Life’s secret ingredient: A radical theory of what makes things alive

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132150-100-lifes-secret-ingredient-a-radical-theory-of-what-makes-things-alive/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=SOC&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1548853787

The article linked above is fascinating, even though it does not go far enough.

Here is a brief cut and paste

(1)  How does inanimate matter come to breathe, thrive and reproduce?

(2)  Explaining this magic means overhauling nature’s laws,

says physicist Paul Davies

 

While the author (Paul Davies) cleaves to the materialist perspective, he unconsciously opens the door to a spiritual one.

 

The first question (1) should also ask, how does inanimate matter become conscious?

(It does not, but rather, becomes a vehicle for it, but he does seem to be a physicalist.)

 

The second comment (2) has to do with reexamining what we know of natural law,

or in my view, the physicalist paradigm which underlies that understanding / explanation.

 

There should be a third comment to tie it all together, that of volition (free will).

These three (life, consciousness, volition) are inseparably inter-related.

 

Sci Patel and Scott Roberts comments in a thread about this at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/metaphysical-speculations/fQj2JT1IB1Y

are also very perceptive and applicable.

 

Sci Patel

wrote:  a meaningful definition of information requires consciousness.

Other recipients:

Information seems to be the slippery eel of a word that materialists are clinging to. But a meaningful definition of information, IMO, seems to include/assume consciousness.

Scott Roberts wrote:  It isn't information without that which is informed.

 

IMO life is not a chemical reaction, but rather, the underlying motive force which guides that reaction.

Consciousness must be conscious of something other than itself.  It is not an emergent property of physics, but an underlying foundation of it.

Free will allows us (requires us) to be active participants in our own lives, not passive witnesses,

which in turn makes us morally accountable, which in further turn, assumes an objective standard of

morality which does not depend on our opinions.

.

The Steam Engine Paradox

Huh?  The steam engine paradox?  Is this some kind of joke?

No.  It’s not.  In about the year 90 AD, more than two thousand years ago, a prototype steam turbine engine was invented and put on display by a man named Heron (or Hero) of Alexandria, Egypt.

You may wonder, what happened to it?  At the time, it enabled what would have been one of the most dramatic technological advances in the history of humanity.  Indeed, in later centuries, it did become that.  Yet, despite the prototype being displayed in the year 90, the actual useful steam engine was not produced until the 1600s, about 1500 years after the proof of concept.

The more one thinks about it, the stranger this fact begins to appear.  Consider the following.

 

There were many ingenious inventions throughout history, many of them in ancient times.  Although taken for granted today, the bow and arrow represent a complex combination of different technologies which had to be coordinated into a single functional unit.  Copper mining and forging are known to have existed at least five thousand years ago.  Megalithic structures at places like Göbekli Tepe and Stonehenge reach their zenith in the famous pyramids of Egypt, an engineering feat which even today might be impossible.  The Antikythera Device is perhaps the world’s first mechanical analog computer.  Greek temples used sophisticated hydraulics that appeared to worshippers to be magical.

Given all of that, along with the possibility of lost and forgotten ancient achievements, it is very curious that the steam engine went nowhere for a millennium and a half, after it had been demonstrated to educated and imaginative people who had a high level of engineering skills.  How could this have happened?

During the centuries after Heron, nearly the entire world population observed boiling water, usually in their own homes and kitchens.  The lids and covers of cauldrons and pots rattled unceasingly, showing everyone that steam is a powerful force.  Yet, not until the 1600s, apparently, did anyone take the time and trouble to put together even a primitive steam engine which could be put to practical use.

Nor is this the only such paradox.  

Consider that the pre-Columbian tribes of North America never invented the wheel.  Not until Europeans arrived in the 1500s was the wheel put to use in the Americas—and this was the case even among indigenous tribes and nations that had already constructed some of the world’s largest stone structures.

Clearly, then, the human mind, even in primitive societies, is capable of ingenious inventions, while at the same time, overlooking ones that, in retrospect, should seem obvious.  The motivation was there, for centuries before and after Heron, to apply the enormous forces and speeds which steam power makes possible.  If nothing else, curiosity, prestige and the intellectual satisfaction of inventing something new and dramatic should have prompted at least one person, at least one, to follow up on Heron’s steam turbine.  At least one.

Therein lies the paradox.  It is a strange fact of history which seems to defy explanation.  It is a strange fact of history which seems to defy explanation. 

It leaves us to wonder:  how many other world-changing, obvious inventions are we today overlooking?

.

 

 

Are Paranormal Events Consistent with Christian Doctrine?

