So is 'the possibility of life' a paradox?
As when people feel grateful that they are alive.

Life and mind do not come from no life and no mind (a dead universe).

So is 'the possibility of life' a paradox?
As when people feel grateful that they are alive.

And you know this, how? Indeed, all the evidence we have is exactly that life arose from matter.).

Matter has become a very elusive concept in the modern age. The notion that nature primarily is composed of inert insensate point particles is indeed open to serious question and is questioned by philosophers and physicists alike. In fact my point of view that quantum particles are really quantum events and that actual particles only appear from their potientality on detection is a not uncommon interpretation of quantum theory.

In addition, it has become increasingly difficult to draw the line between life and no life, and experiential and non experiential entities. So yes I am making metaphysical assumptions and so are you. I am aware of the science, I am also aware of the dominant paradigm of mechanistic determinism and materialism which arises more from Cartesian and Newtonian notions than it does from special relativity and quantum mechanics. No I do not "know" this but neither does anyone know that nature is determinsitic or that the fundamental elements of nature are not experiential and perception in some primitive fashion.

Partly, I make these assertions to present a fundamentally different mode of viewing reality which does not ignore science as you assert but challenges the dominant metaphysical paradigm of materialism. Philosophical discussion should broaden ones view of the possible. The number of philosophers and scientists who challenge the doctrines of determinsm and materialism is not insubstantial nor are they uninformed about the facts and the theories. I know which of my assertions are metaphysical assumptions or philosophical speculations, do you?

To repeat, all the evidence we have is that life arose from matter. So, to say that it did not is counter-evidential. Unless, of course, you have some new information.

Some of the evidence we have is that matter arises from events and that events are perceptive (non sensory) and experiential (non conscious) in nature.
Life therefore is merely more perceptive and more experiential, a matter of difference in degree, not difference in kind.
Yes I know it is a hard concept to even consider.

There is lots of evidence that events in this world are based on more unifying rational principles of order and creativity. It is not a complete abandonment of reason, experience or fact to assert that rational intelligence lies behind the universe, merely a different speculation.

That's new evidence that life does not arise from matter? Looks like a lot of metaphysical speculation to me. In the meantime, scientists in laboratories are producing complex proteins.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570627681/ref=oss_product



The ultimate nature of reality and of matter is really open to question.
You could also try some Whitehead maybe Science and the Modern World.

David Skirbina "History of Panspycism in the West" is a good read.
Be careful though they all call into question, the dominant metaphysical assumption of the modern world reductionism, mechanism, determinism and materialism; along with the assumption that nature is fundamentally inert. Science is the objectification of nature, the detection of external properties not a complete picture of reality and certainly not a complete picture of human experience or human concerns.

Anyway both philosophy and science are about questioning the assumptions present in the current dominant worldview. Materialism is a metaphysical assumption about ultimate reality not a proven fact. The notion that nature is fundamentally composed of inert insensate particles is not a fact, it is an assumption and one that has a hard time with quantum reality and with mind and experience in the world.

Really I am not crazy (maybe a little) and I am not uninformed either, just a different worldview, a different take on reality (one I think is worth exploring) and presenting.

But none of this has anything at all to do with the issue of evidence, does it? There is nothing like any physical evidence that life has come from anything other than matter, as we understand physical evidence, and all the evidence we now have, and we are acquiring now, is that the great likelihood is that love arose in some not quite fully understood way, form matter. If you were to bet, I would advise you to bet on that. There may be other possibilities (the human imagination is fertile) but when we concentrate on what is probable, there is but one way to go. "The wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence" David Hume. Philosophy may be about the possible, but science is about the probable.

So is 'the possibility of life' a paradox?
As when people feel grateful that they are alive.

It depends on what you mean by "matter".

The truth of what one says always partly depends on what it is one's words mean. But the other part depends on what the facts are. And it really doesn't matter what you mean unless you also have the facts on your side. (Dogs simply don't lay eggs, whatever you mean by "dogs", and whatever you mean by "eggs"). Let's keep that obvious, but sometimes neglected truth in mind.

That there is a phenomena in our world that we call "matter" we both agree on. What the ultimate nature of "matter" is (a philosophical question of the first order) I would say we do not agree on.

Sure. For me, life is quite painful. I don ` t like much of it. I try to do whatever i can to make life more bearable. So, the thought that i will die is actually very comforting. Doing things, studying, and meeting good people are also what makes life more bearable.

What you would like me to say is the unifying principle for life, mind, and experience is matter. The notion being that they are all fundamentally material entities or reducible to the material. That is not science. It is metaphysics. In particular it is monistic materialism.

Matter is not the unifying principle as I see it.



Philosophy is the search for fundamental or unifying principles. Why do I say that process is a better unifying principle than matter?

.

So is 'the possibility of life' a paradox?
As when people feel grateful that they are alive.