Love it . Happy we agree. Evidently not everybody does though.
I don’t think it leads to despair in all people all the time. I am not in despair.
It doesleads to despair or something close to it in a minority of people some of the time.
I would argue however that this is largely because most people in one way or another, don’t accept the reality of the situation, hence the title of the topic.
If people universally accepted that there is no God, that mysticism in all of its forms was BS, that we are replication machines programmed by genetic and cultural evolution, that there is no ghost in the machine, that self, meaning, free well and consciousness or 100% mechanistically generated and that perspective dependent meaning is not in any way the same thing as or equivalent to perspective independent meaning, this would give quite a few people some amount of negative feelings. This would be even more of the case if you also conveyed how much of a spec the Earth is relative to the rest of the universe by showing them the pale blue dot picture of us taken from the Voyager to space probe as it left the solar system.
Exactly how many people would have what level of negative feeling is hard to no I think it’s fine for us to have different opinions on that. But you were in fact be telling people that their dad loved ones. I’m not in heaven looking down on them and you won’t be reunited when you die. You will be telling people that their life has no meaning, at least in the subject independent manner that they crave. Maybe they’ll shrug it off.
All I am really arguing is that enough? People have a strong enough preference with respect to these matters not to be or at least not to fully accept the intellectual consequences of being an emergent relatives. This in my opinion drives a degree of motivated reasoning which I’m calling the conspiracy against the human race.
Thank you for your post #Banno. I hope they have clarified my position somewhat. I am interested to know what you have to say about the following questions.
Do you think people engaging motivated reasoning to avoid the intellectual consequences of particular philosophical positions? Do you feel that you have ever had a conversation with such a person and if so, what philosophical position were they trying to avoid and why?
No worries. I very much respect and value your directness.
Thank you.
Right. And this makes sense to me. We might see philosophy as a kind of self-referential critical “myth”-making that largely “creates” the face of world that imposes itself on us. We impose back with signs. Bakhtin sees us as being addressed by the world. Philosophy can be seen as our creative, fluctuating response to this address.
Wittgenstein claimed a good book of philosophy could be written consisting entirely of jokes. My comment may be considered part of such a book. A joke, in other words, not a criticism. If I wanted to be critical, though, I might suggest the human race can’t conspire against itself.
You do realize that I don’t know you and there are no context clues that would make me think that this is a joke rather than a put down, but ok fine.
Have you never heard of self deception? The conspiracy against the human race is just communal deception.
Every time my folks talk about god, or the sole or the meaning of life and I nod along and agree, or just keep my mouth shut because I love them and want them to beleave what makes them happy, and every time somebody else does something similar we are all engaging in this conspiracy. This doesn’t even take into account the self deception. I used to be a christian and I tried so dam hard to beleave that I actually managed to deceive myself in to actually believing at times. At times when I didn’t relay beleave but was trying to deceive myself I deceived other people. This is the conspiracy in action.
It is not just with religion. people act like or espouse view that are only compatible with meaning being subject independent all the time. People don’t normally call people out about having views that are incompatible with emergent relativism. There are no scientists out there telling people that the implication of there work is that fundamental realist notions of self, meaning, consciousness and free will are wrong and existential Nihilism is actually correct. Example below.
In a room full of scientists nobody told Kellis in answer to his question, WTF are you even talking about. Of course it doesn’t matter to the universe we are here. The notion that we could mean something to the universe is scientifically incoherent. You are deceiving your self because you are desperate for subject independent meaning to be real which it quite obviously isn’t.
Some people in the room would be deceiving themselves that they could matter to the universe. Some people just chose not to give the obviously correct answer, because it would have been considered rude to upset the people that were deceiving themselves. This is the conspiracy in action.
Generally, a “conspiracy” is defined as an agreement (a knowing collaboration) among persons (the “conspirators”) to do something–usually to cause harm of some kind to some other person who isn’t one of the conspiators. So, an agreement among persons to harm themselves isn’t a conspiracy, properly speaking. Nor would it make any sense to claim that I conspired with my neighbor to deceive ourselves into believing we’re Shriners or the Grand Exalted Rulers of an Elks Lodge.
If folk are uncomfortable with meaning being constructed, let 'em be. Whatever gets you through the night, as John Lennon sang.
