Materialism

[altonhare]

Free will: The ability to choose between two or more options.
If people have ever chosen anything then free will “exists” by definition. So have you ever chosen something?

All you've done is name a behavior. You just said "I chose to post this" and defined free will as "saying I chose to do this". You haven't actually learned anything from this. To actually probe deeply (and learn something) you have to define the word "chose". If you just define it as "what I do that I call choose" you're just chasing your tail.

If I hold a gun to your head in order to make you change your mind, have you exercised your free will?

yes, i have. The free in "free will" can confuse, but it has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is when you are free to choose without the threat of violence. If you go with the definition that i gave earlier, then i have free will whenever i can choose more than one option.
In a more general sense, I think you can argue that, one does not need to exercise free will continually, to have free will. If one has the capability of choice, then one has free will. Hmmm maybe i should have included that in my definition.

Violence has nothing to do with this. According to "free will" the person with a gun to their head can choose to either do what you say (not risk death) or oppose you (risk death).

yes, Animals can't understand concepts, only humans can do that.

That's awfully specio-centric of you. I'd even argue that there is no such thing as a living entity that cannot understand concepts. I mean, what life-form can get by without understanding up, down, hunger, etc.?

I think that you are in the minority with that one. The subject of free will has exercised the world's greatest minds for several thousand years (at least).
A slighly more sophisticated definition than yours:

I think wiki does a decent job.

I think this boils down to a person responding to the following hypothetical situation:

Let's assume we could "build a human" from scratch and subject it to a specific, perfectly controlled environment. At the end of a specified interval we ask it a simple question such as "Would you like to leave the room?" We record the answer and repeat this, over and over and over and over...

The question is, will we get the same answer to the question every time? A determinist might, without much thought, simply state "yes". A non-determinist might, without much thought, simply state "no". An individual who thinks a moment will quickly realize that this situation is not actually realizable. We cannot rewind back and perform the experiment again identically, but instead must perform them serially. If we perform them in parallel it is also impossible to subject them to the same environment because they would have to occupy the exact same location. The individual raises this objection. Now the scenario is that we do this experiment (either in series or parallel) and get the actual data, something like 1500 yes and 10 no, or maybe 755 yes and 755 no, or maybe 1510 yes and 0 no. If it's not the latter, the crucial question becomes,"How do YOU explain the difference?" The determinist (and scientist) explains it as minor differences in the environments each test subject was subjected to which were not accounted for, i.e. s/he explains it in terms of physical causal phenomena that escaped our notice. The non-determinist (and non-scientist) explains it as "free will", stating that the minor fluctuations the determinist refers to aren't enough to cause such a large difference, and that the difference would still be there *if* all the situations were identical.

The reason I call them scientist vs. non-scientist is because the former will immediately look for specific causes to explain the different results. The latter will not. If the latter does look for specific causes for the difference, then s/he is saying that there was a specific cause outside free will, and is trying to explain the difference (what scientists do).

This is just a more complicated and unscientific definition. You can’t use that definition consistently.

Your definition does not result in any meaningful conclusion. Free will (i.e. choice) = A single, specific state A results in more than one other state, i.e. a cause can have more than one effect and an effect can have more than one cause. We can use this definition consistently. Now when we perform an experiment where we attempt to set up state "A" to get expected result "X", then if we don't get the result "X" we can attribute it to free will instead of looking for a physical causal explanation.

I know a lot of great minds don’t believe in free will, but that is irrelevant. Free will exists by definition.

Who cares if you can say the words "I chose to do this" and then call it free will? That doesn't tell us anything.

Yeah. Animals can’t understand concepts. They still feel emotions, but they don’t understand intellectual concepts.

This assertion is ludicrous. Although animals have not demonstrated what humans think of as "intelligence" in every area and to the extent that humans have, they have demonstrated AN ability in almost every conceivable area. It is arguable that many "lesser life forms" are in fact a good deal better than humans at various activities involving conceptualization.

