Gap between life and non-life (split from What if god...)

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

Correct, bc opinions are like arsehole. Everyone’s got one and they usually stink 

Nice conversing with you!

[iNow]

Thanks

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

Narcosis: "It can cause a sense of euphoria, altered perceptions, and sometimes a feeling of quieting or slowing down of the mind."

It says that quiet mind is the result, not a cause of this condition.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“Sense of omnipresence” ≠ omnipresence 

I agree, it’s impossible to provide empirical data for the actual experience of omnipresence, but one can describe a "sense of omnipresence"—an overwhelming feeling or awareness of interconnectedness, unity, and boundless presence. This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense, is deeply felt and can be shared across different individuals and cultures.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense

There are machines which measure activation and intensity and blood flow across brain regions. 

[TheVat]

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence. A fMRI could monitor a brain in some meditative state, seeing what areas are most active, but that wouldn't fully address all the subjective aspect of a mystical experience.  Those experiences are more to be approached through epistemology and metaphysics, where one acknowledges that scientific claims cannot be made.  I don't think some human intuitions or holistic perceptions will ever be scientifically reducible in a way that somehow forms a complete explanation.  As others note, science seeks to ask specific questions about the physical world and possibly make an inference to the best explanation.  This in no way promises to answer all the big questions of philosophy.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I agree, it’s impossible to provide empirical data for the actual experience of omnipresence, but one can describe a "sense of omnipresence"—an overwhelming feeling or awareness of interconnectedness, unity, and boundless presence. This subjective experience, while not measurable in the traditional scientific sense, is deeply felt and can be shared across different individuals and cultures.

Subjective is a key word here. How can something subjective be giving you “perspectives on reality”? Isn’t reality, by definition, comprised of things that are objectively true? Your “sense of omnipresence” can be chemically-induced (along with being a bait-and-switch argument)

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

It says that quiet mind is the result, not a cause of this condition.

The distinction between cause and result does not diminish the fact that the brain slows down during nitrogen narcosis. B.K. Butler, in Cognitive and Behavioral Effects of Nitrogen Narcosis, discusses how narcosis impairs various brain functions, including memory, attention, and motor control. This slowing of cognitive processes is a key aspect of the experience and illustrates the brain's altered state under pressure.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There are machines which measure activation and intensity and blood flow across brain regions. 

You can explore the periphery of subjective experience using objective measures, but you cannot directly access the essence of subjectivity through objectivity alone.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence. A fMRI could monitor a brain in some meditative state, seeing what areas are most active, but that wouldn't fully address all the subjective aspect of a mystical experience.  Those experiences are more to be approached through epistemology and metaphysics, where one acknowledges that scientific claims cannot be made.  I don't think some human intuitions or holistic perceptions will ever be scientifically reducible in a way that somehow forms a complete explanation.  As others note, science seeks to ask specific questions about the physical world and possibly make an inference to the best explanation.  This in no way promises to answer all the big questions of philosophy.

Agree!

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Isn’t reality, by definition, comprised of things that are objectively true?

Reality isn’t limited to one or the other; it is a dynamic interplay of both objective facts and subjective experience. Both are integral to our complete understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

 Your “sense of omnipresence” can be chemically-induced

The "sense of omnipresence" can be chemically induced, but the key question is whether the substance is simply altering brain chemistry or unlocking access to another level of reality. Does it just change how we perceive things, or does it reveal a deeper, previously hidden experience? This distinction helps us understand if these experiences are purely brain-based or if they point to something beyond the physical world.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

 (along with being a bait-and-switch argument)

No attempt at a bait-and-switch argument. If it seems that way, please feel free to point it out.

Edited January 18 by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

reality isn’t limited to one or the other

If there’s something I can’t experience, how is it part of reality?

[Luc Turpin]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If there’s something I can’t experience, how is it part of reality?

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete. After experiencing it, many find their perception of reality transformed, often gaining a deeper or modified view of existence.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete.

Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. 

Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. 

What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You can experience it if you choose to. If you choose not to, your understanding of reality remains incomplete. After experiencing it, many find their perception of reality transformed, often gaining a deeper or modified view of existence.

You don’t know this to be true. You may want it to be true, but if the experiences aren’t identical, how can you say it’s part of reality? 

