Essay contest: “Do Life and Living Forms present a problem for materialism?”

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 28, 2015

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY

2015 Philosophy Essay Prize Competition

The Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press are pleased to announce the 2015 Philosophy Essay Prize. The winner of the Prize will receive £2,500 with his or her essay being published in Philosophy and identified as the essay prize winner.

The topic for the 2015 essay competition is:

‘Do Life and Living Forms present a problem for materialism?’

Old style vitalism, attributing an internal animating substance or force to living things gave way to the idea that life may yet be a property over and above physical and chemical ones. Subsequent to that it was widely thought that life is an organisational or functional feature of bodies instantiated by their physical properties. With ongoing debates about analogous issues relating to mind (especially consciousness and intentionality) still running, and renewed interest in anti-reductionist interpretations of emergence and of teleological description and explanation the question is posed: do life forms present a problem for materialism?

In assessing entries priority will be given to originality, clarity of expression, breadth of interest, and potential for advancing discussion.

All entries will be deemed to be submissions to Philosophy and more than one may be published. In exceptional circumstances the prize may be awarded jointly in which case the financial component will be divided, but the aim is to select a single prize-winner.

Entries should be prepared in line with standard Philosophy guidelines for submission.

They should be submitted electronically in Word, with PRIZE ESSAY in the subject heading, to assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org.

The closing date for receipt of entries is 1st October 2015.

Entries will be considered by a committee of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and the winner announced by the end 2015. The winning entry will be published in Philosophy in April 2016.

See also: Why origin of life is a difficult problem for naturalism (materialism)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

nightlight at 7, it is interesting to learn of the classical no-cloning correlate to quantum no-cloning: Yet, from your 'conserved classical information' no-cloning link itself it states that care must be taken to distinguish quantum from classical:
"Thus, in order to claim that no-cloning is a uniquely quantum result, some care is necessary in stating the theorem. One way of restricting the result to quantum mechanics is to restrict the states to pure states, where a pure state is defined to be one that is not a convex combination of other states. The classical pure states are pairwise orthogonal, but quantum pure states are not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem#No-cloning_in_a_classical_context
Moreover, no-cloning theorem and no-deleting theorem are both combined to develop the stronger version of conservation of quantum information:
*If it were possible to delete an unknown quantum state, then, using two pairs of EPR states, we could send signals faster than light. Thus, violation of the no-deleting theorem is inconsistent with the no-signalling condition. *The no-cloning and the no-deleting theorems point to the conservation of quantum information. *A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
As well there is the 'no hiding theorem'
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
As well there is the 'principle of unitarity' in quantum mechanics which holds that quantum information is never lost.
Information Conservation and the Unitarity of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: "In more technical terms, information conservation is related to the unitarity of quantum mechanics. In this article, I will explain what unitarity is and how it’s related to information conservation." http://youngsubyoon.com/QMunitarity.htm Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible? As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, "Beam me up, Scotty" one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014 Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation
Of related interest: quantum teleportation gets around no-cloning:
Two quantum properties teleported together for first time – Feb 27, 2015 Excerpt: To successfully teleport a quantum state, you must make a precise initial measurement of a system, transmit the measurement information to a receiving destination and then reconstruct a perfect copy of the original state. The "no-cloning" theorem of quantum mechanics dictates that it is impossible to make a perfect copy of a quantum particle. But researchers found a way around this via teleportation, which allows a flawless copy of a property of a particle to be made. This occurs thanks to what is ultimately a complete transfer (rather than an actual copy) of the property onto another particle such that the first particle loses all of the properties that are teleported. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/27/two-quantum-properties-teleported-together-for-first-time
Of note: but there is a price to pay in getting around the no-cloning theorem. 'Complete transfer' during teleportation destroys the photon in the process:
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
Moreover, classical information is found to be a subset of Quantum information by the following method:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
bornagain77_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Nightlight,
NL: “See also” suggests that the linked post about the scientific problem of origin of life somehow sheds light on the topic of the philosophical essay contest (from which they copied only a “convenient” excerpt, while providing no link to the original text).
Which may indeed be the case. So what? Obviously science can inform philosophy.
NL: Neither is bottle of ketchup “outside the realm of philosophy.”
Nor outside the scientific realm. So what? You don't have a point.
NL: I suspect though that you, just like the OP, had in mind the topic of that linked article about the present scientific problems with modeling the origin of life. That’s not a philosophical problem but scientific one which will eventually be resolved within science.
So you say. But I'm not inclined to take you seriously. Firstly this absolute division only exists in your mind; philosophy can be informed by science and certainly vice versa. Secondly there are profound philosophical arguments regarding life and materialism. They carry even more weight - IMO - than scientific arguments.Box_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