Humans are just experts at abstract conceptualization, i.e. pursuing thought purely for thought's sake with no concrete referent. Even that, there's not really any proof that other animals don't do it, we just assume they would have used this kind of abstract thinking to do things like build stuff that we did.

That is correct. But even if there was such an exception...that doesn't mean that gorillas, in general, understand concepts. Even if we said that all monkeys, gourillas and dolphins understood concepts, there would still be alot of animals that didn't. And bacteria (which is alive) wouldn't understand concepts either.

In your view, nin, I think you need not show why animals "understand concepts". I think you need to show that humans do .

"The issue is not whether machines think, but whether men do"

-B.F. Skinner

Is certainly an applicable quote for you, replacing "machines" with "animals".

[altonhare]

As for "determinant" or "non-determinant", Alton, you must understand that I do not equate determinism with causality.
In fact, I believe that a "designer" model is a better fundamental solution for causality than a materialistic model. You don't understand "how" I can do science without being a materialist, but it is quite simple, enlightening, and enriching, I assure you.

You do not equate determinism with causality. Okay. Can you answer the hypothetical scenario I posed, and define determinism and free will?

What some "see" vs what others "see" is exactly the point of my signature line. However, I invite you to show any random alteration that has resulted in increased information, functionality or viability of an organism.

I don't have to present you with a bona fide case of a "random" event that resulted in increased viability. All I ask is, why not? Why can't stray radiation or whatever mutate a gene and result in increased viability? Is there a rule or an entity guarding the DNA, deflecting any potentially beneficial external influences? Did a Designer build this in?

Is your Designer an anthropomorphic entity or a concept?

[webolife]

I don't have to present you with a bona fide case of a "random" event that resulted in increased viability. All I ask is, why not? Why can't stray radiation or whatever mutate a gene and result in increased viability? Is there a rule or an entity guarding the DNA, deflecting any potentially beneficial external influences? Did a Designer build this in?

Why can't... a unicorn spring from a daisy and then turn and devour the daisy? Or why can't a tiny meteorite from space zip through a balloonist's basket, knocking out several bits of trim, thereby lightening his balloon to the point that he is able to clear a tall power pole that he was about to crash into? Actually, the materialist deterministist's answer to the question of "random" events producing viable functions/structures is that this happened systematically, consecutively, and cumulatively billions of times, producing analogous, convergent, divergent , parallel, and/or independent structures/functions/lifeforms we see in the biodiverse ecosystems of the earth. This, despite the fact that, like you, they cannot show even a single instance of this [random mutation resulting in increased viability] happening in order to verify their premise. Genetic recombination, DNA drift, or viral enhancement don't qualify as "random" alterations since they require the fundamental operating system to be already in place and functional. If you disagree with that assertion, then you must still explain how any significant level of phylogeny can result from this process. Having millions of theoretical years at your disposal does not make it any more feasible for your pet chimp to type Shakespeare's complete works, let alone a single line of Hamlet's soliloquy. "To be or not to be, that is the question." By the way, try randomly altering even a single jot of that sentence to make it more "viable" or functional. Be sure, if you do come up with a better quip, to prove that no purpose was involved, either in the original "design" of the sentence, or in your resulting "improvement".
Whether or not you can stomach the possibility of "intelligent design" is perhaps an issue here... however this is the "Materialism" thread, so show me (with some evidence to back it up) a deterministic/materialistic/causal mechanism for your "why not?"

[altonhare]

Why can't... a unicorn spring from a daisy and then turn and devour the daisy? Or why can't a tiny meteorite from space zip through a balloonist's basket, knocking out several bits of trim, thereby lightening his balloon to the point that he is able to clear a tall power pole that he was about to crash into?

If you can present a unicorn and a daisy and explain how the unicorn could "spring from" the daisy, I see no problem here.

