non-physical things. If they are non-physical things then the mind is
> >not just the brain and its different physical states. What do you
> >think is the relationship between them? It is clearly true that
> >altering the physical state of the brain can alter the mind;
> >psychoactive drugs, brain injury, stroke, fever, degenerative brain
> >diseases, all can alter the mind and the personality. So if you are a
> >mind-brain dualist you would have trouble denying that the brain
> >affects the mind. On the other hand, what mechanism do you propose to
> >explain how the mind influences the physical brain? Do immaterial
> >thoughts push open ion channels in neuron membranes to allow current
> >to flow to produce changes in the physical brain? It's not an
> >impossible position to defend, but you have to try to explain how the
> >immaterial mind interacts with the physical brain.
>
> JP
> I am no such thing. The brain and the mind are, indeed, related. The
> brain is like a switchboard and the mind is the thinking, among other
> attributes, reality with an unfathomable communication link to the
> brain, which is physical.
Why unfathomable? We can do experiments to see how changes in the
brain lead to changes in the mind. Why not do the reverse? In fact
with neuroimaging of brain metabolism it actually is possible to ask
someone to perform a mental task and see how thinking those thoughts
changes the physical brain (if you look at it in a dualistic way). I
think the down side of looking at things in this dualistic way is
this. You have a brain; we know that the brain follows physical laws.
We know that physical changes to the brain can affect your thoughts,
feelings, and even your basic personality. If you think of having a
soul distinct from the brain, it ends up being a sort of weak,
trapped, almost helpless thing. It is constrained by the physical laws
governing the brain. And the only way to give it any influence of the
brain is to make some (pretty lame) argument about how quantum
indeterminacy might allow it to influence the motions of enough atoms
in the brain that it could push thought in one direction or another
without violating any laws of physics. If you think about mind-brain
dualism in light of everything that is known about how physical
changes in the brain affect the mind, you end up with the image that
the mind is a little Charlie Chaplin trapped in some huge industrial
machine desperately trying to control what happens. It seems to me
that it makes more sense to say that you just *are* the body/brain
combination and what is "undimensionable" is not some added
"immaterial" component, but simply your subjective experience of what
it is to be such a thing.
> Your last sentence is correct. That link is
> not necessary to establish because no one can provide the dimensions
> that those humans attributes are physical.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by the verb "to dimension." Do you
mean that no one can "measure" thoughts, feelings, etc? Certainly, if
you take a "physical only" point of view the dimensions of a thought
are summed up by the physical dimensions of the set of neurons whose
activity *is* the thought.
>Only two states exist in
> time: the physical and the immaterial.
That is one way to think of it, certainly. Another way would be to say
that there are only two perspectives, the objective and the
subjective. What you call the "immaterial" is the subjective
experience of what it feels like to *be* a brain. What you call the
physical is the objective existence of everything in the universe,
including that little bit of it that is your body and brain.
>
>
> >It does seem simpler to me to just call everything physical. But the
> >difference between the brain (and the body) and the rest of the
> >physical world is that it *is* what we are. Everything else we just
> >observe; we *are* our body and brain so we have a subjective
> >experience of what it is to be that particular arrangement of physical
> >things. It just seems simpler to me to claim that thought and emotions
> >are just things that physical matter does, when arranged in the
> >proper, suitably complex arrangement, than to try to set up a dualism
> >between mind and matter and try to explain how they can interact with
> >each other (in fact with a rigorous enough definition of physical and
> >non-physical you might have to conclude that it would be completely
> >impossible for them to influence each other). For many years vitalists
> >believed that living matter was somehow *different* from inorganic
> >matter; you may be a holdout, I do not know, but most have come to the
> >conlusion that *life* is something matter does under the right
> >conditions. Why not the same for *mind*?
>
> JP
> They are different. That is why they have different formulas. The
> difference is that which provides the animation! The mind exists as
> the "manager" of the body as well as providing the other immaterial
> functions.
I am afraid you lost me on the "different formulas" bit. Why would it
be insufficient to say that the brain is the "manager" of the body?
What are the "immaterial functions"? Do you mean, thoughts, feelings,
volition? If so, that is just what we are talking about, the
possibility that those might be physical things (which you experience
subjectively).
>Think of why we cannot simply put a brain on a lab bench
> and retrieve its thoughts? Trouble? Just supply the correct physical
> wherewithal!
Well, no, the brain on the lab bench doesn't work. But it is possible
to electrically stimulate different regions of a person's brain and
then ask them what they thought immediately after the stimulation. It
is possible to ask them to think particular thoughts or perform
certain mental tasks and then use brain imaging techniques to see what
part of the brain is active when they are thinking those specific
thoughts.
>
> >The problem with this view is that it is sometimes stated "See, all
> >your thoughts, your love for your family, your dreams, etc are *just*
> >atoms moving mindlessly through the void. Beethoven's Late Quartets
> >are *just* horse hair scraped across catgut." But seeing everything as
> >physical can just as easily be used to increase one's amazement at the
> >versatility and potential of matter, as to devalue mind. To claim that
> >the world is *just* physical does not devalue it, or make life
> >meaningless, or push towards nihilism.
> >
> >Bill
>
> JP
> You have one of the more thougtful posts, Bill. The potential of
> matter? That leads into my next thread. Your response is the last word
> on this thread.
>
> I will be leaving for a week or so, consequently this thread will have
> more responses than I will have time to which to respond. As a result,
> I will start at least one new thread on these forums titled "The
> Physical and Life, Etc."
Bill Rogers
> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
> following questions are addressed:
>
> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>
> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
I am pretty comfortable with the idea that life and mind are emergent
properties of matter; it is not, to me, a bleak, or negative point of
view. It just means one has to look at matter with a new appreciation
of its potential. Stop looking at it as little solid balls spinning
through the void. Science does seem to be doing a pretty good job
explaining the physical and chemical basis of life and even beginning
to get a handle on the neurobiology of consciousness. Given that, why
should one be in a hurry to hypothesize "immaterial" components which
one cannot learn anything about by observation. Sure, I suppose they
could be there, but what specifically do they explain and how,
specifically, do you imagine they interact with our physical bodies
and brains. Adding the "immaterial" looks like a non-solution to a
non-problem to me. Once upon a time, people thought that the chemical
components of living things were unique and could only be produced by
living things; then someone synthesized urea from inorganic starting
materials. I'm pretty ready to just suspend judgment and let science
keep working for a while without invoking unfathomable causes.
