Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:53am PT
|
According to current origin-of-life researchers, some of the components of life spontaneously self assemble given what we think were the conditions and available materials on early earth. For example - life needs a container to protect its delicate genetic material from the outside environment. Such containers readily self assemble in fresh warm water pools that undergo dry/wet cycles given the ride set polymers - which we know were available because we've found them in meteorites that have made it to earth since then.
The problem life had to solved was putting all the components necessary for a self sustaining biological system together at once - no mean feat. That probably took a long, long time.
Creating such a meta stable biological system wasn't entirely random - hydrogen bonding, van der waals forces, and catalysis helped life's molecules self assemble and 'beat the odds' by many orders of magnitude. Still - it was a very complex problem to solve.
Yet here we are.
It's likely that only a few environments, and possibly only one - provided the right petri dish for life's emergence on earth. If we could find another - most notably undersea volcanic vents - then life on Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, and a whole host of worlds that probably outnumber near-earths many times over becomes a real possibility. Under that scenario - life wouldn't even require a star to exist - just tidal heating. An ice moon of an orphaned planet without any star at all would suffice.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
|
One never has complete absolute free will, only limited free will, just as every living entity is limited in all opulances.
We are fortunate that there are not many questions beyond the reach of Werner.
Is God limited in any way, Werner?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
I am not sure science can answer it all, either. Actually, I am fairly certain it cannot. Thus my reference to the healing of trauma by compassion and caring rather than chemistry.
Much of our observation of phenomenon in western culture has been hijacked by the scientific method, so that we are in fact often timid to describe something as being subjectively beautiful and heart-stirring, and fall back on describing the prismatic effect of water drops on light, which might tell us how something functions, but does little to tell us how its existence relates to aspects of humans which extend beyond our ability to provide accurate measurements. We largely overlook the harmonics of the human body—its rhythms and songs.
Bessel van der Kolk, who specializes in trauma, speaks of the changes in brain function as a result of what people think about. One could measure and describe excitation, neurons activated, and chemical shifts in the human body by observing the images of the brain. Fine. But there are subjective changes that can only be measured by conversing with and sharing knowledge among humans. And who is exploring the impact of compassion on human brain function? Because there is one. And it does not yield as easily to scientific explanation as does the measurement of chemical traces. Yet I doubt if anyone could deny this human experience. Now that we can measure the activity of the human brain, more scientists are nodding. While we often ignore subjective experience, we are also slowly learning that subjective experience is a set of data we ignore at our peril as humans.
My point here is that while science may lead us to greater knowledge of how the material world functions, it does not educate us concerning our human sense of wellness, safety, belonging, being loved, or of healing. Nor efficacy. Technologically, we are on a marathon of progress as humans who are manipulating our environment as we learn about it. But spiritually, we are falling behind when we ignore the rational, subjective recounting of such manifestations as are apparent from such energy states as meditation, warfare, love, or fear.
Perhaps not all of human experience can be measured. Perhaps it eludes science. Subjective experience might be called spirituality or awareness. But it exists and is a component of human life. Without it, we would be automatons efficiently programmed by our evolution and perhaps television advertising. To discard subjective experience because the present technology can barely measure it is not the same as proving it does not exist: if humans from across a variety of cultures have a sense of efficacy or free will, to deny their experience because there is no means of measuring it, or replicating it in controlled conditions, does not negate its existence. It merely shows the limitations we presently encounter in our attempts to do so. But that is changing, and I believe it serves us well to pay close attention to the developing body of research on awareness and human subjective states of being.
I love science. It has been very good to me. But I also love metaphysics, and that has been very good to me as well. I find it difficult to parse awareness/mind/Spirit into separate units of being, and so, when I speak of mind, I am unable to hold it apart from my own sense of being, from my own awareness, from my own Spirit. (And this is my own subjective view of life and spirit and being, but I think it is shared by many humans.)
And it is Spirit, I believe, which gives me the humanity to appreciate the prismatic effect of sunlight on water, and smile at a rainbow. And yet I know at a certain level that the rainbow is a display of quantum mechanics. So my delight is also in having that understanding of a rainbow. Are we not, as humans, capable of enjoying and appreciating both aspects—and other aspects which may yet be revealed—of a rainbow? Of the human experience?
I offer the above to say, in summary, that human beings are easily capable of holding both their scientific method and their subjective humanity as we explore concepts and phenomenon from our human perspective. There are balances and contradictions that will continue to emerge. How we approach and entertain and examine these internal and external phenomenon will depend largely on our human ability to hold objective and subjective aspects of experienced existence as both of significance.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:46pm PT
|
There's a lot of anti-science backlash here. It doesn't have to be an either/or mindset or setup.
