Life from non-life?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I heard these birds are real popular in the States.

This sort of humorous pleasantry is boring. Could you please resume the vitriolic personal attacks? I was enjoying them.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
BBarr: "I am a reductionist about life, because I think life is nothing over and above the presence of certain physical properties in an object or entity"

BBarr: "If you think my views are reductionist, then you either don't know what the term 'reductionist' means, or you don't know what my philosophical views are."


Please, let's not get carried away and keep things crystal clear here, shall we ?

And in the same paragraph I pointed out that I am not reductionist about something that is philosophically much more central than life, and that is consciousness. For the record, I'm not a reductionist about normativity either, nor about intentionality. These are all things of central philosophical importance about which I'm sure you know nothing and about which I am not a reductionist.

If all it takes for one to have reductionist philosophical stances is for one to be a reductionist about something or other, then you are also a reductionist (about water, for instance, or starlight, or lightning). These are all things that, like life, we couldn't really explain until we uncovered their underlying physical constitution. We now know that lightning is nothing over and above a flow of electrons; water is nothing over and above H20; life is nothing over and above the presence of certain physical properties (have you found them yet online?). You are just as much a reductionist as I am. In fact, you are probably more of a reductionist than I am, as you will want to reduce facts about morality to facts about God, whereas I believe facts about morality are not reducible to non-normative facts.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I heard these birds are real popular in the States. Cats love 'm ! .... and you must be having a lot of Bibles in your basement by now.

More Books of Mormon than Bibles recently, but I don't mind. The Books of Mormon I can give out as joke gifts.

Originally posted by bbarr
And in the same paragraph I pointed out that I am not reductionist about something that is philosophically much more central than life, and that is consciousness. For the record, I'm not a reductionist about normativity either, nor about intentionality. These are all things of central philosophical importance about which I'm sure you know nothing and about ...[text shortened]... acts about God, whereas I believe facts about morality are not reducible to non-normative facts.

Interesting viewpoint. Would you like to explain a little bit about consciousness and how that has evolved? Of course, it must have arisen ultimately from the same basic elements that make up life....

Originally posted by bbarr
And in the same paragraph I pointed out that I am not reductionist about something that is philosophically much more central than life, and that is consciousness. For the record, I'm not a reductionist about normativity either, nor about in ...[text shortened]... eve facts about morality are not reducible to non-normative facts.

As you know I never drag God into an ethical debate. Never noticed it ?

And, Bbarr, you take refuge in your old and trusted trick of calling your opponent ignorant. Well, at least it makes you look better. I hope it will make you feel better too.

BBarr: "You are just as much a reductionist as I am."

Maybe we should go and have a few beers together and reduce them to the bottom.

By the way, do you have an anthropology that you like to look upon as yours ? Which one is it ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This sort of humorous pleasantry is boring. Could you please resume the vitriolic personal attacks? I was enjoying them.

But Dear Doctor, you must be confusing me with somebody else ......

Originally posted by yousers
Interesting viewpoint. Would you like to explain a little bit about consciousness and how that has evolved? Of course, it must have arisen ultimately from the same basic elements that make up life....

What makes you think that I think that consciousness evolved? I am agnostic as to whether it evolved. None of my philosophical views commit me to claiming that consciousness is a physical phenomenon or that it evolved. I don't know why you claim that consciousness must have arisen from the same basic elements that make up life. If consciousness is a non-physical property, then it is utterly mysterious how it could have arise from a purely physical substrate.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
As you know I never drag God into an ethical debate. Never noticed it ?

And, Bbarr, you take refuge in your old and trusted trick of calling your opponent ignorant. Well, at least it makes you look better. I hope it will make you feel better too.

BBarr: "You are just as much a reductionist as I am."

Maybe we should go and have a few beers together ...[text shortened]... the way, do you have an anthropology that you like to look upon as yours ? Which one is it ?

If you're ever in Seattle, I'll buy you as many beers as you can stomach. 😉

I don't know what your last question means. Are you asking whether I have a particular view about human nature, or about the essential properties of human beings?