As a committed Christian Evangelical, one might suppose that I disbelieve in ghosts, apparitions and other such accounts concerning the paranormal.  The fact that I give tentative credence, in principle, to such accounts is due to two factors.  One of them is Biblical, for example the account of the Medium of Endor in the First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28.  The second factor is that, for a time, I resided in a house that I strongly believe to this day was haunted by spirits of deceased people.  It was an experience that persuaded me on many levels, and in some great detail, that there are spirits inhabiting parts of the physical world.

Before going further, I must emphasize that I dismiss most, nearly all, accounts of the paranormal that I have been exposed to.  Partly, this is due to the suspicion that a great many of these accounts are either fraudulent, hoaxes, or the product of unwarranted superstition, or other deceptions.

Another part of my general skepticism is due to a subjective sense on my part that most of these accounts do not have the, shall I say, “flavor” of authenticity.  For example, in the house where I now live, there were strange sounds occurring at odd times, just as they had in the (allow me to say) “haunted” house of previous years past.  I never for a moment, however, thought that these more recent sounds were spirits.  The distinct “feeling” of a spirit presence was not there, and eventually it was shown that the culprits were squirrels in the attic, which we evicted.  The sounds have not returned.

Likewise, when I read reports of paranormal events, I sometimes get a distinct feeling that they do not impart to me a sense that they are true.  For example, one popular book (and movie) just simply was entirely contradictory to my experience.

Don’t get me wrong; I do not hold myself forth as any kind of expert whatsoever in matters of the paranormal (nor of squirrels, for that matter).  Everything I say on these matters is subject to error.  The reader must judge for himself.  I merely offer my personal account and interpretation.  I am not the least offended by those who disbelieve me.

A bit of context might help.

It seems that throughout written history, and even before, humans have regarded the after-life as a fact:  the physical body and the human soul, or spirit, are detachable upon death of the body.  This built-in belief seems instinctive. 

The question then arises, is this instinctive belief an aberration of the mind?  Did it at one time provide a survival advantage?  In the modern technological era, is that instinct no longer useful?  Just as in the case of familiar optical illusions, do we interpret certain normal events incorrectly?  In this case, is it the lens of superstition?

Physical science suggests that reports of paranormal phenomena are misguided, erroneous, or patently false.  Science relies upon evidence, and that evidence must be subject to repeatable observations under controlled conditions.  Many attempts to conduct experiments regarding paranormal matters have either failed to produce clear results, or have proved that fraud was involved.  Therefore, the degree of skepticism is very high.  Some experiments seem to support the existence of spirit beings, but they receive little serious coverage.

How do we wade through the ocean of fraud and error to get at the truth?  Since it cannot be directly proved that there is no such thing as spirit—one cannot prove a negative—then we must seek proof in a different avenue.  For example, I cannot positively disprove the existence of unicorns, elves or magic lanterns.  I can only point to a lack of evidence for them, but not to evidence of lack.

We can, however, look at the efforts of science to seek the presence of unknown intelligent beings on other planets, for a clue as how to proceed.  There is no publicly available proof, palpable and demonstrable proof, that technological civilizations on far distant planets exist.  There is no proof of the so-called flying saucers which thousands of credible witnesses have reported in concert with radar, with multiple simultaneous sightings on the ground and in the air, by experts, and after-the-fact evidence including burned patches of grass.

Despite the lack of conclusive proof in the public domain, people reasonably believe that distant planetary civilizations do exist.  It is entirely plausible that inhabitants of such planets can traverse the galaxy and arrive here.  The greater mystery is that despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence, no one has produced undeniable proof.  Does this absence of proof, equal proof of absence?

Likewise, despite the absence of irrefutable proof concerning spirit beings, their existence can be plausibly postulated.  Science can no more laugh this off than they can the proposal that intelligent life exists on other planets.  Each hypothesis deserves serious investigation by open-minded skeptics who can apply objective discipline to an honest search.

In the case of UFOs, most reported incidents are mistaken, either honestly or dishonestly—but a residual number of them remain stubbornly plausible, and in some cases, quite compelling.

In my “haunting” case, I cannot claim independent objectivity about something that I personally experienced over an extended period of time, even though it is corroborated by numerous other people.  Nor can I feel personal affront if someone tells me that I am mistaken, deluded, or lack good judgment.  People should indeed be skeptical.  We should demand it.

But that skepticism should itself be subject to tests of reasonableness.  Modern technology has produced a wide array and assortment of investigative tools, and modern methodology is able to detect fraud, illusion and error.  Those tools should be aggressively applied by open-minded skeptics, beginning now.