#13 Box What part of “see also” is unclear to you? "See also" suggests that the linked post about the scientific problem of origin of life somehow sheds light on the topic of the philosophical essay contest (from which they copied only a "convenient" excerpt, while providing no link to the original text). BTW the origin of life is (also) not outside the realm of philosophy. Neither is bottle of ketchup "outside the realm of philosophy." Everything that exists is "in the realm" of philosophical ontology. Or similarly, everything we type here is in the "realm of web communication" or "realm of html pages" etc. Such vacuous cliches carry no useful information. I suspect though that you, just like the OP, had in mind the topic of that linked article about the present scientific problems with modeling the origin of life. That's not a philosophical problem but scientific one which will eventually be resolved within science. Philosophy or philosophical contest heading the thread have nothing to do with the scientific problem in the linked article, except in the above trivial sense which is equally applicable to a bottle of ketchup.nightlight_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Nightlight,
NL: The post heading this thread conflates the two: "See also: Why origin of life is a difficult problem for naturalism (materialism)"
What part of "see also" is unclear to you? BTW the origin of life is (also) not outside the realm of philosophy.Box_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

#11 Box "They are different categories alright, but who is talking about science? You assume someone else is talking about science, but you are the only one. " The post heading this thread conflates the two: "Why origin of life is a difficult problem for naturalism (materialism) linking it to the earlier article about the difficulties of the present scientific theories for origin of life (following the usual 'god of gaps' theology of 'Seattle school of ID'/Meyerism). Note also that the head post doesn't provide a link to the actual statement of the contest (and the RIP site linked for generic submission guidelines has no such contest listed), so it's not clear what exact "problem" the contest organizers had in mind.nightlight_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

NightLight,
NL: That’s what I said, too. They’re different categories of knowledge and neither poses a problem to the other.
They are different categories alright, but who is talking about science? You assume someone else is talking about science, but you are the only one. Maybe you are under the assumption that life and life forms are somehow outside the philosophical realm?
NL: The materialist philosophy goes back to ancient Greeks (at least) and has continued since then, along with other ontologies, despite the fact that they all knew about existence of “Life Forms” all along. If there were a fundamental problem or contradiction between materialistic ontology and existence of “Life Forms”, a lot smarter folks than those pondering it above would have spotted it long ago and removed materialism as a coherent ontology.
They did, but a lot of not so smart folks kept bringing materialism up. It's fundamentally nonsense which cannot accommodate neither life nor life forms, but here we are .... even this forum is crowded by them.Box_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