While I didn’t study your opening post in detail, it seems to be more of an agglomeration than an argument. Pop scientism mistaken for wisdom. An argument of ‘isms’ rather than of statements.
That is, it remains quite unclear to me what it is you think is the problem.
That is not ‘a fact’, but an image — a very influential image, but nevertheless a myth, a meme, a cultural artifact. There’s nothing in science to demonstrate that organisms actually are machines — the videos presented in the OP are machine-like, hence the appeal. But unlike machines, organisms are self–organising, autopoietic. They possess the capacity to maintain themselves against entropic degradation, to grow, reproduce, heal and evolve, which no machines can do. (Those functions can be simulated in software but it hardly need be said that a simulation does not possess the same degree of reality as that which it simulates.)
The appeal of mechanism is that machines are things we can control and understand. The mechanistic analogy for organisms therefore feeds into our sense of scientistic control of the environment, of nature, of life itself.
The hilarious if unintended irony in this statement is that science itself is a human construction. The Universe unseen by any eye has no intrinsic reality, hence of course nothing ‘matters’ to it. But it matters to us, otherwise, you would have not just expended several thousand words trying to persuade all comers that it doesn’t!
I’ll add a further point about the OP in general. This is that the claim that ‘the universe is meaningless’ is itself a value-statement, and one grounded in a very specific historical epoch.
Early modern science, as developed by Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and others, divided the universe into two domains. There was the domain of matter - extended, measurable, ideally described in terms of the primary attributes of matter, such as mass, velocity, number, and so on. Then there was the domain of mind, res cogitans, the thinking substanceject, internal, private, and subjective. This lead to the well-known ‘interaction problem’ of Cartesian dualism, with the consequence that the very idea of res cogitans was called into question, leaving only the extended realm of matter-energy-space-time.
This is the development critiqued by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead as the ‘bifurcation of nature’ referring to the flawed philosophical division between the world as experienced and the abstract world described by mathematical physics. And that is the assumed background of the kind of mechanistic materialism that is behind the argument in the original post.
I am honored by you willingness to take part in this discussion. Thank you for reading what I wrote and adding to the discussion.
I am aware of this kind of criticism and have previously write something that specifically addressees it. I hope that you find it a reasonable response. Something to note is that my template dependent chemistry I am referring to what most people would call life.
Although as below I am happy to defend calling living organisms machines I don’t want to get warped around a particular word. My point is, as the vidio’s point out science says life is mechanistic. The Flagelum is literaly a moter. ATPase is no less mechanistic than the terbine of a dam.
Arguments against humans being a machine
As you would expect people who want to insert a ghost into the machine will claim examples of template dependent chemistry are not machines. Oxford Languages definition of a machine is “an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with definite function and together performing a particular task”. Definitions tend to be broad because the writers of the definitions are trying to make an inclusive definition that encompasses the broad range of things that people call machines.
The standard way people justify saying examples of template dependent chemistry are not machines is by modifying the definition of machines in a way that excludes examples of template dependent chemistry. There are lots of examples of this in the book, “the blind spot” by Frank, et al. The blind spot claims that what it calls living organisms are not machines because the parts that make up the machine come into existence prior to the creation of the machine. As the parts that make the “living organism” do not come into existence prior to the existence of the “living organism” the claim is that living organisms are definitionally not machines. The most obvious problem with this is that a need for the parts of a machine to exist prior to the machine is not part of anybody’s definition of a machine. You can of course include this as a requirement in your own niche definition of machine, transparently put there to force a distinction with template dependent chemistry if you like. It is however a bit much to then claim that people who are basing their word choice on standard definitions of being wrong. This also wouldn’t mean zygotes would be machines, as they are created by fusion of gametes that contain pre-existing parts. This also applies to certain single cellular organisms.
In relation to this people will point out that machines can’t grow, replicate or change autonomously, but you can substitute in any number of other properties that people think of as being uniquely properties of template dependent chemistry. This is just a different way of trying to artificially narrow the definition of a machine to exclude template dependent chemistry. Is it true that a machine that turns out patterned cloth can be called a machine but a machine that replicates itself can’t be called a machine despite fulfilling the definition of being a machine? I would suggest not. All the fact that the machine’s purpose is self replication would do is to make it a replication machine.