Originally posted by bbarr
What makes you think that I think that consciousness evolved? I am agnostic as to whether it evolved. None of my philosophical views commit me to claiming that consciousness is a physical phenomenon or that it evolved. I don't know why you claim that consciousness must have arisen from the same basic elements that make up life. If consciousness is a non-p ...[text shortened]... operty, then it is utterly mysterious how it could have arise from a purely physical substrate.

Let's speculate then on how consciousness arose in the reducible bodies of ours. What is the origin of consciousness? I know that you strongly disagree with any religious notions of origin. Man has evolved from a mixture of chemicals, even from a point if we consider Big Bang theory. All of this has occurred naturally via reducible pathways only to have the consciousness appear from nowhere as a metaphysical irreducible entity? This isn't adding up for me...

Originally posted by yousers
Let's speculate then on how consciousness arose in the reducible bodies of ours. What is the origin of consciousness? I know that you strongly disagree with any religious notions of origin. Man has evolved from a mixture of chemicals, even from a point if we consider Big Bang theory. All of this has occurred naturally via reducible pathways only to have ...[text shortened]... sness appear from nowhere as a metaphysical irreducible entity? This isn't adding up for me...

Speculate all you want. As I mentioned above, I'm agnostic on this subject. I will say merely this: If you want to solve the problem of the origin of consciousness, the worst way to do it is to adopt a dualistic metaphysics. A much better way to do it is to jettison your notion of the physical.

BTW, just because I believe in evolution does not entail that I have to be a materialist about that which evolves. The ultimate nature of reality may not be physical, and yet there is good evidence that elements of reality have evolved to bring about us.

Originally posted by bbarr
Speculate all you want. As I mentioned above, I'm agnostic on this subject. I will say merely this: If you want to solve the problem of the origin of consciousness, the worst way to do it is to adopt a dualistic metaphysics. A much better way to do it is to jettison your notion of the physical.

BTW, just because I believe in evolution does not entail t ...[text shortened]... hysical, and yet there is good evidence that elements of reality have evolved to bring about us.

I think this is where the Zen parable about "fingers pointing to the Moon" kicks in. In looking at consciousness we're really faced with trying to understand pure formlessness. Agreed that the only sensible intellectual position to take on the matter is that of agnosticism, or "I don't know". What is then left to do, for one who desires a deeper knowing of consciousness, is simply to explore it, via the practice of inquiry, self-observation, Zen koans, etc. -- what is known basically as the "discipline of transcendence." To try to grasp what consciousness is, whether an emergent property of the brain, or the substratum of existence, seems pointless via conventional reasoning. And since consciousness is the very heart of our existence, what better "thing" to explore directly, experientially, via spiritual practice such as meditation.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
I think this is where the Zen parable about "fingers pointing to the Moon" kicks in. In looking at consciousness we're really faced with trying to understand pure formlessness. Agreed that the only sensible intellectual position to take on the matter is that of agnosticism, or "I don't know". What is then left to do, for one who desires a deeper ...[text shortened]... better "thing" to explore directly, experientially, via spiritual practice such as meditation.

Can't we just say : I am therefore I am.

Originally posted by bobbob1056th
Viruses are not living.

Why not?

Originally posted by bbarr
If you're ever in Seattle, I'll buy you as many beers as you can stomach. 😉

I don't know what your last question means. Are you asking whether I have a particular view about human nature, or about the essential properties of human beings?

Since you're in Seattle, you owe it to yourself to get out of that demonic public university and spend some time at the Discovery Institute. You will probably even get some nice grant money if you say something really mean about evolution in philopher-speak.

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 — Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone — 206-682-5320 fax

Originally posted by frogstomp
Can't we just say : I am therefore I am.

And who (what) is that "I am?"

Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all images, thoughts or words,
can you find an “I” that is not a thought—
just another making of your mind?

This is not just a "logical" riddle. Tackle it!

Behind all the makings of your mind, Who?

I once gave the same answer ("I am" ) to a very wise friend and teacher. He looked at me a moment and then said: "Yes, you understand it. But you haven't actualized it yet."