#9 Box "How is that? Materialism doesn’t equal science, but is a philosophical position. " That's what I said, too. They're different categories of knowledge and neither poses a problem to the other. There is as much of a conflict between the two on the existence of 'Life Forms' as there is a collision risk between two cars one driving in Boston and the other in Paris. It's like arguing whether there is a problem for observation that 'this coat is red' because of the existence of observation that 'this coat is warm'. "It is a perfectly legitimate and extremely important philosophical question. The materialist philosophy goes back to ancient Greeks (at least) and has continued since then, along with other ontologies, despite the fact that they all knew about existence of "Life Forms" all along. If there were a fundamental problem or contradiction between materialistic ontology and existence of "Life Forms", a lot smarter folks than those pondering it above would have spotted it long ago and removed materialism as a coherent ontology. While I find panpsychism to be a much more coherent and economical ontology than materialism, the existence of "Life Forms" is not the problem of materialism. The real problem of materialism is how to integrate the existence of conscious experience into its philosophical system, coherently and economically. In that regard, materialism in any of its variants has to resort to clumsy, inelegant kludges such as dualism, emergentism or denialism of existence of conscious experience altogether.nightlight_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Nightlight #8, “Do Life and Living Forms present a problem for materialism?”
NL: Variety of ontological positions, including materialism, have existed at least since ancient Greeks, despite the fact that the existence of “Living Forms” was known to philosophers back then, too. Hence, the answer is no.
"Hence, the answer is no", IOW, according to you, anyone who comes up with a new kind of ontology and is aware of the existence of living forms, cannot go wrong by definition. Such a person cannot come up with some ontology that doesn't accommodate life? Your "hence" doesn't make much sense, now does it?
NL: The question itself betrays a naive confusion between philosophy and science.
How is that? Materialism doesn't equal science, but is a philosophical position. Your accusation is totally groundless.
NL: It’s as “insightful” as wondering whether the “existence of ketchup presents a problem for irrationality of number Pi.” You really need to inhale a lot of the ‘strong stuff’ before that kind of questions begin to appear deep.
You are not making sense at all. It is a perfectly legitimate and extremely important philosophical question.Box_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

“Do Life and Living Forms present a problem for materialism?” Variety of ontological positions, including materialism, have existed at least since ancient Greeks, despite the fact that the existence of "Living Forms" was known to philosophers back then, too. Hence, the answer is no. The question itself betrays a naive confusion between philosophy and science. It's as "insightful" as wondering whether the "existence of ketchup presents a problem for irrationality of number Pi." You really need to inhale a lot of the 'strong stuff' before that kind of questions begin to appear deep.nightlight_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

#2 @ba77 Classical information is conserved in that sense, too: Classical no cloning (more).nightlight_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Please allow me to nominate Denyse O'Leary, KairosFocus and VJTorley for the contest.sparc_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Interesting that the essay question asks "life" and not "consciousness". Is that because the answer to "consciousness" as a problem for materialism is pretty much a yes? Atheist Nagel and Theist Dembski have nailed that one. Fast forward a few years and the essay question will be "does carbon pose a problem to materialism."?ppolish_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

"The topic for the 2015 essay competition is: ‘Do Life and Living Forms present a problem for materialism?’" Will there be more "yes" essays or "no" essays? Who will win "yes" or "no"? If this was an essay contest in the Biology Dept the answer would be "no" and "no". Not so sure about the Philosophy Depr though. Toss up.ppolish_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

OT: Spock would be happy (if he had emotions)! Two quantum properties teleported together for first time - Feb 27, 2015 Excerpt: The values of two inherent properties of one photon – its spin and its orbital angular momentum – have been transferred via quantum teleportation onto another photon for the first time by physicists in China.,,, Even the simple photon has various properties such as frequency, momentum, spin and orbital angular momentum (OAM), which are inherently linked.,,, Teleporting more than one state simultaneously is essential to fully describe a quantum particle and achieving this would be a tentative step towards teleporting something larger than a quantum particle, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/27/two-quantum-properties-teleported-together-for-first-timebornagain77_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

In trying to answer Talbott's profound question,,,
"the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
,,,,In trying to answer that question, it is interesting to note that quantum information cannot be destroyed (i.e. quantum information is found to be ‘conserved’)
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence
Moreover, 'conserved' quantum information is found in DNA:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752
As well, this quantum information/entanglement is found to 'hold DNA together':
Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-dna-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-telepathic-abilities.html DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm
Thus, in answer to Talbott's question,,,
"the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
,in answer to that question, 'conserved' quantum information/entanglement provides a very viable candidate to properly answer Talbott's question. The follow up question that naturally arises is 'Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul?'. Stuart Hameroff claims, and I agree with him, that it does:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video https://vimeo.com/39982578
Verses and Music:
Acts 17:28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.' Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ROYAL TAILOR - HOLD ME TOGETHER = music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw
bornagain77_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

I know that Talbott should enter the contest: The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings Stephen L. Talbott: Home Page http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bornagain77_{February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply