Dawkins/Armstrong

[Paull]

Recently the Wall Street Journal published what was termed a debate between RD and Karen Armstrong. I was disappointed,
it can hardly be called a debate and neither of them proved anything. Dawkins made his usual claims and Armstrong gave us some history and philosophy but I saw no real point/counterpoint nor anything like rebuttal. Further, it seemed to me that Dawkins made some statements using terms that puzzled me. Rather like a verbal or semantic Gordian Knot and I don’t know where to begin to unravel it.

He refers often to the “Laws of Physics” and describes them as having produced “life”. But the “laws of physics” apply to physical substances and describes or defines the characteristics, the properties, and behavior of matter and such things as light and magnetism. Physics, as a science is defined as follows;

“The science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.”

And Physical Science is defined as;

“Any of the natural sciences dealing with inanimate matter or with energy, as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. These sciences collectively.”

And yet Dawkins often equates “life” and the “laws of physics”. For instance he says,

“What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics.”

And we find this connection throughout the article. Now I find that, if in every case where he uses the word “life”, I substitute the words “living things” I can grasp a little better the connection. I better understand the words “physical laws” in context with the word “things with more clarity. Dawkins continues farther on:

“The laws of physics, before Darwinian evolution burst out from their midst, can make rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars, whirlpools and waves, whirlpool-shaped galaxies and light that travels as waves while behaving like particles. It is an interesting, fascinating and, in many ways, deeply mysterious universe. But now enter life (ie living things). Look, through the eyes of a physicist, at a bounding kangaroo, a swooping bat, a leaping dolphin, a soaring coast redwood. There never was a rock that bounded like a kangaroo, never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a sand grain that swam like a water flea. Not once do any of these creatures disobey one jot or tittle of the laws of physics.”

Of course it’s true. Kangaroos, bats, beetles and water fleas have no other choice, they must behave in the physical world as their physical bodies are designed to behave. They can do no other. Birds must fly rather than run, deer must run rather than fly They are physical “things” that exist and operate in a physical world, each according to its own physical structure. And…they cannot choose a different way for themselves, nor did they choose their present state.. Birds were not designed by birds and kangaroos were not designed by kangaroos.

But Dawkins errs when he says they do not violate the laws of physics. Inanimate matter, in whatever form we find it, has no capacity or power to assemble itself into the structure of a “living thing”. What “law of physics” enabled matter, that is atoms, elements, molecules and compounds, to assemble themselves into the microscopic structures, the organelles, of a single cell? Or what “law of physics” enabled them to be so precisely assembled. And once having been assembled into so precise a structure, what “law of physics” brought it to “life” thus allowing it to function? And a single cell is without question a precision instrument.

The first single-celled creature that ever was necessarily had to have, simultaneously and at once, (I say “at once” because each one of its components requires nourishment or it will die.) the following capabilities, and the physical structures, the physical means, in place to accomplish them. It must ingest nutrients,... ingest oxygen,... digest nutrients,... circulate them,... eliminate waste,... repair itself,... reproduce,... be capable of some form of motion,... and must possess an immune and a sensory system. These must all be contained in an envelope, a cell wall. Is there a “law of physics” that defines a capability in inanimate physical matter to construct such a thing? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat?

And there is more. The Cell must somehow be brought to “LIFE”, with an intelligence sufficient for the cell to govern its various functions. Absent “life” it is just a physical “thing” incapable of putting to use the organs and structures of which it is composed. Can inanimate matter bring inanimate matter "to life"? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat? I think not. I think the "laws of physics" cannot account for the assembly of those precise organs and systems nor for the fact they become a "living" physical thing. Their very existence violates the "laws of physics"

[kalon]

It seems that organisms don't violate the laws of physics, but at the same time, it seems to me, they aren't governed by the laws of physics. They are not entirely necessitated by external causes in the same way that an inanimate object is -- that is, you can speak of a pebble "moving", but not properly "acting". Dawkins is sacrificing precision of language to give rhetorical strength to his opinion that life is matter and only matter.