If you are a theist you could simply argue that God created matter, a
wonderful stuff which contains within itself the potential to organize
itself (under the right conditions) into living, conscious things,
like people. Even a purely physicalist view of the world would be
compatible with theism.
Bill
Lane Lewis
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.03.10....@mail.utexas.edu...
particulates from my future consciousness.
Disc.
Don't try this at home kids without your parents permission.
Lane
Jerry Patterson
JP
This thread is about the physical and nothing else. You are thinking,
perhaps, of previous threads some time ago. I am invoking nothing here
except to solicit scientific information about experiments that do not
now, nor will ever, exist. If you think they exist, then kindly
provide me the information to get the experiment report(s).
Kindly stick to the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss any
immateriality, then start a new thread and tell me when and where you
are to post it.
Jerry Patterson
JP
There is no "in turn" here. If you want to discuss that subject, then
start a new thread!
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
It may seem strange to you since you appear to harbor many prejudices.
Additionally, your remarks are impudent. Why do you concern yourself
with my technical abilities instead of attempting to answer the
questions?
Do you want to dialogue or just insult?
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com>...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements.
>
>
>
>What do you propose we add to those "physical elements". NON-physical
>elements? Where can we see some of THOSE.
>
>Oh, and you seem not to have answered my simple questions yet, Jerry,
>even after you lied to me and said you WOULD answer them if I started
>a new thread on it. I'll be charitable and assume that your lack of
>response was an innocent oversight and NOT just dishonest evasion on
>your part. So I'll ask again. And again. And again. Until you
>answer.
>
*ahem*
JP
Do you have trouble with the language we use? By intelligent design,
do you mean the cause of observable order????
I am no mind reader!!!!
>What is the scientific theory of creation/intelligent design.
>What, according to this scientific theory of creation/intelligent
>design, is the creator/intelligent designer.
>
>What does the creator/intelligent designer DO, precisely, according to
>this scientific theory of creation/intelligent design--what mechanisms
>does the creator/intelligent designer use, and where can we see these
>mechanisms operating today.
>
>What scientific data or evidence is presented by the
>scientific theory of creation/intelligent design to demonstrate that
>there is only one creator/intelligent designer, and not, say, ten or
>fifty of them.
>
>Oh, and why should we not conclude, based on creation/intelligent
>designer "theory", that the Raelians are correct, and humans were
>produced by a race of space aliens with advanced technology who
>designed us for a science project or something, and therefore no
>supernatural gods are necessary or required.
>
>
>I look forward to your evading these simple questions.
>
>Again.
>
>
>I can think of only three possible reason for your continuing refusal
>to answer my simple questions. Either (1) there IS NO scientific
>theory of creation/intelligent design, or (2) there IS a scientific
>theory of creation/intelligent design, but you are too uninformed to
>know what it is, or (3) there IS a scientific theory of
>creation/intelligent design and you DO know what it is, but for some
>unknown and unfathomable reason, you don't want anyone to know what it
>is.
>
>If you won't answer my simple questions, would you at least tell me
>WHY you won't answer them? My money, of course, is on number 1.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
Good. Now give me the forumlae for your conscience. Better yet, show
it to me.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Fine, if that is what you want to believe. Just produce what is
commonly called thought(s).
>But that is not what you asked - you wanted to know what *properties* of
>matter (OK, you used the word "characteristics", but I took it that way)
>made it possible for matter to think. The answer is that different
>configurations of matter capture and release energy in different ways.
>Some of them manage to do this in ways that make it possible for
>organisms to respond to their world through learning. Some of *them*
>manage to model their world internally using the same neural tissues, so
>that they can anticipate their world's behaviour in many cases. Of that
>set, some of them manage to model abstractions. All of this is done
>through the exchange of molecules between neurons and through the use of
>biochemical energy to do so.
JP
Either way. Properties, energy or whatever, just dimension the
processes.
>There are gaps in our knowledge of how this happens, but they get
>smaller daily. There are aspects of it that are sketchy. If you choose
>to locate this immaterial soul or reason in these gaps, then like
>Cartesian dualists before you you will find less and less room for it.
>Every time a gap is filled out in detail, you have less and less reason
>to believe in this immaterial soul. This has been the trend *since*
>Descartes, but particularly since Luria in the mid 20thC.
JP
What you call gaps, I call it impossible. I think the reason you are
so impressed with "progress" is that you presume the conclusion to lie
at the end of the process. In science, the more that is known the
additional questions expand near exponentially. Your experiences and
mine are very different.
>Alan Turing, the founder of modern computing, believed that machines
>will one day think because he believed that brains do something that can
>be modelled on a computer, and if you can model something on a computer
>then it is computable (and hence describable entirely in terms of a
>Universal Turing Machine). I think that he oversimpified the problem,
>but that something like it is true.
>
>Beware also of the Turing Syllogism...
JP
Turing did great work at Bletchley Park. However, his abstract
thinking seemed to be limited to mathematics. He certainly helped the
Allies in WWII.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:59:46 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> Oh? Until your hypothesis is proven by "making" life in a lab, you will
>> be unable to answer these questions. Vague generalities are not of
>> scientific content.
>
>So the burden of proof is on everyone else, eh? Why not show us up by
>making your immaterial stuff think?
JP
I mentioned nothing here about the immaterial. Pay attention!
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>>
>
>SNIP
>
>As a vitalist, I agree with you in part. I don't think we will ever fully
>understand living things only in terms of their physical properties.
>
>I don't think it's necessary, however, to postulate the existence of some
>omnipotent and omniscient creative intelligence outside of ourselves to
>explain the existence of living things. I am perfectly content with the
>notion that living things can spring into existence in the random collisions
>and chemical interactions of bits of nonliving matter [abiogenesis] without
>divine intervention.
JP
Random? Anyone trying to cut a piece of paper into three parts and
then throwing them into the air in the hope of them landing on the
surface in perfect order forming a single sheet is in for a long life
of frustration. The human eye alone has billions of elements in
complete coordination. The statistics to account for such random
operation are simply not credible.
