Re: Abiogenesis

On Sep 27, 10:04 am, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:

<snip dualism bullshit>

However, for the large mass of people such as yourself who have already
convinced yourself that dualism is real,

Your strawman arguments win no points here.

I do not argue from a dualistic standpoint; I am a practicing
scientist that unerstand reality to be mutifaceted and in need of a
mutifaceted explanation. I do not reduce all of reality to ghosts
(atoms) as you do. Rather I argue the details of your *nothing but*,
blinders-on approach to declaring that everything is nothing but
atoms, or neurons firing, or signals-a-processing. No matter what the
issue you have a slam-dunk answer that should get you the Nobel each
time. But you have no Nobels and there is a reason for that; you
simply do not have the depth to understand the deeper ussues that your
stances imply.

When you say it is all nothing but atoms, I point out that physics is
well beyond that as a picture of your so-called "objective reality.

There is no objective reality there. Physics has not found an
objective reality to which you can "reduce" things to without loss of
information, structure, organization and causal efficacies.

Next, when you point out that conscious experience is nothing but
neurons firing, you seem to not be able to see that there is not a
clue about *how* just neurons firing *is* conscious experience, as you
claim it must be. And what are neurons firing? Why "nothing but"
atoms interacting. Back to square one. Metzinger's book will at least
tell you what some of the deeper issues are in the science of
consciousness.

You have blinders-on certainty in a world where *objective physics*
claims no certainty as to what actually exists; why, dark matter and
energy account for perhaps 95% of reality according to physics, but it
cannot be found or elucidated as to what effects that 95% has on
objective reality (other than space-time expanding at an accelerated
rate - WTF does that mean!). So your "physicalism" is so incomplete
in areas, that to rely on it in a reductive mode is to defy physics,
not defend it.

And there is nothing in a reductive materialism/physicalist approach
that accounts for meaning as a causal parameter in Universe. That
requires a subject for which some process has meaning. Where in atoms
interacting is there a subject? or meaning? If you think it is back
"up" there in molecular biochemistry or within DNA or within neurons
firing, then obviously you left it there! If you think it is in atoms
interacting, then where and how is it characterized there - you lost
that challenge remember!

I am not a dualist and I think science will find many answers to many
questions as time goes on. But science is not composed of one field -
physics - as you seem to want to hold onto with your reductive
approach. Instead, other sciences have broght new ontological
realities/processes to light and those process are explained and are
explicated using experiments, observations and data just as much as
physics-proper does. You do not want to believe in these ontological
realities because it is too hard for you to understand how emergence
works in the Universe. That is not the Universe's problem however.


<snip dualism bullshit>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To what do the laws of physics apply?
    ... There is the subjective reality of our conscious experience and the ... the notion of an "objective reality" may be nothing more that the ... The principles, theories, and laws of physics apply only to the ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: free-will
    ... The debate over whether an objective reality exists or can be known ... Whether or not they exist outside the Platonic cave is moot, ... In those days discussing quantum physics would have been farting in ... because it would have made predictions about physical behaviour that ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... "objective reality", in the sense we're using the term, is an absolute ... it, as classical physics is. ... of quantum mechanics was a watershed experience for scientific ... On personal experience discussing with some scientists, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: free-will
    ... The debate over whether an objective reality exists or can be known ... has no physical manifestation has no impact on us and cannot be known" ... In those days discussing quantum physics would have been farting in ... because it would have made predictions about physical behaviour that ...
    (misc.writing)