There is however, one giant brick wall that inhibits research into the paranormal.  That is the current paradigm under which science presently labors, the paradigm of physicalism.  The physicalist paradigm is not inherently unreasonable, but if it is false, its weaknesses will never be exposed until and unless scientists honestly question it. 

The physicalist paradigm, as I understand it, states that nothing exists except the physical.  Everything in nature can in principle be explained by, and only by, other things in nature.  Nothing else exists, or if it does, nothing except the physical has any effect in nature.  Nothing.

The fact that this paradigm has profound weaknesses can be exposed by any conscious person merely by observing the undeniable fact that he is indeed, conscious.  Consciousness has never been shown to be limited to, or to arise solely from, physical processes, despite claims to the contrary.  Indeed, powerful arguments can be made—and are being made—that unconscious materials have no potential to become conscious, no matter how much the complexity with which they can be arranged.  Therefore, there is a profound gap in our understanding of what consciousness is.

Another weakness is that the physicalist paradigm denies that free will can possibly exist in the manner we perceive it.  True free will violates the strict cause-and-effect chain of events which physicalism absolutely requires if it is a valid paradigm.  Yet, without free will, we are merely helpless witnesses to our own lives, not active participants in them.  Without free will, there is no science.

If consciousness is fundamentally different from any purely physical phenomenon, then that shatters the physicalist paradigm.  Its proposed replacement, the God paradigm, goes further.  It holds that free will and consciousness are fundamental realities underlying physical reality.  It then follows that life itself also underlies the basis of reality.  Life is not a chemical process, but rather, the force which guides that process. 

While physicalism cannot explain matters of the spirit, indeed cannot admit of them, the God paradigm gives us a suitable context for them.  Once that paradigm is permitted in science, the real work can begin.  The potentials are barely imaginable.

.

Science is Giving New Life to the Once-Discredited Theory of "Life Force"

http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-myths-and-mystery-of-morphogenesis.html

 
The link above is to a commentary that supports the once-discredited theory of a "life force."
I will produce a separate commentary here, but strongly recommend reading Mark Mahan;s piece (above).
 
The original theory (of life force) had some serious defects, but that was because subsequent advances in genetics seemed to contradict it.
The original theory, for example, supposed that rotting meat somehow spontaneously turned into flies,
through something called "spontaneous generation."
 
The science of genetics began when Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, used a very clever
statistical analysis to predict how the offspring of heteromorphic parents (such as plants or mice)
would appear.  For example, the offspring of white flowers and black flowers would not be grey.
as one might expect, but rather, three white flowers to one black (or vice versa).
Mendel theorized that this was due to paired dominant and recessive genes,
an ingenious insight into the mechanics of heredity.
 
The science of genetics entered the realm of physics when Watson and Crick discovered DNA.
Watching the complex molecule divide into two, each half replicating the "parent" molecule,
was a profound and stunning discovery. 
 
After that, it seemed just a matter of time before the so-called "miracle of life" would be shown to be
just another physical event, explained in solely physical terms, with no need for any other explanation.
 
However, much time has passed, and the evidence no longer favors a solely material explanation for life.
DNA is a mechanical manifestation of life, but acts in a subservient role, not the
"master manipulator" role that biology students have been being taught for a lifetime.
 
Therefore, the search for an animating force (or causative agent) is now once again underway.
Some scientists believe that that agent will yet be found to be purely physical, hidden somewhere in
the molecules that they say comprise life.

The God paradigm however predicts that not only no such hidden agent will be found in the atoms, but rather, that accumulating evidence will provide the need for, and the basis for, an explanation that goes beyond any known physical substances or media.

 
The explanation for this will be found to be the same or similar to the explanation for consciousness.
 
In short, science now has no adequate explanations for either life or consciousness.  Its proposed explanations are becoming increasingly inadequate with every new advance in science.
 
Furthermore, life and consciousness are fundamental bases of material reality, and this opens the door to verification that free will is a third related fundamental of physics.
 
In the case of free will, physics not only has no explanation, but concedes that it is impossible to reconcile determinist physics to free will.  Each forbids the other. One of them must be false. If this conflict is resolved in favor of free will, it will lead to a historic paradigm shift in science.  The consequences will be profound.  New avenues of research will open, research that could lead to results undreamed of.
 
= = = = =

[Comment and response]

"Elan vital" isn't a useful scientific hypothesis.

 
Nor will it be until further evidence comes along that forces inquiry outside the present bounds of physicalist science.
 
In one respect, the universe itself has already been identified as a life force through the fine-tuning observation.
With its improbable combination of physical laws and constants,
all of nature conspires to make life possible (inevitable?)---
and not only life, but technological civilization as well.
 
Life, consciousness and free will are presently considered to be outcomes of nature, not causes of it.
Physics disputes the contention that these three are at its very foundation and purpose.
 
