Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 345 by For_The_Kingdom]

Why is it you just go 'shaking my head' SMH as if that is a rebuttal to a point someone else has made? It literally is nothing more than "I disagree" but without a rebuttal or counter-point or explanation.
I as a reader don't care that you disagree with Kenisaw. I want to know if you can raise a cogent counter-point to him.

I take the constant SMHs and LOLs to mean no real substance of argument is available so we shall now mock your argument instead. I don't think some people realize what this does to their credibility as a debater. For instance, I now barely skim the posts of some who like to incorporate this type of 'argument'. TBH, I LOL and SMH every time I see it.

[H.sapiens]

Science does not agree with you. The images we see are the data stored in our memory system (the brain). Same thing for when we dream. There was even a study done that used an algorithm that predicted with 60% accuracy what people dreamed after they saw groups of images while awake via mapping of the MRI readouts from both awake and asleep portions of the study.

All of that cool stuff happened/happens AFTER consciousness began to exist. No one can explain the origin of consciousness, can they? Nope.

Not to mention the intentional mental states of the brain, which I am bringing to Dr.NoGod's attention.

Once you people realize that science, as good of a methodology as it is, has limitations and is not the end all/ be all of knowledge, the better.

You are advancing a logical fallacy, the religionists' favorite, know as an, "argument from ignorance."

[Bust Nak]

Um, yes it does, brethren. It is CLEARLY a false equivalency. You are comparing image manifestation on computers to image manifestation in brains...yet one is designed, and the other one isn't (on your view).

We've been through this, the fact that one is designed, the other isn't does not make it a false equivalencies.

If it was the same thing/concept, you'd be able to create a brain from scratch and make it produce mental images in the SAME way you can create a computer from scratch and make it produce images.

We are working on it. There is no reason why this wouldn't be possible.

But you can't, can you? But then again, I don't know why you can't...because after all, Mother nature was able to do it and she wasn't even able to see or think. LOL.

We can't yet, because we haven't allocated enough resources to it.

Still gnawing away at that bone, are we? SMH.

Shake all you like, that is enough to debunk your thesis.

Disingenuous. No one said anything about "making a batman logo out o pepper in a bowl of scrambled egg". Where did you get this "making" stuff from?

For your original statement.

"Making" would imply intelligent design, but in the actual scenario I proposed, you added a certain amount of pepper and a certain amount of egg into a bowl and suddenly the obvious, UNDENIABLE image of the Batman logo formulated inside the bowl.

Well there you go, you well the intelligent designer apparently.

There is no way that that would EVER happen. Nature just doesn't work like that, sir. You should know that, naturalist.

I haven't tried making batman logo, but I've made heart shape eggs before. So nah, I happen to know that nature does work that way.

Not with me.

Not my problem.

What I've come across is your unproven implication that naturalism is the only answer, when you cannot use naturalism to prove naturalism.

Hence the term presumption.

That is about as clear-cut case of begging the question as one can give.

It wasn't offered as an argument. Only argument can be question begging.

Cool. Give me the time, date, and location of the museum that will be showcasing life from nonliving material.

Check your local natural history museum's opening hours. Or perhaps your local science museum.

[Kenisaw]

The origin of each person's consciousness occurs sometime after conception, and it ends at their death.

The question is; how do you go from a point at which there was no sentient life whatsoever, to sentient life EVERYWHERE? What is the origin of consciousness, period?

I don't know. It appears to be a chemical property (or a quantum one) of the structure of the brain and the molecules that make up those structures. Structure matters in chemistry. You can use any electrons, protons, and neutrons in the universe to make a gold atom, but it only looks "gold" and acts like "gold" if those things are in the formation of a gold atom. Put them in a different atom and they have the properties of that element instead. Structure allows for things to happen.

Since a normally developed, functioning brain is always present in a conscious human

Right, but again...if you go back far enough in time you will get to a point at which there was no conscious humans to begat MORE conscious humans...so the question immediately becomes where did the consciousness of the first humans come from, which go the action started for all other conscious humans.

All matter and energy in the universe reacts with other matter and energy. Energies are absorbed, transmitted, and expelled. Matter moves based on the forces that have been applied to them. Everything that happens in a living thing is the result of exactly these interactions. We even know that material can store bits of information for extended periods of time if they are protected and constructed right (your computer is proof of that). So it should not be a surprise that the matter and energy in you can do the same thing. Your awareness of the universe is because your body follows the same laws of physics and chemistry as the rest of the stuff in the cosmos. You are just reacting to it, and storing the information for usage and retrieval.

