WHAT IS LIFE?
And does Science have it right?
The prevailing belief within the scientific community is that life arises out of matter. There is zero evidence to support this presumption so therefore, anyone who asserts this claim to be an unqualified truth, without entertaining competing or alternative theories, is engaging in pseudoscience. The belief that life arises out of matter has no scientific basis. Be sure to check out more in this video.
What is life?
Life, itself, is one of the many forces in the universe that science is still unable to explain. Science can't explain what gravity is, nor can it explain what electricity and magnetism are. Since light is electromagnetic, science still can't explain what light is either. Life is also a force in nature that is a mystery to science and remains that way to this day.
However, unlike any of these other forces, life is the only phenomena that modern science has an intrinsic predisposition regarding what it is and what it is not. Because of a theory called scientific materialism, life is hypothesized to have spontaneously arisen from chemical reactions and electrical impulses. But the salient question is this, is that theory correct? By definition, a true scientist goes about his research without prejudice [def. preconceived opinions, beliefs or judgment] but scientific materialism is exactly that, a preconceived opinion or assumption.
.
More to the point, materialism automatically disqualifies any other alternative explanations for life that postulate a metaphysical phenomena. Most people accept that human beings are spiritual beings, even though science has no explanation for what spirit is. (perhaps we could extend the list of forces in nature we are unable to explain to include a spiritual force).
(Actual untouched photo of Swami Purnachaitanya)
There are two major scientific concerns here. First, can we provide tests to vet materialism and see if it is flawed and secondly and more importantly, given that it could be shown scientifically to be an obsolete paradigm, can science act as an institution to change course? Materialism is a two hundred year old paradigm that is deeply entrenched within the scientific community so moving beyond it will no doubt bring a significant and daunting challenge.
The question is this; hypothetically, what if all biological organisms are spiritual beings? In other words, might we say that a life force is a spiritual force? This would mean that the current paradigm that the scientific community uses to understand anything biological not only is fundamentally incorrect, but that it inherently disqualifies the one model for life that is actually the correct model. Is it not unscientific to automatically rule out possible explanations for phenomena prior to even beginning an investigation? Isn't that a form of intellectual or philosophical prejudice? Is there a possible conflict of interest between some scientists' beliefs and a search for the truth?
The question is this; hypothetically, what if all biological organisms are spiritual beings? In other words, might we say that a life force is a spiritual force? This would mean that the current paradigm that the scientific community uses to understand anything biological not only is fundamentally incorrect, but that it inherently disqualifies the one model for life that is actually the correct model. Is it not unscientific to automatically rule out possible explanations for phenomena prior to even beginning an investigation? Isn't that a form of intellectual or philosophical prejudice? Is there a possible conflict of interest between some scientists' beliefs and a search for the truth?
All of our schools, governmental policies, psychological/sociological/psychiatric fields, scientific & academic institutions, medical & health fields, pharmaceutical research and so many other aspects of our lives are based on scientific materialism. Is it any wonder that society is inherently materialistic? No. These are all one in the same thing.
Luckily, we have the opportunity to test materialism to see if it's the correct model for understanding life. Because we can't isolate "life" from matter, creating testable predictions is problematic so from the standpoint of life, we can't test materialism for falseness.
However, the same model that says that life arises from matter also includes the conjecture that consciousness also arises from matter so if we can falsify that conjecture, we can falsify materialism and begin to look at alternative models for biology that incorporate the idea of a vital, animating life force energy that is invisible and immeasurable (aka vitalism).
For the first two hundred years of the modern science era, this was the prevailing paradigm for nature and vitalism, as it was called, has never been disproven. By the 1840's, as a result of the philosophical "Age of Reason", the modern scientific era morphed into what can be referred to as Post Modern Science, which carried with it both scientific materialism as well as adopting Hypothetic-Deductivism as the new Philosophy of Science (PoS). This New PoS is an ideological framework used to qualify or disqualify what legitimate science was (was well as qualify or disqualify what a legitimate scientist was).
In this transition, vitalism simply fell out of favor in lieu of materialism but what if vitalism is the correct model? We now have the ability to attempt to falsify materialism and open the door for an alternative model for biology and usher in a whole new era of scientific advancements.
The Journal Nature has on their manuscript submission page various descriptions of the different types and categories of papers that they accept. One of these categories is for hypotheses, for papers that are submitted to deal with foundational scientific hypotheses. This description was copied directlyi from the Nature website:
There simply can not be anything more fundamental and of more immense important than whether or not Scientific Materialism is the correct framework in science. To that end, I've authored a simple scientific manuscript (read the manuscript, The Nature of Consciousness, here) that formally submitted the hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain, along with nine testable predictions that should all be impossible if consciousness arises out of matter. The paper argues that basically consciousness has nothing or very little to do with neuroscience so what whom did Nature forward me paper to? This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., who is a neuroscientist who reviews papers for Nature. Doh!!!
Because the paper addresses the broad spectrum of all the various scientific disciplines, it was fairly basic as it was written for a wide audience within the community. But clearly, this Post Modern Scientific framework has had an immense impact on just about all facets of society for the past 200 years. For one thing, communism would have most likely never have happened if it weren't for Scientific Materialism. Post Modern Science is nothing short of a form of institutionalized atheism.
The following is a response I received from a reviewer of one of the journals I submitted the paper to and I wanted to respond to it in kind. The name of the person who wrote this is immaterial as I don't want to make this personal and so I've redacted the name of the publication as well as the name of a person on the journal's editorial board. I suspect probably any reviewer from any scientific journal could have written this so my response (which is titled What is Life?) is generic as well. There's obviously a lot at stake here so I urge you to take the time to read both my manuscript and my response to this note that I received.
"Your paper say nothing new or specific enough to be of interest to the journal’s reviewers, all of whom have devoted decades to studying the mind-body problem. Neither the materialists or the non-local theorists who review manuscripts for Psychology of Consciousness would find it worthwhile to read your manuscript or comment on it. Etzel Cardeña is on the journal’s editorial board, by the way. If you are seriously interested in the mind-body problem, then you should earn a Ph.D. under the mentorship of a consciousness scholar and should devote your career to studying the problem. I am sorry to be blunt, but your tendency to write off disagreeable theories as “pseudo-science” would strike scholars as a sign of ignorance and arrogance. My constructive advice to you is to earn your Ph.D. and devote your career to the study of consciousness, then look back at your manuscript for what it is: a sign of your early interest in the problem, but not a publishable manuscript."
Wow. He should have listened to Darwin. But then again, I'm not a theist.
Wow. He should have listened to Darwin. But then again, I'm not a theist.
Read my response to his diatribe in this new paper, entitled What Is Life. It's unscientific to ignore the evidence that suggests that it is most likely that life is metaphysical. It's no more an extraordinary claim to suggest that there is an intelligent being at the helm of the universe then it is to claim that somehow inert, unorganized and unintelligent chemicals combined in a way to manifest life. Even the most basic of cellular lifeforms are extremely intelligent in terms of their function and organizational principles. The notion that life miraculously and spontaneously arises out of matter is nothing more than conjecture. It's merely a belief. "Of Course such and such is true" is not a scientific expression.
It's time for a New Scientific Revolution. One that places consciousness as fundamental to existence. Be sure to check out more in this video presentation of many of these same arguments.
Warmly
Frank
Warmly
Frank