"hijacked by the scientific method"
Hijacked? That's a curious (if not biased) verb to use, it seems to me.
"And who is exploring the impact of compassion on human brain function? Because there is one." -ff
Of course there is one. And an example, one eg, of who? is Kelly McGonigal, a clinical psychologist who's providing "compassion-based" healing programs (e.g., via meditation). One can find her all over amazon and the internet specifically concerning her "compassion-based" approaches / scholarship.
Also what is psychology? chopped liver? Emergent in recent years, stronger than ever, is clinical psychology (which is an applied science taking into account goals, objectives, of the client-patient and suggesting prescriptive counsel). Dr Phil, a clinical psychologist, one of scores of excellent guides, has advised and helped hundreds through his practice.
Are we not, as humans, capable of enjoying and appreciating both aspects—and other aspects which may yet be revealed—of a rainbow?
There it is. So who is incapable of it? So who, other than a caricature, is not appreciating BOTH aspects of it. I know tvash and ed are, I know others here are, I know I am. The irony here is that many people actually go into science in the first place because of their sky high interest in how the world works and/or because of their great passion for the very topics you cite.
So it's a little unfair I think for someone, a Jim Smith, say, who was never interested in such things earlier in life (to the point of little or no inquiry, to the point of ignoring nature investigation, perhaps altogether, for eg) to come around later in life - perhaps way later - to appreciate, through personal discovery and intention, a butterfly's wings or flight or a exquisite arcing rainbow, get really excited by such a thing, and then to feel, otherwise claim, that they have the aesthetic appreciation for these natural wonders but the scientist or science-type doesn't.
"human beings are easily capable of holding both their scientific method and their subjective humanity as we explore concepts and phenomenon from our human perspective..." -ff
Yes. As a science type, I 100% agree.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
Thank you HDCS. I do not disagree with anything you have said. My older daughter is a (published) clinical psychologist, and she is seeing a slow shift in how patients are "managed" in a private facility.
There is a shift, but when we examine the mainstream medical profession, for instance, we see an abundance of chemical interventions where none, perhaps, are needed. We see mounting medication of school children, disproportionately among the poor.
***
But that is not central to my point, which is that many humans experience a subjective sense of and external validation for the concepts of efficacy or free will. To discount free will as non-existent because it does not meet the criteria for mechanistic models seems to me to be rather short-sighted in light of the abundance of subjective affirmation of free will.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:30pm PT
|
we see an abundance of chemical interventions where none, perhaps, are needed. We see mounting medication of school children, disproportionately among the poor.
Here I could not agree more.
It is scary and this development in/of pharmaceuticals has adulterated my love affair with technology more than anything else in its history, even nuclear.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:31pm PT
|
Thank you Ojai Alex and Moosedrool.
Yes, I did know about emotional states in other animals, and that human emotions can be induced by electrical stimuli or chemicals.
But I think we are talking about humans for purposes of this discussion on free will or a sense of efficacy, so I will leave out other life forms. But thank you.
feralfae
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 02:04pm PT
|
"To discount free will as non-existent because it does not meet the criteria for mechanistic models seems to me to be rather short-sighted..." -ff
Well it is important to remember that the "free will" term is used in multiple contexts and has different definitions.
"Free" in regard to what exactly? Free in regard to demonic influence (a very real belief and real fear esp in early and medieval times)? Free in regard to social or political coercion (a gun to the head)? Free in regard to no constraint by physical or chemical forces or prior causes?
These are all different types of freedom that people relate (or attribute) to volition (will). Forgetting to remember this - these different contexts and types - of course contributes to the confusion.
Further, in regard to #3, my contention is the more education and experience one has conceiving life in terms of chemistry and cell biology, or, in different terms, in terms of hardware and software, the more inclined they are, due to causation, to rule this type of freedom out. This is an important component of the overall discussion because right now the American public is clearly plainly all over the map on this one. Just as it is, more or less, in regard to range of expertise or experience in just about every other art, trade, profession, game or sport.
I believe I have freewill regarding evil spirits and demonic possession though. No exorcism needed here!
Thusly, do I believe in freewill? (Freedom type 1) Of course. ;)
(That there shows the challenge of simple communicating we're all up against re this topic.)
We like to dangle participles.
We like to dangle gods.
We like to dangle varieties of freewill.
To dangle is human. :)
.....
Just today...
Why Free Will Compatiblists are like Creationists
by Jerry Coyne
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/why-free-will-compatibilists-are-like-creationists/
we still have some kind of “free will.” It’s just not the type of free will that most people think we have.
lol
Compare...
(a) "If we think we evolved from beasts, we’ll act like beasts."
(b) "If we think we are robots, we’ll act like robots."