But if we ourselves are living, conscious, volitional entities,
we can equally dispute that nature is a mindless, purposeless casino machine that happened just by chance
to produce and sustain us.  Can mindlessness produce a mind?
 
Even if chance is invoked, it must be recognized that randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

What generates those parameters?

 
Science is a bottom-to-top inquiry into nature.
That is a very useful avenue until its limit is reached.
Reality, however, seems to be structured from top-to-bottom.
 
If so, then the very premise of science is called into question, at least until we find a
useful hypothesis that explains nature from the top down.
 
To paraphrase the late Bishop Fulton J Sheen,
we may have to rely on truths that are not accessible to ordinary reason,
but which once we are in possession of them, do not violate it either.
.
 

Are Time and Consciousness Interdependent ?

.

A diagram of space-time looks like a three-dimensional drawing of a bell. See one at http://quothethesaint.tumblr.com/post/75541923759/ancient-media-the-big-bang

 

 The inside of the bell contains galaxies separated by space.  Oriented from left to right, with the “bell” laying on its side, the “Big Bang” event is the tiny point on the far left.  Proceeding from left to right, the “bell” begins to take shape, with an initial rapid expansion, then a more gradual expansion, and finally, an accelerated expansion.

This procession from left to right is intended to represent the progression of time, from its initial beginning, through the past, and into the present.  If one continues the progression, one can diagram the future.  However, the problem is that we do not know if the future will be of infinite duration, or if time will eventually end.

The progression of time, however, is itself a bigger problem.  The diagram is static.  It does not move; it does not progress.  It is all of one piece, one structure.  In the diagram, time does not pass.

If this is the case, if the entirety of time is static, then why does time seem to progress from past, to present, and thence to future?

The only explanation for this is consciousness.  Our consciousness experiences time.  More to the point, our consciousness experiences time as a flow—a flow of experiences—a memory of past experiences, the consciousness of the present experience, and the anticipation of an unknown future.

This explanation, however, does not fit the diagram.  The diagram illustrates all of time as a single, unchanging reality.  In the diagram, the absolute certainty of the past is mirrored as an absolute certainty of the future. 

We do not, however, experience time in this way.  To us, the future is uncertain, and it is uncertain because it can be, to use a word imprecisely—“changed.”  For example, if I predict that a certain course of my action will result in tragedy, I perceive that I can prevent that future tragedy by changing my course of action, through an effort of will.

If this is a correct interpretation of our experience of time, and if our experience is not an illusion, then it strongly implies that the diagram should not be static, but rather, dynamic.  It is almost as if time itself moves through an even larger reality of some sort, a reality that might be analogous to time.  In other words, our smaller subset of time moves through a larger set of time. 

Granted, that may not seem to make sense at first, but physics already postulates that our universe is part of a multi-verse.  Since our one universe incorporates space-time, then our space-time might be part of a larger framework of both space and of time.  Just as space is dynamic, so might also time be alterable.

Going further along this line of thought, we might characterize eternity as both being outside of time, and also, dynamic.  Life in eternity might be, not a boring experience of sitting on a cloud, playing a harp, but a joyful adventure which continually enriches our experience.

Of course this is a heavy dose of speculation, but I think, not unreasonable.

-

Free Will, Determinism, or Something Else?

.

The question of whether we have free will, or whether we are biological robots doing only (and exactly) as nature compels us to do, presents problems which the best minds have struggled to resolve.  An article by Roy F. Baumeister at https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/free-will-debate-what-does-free-will-mean-and-how-did-it-evolve.html seeks to offer a third possibility.  Is there, in fact, a compromise position?  Or is there something that is truly a third way?

 

If we answer simply that, yes, we do have free will, then we run afoul of physics—at least the current paradigm which guides physics research.  The current theory of physics relies on something called, determinism.  A familiar way of describing determinism is to use the familiar analogy of a row of dominoes.  Tip the first domino and it knocks over the second, which knocks over the third, and so forth.  This simple chain of cause and effect exhibits the physics principle of causation, which in however complex a form, applies to everything that happens, including the choices we make.  Another way of expressing this principle is to cite the maxim that, everything in physical nature can be explained by other things in physical nature; no other explanation is needed.  Free will simply does not exist.  It cannot.

 

Therefore, if we do have free will, we must conclude that physics, in its current state, is wrong.  Stated another way, there is something more than physical cause and effect which results in physical events.  If I am confronted with the choice between turning left or turning right, the physical event of my turning is not dictated by the dominoes that have previously fallen.  It is determined by something that physics has not defined, something like a spirit or soul, something not of this physical world.