>As a toxicologist, I have seen the opposite of abiogenesis occur with some
>frequency. It's called "poisoning" - the phenomenon of a living thing being
>injured interacting chemically with some nonliving thing in the world around
>it. What happens when a living thing dies of poisoning? It suddenly loses
>its life interacting chemically with the agent of poisoning and becomes a
>corpse - a lump of nonliving matter. Where does the host's life go? It
>certainly isn't transferred to the agent - the last I heard, no one has ever
>seen signs of life in a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. Is it somehow taken
>back by the Creator or in this case, the Destroyer? No, it just disappears
>without a trace. Does anyone see a divine hand in this. I don't.
JP
Are you able to trace its journey? If not, why do you assume it simply
disappears without existence (implication)?
AC
Back to the same nonsense. Jerry, you get old really fast. Deal with the
questions. Quit running. You know damn well you won't answer this question
in a new thread any more than you will answer it here.
AC
We are Jerry. We even know what you're up to. You're sneaking your little
immateriality assertion in through the back door. But the fact remains that
you are the one make the extraordinary claim, and thus it is up to you to
provide evidence. This sad little attempt at turning the tables is nothing
more than a diversionary tactic, Jerry. Please don't insult our
intelligence.
I also note that, as with last time, you aren't answering any questions.
Let me guess. You want it in another thread. Bet you won't respond either,
becuase you will only respond to one post from an individual per day. In
fact, I know exactly why you do this, as do you. As I said, don't insult
our intelligence. Bring your evidence for the immaterial. We've been
waiting, but all you seem to want to do is dodge the issue.
Leonardo Dasso
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1frm1sl.1oc816h1ysekjhN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
I dont think I deserve the accusation of pedantry. Even allowing for
your new version of the story there are many properties of matter which
are not thermodynamic and which are of course important.
regards
leo
Bobby D. Bryant
> There is no "in turn" here. If you want to discuss that subject, then
> start a new thread!
Hey, I thought you only dodged one post per person per day. What gives?
John Wilkins
Why, this physical thing in my head does that all the time. Computers,
poor things that they are, do produce some thought, but it is not very
sophisticated, just as you'd expect given that they are linear and
binary and of much less complexity than even the smallest functional
forebrain.
>
> >But that is not what you asked - you wanted to know what *properties* of
> >matter (OK, you used the word "characteristics", but I took it that way)
> >made it possible for matter to think. The answer is that different
> >configurations of matter capture and release energy in different ways.
> >Some of them manage to do this in ways that make it possible for
> >organisms to respond to their world through learning. Some of *them*
> >manage to model their world internally using the same neural tissues, so
> >that they can anticipate their world's behaviour in many cases. Of that
> >set, some of them manage to model abstractions. All of this is done
> >through the exchange of molecules between neurons and through the use of
> >biochemical energy to do so.
>
> JP
> Either way. Properties, energy or whatever, just dimension the
> processes.
What on earth does "dimension: mean here? Isolate the variables
quantitatively? Sure we can do that, but what variables will satisfy
you? At base, all variables of processes that matter are thermodynamic,
so we can calculate the distribution of entropy and exergy in a brain.
>
> >There are gaps in our knowledge of how this happens, but they get
> >smaller daily. There are aspects of it that are sketchy. If you choose
> >to locate this immaterial soul or reason in these gaps, then like
> >Cartesian dualists before you you will find less and less room for it.
> >Every time a gap is filled out in detail, you have less and less reason
> >to believe in this immaterial soul. This has been the trend *since*
> >Descartes, but particularly since Luria in the mid 20thC.
>
> JP
> What you call gaps, I call it impossible. I think the reason you are
> so impressed with "progress" is that you presume the conclusion to lie
> at the end of the process. In science, the more that is known the
> additional questions expand near exponentially. Your experiences and
> mine are very different.
You *presuppose* it is impossible, and thus nothing will ever satsify
you. Dualists do this all the time. If you have set up the folk
psychological categories such that nothing will ever do to fulfil it or
constitute it, then *of course* you have a sui generis category. You set
it up like that in the first place.
But the history of neurophysiology is such that more and more things
that were supposed to be irreducible to physics have been so reduced.
There is no reason to think that we will come up against some magical
barrier here. We find mechanisms of reflexes, or sensation, of
attention, of recognition, of syntax parsing, and so on and on. Where,
exactly, is this uncrossable gap supposed to appear?
Now suppose that we make these systems artificially, and that in
interactions with humans and each other, and in experience of the world,
they do exactly what we do when we "think". Do they think? I'm betting
that so long as *any* differences exist in the way they behave dualists
will always say, "But it isn't *thought*, just something that in every
measurable respect is *like* thought". Cut us some slack here; admit
that you will never agree that there is a physical explanation for
thought, and that it is a nonscientific issue for you - one of prior
faith.
>
> >Alan Turing, the founder of modern computing, believed that machines
> >will one day think because he believed that brains do something that can
> >be modelled on a computer, and if you can model something on a computer
> >then it is computable (and hence describable entirely in terms of a
> >Universal Turing Machine). I think that he oversimpified the problem,
> >but that something like it is true.
> >
> >Beware also of the Turing Syllogism...
>
> JP
> Turing did great work at Bletchley Park. However, his abstract
> thinking seemed to be limited to mathematics. He certainly helped the
> Allies in WWII.
Well, yes, he was a mathematician. But do you know the Turing syllogism?
Turing thinks that machines can think
Turing sleeps with men
Therefore machines cannot think.
This is pretty much the argument (with various second premises and
substituting the proper name) used against physicalism. Searle uses it
as well. It is not impressive.
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
John Wilkins
dkomo
Because I suspect your questions are disingenuous. They're rhetorical
ploys. If you demand scientific rigor, you should expect to be held
to the same standard. The yawning gulf between scientific content and
what you wrote on your web site is too huge to pass without comment.
Needles on irony meters have gotten bent.
> Do you want to dialogue or just insult?
Or is it that you find challenging remarks in a dialogue to be
unintentional insults?
>
> Jerry
disingenuous: giving a false appearence of simple frankness;
calculating
Leonardo Dasso
Kinetic properties, for instance?
regards
leo
John Wilkins
OK, I'm being deliberately perverse here, but consider this: kinetic
properties that are relevant to brain activity are caused in molecular
terms by thermal agitation. Which is a thermodynamic process. The ways
in which the molecules behave depends on such factors as weak
attraction, strong bonds, and the electron valencies of active
molecules, but they would not come into contact unless they were
thermally agitated. Overall, the system behaves as it does because there
is an input of energy for an output of dynamic behaviour. Many things
that are comprised of these molecules do not think because they are not
organised in such a way that their physical properties deliver thinkings
(a neologism).