The blind spot authors also add the concept of agency, saying only “Living organisms” have agency. They then argue that this also invalidates the idea that examples of template dependent chemistry are machines, because they claim that things that have agency are definitionally not machines. Again, there is nothing in the definition of a machine that says if it has agency, it isn’t a machine. Of course, it is difficult to define agency in a way that gives it to bacteria but denies it to a robotic vacuum cleaner, let alone machines powered by AI. We have also talked about fundamental and apparent notions of free will which suggests this distinction to be ill founded.
This exercise in generating niche definitions is also flawed intellectually because it is by no means clear that we couldn’t in principle create a machine that grows, replicates, changes, is autonomous and is made out of parts that do not predate its existence. The potential for creating such a machine highlights the cynical artificiality of altering the definition of the word machine to create a distinction with template dependent chemistry. I have enjoyed the “Bobiverse” book series in which a self replicating spaceship called a Von Neumann probe, controlled by an AI that has the memories and personalities of a deceased person called Bob, pilots its way through space. The machine that is the space ship does all the things that the authors of “the blind spot” add to the definition of the word machine. Although fictional, this does qualify as a rather good thought experiment. Would such a mechanical object not qualify as a machine?
The authors of the blind spot go on to say “Self individuation, agency and independent autonomy, needful freedom in other words, make life unlike anything else in nature or anything we manufacture. The life as machine metaphysics does not capture this unique mode of being and way of being organized and thereby fails at its explanatory task.” As with so much said in this book, this is vague, unsubstantiated and misleading. It deals in vague notions like “needful freedom” and declares without any evidence or explanation that “The life as machine metaphysics does not capture this unique mode of being”. This assertion is a close cousin to Kant’s assertion that there will never be a Newton of the blade of grass. There is nothing to suggest this to be true. As we will discuss in this chapter and in part 2 of this book there is very little we can’t explain about simpler forms of life mechanisticly. For more complex forms of life there are some gaps in our knowledge regarding very specific questions about how they process information. There is however good reason to think these questions have a mechanistic answer and no reason to think they don’t.
It is significant that you consider opposition to the mechanistic materialism in such terms. The ‘Ghost in the Machine’ was an expression coined by writer Arthur Koestler to critique Cartesian dualism.
No, the flagelum is like a motor. But, unlike motors, and like other parts of organisms, it develops and grows organically, not built by an external agent as is the case for motors and machines.
Sorry but this is nonsensical. As a machine is a built artifact, then obviously the parts need to exist prior to the machine being assembled.
I don’t accept the entire premise of ‘niche definitions’. Machines and organisms are definitionally different:
Machine: a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work.
Organism: any individual living thing that can function on its own. This includes all animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea.
The fact that this is awkward for your theory can’t be defined away.
I looked into template-based chemistry. On the plus side it does provide a model for many of the specific operations that characterise metabolic activity. But there are key characteristics of actual organisms that it doesn’t account for, mostly to do with the open-ended nature of organic life (dynamic homeostasis, self-correction, evolutionary adaptation.)
It’s brave of you to bring up Blind Spot (Frank, Gleiser, Thompson, ref) as it is aimed squarely at the kind of mechanistic materialism that your thread is advocating. But I don’t agree that it is ‘vague, unsubstantiated and misleading’, on the contrary, it is precise, wide-ranging, and meticulously documented. But then, that’s the thing about ‘blind spots’ - they can be hard to see!
there is nothing in the definition of a motor that it can’t grow, or how it comes about or that it can’t be organic. the Flagelum meets the definition of a motor " A motor is a device that converts electrical, chemical, or other forms of energy into mechanical motion to drive a machine or perform work."
you are extending definitions in order to argue things aren’t what I say they are.
You then pretend that by refuting the definition you are refuting the underlying reality that I am pointing out and which is scientific fact, “living organisms” are entirely mechanistic.
Quibble with any definitions you want to, the fact remains you are no less mechanistic than an automaton.
There is nothing in the definition of organism you provided that says it can’t be a type of machine. Science has just demonstrated that these individual living things we call animals, plans, fungi, etc,when you look relay closely and do lots of science tern out to be just a mechanistic as a clock or a steam engine or an automaton making them, despite what we thought in the past a type of machine.