[Goldenmane]

Define "life".

[kalon]

matter which contains within it the power of self motion?

[Fleet]

Recently the Wall Street Journal published what was termed a debate between RD and Karen Armstrong. I was disappointed,
it can hardly be called a debate and neither of them proved anything. Dawkins made his usual claims and Armstrong gave us some history and philosophy but I saw no real point/counterpoint nor anything like rebuttal. Further, it seemed to me that Dawkins made some statements using terms that puzzled me. Rather like a verbal or semantic Gordian Knot and I don’t know where to begin to unravel it.

He refers often to the “Laws of Physics” and describes them as having produced “life”. But the “laws of physics” apply to physical substances and describes or defines the characteristics, the properties, and behavior of matter and such things as light and magnetism. Physics, as a science is defined as follows;

“The science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.”

And Physical Science is defined as;

“Any of the natural sciences dealing with inanimate matter or with energy, as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. These sciences collectively.”

And yet Dawkins often equates “life” and the “laws of physics”. For instance he says,

“What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics.”

And we find this connection throughout the article. Now I find that, if in every case where he uses the word “life”, I substitute the words “living things” I can grasp a little better the connection. I better understand the words “physical laws” in context with the word “things with more clarity. Dawkins continues farther on:

“The laws of physics, before Darwinian evolution burst out from their midst, can make rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars, whirlpools and waves, whirlpool-shaped galaxies and light that travels as waves while behaving like particles. It is an interesting, fascinating and, in many ways, deeply mysterious universe. But now enter life (ie living things). Look, through the eyes of a physicist, at a bounding kangaroo, a swooping bat, a leaping dolphin, a soaring coast redwood. There never was a rock that bounded like a kangaroo, never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a sand grain that swam like a water flea. Not once do any of these creatures disobey one jot or tittle of the laws of physics.”

Of course it’s true. Kangaroos, bats, beetles and water fleas have no other choice, they must behave in the physical world as their physical bodies are designed to behave. They can do no other. Birds must fly rather than run, deer must run rather than fly They are physical “things” that exist and operate in a physical world, each according to its own physical structure. And…they cannot choose a different way for themselves, nor did they choose their present state.. Birds were not designed by birds and kangaroos were not designed by kangaroos.

But Dawkins errs when he says they do not violate the laws of physics. Inanimate matter, in whatever form we find it, has no capacity or power to assemble itself into the structure of a “living thing”.

What evidence do you have to support the claim?

What “law of physics” enabled matter, that is atoms, elements, molecules and compounds, to assemble themselves into the microscopic structures, the organelles, of a single cell? Or what “law of physics” enabled them to be so precisely assembled. And once having been assembled into so precise a structure, what “law of physics” brought it to “life” thus allowing it to function? And a single cell is without question a precision instrument.

As the physics becomes more intricate and complex in certain ways it is then refered to as chemistry. As chemistry becomes more intricate and complex it becomes biology. As biology becomes more complex and intircate it is called anthropolgy, sociology, etc. But it all stem from physics.

The first single-celled creature that ever was necessarily had to have, simultaneously and at once, (I say “at once” because each one of its components requires nourishment or it will die.) the following capabilities, and the physical structures, the physical means, in place to accomplish them. It must ingest nutrients,... ingest oxygen,... digest nutrients,... circulate them,... eliminate waste,... repair itself,... reproduce,... be capable of some form of motion,... and must possess an immune and a sensory system. These must all be contained in an envelope, a cell wall. Is there a “law of physics” that defines a capability in inanimate physical matter to construct such a thing? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat?