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 04:09pm PT
|
I've used data from science to become more compassionate and caring over the years, so there's that. I've found the stuff really works. There are 7 billion of us, and we're all wired more similarly than different. Why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 05:24pm PT
|
Thought of something last night.
What is a choice?. It's imagination isn't it? Manipulation of symbols in your mind. You imagine this or that then you do something. Choice is not the action itself. Imagine a brunette or a blonde.. choose one.. That's choice? I guess so. We just do it.. is it all predetermined? Does it matter? It's just something we do..hmm.
It seemsthat we can choose poorly. We do choose poorly more often if we don't think something matters even when it does.. It does seem to be a process as important as our heart beating.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 05:48pm PT
|
Perhaps free will is not real.. but learning seems to be real. Unfree choice appears to be part of the process.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:43pm PT
|
Some physicists (I forgot who came up with that idea) speculate that every time the wave function collapses, the Universe splits. In the double slit experiment, it means that the particle goes through slit #1 in one universe, and through slit #2 in the other.
it's actually an interpretation that does not require the wave function to collapse... a new universe is created for each possible outcome.
Hugh Everett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:49pm PT
|
Interesting points feralfae. My ears perk up when I hear talk of body rhythms and harmonics. I heard a brief discussion about body clocks recently, suggesting that there are myriad clocks within us even down to cellular levels. All our clocks have to somehow synchronize in order for us to function. Rhythms and harmonics are a favorite subject for me.
To me, science is the rational process/processes for trying to perceive patterns in the world around us. In my opinion, when we learn new things it is generally through a semi scientific process. I think we learn most important things through direct experience and experimentation. We tend not to be systematic in our experimentation, so it can take us a while to figure things out.
When people object to science, I always wonder what they are actually objecting to? Are you objecting to how the term "science" is used by marketing professionals and amateurs? It seems to me that many time people use the term "science" interchangeably with the term, "God" or any other term of authority such as Doctors, Parents, President, Einstein, etc.. "Science/God/Doctors" say you should smoke menthols! "Science" says emotions are just chemicals. "Science" says you should feed your baby formula.
When it feels like "science" is shutting doors to areas that you want to explore, it is no wonder that you want to reject it.
I don't think that science says any of those things. Science is just a way of finding out what the evidence says. We don't even have to use the term "science". All that is important is trying to be systematic, and open minded in looking for patterns and evidence in the world around us. Since we are seldom sytematic or open minded, even those don't seem to be absolutely essential.
When people say that science can't understand everything, I have to agree, yet think, "what are the alternatives?" Most alternatives rely on higher authorities (God, parents, teachers, priests, CEOs) for truth. But we should ask, "What is the evidence?" We could rely on personal revelations. Then we should ask, how successful are these personal revelations? How do they match up with the revelations of others? Do we like being around people who don't care whether their personal revelations match up with anybody else or whether they are successful. Do you like being around people who just know their revelations are true and you had better follow along".
I am diverging and perhaps creating straw men.
I am fascinated by emotions and our body rhythms and harmonics. Maya Angelou said, "Everything in the Universe has its own rhythm. Everything dances." Learning how to feel new rhythms is not contrary to science, in my opinion. I think it is fundamental.
The enemy of understanding is grabbing onto flimsy answers when we could be saying, "I don't know. I wonder if there is a way to find out?"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 09:15pm PT
|
"My ears perk up when I hear talk of body rhythms and harmonics."
Rhythms and harmonics...
Which is an alternative way of referring to body mechanics. And you're right, the body clockworks are an amazing system to behold, to study, to appreciate, in and of themselves, much like art, for their own sake.
"What are we, robots?!"
....
"I suspect HFCS has been hacked! Or I woke up in Bizarro World, one." -dingus
Why Dingus, whatever do you mean?
For it seems what you quoted has always been my view.
Perhaps however I'm just obtuse this evening?
.....
"If I were ever abducted by aliens, the first thing I’d ask is whether they came from a planet where people also deny science." -Neil deGrass Tyson
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 11:12pm PT
|
HCFS wrote Rhythms and harmonics...
Which is an alternative way of referring to body mechanics.
Indeed, and offers a rich route for understanding behavior.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2015 - 08:16am PT
|
the rhythm is gonna get you
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
"If I were ever abducted by aliens, the first thing I’d ask is whether they came from a planet where people also deny science." -Neil deGrass Tyson
"The most creative point is at the intersection of science and the humanities..."
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2015 - 01:15pm PT
|
If I were ever abducted by aliens, the first thing I would ask is if I could please keep my undies on.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2015 - 01:39pm PT
|
BTW, what's all this LHC malarky I hear about miniature black holes and parallel universes? The effort to create the former I was aware of - how does that upend our physics exactly?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2015 - 01:43pm PT
|
Never mind. Got it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!