What a revelation. Maybe we should get to thinking about its philosophical consequences.
It’s not a matter of quibbling. You’re definining the terms to suit your argument. There’s no ‘scientific evidence’ that organisms are machines, or vice versa. What there is is an historical metaphor of ‘mechanism’, which grew out of the Cartesian ‘mind-matter’ division, as already explained.
You know the Blind Spot book is aimed at just the argument that you’re attempting to deploy here, don’t you?
Many layered concept. A conspiracy is something kept hidden from others, yet we are ourselves hiding from ourselves, or hiding ourselves from ourselves.
I’ve always said, the only real damage we ever suffer is when we shoot ourselves in the foot. That includes criminals shooting their neighborhood/community members up, or any human to human harm.
We have all we need. Instead of learning to protect and keep and aid it, we shoot ourselves in the foot, and teach our foot how to protect itself from its own hand (backwards conspirators that we are).
My friend I didn’t say template-based chemistry I said template dependent chemistry. As far as I am aware I coined the term. I mean any chemical reaction that is dependent on template to happen. As I said, it is how i define “life”.
Template dependent chemistry does account for dynamic homeostasis, self-correction and evolutionary adaptation.
Things like dynamic homeostasis works by mechanical switches. We are absolutely filled with switches of many differt types, just like transistors in a computer.
Below I talk about how a single transcription factor called OXR regulates homeostasis in bacteria. It is as simple an example as I can find.
If you want something more advanced I have provided a description of how a series of protein switches controls the direction in which bacteria swim called chemotaxis. Its a little long and I doubt you will have the stomach to read it, but it is supper cool and very much speaks to your point.
I could talk about more complex animals but it gets very complex.
The point is that this is all done mechanistically. These are all physical entertains that are changing structure, physically interacting with each other.
I hope I have addressed the points you have made.
The transcription factor as an example of protein switches
Transcription factors are protein’s solution to what the riboswitch does. Transcription factors bind to DNA, reaching through the grooves of the double helix to bind in a way that is dependent on the sequence of nucleotides. This means that transcription factors all bind a sequence of DNA, which does not encode for protein production but is there to, in consort with transcription factors, regulate transcription. The binding of the transcription factors can suppress or activate gene transcription and associated protein generation. An example of a transcription factor in bacteria is OxyR. The toxic chemical hydrogen peroxide H2O2 which can be in the bacteria’s environment, reacts with OxyR’s sulfur containing cysteine amino acids in a way that causes the formation of a disulfide covalent bond. The formation of the disulfide bond changes the structure of OxyR in a way that results in it binding to a regulatory region of the DNA next to a gene that encodes an enzyme called hydrogen peroxidase that breaks down hydrogen peroxide. This enzyme reduces the amount of hydrogen peroxide present, reducing activation of OxyR and reducing transcription of the hydrogen peroxidase gene. This negative feedback, tuned to perfection by evolution means there is always the optimal amount of hydrogen peroxidase present in the cell. Template dependent chemistry is replete with examples like this. This template dependent chemical reaction leads to the production of complex information filled polymers which are feeding back on the reaction in a way that determines which complex set of chemical reactions happen next. This is what makes template dependent chemistry different from template independent chemistry as well as other processes. This is again what makes all examples of template dependent chemistry self regulating systems.
III - Information processing in bacterial chemotaxis
Regulation of directional movement in bacteria
We mentioned that bacteria will move up or down oxygen gradients depending on if it helps or hurts their ability to survive. Obviously to achieve this you need to do more than just have a flagellum pushing you around as this would be just as likely to be pushing you in the wrong direction as the right one. To move in the preferred direction bacteria will combine periods of relatively straight line swimming with tumbling that randomize its direction. The periods of straight line swimming last longer if the bacteria is swimming in a direction that increases the concentration of chemicals beneficial for its survival or reduces the concentration of chemicals that are deleterious to its survival. In this way the bacteria moves towards environments that contain chemicals that benefit the survival of its template and away from those that are deleterious. This is done by controlling the rotational direction of the flagellum. When the flagellum turns clockwise multiple flagellum bundles and the bacteria moves in a straight line and when the flagellum turns anticlockwise the bundle of flagella suddenly unravels and the bacteria tumbles. This control is effectuated through protein signaling in responce to the presence of chemicals in the bacteria’s environment detected by a type of receptor on the bacterial surface called the Methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein (MCP) that binds chemicals. We can again see the basic arrangement of a self regulating system with the Flagellum being the effector, the equivalent of the steam valve of the centrifugal governor. The MCP family of receptors represents the presence of the chemical, equating to centrifugal governors ball arms. The signaling cascade that links the MCP and flagella is the equivalent of the levers and rods that connect the ball arm to the steam valve of the centrifugal governor. Although the analogy to riboswitches and centrifugal governors are reasonable it should be noted that the complexity of what is happening is increasing.