, and there is no data or empirical evidence that consciousness can or does exist outside of the physical structure of the brain, the origins of consciousness are pretty easy to figure out.

There is also no empirical evidence that suggests that sentient life can come from nonliving material, but most naturalists seem to have no problem accepting that much.

This is the taxi cab fallacy.

But your god creature can exist out of non living energy, or non living matter, or whatever you want to claim it is made out of, and you are OK with that. What a hilarious double standard Kingdom.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, the proof that life can come from nonliving material is all around you. You are made up entirely of nonliving material. The fact that I don't know exactly why non-living material structures have the capability to record data and use that data doesn't change the fact that you are a sentient hominid made out of non living matter.

Once you realize that claiming science fails because it hasn't done something yet

When you try to do something, but after trying, you are unable to do it...isn't that..failing?

Since they aren't done trying, I find it pretty obnoxious for you to claim that science is "unable to do" anything. Maybe you are the type of guy that likes to declare the winner and loser halfway through the race...

while making baseless believer claims that have no empirical or rational support is not a real argument for your supernatural leanings, the better.

It is rational to me.

Then we will have to get you caught up on the meaning of rational at some point.

Human beings are not the only animal that has that system.

Fortunately the quantum properties of certain groupings of molecules and physical structures allow for it to happen.

*Fortunately, an extremely intelligent, cosmic creator with astronomical powers and abilities allow for it to happen.

This must me more of that "It's rational to me" part coming out now...

I haven't seen this evidence you write about. I will peruse your other posts in here and see if I can find what you refer to without linking me to it or outright posting it in your reply to me...

I've been discussing this particular stuff off and on with a few people (Bust Nak, in particular) over the course of the past year. A thread needs to be created on the topic.

That sounds like a good plan

[Kenisaw]

His explanation is completely satisfactory. He is explaining to you how a brain/sensory system collects and stores the input received from eyes through the optical nerve to the occipital lobe, and then stored in memory. The image pulled up from memory of a football in your mind's eye is no different than the image you "see" after your brain has processed the visual input from looking at a football. In both instances your brain is giving you the resulting data, the only difference being whether your brain interpreted it from visual data or it pulled it out of memory from data it stored.

Sure, that is a fine explanation as to how memory works. But that isn't the question. The question is; who is the culprit of this first-person view?

So far, I've yet to see an adequate answer to this question.

You've received multiple adequate answers. Each person's brain is the culprit.

The "I" could have been stated as you, or Donald Trump, or Kenisaw. The point is that it is a brain and how it operates, regardless of whose brain it is we are talking about.

SMH.

Are those your initials?

[For_The_Kingdom]

We've been through this, the fact that one is designed, the other isn't does not make it a false equivalencies.

Look at that; You can't even articulate a point in this regard. Just a flat out empty, blank assertion. Unlike myself, who already gave you reasons why it is foolish for you to compare a product of intelligent design (computers/digital images), to a product of which you claim is NOT intelligently designed (brain/mental images).

SMH.

We are working on it. There is no reason why this wouldn't be possible.

All you have to do is ask Mother Nature how she did it. Oh, wait..

We can't yet, because we haven't allocated enough resources to it.

Enough resources? You have the same amount of resources to "allocate" that Mother Nature had. So whats the problem?

Shake all you like, that is enough to debunk your thesis.

So, the idea that computers are self-assembled (or whatever it was you were implying)...that debunks my thesis??

For your original statement.

The only problem is, I didn't say it.

I haven't tried making batman logo, but I've made heart shape eggs before. So nah, I happen to know that nature does work that way.

It isn't about what you (intelligent designer) can do, or did...it is about what the natural occurrence of what happened inside the bowl can/did do. Again, you are conflating concepts here...same thing you did above. False equivalency. Not the same.

Not my problem.

Then I guess it isn't neither one of our problem's.

Hence the term presumption.

So you admit that it isn't an absolute fact. Good, progress. That's all I ask.

It wasn't offered as an argument. Only argument can be question begging.

So this ---> "God didn't do it, nature had to have done it, and eventually science will provide to us the answers". <---your stance...isn't an argument? Ok, fine. We won't call it question begging. We will just call it an unscientifically verified claim.

