Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by Barcs


In your best opinion can you describe the most probable events that caused DNA to be formed and utilized?

reply to post by WorShip


Thanks WorShip, I really appreciate your balanced approach. I do know these are difficult and probably impossible questions to answer.

In regards to what you are saying I think it really does boil down to one question, a question that has been there since the birth of philosophy and that is - does the brain create consciousness or not?

I do not believe it does and I think there is extensive evidence to support this. I subscribe to the filter model of consciousness, the brain is no doubt intrinsically connected and perhaps the physical manifestation of the non physical mind.

As far as non physicality goes, physics has shown us that at the foundationnof all things is not physicality, determinism and locality do not exist. information is not physical only carried by it. At the source of reality are but mathematical laws and information.

If we follow the logical conclusions, if there was a beggining of the universe and time, it only makes sense that the cause was beyond space and time and not physical. Either way we have to accept something eternal. I don't think eternity is eternal time but that complete absence of linear time.

I know this is really a philosophical position. And the answers are simply unkowable.

I wish more were as balanced in approach as you. Cheers.

Originally posted by squiz
I have finished with Barcs he is stuck in loops and continues with the strawmen. DragonRidr is just incoherant. Rhino is simply deceptive and dishonest. Why should I bother?

Your best arguments are fallacies! You just flat out deny what everyone is saying, you don't debate it. You call people names or insult their intelligence because they don't agree with your subjective evidence. Don't blame me because you still can't get past my argument or even grasp it slightly. The conversation won't progress because you won't address the majority of my counterpoints, you just deny them. You are simply denying the definition of objective evidence and attempting to equivocate layman's terminology as scientific terminology. You say that your statement is objective empirical evidence, yet claim it doesn't prove anything. By definition objective evidence or empirical evidence must prove something. Your attempt to slander science by claiming your inference is just as valid as scientific theories that have been repeatedly tested is unsubstantiated hogwash. Dismiss science as a religion, while religiously promoting ID as objective and empirical. I can't be the only one here that realizes the double standards invoked by virtually every single argument you make.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


You make a lot of assumptions. To answer your first question life adapts it is in its nature look at earth we find life in the most inhospitable of environments such as frozen antarctic deep sea vents even deep underground. Where ever life can take hold it will are we the only life in the universe very doubtful since we know everything you need to create life is in space. Problem is the universe did want to give up real estate to do it.Just because the universe is hostile towards life doesnt mean that life is impossible it just means it needs to fight for survival and billions of years of that fight here we are really quite miraculous im sure other planets never produce higher life forms.

As for the soul thats a matter for belief either you believe we are more then the sum of our parts or you dont. My question has all ways been where do souls stop is it only human are animals included plants how about insects there the largest life form on th planet. When i kill a fly did i just destroy a soul? Its all a mater of belief.

Here is an excellent summary of the major problems with origin of life theories, complete with dozens of references to follow up on. Enjoy.

www.evolutionnews.org...

I have been a bit rude at times and I do apolagise. One thing that is clear though, the posters who have a real unbiased and balanced approach are polite, patient and thoughtful. The others who are simply driven by an anti religious agenda are rude condascending, arrogant and deceitfull. Very clearly.

Thanks to Charles (possibly the most gracious and sincere poster I have encountered on ATS), PhotonEffect, ImAFungi, and others sorry if I missed you. As well as those who are reasonable skeptics such as WorShip and Pinke.

Alas, if only there were more of you.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Yes, I see where I misunderstood.

It all depends on how you look at it though, right? It could be 99.999999999999%, empty lethal as all hell, space. But in an otherwise infinite universe, percentages lose all their meaning, don't they.

I mean if we found one other world out there that harbors intelligent life, that would change everything about us.

We estimate 180,000,000,000 galaxies to exist in just the observable universe. What if just .00001 of them had only one planet (amongst billions) with life on it? And .what if 00001 of those with life, had intelligent life...

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs

 

In your best opinion can you describe the most probable events that caused DNA to be formed and utilized?

My opinion is that DNA came from RNA and was originally very simple in comparison to today. As genetic mutations began happening and altering various organisms, it became more and more complex along with the various lifeforms. I believe one of the bigger steps in the evolution of DNA happened during the emergence of multi-cellular life, a process that in itself took around a billion years.

This is why I dislike the appeal to DNA complexity arguments. They essentially try to argue that DNA was designed in its current form, which does not make any logical sense.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


That's quite gracious of you PhotonEffect (I mean that genuinely). I don't disagree with you. I think Charles52 debunked (successfully) that quoted text in a couple of lines. Though the same logic makes the claim that the universe is fine tuned this way, just as illogical and all that quote does (IMO) is put things in some perspective.

In the end, who knows (at this stage)?

Originally posted by squiz
Here is an excellent summary of the major problems with origin of life theories, complete with dozens of references to follow up on. Enjoy.

www.evolutionnews.org...

