Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.

Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#1  Postby Empiricist-Bruno » August 4th, 2017, 9:00 am

When people search for the origin of life, and look in the past for it, I always wonder, "is there any life in the past?"

If life really exists in the past, then I should be able to find it and destroy it there if I wished to. If life existed in the past, as opposed to 'exist in the past' then when did it stop existing there? The truth is life has never existed in the past and never will.

So why are many people looking far back into the history of the Earth searching for clues to the origin of life when we know it isn't there to be found?

I'm suspecting that gross stupidity is the reason but I'm open to alternative explanations.
All you need is love- (But not the one from narcissists)
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Queue Moderator
 
Posts: 327 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Location: Toronto
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley

Stop the search for the origin of life, please.



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#2  Postby Eduk » August 4th, 2017, 11:31 am

I doubt you are
Eduk
 
Posts: 635 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#3  Postby Chasw » August 6th, 2017, 8:37 am

EB: You are toying with the present and past tense of the word Exist. Accordingly, your question borders on nonsense and begs the larger question of how did life first begin. Meanwhile, I find it humorous that supposedly clear-thinking scientists speculate that the right combination of chemicals and conditions could spontaneously create life. Even the simplest bacterium is extremely complex. A claim that the first bacterium could have started spontaneously is akin to believing that if you put the right materials in the right combination into one place, a fully formed, working machine might spring into existence without the hand of a sentient being. - CW
The central question of human existence is not why we are here, but rather why we behave the way we do - http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Chasw
 
Posts: 142 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
Location: Seattle, USA
Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#4  Postby Prothero » August 6th, 2017, 11:59 am

Does the past exist? Is the past real? So does life in the past still exist or is it still real? Just playing with words, say what you mean and clarify the question.
Prothero
 
Posts: 51 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 13th, 2017, 7:40 pm

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#5  Postby Empiricist-Bruno » August 6th, 2017, 12:49 pm

Prothero,
Does the past exist? I think it depends what you think the past is.

Please let me know what you think the past is. In the mean time, I can clarify for you what I think the past is and feel free to inform me if my view of the past means that I believe the past does or does not exist.

The past is a component of stories. Stories are created to imagine what is going on now. Stories are seried in the sense that they have an order in them and depending on where you actually are in it, the past is formed by the elements of the series that are behind you.

So, when you ask if the past exist, are you in fact demanding to know if the story is of real or fictional nature? Regardless whether it's fictional or non-fiction, it always is only a representation. Now do representations of a thing exist just as much as the thing they represent? My answer is that yes they do, but this certainly does not mean that I think a repesentation is the thing it represents because the representation is just as real as the thing it is meant to represent. In my opinion, the form of the past isn't it's content. Did I really needed to clarify this?

The origin of life is the egg or the chicken? Isn't trying to find an answer to that question by going far back in the past like searching for the end of the world on Earth by circling it?
All you need is love- (But not the one from narcissists)
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Queue Moderator
 
Posts: 327 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Location: Toronto
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#6  Postby Alfthekiller » August 7th, 2017, 9:38 am

I agree to your view of what the past is. To us. On the other hand, is reference not a part of the function of language? And when speaking about the past, are we not referring to an ontological past, where events are ontologically real? And does this not precisely allow us to ask the question of life originating at some real occasion? Could we not know this though the use of language?
User avatar
Alfthekiller
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 7th, 2017, 9:02 am

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#7  Postby -1- » August 7th, 2017, 12:51 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote: If life really exists in the past, then I should be able to find it and destroy it there if I wished to. Yes, but first you have to invent a language that creates a reality just by stating it; I can explain if you wishIf life existed in the past, as opposed to 'exist in the past' then when did it stop existing there? Life is not a thing that simply exists in the singular. Living things live. Some die; some never die. Your question is simply worded wrongly, and you assume that the wrong wording creates reality which in fact has not been there. The truth is life has never existed in the past and never will. Living things have existed, though. What this mystical, methaphysical LIFE is that you are talkig about, I don't know. You maybe right, life or more precisely, LIFE, as a Platonic-type ideal or something similar never existed, and you and I are talking apples and oranges.

So why are many people looking far back into the history of the Earth searching for clues to the origin of life when we know it isn't there to be found? Because people are not as much in love with your esoteric, metaphysical, intellectual, but in essence nonsensical view of what life is, they do not buy into your assumptions (like time travel would be possible to destroy life that had existed in the past) and generally, they are not into Plato.

