Everyone has a philosophical filter

[bandit4god]

It is useful in some instances to differentiate between humans and the rest of nature, but I don't think that this discussion is one of those instances.

This is the most important instance imaginable in which to differentiate conscious/sentient actors from "natural forces".  For the purposes of explanation, how does one accurately assess the inductive probability of a given outcome if not first addressing the inductive probability of intent-driven v nature-driven?

Is this not the first, or among the first, branches of inductive reasoning you'd apply if you walked into your house and found your living room was completely trashed?

After all, unless you consider humans a supernatural phenomenon, then whether we're differentiated from the rest of nature or not isn't relevant to the topic. To move the discussion along, I might go ahead and redefine category 2 as a supernatural entity, but I think that would be presumptuous of me.

I've not brought it up until now for fear that it would cause an unnecessary detour in the discussion, but now it's become unavoidable: I resist the term supernatural as a useful characterization of anything we'll discuss.  A conscious/sentient actor, in whatever form, is just as natural as gravity if it can impact the natural world.  The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

[Asmodean]

The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Intent-driven is a part of nature-driven. Whether it is your consciousness that makes your arm reach out and grab the extra hot jalapeños in the store or gravity that causes the tides, it's all still within natural parameters of this universe.

[bandit4god]

The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Intent-driven is a part of nature-driven. Whether it is your consciousness that makes your arm reach out and grab the extra hot jalapeños in the store or gravity that causes the tides, it's all still within natural parameters of this universe.

Think we might be getting a bit too cute with this...  Would you be ok with a dichotomy of intent-driven and not-intent-driven?

(parenthetically, I'm having to make these kludges to accommodate the philosophical filter at work on this very blog, that nature and it's attendant laws are all that exist.  This led the above poster to conclude that the mind is an emergent property of neurons and synapses, which is a decidedly extra-scientific conclusion)

[Recusant]

Thank you Asmodean. It's a pleasure to hear that you might take some motivation from reading this thread. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, but I'm not sure that patience is the main thing going on from my side of the discussion; for some reason I find bandit4god's arguments entertaining more often than not.

* * *

It is useful in some instances to differentiate between humans and the rest of nature, but I don't think that this discussion is one of those instances.

This is the most important instance imaginable in which to differentiate conscious/sentient actors from "natural forces".  For the purposes of explanation, how does one accurately assess the inductive probability of a given outcome if not first addressing the inductive probability of intent-driven v nature-driven?

Is this not the first, or among the first, branches of inductive reasoning you'd apply if you walked into your house and found your living room was completely trashed?

Ah, we're talking about trashed rooms? Oh boy, I thought we were still talking about abiogenesis, and that the trashed room issue was merely an illustration. If you'll forgive me, I'm not that interested in figuring out who trashed a hypothetical room, so I'm going to carry on as if we were still discussing the origin of life on earth. In that context, I think we can safely eliminate humans as an explanation. We can't eliminate an "intent-driven" explanation, because for all we know, life might have purposely been seeded on the planet by some interstellar farmers.

After all, unless you consider humans a supernatural phenomenon, then whether we're differentiated from the rest of nature or not isn't relevant to the topic. To move the discussion along, I might go ahead and redefine category 2 as a supernatural entity, but I think that would be presumptuous of me.

I've not brought it up until now for fear that it would cause an unnecessary detour in the discussion, but now it's become unavoidable: I resist the term supernatural as a useful characterization of anything we'll discuss.  A conscious/sentient actor, in whatever form, is just as natural as gravity if it can impact the natural world.  The relevance of the dichotomy to explanation is "intent-driven" or "nature-driven", not "natural" or "supernatural".

Well, why didn't you say so! If I had thought that you were championing interstellar farmers as an explanation for life on earth, I think I would have approached the discussion entirely differently. If we are eliminating the supernatural as an explanation, then really I don't have a dog in the fight. The question of whether life on the planet arose on its own, or through some form of panspermia, or through the actions of interstellar farmers is interesting, but really I don't think that we are presently equipped to eliminate any of those explanations.

Let me be as clear as possible. I consider the Christian god to be a supernatural entity. If you, bandit4god, do not agree, then we may be at an impasse. In addition: I consider the possibility that the Christian god exists to be so remote that no matter what cooked up odds against the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis you care to present, that explanation is still more likely to be true, in my opinion, than that YHVH was the origin of life here.