You might look at it another way - why are brains organised to deliver
thinkings? The answer is, of course, that brains evolved in one lineage
to do so (and perhaps in several, depending on how it is defined or
categorised). So we can give, simultaneously, a chemical, a physical
(thermodynamic) or an evolutionary account of thinking.
But of the three domains, the chemical and thermodynamic explanans
answer the question "what physical properties of matter allow it to
think?" The evolutionary account is an etiological and a functional
account. We can give a formal (systems theoretic) answer as well, which
is effectively what Turing was trying for.
Nick Keighley
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:59:10 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical and there they
> >> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
> >> life. Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
> >> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
> >> mankind.
> >>
> >> Until such properties are discovered,the thought that the cause of
> >> life is physical remains a giddy notion.
yes, but if you don't accept that life is a wholly physical phenomenum
then you must believe something non-physical is involved. There is no
evidence that a bacterium (for instance) has anything non-physical in
it. It is composed of atoms and only atoms. There is no ectoplasm or vital
force to be found within the bacterium. Living things are wholly composed
of physical componants. Hence life is physical even if it does make you
giddy!
> >The problem for you is that invoking some completely unobserved
> >"immaterial component" doesn't explain life either. You're arguing "I
> >don't know what makes X happen, but I propose that there exists some Y
> >that makes it happen. And by the way, Y is immaterial."
> >
> >That last qualification is completely unsupported, and adds more stuff to
> >explain than when you started. Ockham's Razor says it should go.
>
> This thread is about the physical and nothing else.
but *you* are implying the existence of the non-physical.
> [...] You are thinking,
> perhaps, of previous threads some time ago. I am invoking nothing here
> except to solicit scientific information about experiments that do not
> now, nor will ever, exist. If you think they exist, then kindly
> provide me the information to get the experiment report(s).
you are the one proposing the existence of non-physical entities.
The burden of proof is on *you* to provide the evidence or
propose the experiments.
> Kindly stick to the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss any
> immateriality, then start a new thread and tell me when and where you
> are to post it.
wiggly, very wiggly.
--
Nick Keighley
"The Earth is degenerating these days.
Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind their parents ...
and it is evident that the end of
the world is fast approaching."
-- Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800bc
Bobby D. Bryant
You are thinking like a creationist, trying to view one competing
hypothesis in isolation and claiming that the other must be right unless
the one under consideration can prove itself correct.
That's not how science works. We take all competing explanations,
evaluate each on their merits, and discard the ones that don't measure up.
My post quoted above is merely an explanation of why your non-material,
non-physical, whatever, explanation doesn't measure up and has been
discarded by scientists. If new observations come in that reopen the
case, then well and good. But we _will_ need that evidence, for the
reasons described above.
Your attempt to limit the thread is just part of your whole special
pleading approach to the question. If such childish rhetoric fools you
then you have my sympathy, but it certainly doesn't fool the rest of us.
Von Smith
The subject is whether or not life is purely physical, and Bobby's
point sticks to it quite nicely. His point is that the burden of
proof is on anyone who wants to inflate our inventory of entities and
processes beyond what is currently known. What is currently known is
all physical, the reality of the non-physical is just a metaphysical
pipe-dream as far as anyone can verify.
To date, every puzzling phenomenon that has since been explained has
turned out to be due to some physical process. Every one. All of
them. Explanations that invoked something metaphysically extravagant
are 0 for (all notable scientific discoveries). Not a very promising
record. So when dealing with a phenomenon that currently has no
adequate explanation, the default hypothesis should be that it, too,
has a hitherto undiscovered physical explanation, just like all those
other previously mystifying phenomena. Expecting something that has
*always* worked before to work better this time around than something
that has *never* worked is hardly what I would call a "giddy notion".
So Bobby owes you no lab report. The basis for suspecting that life
is physical is the sum of our experience with nature, and even more
specifically our experience with life itself. Every known living
entity is a physical entity; destroy or damage its physical body, and
the organism dies. It interacts predictably with its natural
environment; deprive it of its natural environment, and it is often
adversely affected and sometimes dies. Its processes are inevitably
accompanied by predictable and observable physiological and
biochemical processes; mess with those too much, and the organism
dies. If you want to see a lab report that indicates that life is
physical, try looking at any lab report in physiology, biochemistry,
molecular biology, ecology, or biophysics. There are hundreds, if not
thousands, of each done every year.
To demand that we be able to restore life to a corpse is not a
reasonable demand; among other things, life's being physical does not
entail that we will be able to do this. Not all physical processes
are reversible.
Asking for evidence of successful abiogenesis research is probably a
more reasonable request, but demanding results today lest you close
the books on the physicality of life is a bit premature. Still, to
date the research seems to be producing more leads than dead ends. We
can already produce molecules that replicate from molecules that
don't.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
<snip>
>> >> The answers to the last threads were among the most unscientific I
>> >> have read. Since this thread is more akin to your thinking, I am
>> >> hoping for more scientific content.
>> >
>> >A request for more scientific content seems like a strange request
>> >coming from someone whose web site is a long sequence of completely
>> >non-scientific religious rantings. Please explain how you reconcile
>> >your rantings with an interest in scientific content. Do you have a
>> >split personality?
>>
>> JP
>> It may seem strange to you since you appear to harbor many prejudices.
>> Additionally, your remarks are impudent. Why do you concern yourself
>> with my technical abilities instead of attempting to answer the
>> questions?
>>
>
>Because I suspect your questions are disingenuous. They're rhetorical
>ploys. If you demand scientific rigor, you should expect to be held
>to the same standard. The yawning gulf between scientific content and
>what you wrote on your web site is too huge to pass without comment.
>Needles on irony meters have gotten bent.
JP
My site is unrelated to science! What on earth gave you the impression
that is was? I post from a Catholic forum that is crawling with
atheists, humanists, agnostics, etc., and that signature line of mine
has to do with the newsgroup from which I post. See, all you had to do
was ask and avoid the remark about my character. I have a scientific
education that included the sciences of philosophy.
>> Do you want to dialogue or just insult?