I like that one better anyway.

Check your local natural history museum's opening hours. Or perhaps your local science museum.

I will just call them up and ask them "Will there be any abiogenesis type-stuff going down in your exhibits today", and see what they say.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I think your conundrum is that you don't appreciate that a conscious mind is nothing more than the operation of neural networks in the brain.

Well, that sure as heck takes care of free will, doesn't it?

With sensory inputs (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste), and memory storage functions of various types (short term, long term, sensory), these neural networks (ie. the brain) function to organize and store information to create a conscious state in an individual that has a brain advanced enough to carry out these tasks.

Still doesn't explain the origin of consciousness, nor does it tell me who is this individual that this conscious state corresponds to.

My dog has a brain that can carry out many of these tasks, and he is certainly aware of his surroundings and acts on things he sees, hears, smells, etc. He just doesn't have the amount of neocortex that a human does and is missing the specific brain sections needed to process symbolic thought like a human can, but he is certainly a conscious being. I also have an acquarium with fish that have brains that are less developed than the dog, and no doubt worms in the back yard with even more primitive brains.

Interesting. But..irrelevant.

It is easy for me to see how brains started as simple nerve bundles in earlier life forms (eg. arthropods), and then progressively became more centralized and complicated over time to perform more advanced functions.

That is what you say. That isn't what science say.

We humans still have a'hind brain" that deals with the basic bodily functions (breathing, operating the blood pump, etc.) so that these functions occur even if we are not conscious. This hind brain is very similar to the brains of simple animals. The huge expansion in the neocortex (which only mammals have) in humans is responsible for our exceptional ability for symbolic thought, language, spatial reasoning, etc. But these abilities do not need any divine explanations ... they are the direct result of additional brain regions (cerebral cortex) that have been tacked onto earlier brain forms, adding more functionality and the ability to become an "I."

Who...is...the..."I"?

This right here ---> "they are the direct result of additional brain regions (cerebral cortex) that have been tacked onto earlier brain forms, adding more functionality and the ability to become an "I."

Does not follow from this right here -----> "We humans still have a'hind brain" that deals with the basic bodily functions (breathing, operating the blood pump, etc.) so that these functions occur even if we are not conscious. This hind brain is very similar to the brains of simple animals. The huge expansion in the neocortex (which only mammals have) in humans is responsible for our exceptional ability for symbolic thought, language, spatial reasoning, etc".

Non Sequitur.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Why is it you just go 'shaking my head' SMH as if that is a rebuttal to a point someone else has made?

Because sometimes, that is all I can do.

It literally is nothing more than "I disagree" but without a rebuttal or counter-point or explanation.

Pretty much.

I as a reader don't care that you disagree with Kenisaw. I want to know if you can raise a cogent counter-point to him.

If you don't know by now..

[For_The_Kingdom]

It sounds like your position is that a "conscious human" describes only a modern homo sapien, and that these creatures could not have evolved (including their brains as part of the process) from slightly less "conscious" versions of similar creatures.

Human intelligence did not just suddenly appear from the birth of one fully formed individual who kick started the process. If you look at the brain size and structure in the sequence of hominins that eventually evolved into homo sapiens it is very clear from the fossil record that things went from smaller and simpler to larger and more complex over a period of several million years. In humans, about 75% of our entire brain is neocortex, which is responsible for higher order brain functions like language, symbolic thought, cognition, etc. This is what provides humans with the huge intelligence advantage that we have over any other animal (so far).

Your implication that a fully modern human being had to exist first in order to produce offspring with the same characteristics does not jive with what we know about how humans did arise on this planet. We evolved from a great ape predecessor over a long period of time and through many intermediates in a very "bushy" evolutionary tree, and as part of that process the brain became more and more complex in structure, and physically larger, and (if this makes sense) more sentient and conscious ... which is the same thing as saying we acquired the capacity for higher levels of intelligence allowing us to ponder such concepts.

Hey Doc, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. However, you are giving me everything BUT what I am asking for. I am asking about the ORIGINS of consciousness with a sprinkle of intentionality on it.

Do you have any of those two on the menu?

[For_The_Kingdom]

You are advancing a logical fallacy, the religionists' favorite, know as an, "argument from ignorance."

Oh, that one is the religionist favorite? I thought it was "god of the gaps". I guess a new sheriff is in town. Sad to see'em go, though.