And there is more. The Cell must somehow be brought to “LIFE”, with an intelligence sufficient for the cell to govern its various functions. Absent “life” it is just a physical “thing” incapable of putting to use the organs and structures of which it is composed. Can inanimate matter bring inanimate matter "to life"? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat? I think not. I think the "laws of physics" cannot account for the assembly of those precise organs and systems nor for the fact they become a "living" physical thing. Their very existence violates the "laws of physics"

What law of physics are you refering to specifically? So far as I can tell abiogenisis does not violiate any law of physics, it is simply not described by any known law.

An added comment: We struggle with the idea that inanimate physical things can come together and become intelligent life. Maybe it is just that simple and maybe it isn't, we just don't know. What I do "know" is that the universe consists of two phenomena and two phenomena only: the universe consists of dimensional space and mass/energy. We study mass/energy. We study mass/energy (physical things) in space, but we have not yet paid much attention to the intimate and subtle relationship between physical stuff and space. Specifically I am reffering to the relationship of fields with space, electromagnetic fields in particular. My sense is that this area of study will yield postive results in the understanding of consciousness.

Have I mentioned today how much I really hate spelling? Are we ever going to get spell check on this site?

[scarab]

But Dawkins errs when he says they do not violate the laws of physics. Inanimate matter, in whatever form we find it, has no capacity or power to assemble itself into the structure of a “living thing”.

Nonsense.

We are made from inanimate matter. There is only one kind of matter. Animated matter is simply organised matter. Assembly of living organisms would have been a boot strapping process that probably started with self replicating molecules or assemblages of mutually co-replicating molecules.

What “law of physics” enabled matter, that is atoms, elements, molecules and compounds, to assemble themselves into the microscopic structures, the organelles, of a single cell?

The usual crew, it comes under chemistry. So were talking: hydrogen bonds, ionic, covalent, polar covalent, Van der Waals forces, nothing out of the ordinary.

Or what “law of physics” enabled them to be so precisely assembled. And once having been assembled into so precise a structure, what “law of physics” brought it to “life” thus allowing it to function? And a single cell is without question a precision instrument.

That's that whole chemistry plus evolution thing. I think you missed it.

The first single-celled creature that ever was necessarily had to have, simultaneously and at once, (I say “at once” because each one of its components requires nourishment or it will die.) the following capabilities, and the physical structures, the physical means, in place to accomplish them. It must ingest nutrients,... ingest oxygen,... digest nutrients,... circulate them,... eliminate waste,... repair itself,... reproduce,... be capable of some form of motion,... and must possess an immune and a sensory system. These must all be contained in an envelope, a cell wall. Is there a “law of physics” that defines a capability in inanimate physical matter to construct such a thing? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat?

The first cells would not have used oxygen. And nobody is arguing that the process went from raw materials to modern cells in one step. You must know that so why are you wasting your time with straw men?

What may have happened was that RNA replicators would have been replicating in an RNA soup. There would have also been lipids present that formed bilayered vesicles. These form spontaneously in an aqueous solution, well you may need a little agitation.

The vesicles would have been porous and RNA nucleotides could have easily passed through the proto-cell membranes. The larger, replicating, RNA molecules would have been trapped inside the vesicles. Replication would have lead to a reduction in free nucleotides inside the vesicles and so would have set up a concentration gradient that would have favoured uptake of more nucleotides. The replicators would have been physically constrained and so would have been found in higher concentrations than in the free medium. This would favour higher rates of replication inside the proto-cells.

The elevated amounts of large RNA molecules inside the vesicles would have lead to an increase in turgor pressure (or osmotic pressure if you prefer).

Vesicles have been observed to incorporate other vesicles and free lipids when they have higher osmotic pressure inside them.

Therefore we could see a crude form of growth and predation from simple, inanimate, chemical systems.

Vesicles that contain replicators that grow fastest would 'eat' the less fit vesicles.

Simple agitation will break up very large vesicles. It has been observed that the newly formed, daughter, vesicles will not loose their original contents as the 'mother' vesicle breaks up. So we have a crude form of cellular replication.

