The Genetic Code

[renniks]

If it is actually false, then there should be something that stems from the assumption that it's true that is contradictory.

There is. We only observe life from life. Assuming life can just create itself is fine for comic books... it's absurd in reality.

 

[Belk]

There is. We only observe life from life. Assuming life can just create itself is fine for comic books... it's absurd in reality.

We only observe consciousness arising from the physical. Therefore to posit a non physical intelligence is equally absurd.

 

[Hans Blaster]

An opinion. You are welcome to hold it. Given present limited menu science can only conclude that from the existing model.

My phrasing might be an opinion, but there is no force beyond the 4 known fundamental forces that could meaningfully interact with an animals body. Or as otherwise stated -- no life force.

This has been demonstrated by experimental physics. It's not widely known, as I suspect even many physicists don't realize it or it's implications. Probably because it smashes all of those comforting notions of supernatural spirituality.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is. We only observe life from life.

This is such a weak and self-defeating argument.

There are lots of things I have never seen which I am pretty sure are true. You make all sorts of claims about the varacity of things which we have never seen. And I suspect you have no idea about the double standard you are applying.

Assuming life can just create itself is fine for comic books... it's absurd in reality.

Nice assertion. Do you have anything to back it up, or is this just a (yawn) argument from incredulity?

 

[Mountainmike]

My phrasing might be an opinion, but there is no force beyond the 4 known fundamental forces that could meaningfully interact with an animals body. Or as otherwise stated -- no life force.

This has been demonstrated by experimental physics. It's not widely known, as I suspect even many physicists don't realize it or it's implications. Probably because it smashes all of those comforting notions of supernatural spirituality.

Insert the word “ known” to become “no known force”

I should perhaps have changed the paradigm a little.

To Be consistent with that evidence there is no implication of interaction of consciousness with the world around it when just observing so therefore no “force” implied.

So if Instead the phrase “ life energy” was used .
The body as the means that life energy can interact with the world, but not when consciousness separates. That paradigm is consistent with many examples of knowledge of things that cannot have been observed.

 

[Kylie]

There is. We only observe life from life. Assuming life can just create itself is fine for comic books... it's absurd in reality.

The fact we see life coming from life is not proof that it is impossible for anything else.

 

[SelfSim]

There is. We only observe life from life. Assuming life can just create itself is fine for comic books... it's absurd in reality.

Its also absurd in objective reality, to presume precursor chemical evolution (OOL) depends on assumptions about 'life creating itself'.

 

[renniks]

There are lots of things I have never seen which I am pretty sure are true.

Like the existence of God? Only 4 percent of the population doesn't believe in a God.
Why? Probably because they know life had to begin from something more than an accident.

 

[renniks]

The fact we see life coming from life is not proof that it is impossible for anything else.

I thought science was supposed to be logical? Now it just assumes the impossible can happen with zero real evidence.

 

[renniks]

Its also absurd in objective reality, to presume precursor chemical evolution (OOL) depends on assumptions about 'life creating itself'.

What else do you call it when one decides random chemicals somehow created an extremely complex cell by accident?

 

[SelfSim]

What else do you call it when one decides random chemicals somehow created an extremely complex cell by accident?

Umm .. rubbish?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What else do you call it when one decides random chemicals somehow created an extremely complex cell by accident?

Haven't been paying attention to what we've said about OOL work, have you now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Insert the word “ known” to become “no known force”

No, it's not a matter of a possible unknown force. There is none.

All forces that *could* interact with a animal's body (on the right length and energy scale) have been detected. No more *can* be detected given the experimental probes of the parameter space.

 

[Kylie]

I thought science was supposed to be logical? Now it just assumes the impossible can happen with zero real evidence.

It's basic logic.

If you see X as a result of Y, then that doesn't mean that Y is the only way X can happen.

 

[Kylie]

Like the existence of God? Only 4 percent of the population doesn't believe in a God.
Why? Probably because they know life had to begin from something more than an accident.

Argument from popularity.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, it's not a matter of a possible unknown force. There is none.

All forces that *could* interact with a animal's body (on the right length and energy scale) have been detected. No more *can* be detected given the experimental probes of the parameter space.

I added to that post in hindsight.

The experiential evidence of consciousness out of body has no interaction, only observation. Force implies interaction. So a better expression more compliant with how those words are used in a physics context would be “ life energy” not “ life force” .

Since in physics most of the matter / energy is missing and deemed non interacting or only weakly interacting it is hardly a stretch of the imagination.


You seem very certain of what you cannot know for sure.

The basic premise of all the experiments is the idea of “ always happens” in the same causal way. A science of repeatable things, that do repeat or can be repeated.

Anything that exists outside that framework is not easily analyzed or detected.

People or beings generally with choice in the matter of whether to act, are not nearly as easily tested or testable , not least because many documented phenomena of conscious experience of remote locations are not apparently under the control of the experiencer.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Like the existence of God?

Not like that at all.

Only 4 percent of the population doesn't believe in a God.

7% don't believe in a god, 70% don't believe in God.

Why? Probably because they know life had to begin from something more than an accident.

Citation please.

 

[SelfSim]

I added to that post in hindsight.

The experiential evidence of consciousness out of body has no interaction, only observation. Force implies interaction. So a better expression more compliant with how those words are used in a physics context would be “ life energy” not “ life force” .

In Physics, the rate of using Energy is equal to the rate of doing work. The force is the measure of transfer of energy to do work.

How can any of that happen with no measurable interaction?

Since in physics most of the matter / energy is missing and deemed non interacting or only weakly interacting it is hardly a stretch of the imagination.

Nothing in Physics is ever 'deemed non interacting'. Please cite your references that it is.

The basic premise of all the experiments is the idea of “ always happens” in the same causal way. A science of repeatable things, that do repeat or can be repeated.

Please cite references for any 'basic premise of all the experiments'.

People or beings generally with choice in the matter of whether to act, are not nearly as easily tested or testable , not least because many documented phenomena of conscious experience of remote locations are not apparently under the control of the experiencer.

What a load of gobbledygook! This should be taken to the Non Mainstream sceince forum .. (where it belongs).

 

[renniks]

Umm .. rubbish?

Exactly... life can't happen by accident.

 

[renniks]

7% don't believe in a god, 70% don't believe in God.

Nonsense.