I have been a bit rude at times and I do apolagise. One thing that is clear though, the posters who have a real unbiased and balanced approach are polite, patient and thoughtful. The others who are simply driven by an anti religious agenda are rude condascending, arrogant and deceitfull. Very clearly.

Thanks to Charles (possibly the most gracious and sincere poster I have encountered on ATS), PhotonEffect, ImAFungi, and others sorry if I missed you. As well as those who are reasonable skeptics such as WorShip and Pinke.

Alas, if only there were more of you.

edit on 9-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

That website need to catch ip to science first question it asks is how was the organic soup created on earth.This should help answer the question:

Astronomers Discover Complex Organic Matter Exists Throughout the Universe

Not only are stars producing this complex organic matter, they are also ejecting it into the general interstellar space, the region between stars.

Where you aware organic matter has even been detected on mercury so it looks like it wasnt created here at all looks like it was created by a supernova Think life in the universe created by a star kind of amazing when you think the egyptians believed the same thing that ra there sun god created life.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

You make a lot of assumptions.

No dragon, Im asking a lot of questions.

To answer your first question life adapts it is in its nature look at earth we find life in the most inhospitable of environments such as frozen antarctic deep sea vents even deep underground. Where ever life can take hold it will are we the only life in the universe very doubtful since we know everything you need to create life is in space.

Well you clearly didn't get my point, or what I was asking, and skated a triple toe loop right around that one...

Problem is the universe did want to give up real estate to do it.Just because the universe is hostile towards life doesnt mean that life is impossible it just means it needs to fight for survival and billions of years of that fight here we are really quite miraculous im sure other planets never produce higher life forms.

Who's making assumptions now dragon? You've been very presumptuous through out this entire discussion about life's chances to even exist...

As for the soul thats a matter for belief either you believe we are more then the sum of our parts or you dont. My question has all ways been where do souls stop is it only human are animals included plants how about insects there the largest life form on th planet. When i kill a fly did i just destroy a soul? Its all a mater of belief.

Maybe you did, Dragon, maybe you did. Science doesn't have patience for souls it seems. But to deny it is to deny being human imo...

Originally posted by squiz
I have finished with Barcs he is stuck in loops and continues with the strawmen. DragonRidr is just incoherant. Rhino is simply deceptive and dishonest. Why should I bother?

None have an answer.

The simple fact remains that semiosis is self evidently irriducable and is not physics and can never be created by physics. It requires a mind. it is simply impossible under a mechanistic materialistic paradigm. The fact it exists empirically demonstrates materialism is false. Anyone can see if they are willing to see.

But the religion of scientism blinds to what is clear. Design is overwheliming as Dawkins says, but an illusion you see. I know who is suffering from illusions.

Otherwise you must believe that language can emerge without consciousness. That is simply absurd. Will never happen because it cannot happen.

When I read that, I see someone who has never had a course in physics or chemistry, let alone biology. You seem to be trying to invent a new vocabulary which, as near as I can tell, is constructed to let in the conclusion of “intelligent design.”

There is an important point that you are apparently not willing to see.
Many processes in physics, chemistry, and biology can be restated in teleological and/or “semiotic system” language. It sometimes makes for efficient metaphor as long as one understands the underlying processes.

Please tell me...where along the spectrum of complexity in atoms and molecules do physics and chemistry cease to function and get replaced by semiotic system that is “intelligently designed?”

The claim that biology is a “semiotic system” requires doing some considerable insult to the concept of semiosis, which refers to signs and symbols. Biological processes, as amply documented here, simply are not symbolic processes.

This “semiotic” argument is just another pretentious attempt to justify rejecting science without ever having to learn anything about science, especially chemistry and physics.
You are trying to lock in a sectarian dogma by “reason and logic” alone. Evidence from the real world remains, as always, irrelevant.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Id like to think when our journeys over a new one begins but its a matter of faith and who knows maybe faith is the deciding factor.

I have been keeping tabs on this thread to see where it goes but IMO another tooth has arisen.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by WorShip

 

In regards to what you are saying I think it really does boil down to one question, a question that has been there since the birth of philosophy and that is - does the brain create consciousness or not?

I do not believe it does and I think there is extensive evidence to support this. I subscribe to the filter model of consciousness, the brain is no doubt intrinsically connected and perhaps the physical manifestation of the non physical mind.

As far as non physicality goes, physics has shown us that at the foundationnof all things is not physicality, determinism and locality do not exist. information is not physical only carried by it. At the source of reality are but mathematical laws and information.

If we follow the logical conclusions, if there was a beggining of the universe and time, it only makes sense that the cause was beyond space and time and not physical. Either way we have to accept something eternal. I don't think eternity is eternal time but that complete absence of linear time.