[Asmodean]

Think we might be getting a bit too cute with this...  Would you be ok with a dichotomy of intent-driven and not-intent-driven?

Fair enough.

[bandit4god]

The question of whether life on the planet arose on its own, or through some form of panspermia, or through the actions of interstellar farmers is interesting, but really I don't think that we are presently equipped to eliminate any of those explanations.

YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant. The only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

[Asmodean]

YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

And again you ruin it.

Intent-driven IS natural.

To elaborate a bit: we do not know the answer to many questions on different scales, be it what to have for breakfast tomorrow or what set off the Big Bang, but we have no reason to assume that the explanation would involve anything other than the natural, thus, making a philosophical bias of natural vs. otherwise unnecessary.

EDIT 2: To elaborate more, let's have a look at life. It is safe to assume that there was no conscious intent-capable life on this planet to start with and that such life is a result of simpler life evolving. Following the example of this planet, the evolutionary chain of life goes from simple to complex to potentially intelligent. Thus, you do not need intelligent life to create life thus, the philosophical bias is again unnecessary.

All I went by here are the safest bets based on evolutionary science. (I would back it up some more, but unlike Recusant, I'm a lazy fuck )

[xSilverPhinx]

YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

And again you ruin it.

Intent-driven IS natural.

Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

[Asmodean]

Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

I'm sorry, were you commenting something I implied..? If so, point me to it and I shall properly rephrase it  ???

[xSilverPhinx]

Survival and reproduction, even of molecules. How is that not natural? Because they themselves don't have minds then necessarily there must be a supermind (god) behind it all?

I'm sorry, were you commenting something I implied..? If so, point me to it and I shall properly rephrase it  ???

Sorry, I misquoted. I was butting in on your conversation  with bandit4god and asking if the intent to survive and reproduce (of the earliest organic molecules) couldn't be considered purely natural.

[Asmodean]

Sorry, I misquoted. I was butting in on your conversation  with bandit4god and asking if the intent to survive and reproduce (of the earliest organic molecules) couldn't be considered purely natural.

No trouble  I just know unintentional vagueness to be one of my many vices 

[Recusant]

YES!  I could hug you right now, Recusant.  This is the only goals I set out to achieve with this thread were to influence one person to acknowledge the existence of a philosophical filter that biases for natural, non-intent-driven explanations, and consider the origin of life anew through a more expansive explanatory lens.  While interstellar farmers are as far as you're willing to go, it's an achievement nonetheless.

No sarcasm in this whatsoever, I really am thrilled!  Bravo, Recusant!!

Aw shucks, 'twern't nuthin'. I'm glad that you're pleased, though.

I don't deny that one of the things that my personal filter sieves out when contemplating the origin of life on earth is incorporeal, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent personalized beings who exist in some realm beyond our (or any) universe, yet have a deep interest in, nay, an apparent obsession with human beings. If I considered the existence of such supernatural entities at all probable, I wouldn't be the infidel that I am. On the other hand, I speak only for myself.

[bandit4god]

It is safe to assume that there was no conscious intent-capable life on this planet to start with and that such life is a result of simpler life evolving. Following the example of this planet, the evolutionary chain of life goes from simple to complex to potentially intelligent. Thus, you do not need intelligent life to create life thus, the philosophical bias is again unnecessary.

You're at step 73 of explaining life, Asmo... back up to step 1, the one today's students are conditioned to skip.

Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

I'm not saying you'll come to a different conclusion if you ask this question... Following Recusant's example, it merely opens up new and exciting explanatory possibilities!

[Attila]

I don't deny that one of the things that my personal filter sieves out when contemplating the origin of life on earth is incorporeal, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent personalized beings who exist in some realm beyond our (or any) universe, yet have a deep interest in, nay, an apparent obsession with human beings. If I considered the existence of such supernatural entities at all probable, I wouldn't be the infidel that I am. On the other hand, I speak only for myself.

I always wonder about things on the other side of our filter. They can't be studied (by definition). Nothing much of interest can be said about them. Do they display lawful behaviour? Their only effect, that I can make out,  is to block further research. Once you say, "god did it", that's pretty much the end of the discussion. As always I could be way off the mark but what would be the difference in terms of empirical or intellectual content between positing such supernatural entities and shrugging your shoulders or saying, "I don't know"? 
ciao,
Attila

[Asmodean]

Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

When speaking of life, there is no reason to suspect that it was a result of an intent-driven action. When speaking of my car, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.