>
>Or is it that you find challenging remarks in a dialogue to be
>unintentional insults?
JP
Your definition of disingenuous is right on; it is an undesirable
trait and for those not holding that trait, the word is insulting. I
aspire to no such intents. How do you uses that word without it being
an insult?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
(Bill Rogers) wrote:
JP
I am not here discussing what is immaterial. This discussion is about
what is physical. For instance, what are the dimensions of your
concept of "honor?"
>> Your last sentence is correct. That link is
>> not necessary to establish because no one can provide the dimensions
>> that those humans attributes are physical.
>
>I am not sure exactly what you mean by the verb "to dimension." Do you
>mean that no one can "measure" thoughts, feelings, etc? Certainly, if
>you take a "physical only" point of view the dimensions of a thought
>are summed up by the physical dimensions of the set of neurons whose
>activity *is* the thought.
JP
Yes, except far more specifically. Dimension means the measurements of
what is physical; line length, weight, and, if applicable, timing.
What will satisfy me is the identical thing that satisfies any
competent scientific inquiry. If you say thoughts, life, conscience,
are physical, then define their physical properties.
>>Only two states exist in
>> time: the physical and the immaterial.
>
>That is one way to think of it, certainly. Another way would be to say
>that there are only two perspectives, the objective and the
>subjective. What you call the "immaterial" is the subjective
>experience of what it feels like to *be* a brain. What you call the
>physical is the objective existence of everything in the universe,
>including that little bit of it that is your body and brain.
JP
OK, that is a place to start if you acknowledge the existence of an
immaterial reality.
JP
If thoughts, life, conscience, etc., are physical and differ from each
other, then their dimensions must also be different! Therapists treat
those human factors in others. As such, they are recognized as real
("objective") in that they exist independently of their being known.
>>Think of why we cannot simply put a brain on a lab bench
>> and retrieve its thoughts? Trouble? Just supply the correct physical
>> wherewithal!
>
>Well, no, the brain on the lab bench doesn't work. But it is possible
>to electrically stimulate different regions of a person's brain and
>then ask them what they thought immediately after the stimulation. It
>is possible to ask them to think particular thoughts or perform
>certain mental tasks and then use brain imaging techniques to see what
>part of the brain is active when they are thinking those specific
>thoughts.
JP
I agree, but why won't the brain-on-a-lab bench example work?
Why is a live person necessary?
>> >The problem with this view is that it is sometimes stated "See, all
>> >your thoughts, your love for your family, your dreams, etc are *just*
>> >atoms moving mindlessly through the void. Beethoven's Late Quartets
>> >are *just* horse hair scraped across catgut." But seeing everything as
>> >physical can just as easily be used to increase one's amazement at the
>> >versatility and potential of matter, as to devalue mind. To claim that
>> >the world is *just* physical does not devalue it, or make life
>> >meaningless, or push towards nihilism.
>> >
>> >Bill
>>
>> JP
>> You have one of the more thougtful posts, Bill. The potential of
>> matter? That leads into my next thread. Your response is the last word
>> on this thread.
>>
>> I will be leaving for a week or so, consequently this thread will have
>> more responses than I will have time to which to respond. As a result,
>> I will start at least one new thread on these forums titled "The
>> Physical and Life, Etc."
JP
Where on earth did you get this from, Bill? This thread is the next
thread!
Jerry Patterson
<l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>> JP
>> Do you have any scientific comments, Lane?
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>>
>>
>
>Do you have any scientific questions?
>
>MY first comment is scientific, observation is the key here. Have you
>noticed anything besides matter forming life.
>The second was a mostly a sarcastic remark on your use of the word
>particulate. Humans are made of atoms which can be considered particles
>or waves. "Level of particulate" when referring to life is nonsensical.
>Would you care to try again.
>
>Lane
JP
Particulate and sarcastic??? How are those relatable? Dictionary
please.
You are cute. If what you say is true, then provide the scientific
proof by "creating" life in a lab. A Pulitzer Prize awaits.
Jerry Patterson
(Nick Keighley) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<g7ep6vsf3ger7o7h9...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:59:10 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> >> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical and there they
>> >> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
>> >> life. Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
>> >> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
>> >> mankind.
>> >>
>> >> Until such properties are discovered,the thought that the cause of
>> >> life is physical remains a giddy notion.
>
>yes, but if you don't accept that life is a wholly physical phenomenum
>then you must believe something non-physical is involved. There is no
>evidence that a bacterium (for instance) has anything non-physical in
>it. It is composed of atoms and only atoms. There is no ectoplasm or vital
>force to be found within the bacterium. Living things are wholly composed
>of physical componants. Hence life is physical even if it does make you
>giddy!
JP
If that is what you believe, fine. However, if you remain militant in
spreading that belief, you must provide proof. What proof?; "Create"
life in a lab using the elements you insist provides its organization
and resources.
>> >The problem for you is that invoking some completely unobserved
>> >"immaterial component" doesn't explain life either. You're arguing "I
>> >don't know what makes X happen, but I propose that there exists some Y
>> >that makes it happen. And by the way, Y is immaterial."
>> >
>> >That last qualification is completely unsupported, and adds more stuff to
>> >explain than when you started. Ockham's Razor says it should go.
>>
>> This thread is about the physical and nothing else.
>
>but *you* are implying the existence of the non-physical.
>
>> [...] You are thinking,
>> perhaps, of previous threads some time ago. I am invoking nothing here
>> except to solicit scientific information about experiments that do not
>> now, nor will ever, exist. If you think they exist, then kindly
>> provide me the information to get the experiment report(s).
>
>you are the one proposing the existence of non-physical entities.
>The burden of proof is on *you* to provide the evidence or
>propose the experiments.
JP
I have done no such thing on this thread. You and Hans Blix should
join up to form a comedy team . . .keep saying the same thing and
someone will eventually believe you!
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>> Kindly stick to the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss any
Jerry Patterson
<ad...@deletethis.ebonmusings.org> wrote:
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:ddsm6vkfhqerdeeog...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:06:00 +0000 (UTC), "Adam Marczyk"
>> <ad...@deletethis.ebonmusings.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >news:pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com...
>> >> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> >> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> >> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> >> following questions are addressed:
>> >>
>> >> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> >> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> >> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> >> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>> >
>> >I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic of
>> >either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would
>make
>> >water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
>>
>> JP
>> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical
>
>As are carbon and nitrogen, and together those four elements (along with
>some others in smaller quantities) make up all living things we know about.