The replicators would not have been perfect replicators so there would have been variation.

So we could have a very simple chemical system that has: replication, variation, competition and hence selection. This is the basis for evolution.

RNA molecules can form complex 3D shapes and can act as very efficient enzymes. They can also associate with the lipid vesicle walls and could have formed structures that could have selectively imported or exported materials across the 'cell' walls.

RNA proto-cells could have used rybozymes to manufacture less permeable walls and could have controlled the ingress and egress of waste products and raw materials. Phosphorylated nucleotides could have formed the currency for an early energy economy inside the proto-cells.

Their very existence violates the "laws of physics"

Oh good grief.

[pragmatist45]

It seems that organisms don't violate the laws of physics, but at the same time, it seems to me, they aren't governed by the laws of physics. They are not entirely necessitated by external causes in the same way that an inanimate object is -- that is, you can speak of a pebble "moving", but not properly "acting". Dawkins is sacrificing precision of language to give rhetorical strength to his opinion that life is matter and only matter.

Everything is governed by the laws of physics, including biological systems.

[pragmatist45]

But Dawkins errs when he says they do not violate the laws of physics. Inanimate matter, in whatever form we find it, has no capacity or power to assemble itself into the structure of a “living thing”. What “law of physics” enabled matter, that is atoms, elements, molecules and compounds, to assemble themselves into the microscopic structures, the organelles, of a single cell? Or what “law of physics” enabled them to be so precisely assembled. And once having been assembled into so precise a structure, what “law of physics” brought it to “life” thus allowing it to function? And a single cell is without question a precision instrument.

And there is more. The Cell must somehow be brought to “LIFE”, with an intelligence sufficient for the cell to govern its various functions. Absent “life” it is just a physical “thing” incapable of putting to use the organs and structures of which it is composed. Can inanimate matter bring inanimate matter "to life"? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat? I think not. I think the "laws of physics" cannot account for the assembly of those precise organs and systems nor for the fact they become a "living" physical thing. Their very existence violates the "laws of physics"

Wrong! Everything has to obey the laws of physics.

It is common for inanimate matter to self-assemble. Crystals form from solutions or molten mixtures. Snowflakes form spontaneously. It is common for biological molecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, etc., which are inanimate, to self-assemble into structures of various kinds. They assemble because the assembled state represents a configuration of minimum energy.

[Goldenmane]

matter which contains within it the power of self motion?

This:


And a brick fulfill that definition.

[kiki5711]

by Paull » Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:04 am
Recently the Wall Street Journal published what was termed a debate between RD and Karen Armstrong. I was disappointed,
it can hardly be called a debate and neither of them proved anything. Dawkins made his usual claims and Armstrong gave us some history and philosophy but I saw no real point/counterpoint nor anything like rebuttal. Further, it seemed to me that Dawkins made some statements using terms that puzzled me. Rather like a verbal or semantic Gordian Knot and I don’t know where to begin to unravel it.

Maybe he was bored with her voice and just wanted to leave.

[kalon]

Goldenmane: A car does not contain within it a power of self motion...it has to have a driver. Your argument results in the conclusion that all matter is willful, or that no matter is willful. Both conclusions are problematic.

All life does obey the laws of physics (since all life is embodied). However, living matter is not governed by laws in so far as laws do not predict the motion of living matter. The motion of living matter is not entirely necessitated by external causes -- if it were, it would be in principle indistinguishable from non living matter. In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will, since the laws of physics are limited to explanations of mechanical causation.

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

The differentiation of living and non living can be made on the visible (apparent) level and the invisible (real) level. A science which properly investigates living matter must give an account of the relation between the two.

[Goldenmane]

Goldenmane: A car does not contain within it a power of self motion...it has to have a driver.

Add a brick to the equation, and a car has the power of self-motion.

Or maybe you should define self-motion, before we get into what is bound to be the realm of the ridiculous?