 

That conclusion is considered heresy in physics, not just heresy, but by purists, a despicable falsehood, either the delusions of fools, or the intellectual crime of superstition.

 

The irony is this:  if a person believes in free will, but if at the same time there is no free will, then that person did not choose to believe in free will.  That belief was forced upon him by preceding physical events.  Then, how can he be blamed?

 

The online article at Slate, by Roy F. Baumeister, cited above, makes a valiant attempt to resolve the issue, in a way that the author seems to hope, might be acceptable to both sides.  The effort fails.  It basically concludes that free will is actually what we only think is free will.  We think so, due only to the complexity of the mechanics of how we make decisions—but they are still mechanics, after all, not the truly independent decision of a sovereign entity.

 

The doctrine of free will does not necessarily assert that every decision we make is independent of physical causes.  On the contrary, all our decisions are at least partially influenced by physical causation, and the degree of that influence may be overwhelming in many cases.  Some of our actions are so routine that we do not bother to use our power of free will.  But, at its core, there is no compromise.  As to whether free will is possible, or not possible, that is either yes, or no. 

 

If we are to accept that we never, ever, have any power to act volitionally as independent, sovereign agents of physical causation in nature, then we must accept unavoidable absurdities.  One of them has already been mentioned, which is that our belief or disbelief that free will is possible, is not the result of our investigation of the facts, but rather, the result of an inexorable chain of physical causation. 

 

There is a greater issue—in fact, two of them.  One of them asks, are we active participants in our own lives, or merely passive observers?  The other issue asks, does physical nature just happen to give rise to living, conscious, volitional beings—or is physical nature designed around us, to be our habitat?

 

It quickly becomes apparent, then, that the question of free will is not isolated from other profound questions.  It involves the fundamental essence of natural reality.  It addresses our own reality as either biomechanical machines, or spiritual beings in physical form. Moreover, it involves the great mysteries of science, religion and philosophy.

 

If the standard model of physical causation is wrong, then that opens exciting avenues of research which are currently considered to be heretical.  If, on the other hand, we truly have no free will, then we are actors on a stage, reciting lines that nobody wrote.  We are as futile as, as Shakespeare puts it, in Macbeth 5:5, a sound and fury signifying nothing, a tale told by an idiot.

-

Crisis in Science

 

Science is on the brink, either of a stunning breakthrough, or the abyss of defeat. 

For centuries, science has progressed from superstition to discovery, and current predictions include the promise of solving nature’s greatest mysteries.   New discoveries, it is said, will lead to dramatic advances in technology that will usher in the dawn of the age of Star Trek.  Flying cars, miracle cures, and servant-robots are just some of the astonishing changes that are expected, changes that will revolutionize our lives beyond our present ability to imagine.  Could the earliest cavemen have imagined the impact that the discovery of fire would portend?  Could they have imagined nuclear power?

But not all the predictions include the beaming up of Scotty.  There is a principle of diminishing returns, less additional profit for each additional dollar of investment.  That principle may apply as mercilessly to science as it does to business.  Worse yet, for the hopes and dreams of future Captains Kirk, is the specter of a brick wall, or alternatively, of a vast canyon that cannot be bridged.

That brick wall may already have been encountered.  It is something we all know about, and yet, most of us underestimate.  We all take for granted our consciousness, but science can no longer take it for granted.  Science cannot explain consciousness.  It cannot even adequately define our inward experience of it, despite the fact that we all have it.  How do atoms give rise to organisms that can wonder about what an atom is?

We do, of course, explain it, but not in scientific terms.  Science struggles with the question, and so far, cannot leap across that grandest of canyons. 

Worse yet, for science, is the fact that science itself has made some astounding discoveries that indicate that consciousness may be, not merely a result of atoms, but rather, the foundation of them.  The most popularized example of this is demonstrated in what is called the double-slit experiment, something which every physicist knows about.  Videos about it are well worth looking up on your web-search-engine, but the main take-away is that atoms seem, according to many scientists, to behave very differently when a conscious observer is watching them.  In other words, consciousness may be, not a happenstance byproduct, without which the universe as we know it could exist, but rather, an underlying principle of the cosmos.  Read that slowly, because science may be flailing (and failing) to avoid that conclusion.

It is as if we had souls.  It is as if in addition to physical reality, there is a spiritual reality.  To many scientists, this is heresy.

Ironically, the acceptance of a new paradigm, a spiritual one, might actually rescue science, not end it.  If science can look upon the human brain, not as the generator of conscious thought, but rather its instrument, then new avenues of research become available.  Who knows what doors may be opened?

Who knew what the discovery of fire would bring about?