>By contrast, I know of no scientific evidence suggesting the necessity of
>some immaterial and conveniently undetectable "soul-stuff," nor in fact any
>evidence suggesting that such a thing even exists.
JP
If you want to change the subject to what is immaterial, then start a
new thread. The absence of intellectual discipline here is staggering.
>> and there they
>> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
>> life.
>
>Which was exactly the point of my analogy, hence it does not "fail".
>
>> Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
>> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
>> mankind.
>
>That statement is demonstrably false. Human beings have synthesized viruses
>from scratch in the lab; we have created bacteria that use new amino acids
>not found in nature as part of their fundamental genetic code; we have
>produced proteinoid microspheres that have a metabolism and can grow and
>reproduce; we have created hypercycles of self-replicating RNA molecules.
JP
You have created life? Please provide the test reports.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>> Until such properties are discovered,
>
>What properties? Are you just cutting and pasting this from somewhere?
>
>> the thought that the cause of
>> life is physical remains a giddy notion.
>
>www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
>
>Try finding the soul in there.
Jerry Patterson
Wilkins) wrote:
<snip>
>> >Not without a primer on neurophysiology, Jerry. But even if I could,
>> >would it change your mind? You have an a priori definition, or rather
>> >intuition, of what thinking is, and *that* will never be found in a
>> >physical description, of course. Your problem, and the problem of those
>> >who argue from such things as subjective states (like qualia) is that
>> >you define the problem in a way that is insoluble. But there is no such
>> >*thing* as "thinking", there is only a series of acts and processes we
>> >call "thoughts", not all alike.
>>
>> JP
>> Fine, if that is what you want to believe. Just produce what is
>> commonly called thought(s).
>
>Why, this physical thing in my head does that all the time. Computers,
>poor things that they are, do produce some thought, but it is not very
>sophisticated, just as you'd expect given that they are linear and
>binary and of much less complexity than even the smallest functional
>forebrain.
JP
Computers produce not a single thought . . . they simply replay what
the programmer has put in them. You know full well what I meant.
Produce life in a lab, or give the dimension of your concept of
"honor," as examples.
>> >But that is not what you asked - you wanted to know what *properties* of
>> >matter (OK, you used the word "characteristics", but I took it that way)
>> >made it possible for matter to think. The answer is that different
>> >configurations of matter capture and release energy in different ways.
>> >Some of them manage to do this in ways that make it possible for
>> >organisms to respond to their world through learning. Some of *them*
>> >manage to model their world internally using the same neural tissues, so
>> >that they can anticipate their world's behaviour in many cases. Of that
>> >set, some of them manage to model abstractions. All of this is done
>> >through the exchange of molecules between neurons and through the use of
>> >biochemical energy to do so.
>>
>> JP
>> Either way. Properties, energy or whatever, just dimension the
>> processes.
>
>What on earth does "dimension: mean here? Isolate the variables
>quantitatively? Sure we can do that, but what variables will satisfy
>you? At base, all variables of processes that matter are thermodynamic,
>so we can calculate the distribution of entropy and exergy in a brain.
JP
Dimension means the measurements of what is physical; line length,
weight, and, if applicable, timing. What will satisfy me is the
identical thing that satisfies any competent scientific inquiry. If
you say thoughts, life, conscience, are physical, then define their
physical properties.
<snip>
JP
What do you mean by a "dualist?" Who is "us?" I will agree there is a
physical cause for thought, life, conscience, when someone gives their
dimensions and forms them in an experiment.
Animate a corpse be "reintroducing" the failed elements and restore it
to life. Why not, if life is physical?
>> >Alan Turing, the founder of modern computing, believed that machines
>> >will one day think because he believed that brains do something that can
>> >be modelled on a computer, and if you can model something on a computer
>> >then it is computable (and hence describable entirely in terms of a
>> >Universal Turing Machine). I think that he oversimpified the problem,
>> >but that something like it is true.
>> >
>> >Beware also of the Turing Syllogism...
>>
>> JP
>> Turing did great work at Bletchley Park. However, his abstract
>> thinking seemed to be limited to mathematics. He certainly helped the
>> Allies in WWII.
>
>Well, yes, he was a mathematician. But do you know the Turing syllogism?
>
>Turing thinks that machines can think
>Turing sleeps with men
>Therefore machines cannot think.
>
>This is pretty much the argument (with various second premises and
>substituting the proper name) used against physicalism. Searle uses it
>as well. It is not impressive.
JP
I agree.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<f0tm6v4og8vrtfr5k...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:58:25 +0000 (UTC), lil...@umich.edu (Lilith)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I just don't get why you're asking any of this, when this isn't rocket
>> >science we're talking here...lots of publically-available papers and
>> >websites on any of the above are available.
>>
>> JP
>> Being quite familiar with rocket science, I agree with you. What I
>> want to read in response to these topics is the lab report that
>> aggregates the sum of your above comments and how they are used to
>> produce life in a lab. Until then, your "scientific collection" is
>> without meaning with respect to this subject.
>
>So why don't you just come out and say that in the first place? "I
>want to see how we can create life in a lab because I know so far that
>nobody has." Be truthful. Be honest.
JP
I have stated that position for months.
>And we'll all come back to you and tell you that there's no blueprint
>for creating life in a lab. The science of complexity, and
>non-equilibrium chemical dynamics is only decades old. You'll have to
>wait a bit longer.
>
>As for all my other points, they're easily accessible on PubMed.
JP
Of course, you are correct. However, for the wrong reasons. It isn't
just a matter of the complexity of matter, matter in and of itself is
not that complex. What is complex is the combining of such matter to
produce life. This has been the fantasy of many people throughout
history and they too have failed. What is needed is the "organ,"
"gland," etc., that organizes the human functions. For instance, find
it in a corpse! If you can't, then adopt a scientific outlook and
content yourself to the search and leave the theories behind.
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
JP
It doesn't play in Peoria, Bobby. Science deals with theories and
facts. Here the science is about what is physical. If you believe
there is non physical reality, fine. Start another thread so we can
consider that too . . . in an organized way so as not to confuse these
subjects. Clarity is important.
Jerry Patterson
(Bill Rogers) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<pvui6vki413ju0sn1...@4ax.com>...