Your argument results in the conclusion that all matter is willful, or that no matter is willful. Both conclusions are problematic.

Really? I'd love for you to demonstrate the reasoning that results in that conclusion, because it sound fucking ridiculous. Start with outlining your basic premises and defining all terms such as 'willful', if you would.

All life does obey the laws of physics (since all life is embodied). However, living matter is not governed by laws in so far as laws do not predict the motion of living matter. The motion of living matter is not entirely necessitated by external causes -- if it were, it would be in principle indistinguishable from non living matter. In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will, since the laws of physics are limited to explanations of mechanical causation.

You fucking what? That's a load of bollocks, and I'm pretty sure it qualifies as not even wrong (although I've not had coffee yet today, so it might simply be wrong).

Physics isn't restricted to mechanics, for fuck's sake, and the motion of living matter (insofar as that cock-manglingly imprecise phrase can mean anything) is in accordance with the laws of physics. Otherwise you'd be defying gravity at will, or walking through walls or some shit. Can you walk through walls?

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

It fucking well is if someone ties you up and chucks you off a tall building. You being alive (for the most part of the experiment) has sweet fuck-all to do with your trajectory and subsequent point of impact.

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

The differentiation of living and non living can be made on the visible (apparent) level and the invisible (real) level. A science which properly investigates living matter must give an account of the relation between the two.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? I see a bunch of words, and I'm familiar with every single one, but the combination they're in conveys no information whatsoever. Please, elucidate.

[hackenslash]

Biology=chemistry=physics. [/thread]

[Mononoke]

Goldenmane: A car does not contain within it a power of self motion...it has to have a driver. Your argument results in the conclusion that all matter is willful, or that no matter is willful. Both conclusions are problematic.

What is this self motion you talk about?

All life does obey the laws of physics (since all life is embodied). However, living matter is not governed by laws in so far as laws do not predict the motion of living matter. The motion of living matter is not entirely necessitated by external causes -- if it were, it would be in principle indistinguishable from non living matter. In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will, since the laws of physics are limited to explanations of mechanical causation.

I see no distinction, or reason to create a distinction

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

Why? Other than our incomplete knowledge of the human physiology, what other barrier do you see.

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

Why the worries?

The differentiation of living and non living can be made on the visible (apparent) level and the invisible (real) level. A science which properly investigates living matter must give an account of the relation between the two.

The difference between classical and quantum mechanics is also irreconcilable at first glance, but under the hood one collapses into the other. The same is going on with biology, the only difficulty there is that while Physicists can simplify the universe without loosing functionality biologist do no have such a privilage

[Tero1111]

All this was news to some of you, that our thoughts etc. are just chemistry?

[llanitedave]

I think a couple of folks need to learn a lesson the old-fashioned way, by rote.

So let's repeat:

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.


I think the rest of it they can do on their own.

[Rumraket80]

The first single-celled creature that ever was necessarily had to have, simultaneously and at once, (I say “at once” because each one of its components requires nourishment or it will die.) the following capabilities, and the physical structures, the physical means, in place to accomplish them. It must ingest nutrients,... ingest oxygen,... digest nutrients,... circulate them,... eliminate waste,... repair itself,... reproduce,... be capable of some form of motion,... and must possess an immune and a sensory system. These must all be contained in an envelope, a cell wall. Is there a “law of physics” that defines a capability in inanimate physical matter to construct such a thing? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat?

And there is more. The Cell must somehow be brought to “LIFE”, with an intelligence sufficient for the cell to govern its various functions. Absent “life” it is just a physical “thing” incapable of putting to use the organs and structures of which it is composed. Can inanimate matter bring inanimate matter "to life"? Can light do it? Or magnetism? Or lightening? Or heat? I think not. I think the "laws of physics" cannot account for the assembly of those precise organs and systems nor for the fact they become a "living" physical thing. Their very existence violates the "laws of physics"

Universal decomplicator and translator reports :
Straw-man argument against abiogenesis by claiming "spontaneous formation of modern complicated cell".

translator unit suggests following response:
Go to the abiogenesis and the Abiogenesis / Origin of life thread and educate yourself on various theories for how the fundamental forces of physics can result in self-replicating molecules contained in spheres of fatty acids. It's actually all quite easy to understand.