I'm suspecting that gross stupidity is the reason but I'm open to alternative explanations. Okay I buy your suspicion. Just never look a mirror straight in the eye, that's the only danger that you must avoid at all costs.



-- Updated 2017 August 7th, 1:32 pm to add the following --

Re: Stop the search for the origin of telephone poles, please.

When people search for the origin of telephone poles, and look in the past for it, I always wonder, "is there any telephone pole in the past?"

If telephone poles really exist in the past, then I should be able to find them and destroy them there if I wished to. If telephone poles existed in the past, as opposed to 'exist in the past' then when did they stop existing there? The truth is telephone poles have never existed in the past and never will.

So why are many people looking far back into the history of the Earth searching for clues to the origin of telephone poles, when we know they aren't there to be found?

I'm suspecting that gross stupidity is the reason but I'm open to alternative explanations.

-- Updated 2017 August 7th, 2:33 pm to add the following --

Re: Stop the search for the origin of the four directions, please.

When people search for the origin of the four directions, and look in the past for it, I always wonder, "are there any four directions in the past?"

If the four directions really exist in the past, then I should be able to find them and destroy them there if I wished to. If the four directions existed in the past, as opposed to 'exist in the past' then when did they stop existing there? The truth is the four directions have never existed in the past and never will.

So why are many people looking far back into the history of the Earth searching for clues to the origin of the four directions, when we know they aren't there to be found?

I'm suspecting that gross stupidity is the reason but I'm open to alternative explanations.

-------------------------


What I meant to point out here, Empiricist-Bruno, is that your reasoning is not empiricism-based, because if it were, then it could be applied to some things, but not applied to other things, according to how things are in the world, with their unique and different characteristics.

Yet your explanation applies to any expression you sub into the place of "life".

So what you created here is an a priori argument, which does not hold water. Its main reason for not holding water is that it wants to implant an empirical truth in the realm of empirical world, with a priori ways.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#8  Postby Empiricist-Bruno » August 7th, 2017, 7:39 pm

-1-
You write, "Living things have existed, though." What do you mean by this? All living things have existed? No, this opens to my line of questioning, "When did they stop existing?" and you seem anxious about that question.
You mean, some living things have existed? Then please tell me about the living things that have not existed. What do you know about them? Will they start to exist anytime soon? If some things have not existed, then how do you know about them? Why do you imply them? If you know that some living things have existed in the past but not all of them, which of the living things of the past you are thinking about are there that have not existed, in your opinion?

It seems clear to me you do not believe in life on Earth but just in living things, not knowing what animates them, and that seems funny to me.


I think I'm more Socratic than Platonic. I like to question statements to see if they hold up.

-- Updated August 7th, 2017, 7:56 pm to add the following --

Chasw,

I think you're right on about the foolishness of scientists who say they are getting closer to put the right ingredients together to form life and that you express it well.

-- Updated August 7th, 2017, 8:02 pm to add the following --

Alfthekiller,

Thanks for agreeing with my vision of the past. In this forum, whenever I express my idea of a complex thing, I usually get no reaction at best.
What do you mean by an ontological past? I'm not sure I get your question.
All you need is love- (But not the one from narcissists)
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Queue Moderator
 
Posts: 327 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Location: Toronto
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#9  Postby -1- » August 7th, 2017, 10:25 pm

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:-1-
You write, "Living things have existed, though." What do you mean by this? All living things have existed? No, this opens to my line of questioning, "When did they stop existing?" and you seem anxious about that question.
You mean, some living things have existed? Then please tell me about the living things that have not existed. What do you know about them? Will they start to exist anytime soon? If some things have not existed, then how do you know about them? Why do you imply them? If you know that some living things have existed in the past but not all of them, which of the living things of the past you are thinking about are there that have not existed, in your opinion?

It seems clear to me you do not believe in life on Earth but just in living things, not knowing what animates them, and that seems funny to me.


I think I'm more Socratic than Platonic. I like to question statements to see if they hold up.


You are funny. You gave me the task to describe everything I know about something that never existed.

It seems to me you believe in a life force, some addition that makes dead matter animated. Now, that IS very Socratic/Platonic. Straight out of the "Republic".

It was the first lesson in my grade five biology class that "life force" does not exist. Voltaire or Lavoisier or someone of a similar name "proved" it. It is possible that a life force exists, but it's just as not provable or disprovable as the opposite of it. I personally don't believe in it, out of deference to my old teachers.

----------

My other criticism still stands. That you created an argument that is nothing but a sophistry, a truism, and miraculously you can plug in any concept or noun in the critical spot, and it makes exactly the same sense with everything else plugged in as with "life".

So your argument must lack force because it argues the same outcome no matter what you plug in there. It means that the sophistry is solid, and the thing you plug in is a non-essential element in the argument, a sort of dead space, or dead weight that matters neither way in the argument. Neither pro, nor con.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#10  Postby Greta » August 8th, 2017, 1:06 am

1, it could be that life force is everywhere in varying degrees, hence the problem with finding it. I don't have a belief one way or another, but that is one possibility.

I also have problems with the OP, which seems to discount arguably one of the profound emergences in reality, right up there with the emergence of stars, planets with active geology, black holes, the emergence of multicellularity and, perhaps, the emergence of intelligent eusocial life.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5284 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#11  Postby Empiricist-Bruno » August 8th, 2017, 3:02 pm

-1- wrote:
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:-1-
You write, "Living things have existed, though." What do you mean by this? All living things have existed? No, this opens to my line of questioning, "When did they stop existing?" and you seem anxious about that question.
You mean, some living things have existed? Then please tell me about the living things that have not existed. What do you know about them? Will they start to exist anytime soon? If some things have not existed, then how do you know about them? Why do you imply them? If you know that some living things have existed in the past but not all of them, which of the living things of the past you are thinking about are there that have not existed, in your opinion?

It seems clear to me you do not believe in life on Earth but just in living things, not knowing what animates them, and that seems funny to me.


I think I'm more Socratic than Platonic. I like to question statements to see if they hold up.


You are funny. You gave me the task to describe everything I know about something that never existed.

It seems to me you believe in a life force, some addition that makes dead matter animated. Now, that IS very Socratic/Platonic. Straight out of the "Republic".

It was the first lesson in my grade five biology class that "life force" does not exist. Voltaire or Lavoisier or someone of a similar name "proved" it. It is possible that a life force exists, but it's just as not provable or disprovable as the opposite of it. I personally don't believe in it, out of deference to my old teachers.

----------

My other criticism still stands. That you created an argument that is nothing but a sophistry, a truism, and miraculously you can plug in any concept or noun in the critical spot, and it makes exactly the same sense with everything else plugged in as with "life".

So your argument must lack force because it argues the same outcome no matter what you plug in there. It means that the sophistry is solid, and the thing you plug in is a non-essential element in the argument, a sort of dead space, or dead weight that matters neither way in the argument. Neither pro, nor con.


No, I have not asked you to describe everything you know about something that never existed. I do not know that something has never existed; you seem to imply it yourself and I'm just picking up on that as it seems to be an integral part of the overall stupidity that I think I should blame for people looking into the past to try and find the origin of life.

But I might have asked you that question though, if you had written, "Things have always existed in the past." Apparently, I'm more funny in your imagination than I am in reality.

When people search for the origin of life in the past, why aren't they looking for the origin of telephone posts? The answer is that they aren't intrigued by telephone posts. By replacing the core element of my statement with a non-intriguing one, the telephone post, you are in fact suggesting that the search for the origin of life by looking into the past is as meaningful as the the search for the origin of telephone posts by looking into the past and I do not disagree with this. Unfortunately, the search for the origin of telephone posts is not one of those search that turns on many scientists, or the imagination of people. So you are replacing an element of my argument by another where the new argument is not relevant to what we actually see in the world. I think this is called dissonance.

But what else does your remark add to the discussion or the argument that I have made? If people were really looking for the origin of telephone posts by looking for them in the past, I think we'd still continue to want to tell them to please stop doing this, in my opinion.

I never talked about any life force and so I need to warn you about the straw man argument.

The only statement I have made that might have suggested you this idea is this, "It seems clear to me you do not believe in life on Earth but just in living things, not knowing what animates them, and that seems funny to me." Now you are putting words in my mouth by saying that that the animation of living things is due to a life force. This seems to reinforce my opinion that you don't know what animates living things. You project your own ignorance upon me by suggesting that I view life as a life force makes dead matter animated, which is perhaps how you view life yourself.


Regarding your respect for your grade 5 biology teacher, I'd like to say that someone who calls upon authority for his argument refers to his memory, someone who calls upon his understanding for his argument uses his mind.