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

1-Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. 

2-Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. 

3-What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest.

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

Science does not seek to understand reality. It describes how nature behaves.

It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

Science would be further hindered by trying to dilute it by making it incorporate extraneous things.

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t know this to be true. You may want it to be true, but if the experiences aren’t identical, how can you say it’s part of reality? 

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality.

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. 

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest.

Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you.

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.

Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means.

 

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?

So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

the essence of subjectivity

Is that subjective?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

But it happens! I’ve seen it with my own two eyes!!

 

[Luc Turpin]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. 

Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you.

Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means.

 

So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

A distinction must be made between individual subjective experiences and the collective patterns of those experiences that span across time and cultures. While science cannot and should not concern itself with individual preferences, as they are highly variable, it becomes significant when millions of people report similar subjective experiences. This suggests that there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself. By exploring these shared experiences, science can broaden its scope, bringing it closer to a deeper understanding of true reality. An approach that bridges the gap between objective and collective-subjective realities would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

 

 

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself

And if they’re part of reality, then they are subject to scientific inquiry. 

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

The human condition is very much at risk in several significant ways right now in large part bc humans keep ignoring scientific findings and continue relying instead on their own subjectivity.

Edited January 19 by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

1- And if they’re part of reality, then they are subject to scientific inquiry. 

2-The human condition is very much at risk in several significant ways right now in large part bc humans keep ignoring scientific findings and continue relying instead on their own subjectivity.

1- I have been saying that all along.

2- Relying on their own individual subjectivity, which is not very good. I am talking about collective subjectivity though.

 

[Khanzhoren]

On 1/15/2025 at 5:55 PM, Phi for All said:

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/20%3A_The_Origins_of_Life/20.03%3A_Formation_of_Organic_Molecules_in_an_Earthly_Reducing_Atmosphere

https://ebrary.net/70968/education/conversion_inorganic_materials_organic_matter_through_series_complex_reactions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1093669

The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.

Thank you for your comment and the links. However, I didn't really say that the understanding of the (theory of the) mechanism  is not advanced enough... Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

Edited January 19 by Khanzhoren

[zapatos]

55 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living".

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

[Luc Turpin]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

There is a major difference to be made between non-living molecules being incorporated into a living organism and life emerging from non-living matter on its own. The first is common, while the second has, I believe, never been observed in nature or recreated in a lab. CO2 is used by living organisms but remains non-living. On the other hand, abiogenesis refers to the process where non-living matter transforms itself into living organisms without life being present.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

1-Science does not seek to understand reality. It describes how nature behaves.

2-It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle.

3-Science would be further hindered by trying to dilute it by making it incorporate extraneous things.

1-I disagree. Science does more than simply describe how nature works; it seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms, and this brings us closer to understanding reality. Through theoretical models, for instance, science aims to explain and predict phenomena, which refines our understanding of the world. Ultimately, science’s goal is not just to describe nature, but to better comprehend the principles that govern reality. Beyond describing; understanding is the essence of science.

2- I do not see the relevance of bringing up "fantasy" in the discussion. Fantasy is separate from reality; it involves creating imagined thoughts that don’t align with the real world. In contrast, subjectivity starts with reality, interpreting and shaping it based on an individual’s experiences and perspectives. Subjectivity would not lead to the conclusion that a bicycle can fly, but it might influence how one perceives whether the rider is in control of the bicycle, based on observations and experiences.

3- I contend that it would bring science closer to undertanding reality in all of its's ramifications.

Edited January 19 by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

Classic creationist argument against evolution by conflating it with abiogenesis and suggesting all theories are same as all beliefs.

Basic structure: “We’ve only witnessed parts of the process not all together when it actually occurred billions of years ago therefore your trust and faith in that as truth is no different from my trust and faith that goddidit. Both equal.”

Edited January 19 by iNow

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, Khanzhoren said:

Thank you for your comment and the links. However, I didn't really say that the understanding of the (theory of the) mechanism  is not advanced enough... Rather, I asked if there has ever been any direct experimental evidence of the transition from "non-living" to "living"."In the absence of direct observation, even the most advanced theories remain debatable and hypothetical.

For science, you require direct observation, but not of your god? Yeah.