>> Many posters have expressed opinions stating that all human functions
>> have physical causes, exclusively, and that humans are constituted
>> exclusively of physical elements. To those holding that viewpoint the
>> following questions are addressed:
>>
>> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of matter,
>> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
>>
>> What characteristic(s) of matter, at any level of particulate,
>> suggests that matter can think? What characteristic of matter, at any
>> level of particulate, suggests to you that if it were to be combined
>> with matter of any other sort, could produce thought (reasoning),
>> emotion, instinct, conscience, will,?
>
>I am pretty comfortable with the idea that life and mind are emergent
>properties of matter; it is not, to me, a bleak, or negative point of
>view. It just means one has to look at matter with a new appreciation
>of its potential. Stop looking at it as little solid balls spinning
>through the void. Science does seem to be doing a pretty good job
>explaining the physical and chemical basis of life and even beginning
>to get a handle on the neurobiology of consciousness. Given that, why
>should one be in a hurry to hypothesize "immaterial" components which
>one cannot learn anything about by observation. Sure, I suppose they
>could be there, but what specifically do they explain and how,
>specifically, do you imagine they interact with our physical bodies
>and brains. Adding the "immaterial" looks like a non-solution to a
>non-problem to me. Once upon a time, people thought that the chemical
>components of living things were unique and could only be produced by
>living things; then someone synthesized urea from inorganic starting
>materials. I'm pretty ready to just suspend judgment and let science
>keep working for a while without invoking unfathomable causes.
>
>If you are a theist you could simply argue that God created matter, a
>wonderful stuff which contains within itself the potential to organize
>itself (under the right conditions) into living, conscious things,
>like people. Even a purely physicalist view of the world would be
>compatible with theism.
>
>Bill
JP
I will break my rule by answering more than one post per person per
day, this time only. I have only so much time available. If you want
to reply to this post, then kindly combine the points in a single
reply post. Thanks.
"Immaterial" is used for those human resources for which dimensions
are not obtainable. An exclusively physical view of the world is
certainly not compatible with any theism to which I am privy.
AC
So you don't think computers think. What is your definition of "thought"
Jerry. I have every expectation you won't answer the question, but surprise
me.
Adam Marczyk
[...]
> >> >> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> >> >> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of
matter,
> >> >> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> >> >> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> >> >
> >> >I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic
of
> >> >either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would
> >make
> >> >water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical
> >
> >As are carbon and nitrogen, and together those four elements (along with
> >some others in smaller quantities) make up all living things we know
about.
> >By contrast, I know of no scientific evidence suggesting the necessity of
> >some immaterial and conveniently undetectable "soul-stuff," nor in fact
any
> >evidence suggesting that such a thing even exists.
>
> JP
> If you want to change the subject to what is immaterial, then start a
> new thread. The absence of intellectual discipline here is staggering.
That's a fairly ironic accusation for you to make considering how you dodged
addressing my argument. What characteristic of either hydrogen or oxygen
atoms suggests that they would make something with the properties of water
when combined? If you can't name such a characteristic, then why do you
expect life to be different in this regard?
> >> and there they
> >> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
> >> life.
> >
> >Which was exactly the point of my analogy, hence it does not "fail".
> >
> >> Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
> >> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
> >> mankind.
> >
> >That statement is demonstrably false. Human beings have synthesized
viruses
> >from scratch in the lab; we have created bacteria that use new amino
acids
> >not found in nature as part of their fundamental genetic code; we have
> >produced proteinoid microspheres that have a metabolism and can grow and
> >reproduce; we have created hypercycles of self-replicating RNA molecules.
>
> JP
> You have created life? Please provide the test reports.
If you didn't know enough about the field of abiogenesis research to know
about any of these experiments, then perhaps you should be more careful
before overreaching yourself next time.
The study where a completely synthetic polio virus was produced from
scratch:
Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E. "Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA:
generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template." Science
2002 Aug 9;297(5583):1016-8.
The study where a viable bacterium incorporating an extra, 21st amino acid
into its genetic code was created (this would be like inserting a new letter
into the English alphabet and then writing a comprehensible book using it):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030114072450.htm
Studies on proteinoid microspheres:
Przybylski AT, Fox SW. "Excitable artificial cells of proteinoid." Appl
Biochem Biotechnol 1984;10:301-7.
also see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1742d8f6.67da3ebf%40usw-ex0110-076.rema
rq.com
One example of a human-produced self-replicating molecule (at least four are
known):
Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. "A
self-replicating peptide." Nature, 382: 525-8, 1996.
Another self-replicator:
Paul, N. & Joyce, G.F. "A self-replicating ligase ribozyme." PNAS 99,
12733-12740.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html has more references
and links.
--
a.a. #2001
"Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot... make a triangle
whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai
and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved
surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even
approximately gods." --Carl Sagan, _Broca's Brain_
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Leonardo Dasso
We wish we had Blix's cool to listen to all that creationist bullshit
with a straight face.
regards
leo
Adam Marczyk
[...]
> >> >> What characteristic of the physical, at any level of particulate,
> >> >> suggests that matter can produce life? What characteristic of
matter,
> >> >> at any level of particulate, suggests that if it were to be combined
> >> >> with matter of any other sort, could produce life?
> >> >
> >> >I know of no such characteristic, just as there is no characteristic
of
> >> >either hydrogen or oxygen atoms individually that suggests they would
> >make
> >> >water if you put them together. Life is an emergent phenomenon.
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Your analogy fails. Hydrogen and oxygen are physical
> >
> >As are carbon and nitrogen, and together those four elements (along with
> >some others in smaller quantities) make up all living things we know
about.
> >By contrast, I know of no scientific evidence suggesting the necessity of
> >some immaterial and conveniently undetectable "soul-stuff," nor in fact
any
> >evidence suggesting that such a thing even exists.
>
> JP
> If you want to change the subject to what is immaterial, then start a
> new thread. The absence of intellectual discipline here is staggering.
That's a fairly ironic accusation for you to make considering how you dodged
addressing my argument. What characteristic of either hydrogen or oxygen
atoms suggests that they would make something with the properties of water
when combined? If you can't name such a characteristic, then why do you
expect life to be different in this regard?
> >> and there they
> >> self-evidently have no characteristic suggesting they can produce
> >> life.