I know this is really a philosophical position. And the answers are simply unkowable.

Only IMO of course (which makes it neither here nor there really), but that is your best post and by far the best argument you have put forward to support your position, in this entire thread. Especially in the way it was put forward. There is a lot we have to learn about this, whether your ideas are right or wrong, there are great possibilities there (IMO).

reply to post by flyingfish


More insults what a surprise. All of my information is sourced from science guided by gnosis and my own personal transcendental experiences.

Translation is a semiotic process. The non physical aspects of code is clearly self evident, no in depth knowledge of physics or biology is needed, but it does help. Only common sense and logic are needed to understand the problem. I am educated in these thank you very much as well as logic and a cursory understanding of informatics and semiotics. It is because I have a wide range of knowledge of multiple disiplines that I can see the common thread that unites the biggest mysteries of existence.

I don't like to speak of myself and what I know and why, it comes across as egotistical and phony. I avoid it. But I am tired of the condescention and the implications that I don't know what I am talking about.

All you are doing is trying to sweep it under the rug because it obviously does not mesh with your world view.

And I can refute your opinion, (that is all it is) in one word. Biosemiotics. Look it up. It began in the sixties but is still an emerging discipline. It has resistance because of the obvious implications. It is also difficult to research because of the reasons I have mentioned.

The question of when physical procceses become semiotic (epistemic cut) is the exact mystery that has escaped explanation by materialism. There have several people actually seeking a naturalistic cause and all have failed to get even close to a solution for the obvious reason that semiosis is not physics. This predates modern ID. In fact ID does recognise it, but really does not emphasize it very much.

This is much more than biology, this is at the very heart of the mind body problem, and the measurement problem in quantum physics. All of these things materialism struggles with including the origin of life. Shares a common element. Semiosis.

You can't see it, but this is an all encompassing subject that cuts to the very mystery of existence.
But no lets just ignore it, nothing to see here!

I don't feel I need to engage with the pseudo skeptics locked in thier box like view of the world any more. They are intellectualy bankrupt IMO. There are some very bright and unbiased and pleasant people here, I will stick to discussing it with them thanks very much and post more information as it becomes relevant.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum



Thank you, I am a little rough around the edges, I know. It is difficult to escape the religious branding when asking these questions you must admit, but I must emphasize I have had no religious background at all. I do not pretend to understand what God is or isn't, personally I think it is beyond comprehension to the regular state of consciousness. I do believe in something much greater than myself though and the that real mystery is consciousness. The question of God can come later as far I am concerned.

It would be nice to be able to talk about these things without the political and religious baggings and the petty competitive I am right, you are wrong, and the self righteous you don't know science and I do type of talk.

What I have been trying to explain is quite obvious as far as I am concerned and no doubt it raises other questions that simply can't be answered. But just because there are other unanswerable questions that come to the fore it does not refute the facts that are readily available to us.

reply to post by squiz


Problem is biosemiosis doesn't agree with you at all. The current theory is metasystem transitions basically a set of rules that semiosis uses to occur in life forms. It does not require an intelligence to be external meaning it excludes god as the answer.


A metasystem transition functions as a "quantum of evolution", a discrete jump to a higher level of complexity. It thus provides a general principle to explain evolutionary "progress" or development.This is set by rules known as Evolutionary Quanta.


So This theory is obviously from you just like you admitted however you are unable or unwilling to explain it.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


It's nice to know we might all agree on at least one thing in the end... that we really have no freakin idea no matter how much we think we do

Originally posted by dragonridr
Where you aware organic matter has even been detected on mercury so it looks like it wasnt created here at all looks like it was created by a supernova Think life in the universe created by a star kind of amazing when you think the egyptians believed the same thing that ra there sun god created life.

www.sciencedaily.com...

What's more amazing to me is that the very same stars you claimed are supposed to be killing us are actually pollenating galaxies with complex organic matter. The very building blocks of life...

From your article:

"Our work has shown that stars have no problem making complex organic compounds under near-vacuum conditions," says Kwok. "Theoretically, this is impossible, but observationally we can see it happening."

From www.space.com...

"What impressed me most is that complex organics are easily formed by stars, they are everywhere in our own galaxy and in other galaxies," Kwok told SPACE.com in an email interview. "Nature is much more clever than we had imagined."

rut ro

But, the findings throw a wrench into existing theories that posit that stars cannot produce such complex organic compounds in the near-vacuum environment of space.

"Theoretically, it is very difficult to understand because of the very low density of the circumstellar environment," Kwok said. "But, observationally, there is no doubt as we see these spectral features appearing and changing on very short time scales. This means that these organic solids are condensing directly from the gas phase."

What was all that we were just talking? Something about with the lethal radiation filled vacuum 99.9999% stuff?
Bah never mind

reply to post by squiz


Thanks for the link. Just starting to read the article now.