[kalon]

Goldenmane: A car does not contain within it a power of self motion...it has to have a driver. Your argument results in the conclusion that all matter is willful, or that no matter is willful. Both conclusions are problematic.

What is this self motion you talk about?

Do you deny the experience of will?

All life does obey the laws of physics (since all life is embodied). However, living matter is not governed by laws in so far as laws do not predict the motion of living matter. The motion of living matter is not entirely necessitated by external causes -- if it were, it would be in principle indistinguishable from non living matter. In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will, since the laws of physics are limited to explanations of mechanical causation.

I see no distinction, or reason to create a distinction

The distinction between living and non living (whether true or false) is apparent.

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

Why? Other than our incomplete knowledge of the human physiology, what other barrier do you see.

See above...human beings are not merely physiological...if this were the case the cause of all things human would be the operation of tendons and muscles. This is absurd because it is self-invalidating. One who concludes the absence of the psyche necessarily possesses psyche.

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

Why the worries?

Science would then be obscuring being rather than illuminating it. In other words, consciousness wills falsehood.

The differentiation of living and non living can be made on the visible (apparent) level and the invisible (real) level. A science which properly investigates living matter must give an account of the relation between the two.

The difference between classical and quantum mechanics is also irreconcilable at first glance, but under the hood one collapses into the other. The same is going on with biology, the only difficulty there is that while Physicists can simplify the universe without loosing functionality biologist do no have such a privilage

[/quote]

[kalon]

I think a couple of folks need to learn a lesson the old-fashioned way, by rote.

So let's repeat:

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.

There is no such thing as "living matter", there is only matter and energy within spacetime.


I think the rest of it they can do on their own.

Science reduced to habituation?

[llanitedave]

What you're about isn't science. Maybe a little habituation would help.

[Rumraket80]

In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will

The experience of will is the property of a sufficiently complicated brain. We do not know whether all animals experience will or even in the form we do.. but what we DO know is that it is a consequence of thought and experience, which originates in the brain. The brain is made up of matter. Therefore by extension, while the answer is propably extremely complicated to understand and simulate, we can still safely conclude that the laws of physics that govern matter are sufficient to explain the experience of will.

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

Yes it most definately can. Again, the chemical processes by which locomotion is produced in living organisms is very complex, but still governed by the fundamental forces of physics as they relate to matter. You are able to move because you have eaten matter in specific chemical configurations that contain energy bound. The energy in these molecules come ultimately from the nuclear reactions in the core of the sun.
The sun powers chemical reactions in plants. You either eat these plants or animals that eat these plants, therefore you are powered by the sun. These energies bound in chemical compounds are well understood and can be calculated. For example we know how much energy(to a certain precision, again a limitation in knowledge because of the complexity of your chemical system) you use while doing a specific amount of work, if we have the correct numbers for your weight and what other physical forces are acting upon the matter that make up your body.

See above...human beings are not merely physiological...if this were the case the cause of all things human would be the operation of tendons and muscles. This is absurd because it is self-invalidating. One who concludes the absence of the psyche necessarily possesses psyche.

Verbal garbage. Human beings ARE the operation of tendons and muscles. The tendons and muscles are working under the command of the brain, which produces, as a consequence of the environtment acting upon it through sensory organs, the psyche and the experience of will.

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

Nonsense again. Living matter IS simply matter. Matter undergoing very complex intricate chemical reactions. Life is being defined through several properties chemical reactions, like metabolism and self-replication among them.

In conclusion the laws of physics are entirely adequate to explain the origin and function of life and all the aspects thereof.

[Mononoke]

What is this self motion you talk about?

Do you deny the experience of will?

Of course not. but why do I need gnomes in my head to make me move. The neurons seem to do a wonderful job of it.

All life does obey the laws of physics (since all life is embodied). However, living matter is not governed by laws in so far as laws do not predict the motion of living matter. The motion of living matter is not entirely necessitated by external causes -- if it were, it would be in principle indistinguishable from non living matter. In other words, the laws of physics do not give an account of will, since the laws of physics are limited to explanations of mechanical causation.

The distinction between living and non living (whether true or false) is apparent.

Can you you be specific about this distinction and the apparent will involved, especially with micro-organisms. Because while we cannot fully explain complex organisms chemically, micro organisms are well understood chemically.

Even if I were to accept there is this will, you'll have to explain to me how the will is going interface with neurons whose behavior is explained through an action potential. otherwise you won't be able to explain to me something as simple as getting drunk.

Example : The motion of an inanimate object is governed by the forces acting on it. One can know the motion of a inanimate body by calculating these forces. This is not true of a living object

Why? Other than our incomplete knowledge of the human physiology, what other barrier do you see.

See above...human beings are not merely physiological...if this were the case the cause of all things human would be the operation of tendons and muscles. This is absurd because it is self-invalidating. One who concludes the absence of the psyche necessarily possesses psyche.

I never said all we are made of is muscle and tendons, there is Grey matter involved as well. Take the case of a machine, it has appendages but it is useless without an algorithm operating it. This algorithm doesn't have to be to be immaterial. take the case of software. Software is seemingly immaterial but in reality it's nothing more than an intricate set of on/off switches. As such your brain has to be nothing more than a bunch of on/off switches, .

Another way to put this problem: If living matter is reduced to simply "matter", then the phenomenon of life is irreversibly obscured by our science of it.

Why the worries?

Science would then be obscuring being rather than illuminating it. In other words, consciousness wills falsehood.

No, science should be explaining what it see's under the hood. Not some mythical will. I still don't know what you exactly mean by will?

The differentiation of living and non living can be made on the visible (apparent) level and the invisible (real) level. A science which properly investigates living matter must give an account of the relation between the two.

The difference between classical and quantum mechanics is also irreconcilable at first glance, but under the hood one collapses into the other. The same is going on with biology, the only difficulty there is that while Physicists can simplify the universe without loosing functionality biologist do no have such a privilage

[/quote][/quote]

In some sense this conversation is moot, we already have fairly sophisticated A.I, we already know a great deal about the brain especially how emotions work etc.. It is only a matter of time before the gnomes have nowhere to hide.

[Rumraket80]

It is well understood science that tells us that your brain control your movements. Your brain is constructed the way it is and works the way it does, as a consequence of how your genes describe its fundamental constituents, and how it formed during your childhood and is still forming and learning now. It is reacting to the world around you through your senses by manipulating chemical reactions in your muscles that produce kinetic energy, resulting in actually calculatable movement.

The properties of how kinetic energy is released in the chemical reactions in your mucles, and how these reactions are initiated by your brain, as a response to sensory input from the environment, are well understood. The energy required(and thus the necessary amount of food you have to consume) to bend your knee can be pretty accurately calculated. This is true for all your mucles and all your joints.

Since your body and your brain is made up of matter, and the world around you is made up of matter, it stands to perfect reason that the physical laws that govern how this matter reacts is sufficient to explain all aspects of life and "living matter".
And all this started about 3,5-4 billion years ago with the formation of a simple self-replicating molecule.

Check out this video if you want an explanation for how one such process could come about.

What part of this do you not understand?

Btw.. please submit peer reviewed scientific litterature to support your hypothesis that the experience of the "will" can exist beyond matter in physical reality.

[kalon]

Btw.. please submit peer reviewed scientific litterature to support your hypothesis that the experience of the "will" can exist beyond matter in physical reality.

not my hypothesis