And you still haven't answered my question: tell me what you know about the non-existent living things of the past. I'm all ears for that and I'm certainly not joking or trying to be funny. You can do it. You can come with the kind of answers I'm looking for. Or maybe someone else here can help you?
All you need is love- (But not the one from narcissists)
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Queue Moderator
 
Posts: 327 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Location: Toronto
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#12  Postby JamesOfSeattle » August 9th, 2017, 7:07 pm

Chasw wrote:A claim that the first bacterium could have started spontaneously is akin to believing that if you put the right materials in the right combination into one place, a fully formed, working machine might spring into existence without the hand of a sentient being. - CW

Of course, no one claims that a bacterium formed spontaneously. What they do claim is that cell-like structures spontaneously form all the time. Others claim that certain metabolic processes start spontaneously all the time. Some claim that that these cell-like structures can enclose metabolism-like ingredients and thereby increase the chance that the metabolism-like activities will be preserved over long periods and ultimately increase the chances the cell-like structures will be recreated/reproduced. See Terrence Deacon's "Absent Nature".

*
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
 
Posts: 290 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#13  Postby -1- » August 12th, 2017, 2:02 pm

JamesOfSeattle wrote:
Chasw wrote:A claim that the first bacterium could have started spontaneously is akin to believing that if you put the right materials in the right combination into one place, a fully formed, working machine might spring into existence without the hand of a sentient being. - CW

Of course, no one claims that a bacterium formed spontaneously. What they do claim is that cell-like structures spontaneously form all the time. Others claim that certain metabolic processes start spontaneously all the time. Some claim that that these cell-like structures can enclose metabolism-like ingredients and thereby increase the chance that the metabolism-like activities will be preserved over long periods and ultimately increase the chances the cell-like structures will be recreated/reproduced. See Terrence Deacon's "Absent Nature".

*

I agree with jamesOFseattle, but I also agree with Chasw. It is conceivable, and more to the point, possible, that by throwing material together in a sack, and shaking it vigorously, a fully functional thermonuclear reactor will fall out of the bag, completely capable of powering a fair sized city with electricity, or swallowing a small-to-medium-sized Japanese island in the North Pacific.

Of course, the chances are extremely small that this will happen, but there is a chance.

And since it's a process of a random act, (shaking the bag is random compared to designing a facility like that), it is completely possible that the nuclear facility will fall out of the bag on the FIRST trial.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#14  Postby Wayne92587 » August 13th, 2017, 12:15 am

The Life Force does exist, did exist in the Past and exists in the Present and will exist in the Future.

Man needs to understand the nature of the Life Force in order to ensure the Evolution of the Psychic.

The Life Force, the Spirit of God is eternal, Everlasting, is both Finite and Infinite, exists as both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm, is both omnipresent and omniscient, exists as a Singularity and as a Plurality, a Singularity having a dual quality.

The Life Force after the beginning moment of the Creative Process, being the indirect cause of the Reality of Everything that exists in material sense of the word, the Heavens and the Earth the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in material sense of the Word; Creation beginning with the creation of the Reality of Cause, a Singularity having a dual quality, 0/1; beginning with the metamorphic Transfiguration of the First Singularity of Zero-0 to attain relative, a Numerical value of One-1, the conversion of a random Singularity of Zero-0 into a Singularity having a relative, numerical value of One-1.

The Reality of First Cause, as a random singularity of Zero-0 being displaced attaining a relative, numerical, value of One-1, being the Single Direct Material cause of the System of Chaos (as in the Butterfly Effect) became the direct cause of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word, even a rock.

The Whole of Reality, the Reality of Everything, being born of a Singularity having a dual that is shown to be the mathematical equation of 0/1, which is representative of a real number, an entity that is yet complete, of a fractal, fraction.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1385 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm

Re: Stop the search for the origin of life, please.

Post Number:#15  Postby Ranvier » August 13th, 2017, 12:50 am

The logic of words...
It would be rational to assume that we're alive, as we were alive yesterday (the past) and the day before. All the way to the individual "conception" of life, which ever way one wishes to define life. The reason we are able to infer such chain of events, is a difficult to argue with fact of the cause and effect (I'm always open to new ideas though). Since we exist today (the effect), it's most likely due to a fact that we existed yesterday (the cause). Unless you can show a single event without a cause, I must conclude that your logic is faulty.
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Next

Return to Epistemology and Metaphysics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST