Joined: Sep. 2007
|The where and when is ongoing. Some specific details are missing. I realise that's not as satisfying as the first few chapters of your book, but...|
So you believe that life arose from non-life at least once, but do not know where or when or precisely how. That's what I suspected. You are in the same boat as everybody else, it seems.
It's somewhat amazing that you have read the first few chapters of my book, since it was never published and made generally available to the public. Though there were a few copies making the rounds. Quite exciting, wasn't it? Perhaps one of these years it finally will be published...
|Any evidence that consciousness is not a product of "just cells and chemicals"?|
Cells and chemicals (and biophysical processes) are of course surmised to be the means and mechanisms for the operations of consciousness, at least for so long as it is embodied in physical, organic form. I simply do not misconstrue the phenomenon itself with the physical correlates of its mechanical operation. And before you ask or offer yet another inane insult, yes. I do know that there are people who do equate phenomena with the physical processes of their operation. I am not one of them. You apparently are.
|Why are they bothering eh? If they are looking at the "cells and chemical" level they'll never find what they are looking for, right?|
What they are mostly looking for are the physical correlates of consciousness' expression in living organisms. The physical components, the mechanics and the processes. Originally the primary motivation was to determine if information technologists could hope to create an artificial machine-based consciousness. I don't know how many of those individuals with lots of money to invest in the projects may be transhumanists. There are no doubt some who would simply like to have a conscious machine. For whatever reason.
|Yet you claim to 'know' that life did not have a natural origin on what basis?|
Where did I claim that? Nowhere have I asserted that life's origin was not entirely natural, even if it was a singular event. Again you are making things up out of whole cloth and projecting them onto me. Please stop it.
|Yes, the intense scientific research into abiogenesis can't compete with an old book written by goat herders. I can see why you believe that case is far more convincing.|
Oh, THAT's the book you're referring to. I've read it a few times. Good for what it is, and reliable as what it is (considering the care exerted to keep it accurate over many generations, which is what the treatment of such things as 'holy' is particularly good for). I find the slightly differing accounts of ancient Hebraic creation mythologies - no doubt regionally specific - as interesting as I've found the creation mythologies of the Pima and Tewa, the Inuit, the Chinese, the Norse and the several others I've investigated. Also interesting that they use a ceramic model, as do several other cultural origin stories. Probably indicating some common sociocultural development(s) undergirding the particular metaphors.
|So lets split the difference and say eight.|
Interesting that you'd pick that number. One of my current favorite models is 8-dimensional. I'd say it's 'easier' than 11, 22 or infinite dimensions, but it's really not. The mathematics is quite different from the current string models, difficult to grok. Thanks for the response.
|What possible difference would it make to anything you might say to me?|
I'd hoped that some grasp of the likely fact that there is more to reality than just what we have evolved to easily perceive, observe/measure and/or quantify would suggest to you that things may not be so cut and dried as your simplistic metaphysical belief system would have it.
|And the "experts" all agree (with some notable exceptions) that unassisted abiogenesis is at least possible, and perhaps even likely given the right conditions.|
"Unassisted" meaning what, exactly?
|No serious "expert" is making any sort of case for "god did it". Are they?|
Far as I know, only god-experts are attempting to make such a case. Though how 'expert' anyone can really be about gods is certainly debatable. Science is not trying to make that case and will not. That realm of speculation is outside its job description.