Post translational modification in cell signaling
We spoke early in the template dependent chemistry chapter about the dynamic structure of proteins in the context of them interacting with other proteins and small molecules, with this change in structure turning proteins on and off like a switch. Another, extremely important way proteins switch each other on is by enzymatically adding and removing chemicals to them causing their structure to change. There are lots of examples but two common ones are phosphorylation and methylation. The former would involve covalent linking a phosphate and the latter involves covalently linking a methane molecule to a protein. This is called post translational modification and is carried out by specific enzymes post translationally modifying particular amino acids. This post translational modification is reversed by other enzymes. Especially in more complex organisms it is common for there to be very large networks of enzymes all post translationally modifying each other, switching each other on and off like transistors in a computer circuit. This is a large part of how representations are processed into evolutionarily sensible outputs and it applies to all examples of template dependent chemistry, including us.
Chemotaxis in Prokaryotic cells
The MCP receptors pass right through the bacterial membrane and binds chemicals through the part that is outside the cell (extracellular domain). This binding event changes the structure of the receptor, with this change in structure propagating through to the portion of the MCP protein on the inside of the cell’s membrane (intracellular domain). A protein called CheA binds the intercellular domain of the MCP. In receptors that detect chemicals beneficial to the bacteria CheA will bind to the MCP when it takes on the structure it has when nothing is bound. When bound to the MCP CheA has a structure that allows it to enzymaticly add phosphate to itself. This addition of the phosphate changes the structure of CheA again, allowing it to add phosphate to another protein called CheY which is free floating inside the bacteria. The MCP acts as a switch that when not bound to the chemical it is a receptor for constructively switches on CheA. Phosphorylation of CheY changes the structure of CheY making it enzymatically active meaning it gets switched on by CheA. CheY then adds phosphate to the rotor of the flagellum which due to structural changes reverses the direction of the rotor resulting in the tumbling of the bacteria. This effectively means at lower concentrations of the beneficial chemical, the more the MCP will be switched off. The more the MCP is switched off, the more CheA will be switched on. The more the CheA is switched on the more it will switch on CheY. The more CheY is switched on the more likely the flagellum will reverse and the bacteria will turn. The phosphate is removed from CheY by a protein called CheZ which means consent phosphorylation of CheY is required to maintain a high chance of turning.
When a beneficial chemical binding MCP receptor, its structure changes and prevents CheA from adding phosphate to itself, which means CheA does not phosphorylate CheY. With CheZ constantly dephosphorylating CheY, CheY becomes less phosphorylated which means it is less likely to phosphorylate the flagellum rota. This means that the flagellum is less likely to reverse its direction and randomize the bacteria’s direction when it is moving towards higher concentrations of beneficial chemicals.
Its gets complex
This is of course a simplified version of a relatively simple signaling pathway. There are other signaling proteins involved in adding and removing phosphate. Another feature I haven’t mentioned is that activation of the MCP receptor as well as having its effect on rota reversals, results in itself becoming repeatedly methylated. Methylation changes the structure of the MCP in a way that results in a requirement for higher concentrations of the chemical it binds for it to be activated. The benefit of this clever little mechanism is that bacteria will be able to swim up the concentration gradients over a wide range of concentrations of the chemical. The bacteria is effectively adjusting the level of sensitivity of the system to make it appropriate for the concentration of chemicals it is swimming in.