> >
> >Which was exactly the point of my analogy, hence it does not "fail".
> >
> >> Of course, life has been an emergent phenomenon since thought
> >> took root. The most simple of life forms are yet to be produced by
> >> mankind.
> >
> >That statement is demonstrably false. Human beings have synthesized
viruses
> >from scratch in the lab; we have created bacteria that use new amino
acids
> >not found in nature as part of their fundamental genetic code; we have
> >produced proteinoid microspheres that have a metabolism and can grow and
> >reproduce; we have created hypercycles of self-replicating RNA molecules.
>
> JP
> You have created life? Please provide the test reports.
If you didn't know enough about the field of abiogenesis research to know
M. Clark
If I understand you correctly, where do you get the idea that every
puzzilng phenomena has been explained? Indeed, we don't know how our
own thinking process works.
M. Clark
> them. Explanations that invoked something metaphysically extravagant
> are 0 for (all notable scientific discoveries). Not a very promising
> record. So when dealing with a phenomenon that currently has no
> adequate explanation, the default hypothesis should be that it, too,
> has a hitherto undiscovered physical explanation, just like all those
> other previously mystifying phenomena. Expecting something that has
> *always* worked before to work better this time around than something
> that has *never* worked is hardly what I would call a "giddy notion".
>
> So Bobby owes you no lab report. The basis for suspecting that life
> is physical is the sum of our experience with nature, and even more
<snip>
Justin Emalius
What is a life Jerry? Some people might say it is the path that living
things like you and me follow from conception to death. Is it material or
nonmaterial [a term I much prefer to "immaterial" to refer to something
possessing no mass-energy since the latter term has the connotation of
something without consequence whereas our lives are of great consequence].
I don't conceive of it as material - but at the same time it has physical
dimensions.
--
That is all.
Justin Emalius
John Wilkins
Now I will, once you give a rigourous definition of what "thought" is.
In my view, thought is the manipulation of abstract symbols, something
computers do en masse, albeit with little real sophistication.
"Dimension" your terms here :-)
But it is not true that computers only do what programmers (consciously)
put into them. They do unexpected things all the time. Sometimes these
are bugs, sometimes these are features. Sometimes they are just amazing.
So in effect you are asking for what Descartes called "extension". We
can specify the physical variables of brains pretty well. What exactly
are you looking for?
Now don't presuppose that semantic states have to be delivered in
neurological terms. Argue for it. Otherwise, the reaction of a squid
axon is enough to do what you are asking for, and that was done decades
ago.
A dualist is someone who thinks that there is a physical and a
non-physical aspect to mind. Descartes is the modern founder of it, and
so it is called Cartesian dualism. Dualism in biology in general is
called vitalism. This has been discredited since the beginning of the
20thC, despite a few holdouts like Koestler.
"Us" is the phsyicalists, who think that life and mind is specifiable
(in principle) entirely in the language of a true physics (and hence
partially specifiable in terms of the current physics, which is more
complete and correct than earlier physics).
Incidentally, my two experiments on creating physical life and mind are
doing just fine, thanks, although the elder likes Eminem far too much.
At no point has anything non-material been added to the mix. I watched
very closely...
>
> Animate a corpse be "reintroducing" the failed elements and restore it
> to life. Why not, if life is physical?
The laws of thermodynamics show that once a system has degraded beyond a
certain point, it cannot be (in practical terms) reconstituted, so you
are asking for something that is physically impossible even if life is
merely physical (which it is, in my view). Living systems are
dissipative structures - they take exergy in and use it to maintain
their integrity. Disrupt that integrity and they collapse. So the
request for reanimation is not feasible, and the inability to do it is
not a counterexample to the physicality of life.
others have asked you for a complete specification of what it is that a
physical system needs to exhibit before you will call it "thought"; in
order to answer you, I too need you to do so, in clear and unambiguous
or unmixed terms. Please do so, and we can proceed.
<snip Turing stuff>
--
John Wilkins
Alan Wostenberg
You defined thought as "manipulating abstract symbols". Now an abstract
symbol has no physical properties. If it did, it would be concrete.
And that is why Jerry keeps pressing you for the physical dimensions of
honor and other abstractions. For to be physical is to be measurable. If
we cannot measure it, it is not physical.
But if the real is limited to the physical, then science is not real.
For the scientific method itself is an abstraction, with no physical
properties.
-- Alan Wostenberg
Spin beads? http://www.thelightofheaven.com
John Wilkins
An abstract symbol in a formal language has no physical properties, but
any actual abstraction does. Abstractions exist (in a nominalistic
sense) as processes in brains and symbol-manipulation machines. To
assume they do not is to beg the question (and to assume they do is
*also* to beg the question). Hence, if what Jerry is looking for is a
knockdown argument against physicalism, all he has done is move the
problem back one step in an infinite regress.
There is a metaphysical system developed by Edward Zalta in which an
abstract entity is not bounded in spacetime, while any concrete entity
is, which I quite like. Now I have thoughts at a time and in a place, so
I must ask for an instance of these "purely abstract" thoughts we are
supposed to be unable to account for physically. If I think of red on a
Thursday in Melbourne, Australia, is that an abstraction in the Zalta
sense? If so, how do I have it then and there? My thought is, I submit,
a conrete thing, and to talk about "abstract symbols" in the way I did
is merely to say that there exists some encoding protocol for signals;
not to make the grander metaphysical statement that there exists an
abstraction "red-thinking" that is not bound to space and time.
And the scientific method, by the way, is not abstract - it is a
historical pattern exemplified in the behaviours of individuals who live
in a tradition and culture that is not, depsite the best efforts of the
western media to protray it otherwise, a universal.
Von Smith
You do not understand me correctly. Read again: "To date, every
puzzling phenomenon THAT HAS SINCE BEEN EXPLAINED has turned out to be
due to some physical process." No one has ever confirmed an
explanation that appealed to the supernatural, nor even to such
traditional metaphysical constructs as essences, animal spirits, or
intelligences. And in every case where such traditional constructs
were unsuccessfully presented as explanations, we find that the
conviction that they must be the cause of what we observe was simply
the result of a failure of imagination, and a gross underestimation of
what "mere matter" is capable of. (Gee, we can't figure out how it
works right now, so it's gotta be magic).
And that is exactly the line of thinking that Jerry is falling into
here.