Of course a single bacteria will have multiple different versions of the MCP that binds different chemicals and either switch on or of CheA when the chemical it binds increases in concentration. This in effect allows the bacteria to detect multiple chemicals that are good for it, multiple chemicals that are bad for it and with each of them affecting rota phosphorylation and bacteria direction randomization in relatively complex ways. In this way the bacteria is making a value judgment based on the processing of many inputs. This is mechanistically at the rute of the reason bacteria for which oxygen is harmful swim away from it and for those that it is helpful swim towards it. Bacterial receptors, in addition to detecting chemicals, can also detect light, pH, temperature and salinity.
The whole process is determined by the exact structure of the proteins present, with that structure being determined by the order of nucleotides in the template and post translational modifications. Although this is a single physical contiguous set of levels and rods as processes information for the centrifugal governor, it still contains physical encoded processing information from which emerges set points that controls the activity of an effecter that allows for self regulation.
The order of nucleotides in the template is of course a product of evolution. Bacteria who had signaling proteins became best able to calibrate their direction movement to what is most likely to result in replication is what will become prevalent. All of this of course explains why bacteria clearly display what Schopenhauer called the will to life.
With your “If folk are uncomfortable with meaning being constructed, let 'em be” you are clearly arguing that I shouldn’t be highlighting meaning as being constructed. I should “let 'em be”. It very much seems like you are arguing for me to maintain the discussed conspiracy against the human race.
I think this is a great and very profound comment. I think that this is a very reasonable stance. In fact, I think I probably agree with you. After all the reason i don’t have this conversation with the people I love is because i love them and so i “let them be” and let there fundamental realist beliefs get them “through the night”.
Am I being an asshole posting things here that I think would emotionally disturbed my loved ones? I think the answer to this has to be a big fat yes. I would however suggest that those of a sensitive disposition shouldn’t be reading posts with this title in a philosophy form.
Even though you total correct is worth pointing out that by arguing what you are arguing you are proving my point for me. Just saying.
It is part of a discussion chapter, there relay isn’t any actual science or “scientism” in it. The science is else where in the book as I explained in the OP. You can get a tast for how poppy the science is from some of the excerpts I quoted to #Wayfarer up a little in the thread. Its a big fat chunk of science, you can’t miss it.
The chapter argues that for reasons of psychological comfort humanity isn’t collectively very honsit with its self about how much science favers emergent relativism and by extension existential nihilism. It gives three examples that differ in charater of well know science communicates taking part in the conspiracy in different ways, Dawkins, Pinker and Carrol. Maybe I will revise the chapter and add another example quoting the time somebody said in the philosophy forum “If folk are uncomfortable with meaning being constructed, let 'em be” in respond to a post entitled “the conspiracy against the human race”. Dude, you are making it in my book, congratulations.
I am sorry, I didn’t realize every post on this here philosophy forum was meant to be solving a specific problem in the world. I have some ideas about how we could make Xenotransplants more tolrogenic if you want to hear about that?
I think it is obvious you have beef with what I am saying, you clearly don’t ask everybody who wants to talk philosophy what they think is the problem? I think it is obvious that the reason you have beef with what I am saying is because you think I should “let 'em be”, which as I say, is probably fair enough.
Best wishes and thank you #Banno for your very cool post.
No, I am literal typing in “what is the definition of a machine” into google and then taking the first definition that comes up.
To say “You’re definining the terms to suit your argument.” when this is literally what is you lying to yourself about what is happening.
Go and type “what is the definition of a machine” into google right now and tell me what comes up?
You on the other hand, like the anthers of the blind spot seem to be “defining the terms to suit your argument”. there is nothing in any definition of a machine that says that a machine isn’t a machine if it “maintain themselves against entropic degradation”.
Also, it wouldn’t even be a very good definition of a machine as A Von Neumann probe that maintained its self against entropic degradation would still be a machine.
Dude, I take considerable effort to expose myself to a wide variety of philosophical view. I enjoyed reading the blind spot and I think it asked some good questions and even levied some valid criticisms. As i think what i previously posted makes extremely clear however I think that there argument against living organisms being machines relies them in them very deliberately and rather crudely altering the definition of machine from what the definition actual is to something that is convenient for the point they are making. Just like you. I am guessing you have read it.
Again, the point you keep on avoiding is that you can call humans what you like, we are from top to bottom fully, 100% mechanistic. We reproduce mechanistically, with heal mechanistically, with maintain self against entropy mechanistically. How about addressing this point
. Happy we agree. Evidently not everybody does though.