I also see no reason a meteorite cannot do what you described.

What matters is not how silly the explanation sounds to your ears, but whether it can be illustrated in a rational causal (non contradictory) manner.

Actually, the materialist deterministist's answer to the question of "random" events producing viable functions/structures is that this happened systematically, consecutively, and cumulatively billions of times, producing analogous, convergent, divergent , parallel, and/or independent structures/functions/lifeforms we see in the biodiverse ecosystems of the earth. This, despite the fact that, like you, they cannot show even a single instance of this [random mutation resulting in increased viability] happening in order to verify their premise.

I can't help but chuckle a little at these two sentences side by side. You first state unequivocally that the determinist's viewpoint is a series of systematic/consecutive/cumulative (by all this I assume you simply mean "causal") events producing what we observe as life. Then you complain that they cannot show a single instance of "random mutation" causing what we observe as life!

Not really fair is it? Any mechanism the determinist proposes is, by definition, nonrandom

Genetic recombination, DNA drift, or viral enhancement don't qualify as "random" alterations since they require the fundamental operating system to be already in place and functional.

As far as a determinist is concerned, there is no such thing as a "random" event. So you've asked the determinist for something which s/he can, by definition, not produce.

You've placed the determinist in an artificial catch-22 Web.

"To be or not to be, that is the question." By the way, try randomly altering even a single jot of that sentence to make it more "viable" or functional.

To be or fot to be, that is the question.
To bp or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the quention.
So be or not to be, that is the question.
To be or not to bc, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the auestion.
To be or ntt to be, that is the question.
To be, or got to be, that is the question.

I'm not sure if what I did qualifies as "random" for you. I made a grid of numbers 1-28 (one for each letter in the sentence). Then I made a grid of the 26 letters in the alphabet. Then I flipped a coin over the first grid and whatever number it fell on, that's the letter I would modify. Then I flipped it over the grid of letters in the alphabet, whichever letter it landed on is the one I used to replace.

The last sentence represents, at least, a difference in meaning. Whether you consider it an increase in "viability" or "functionality" is up to you. One could interpret it as saying "To exist, or to come to exist, that is the question". Or "To exist, or to need to exist, that is the question" i.e. do we simply exist on our own or is there some external influence compelling us. I definitely view these as an upgrade, since the question of "to exist or not to exist" is kinda silly, I certainly choose existence.

You object that it's not "random enough"? I should have included symbols that were not letters? This may be the DNA equivalent of letting there be atoms other than C, O, P, and N "in the mix" i.e. there are things to "randomly select" that won't directly contribute to the end product. Fortunately there are a "very" finite number of atoms, unlike the countless number of symbols I can think up. Additionally atoms have the good fortune of combining in specific ways by their very nature! Again unlike my coin-flip chosen letters, which I let combine any ol' way, these atoms are observed to generally group together in specific ways and not in others.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

Do you deny the existence of humans, atoms, grass, trees, etc. which comprise the entity "universe"?

No, nor do I deny the existence of my liver, blood, cells etc. I view
us as part of this thing called Universe rather than us being merely in it as I am 'in' the UK.

You wrote:

Also, I like to differentiate between the anthropomorphic creator entity by using a lowercase "c" and the shapeless Creator concept using an uppercase "C".

Personally I would do it the other way around, using Creator for the anthropomorphic (although the big C doesn't actualy have to be anthropomorphic as such).

The passage from the Rig was provided to give an example of how the more intelligent (and intelligible) ancients approached this problem. They realised that one could only back-peddle so far back in the search for a first cause or prime mover. Or, put another way, logic will only
take you so far, only reason will get you further. Aristotle in Metaphysics and (Plato's) Timaeus, e.g., address this but in a rather more long-winded manner.

THEN was not non-existent nor existent

To me this just states there was a third condition neither non-existent nor existent as we conceive of these terms. (This is also consistent with the Law of Three).

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Your understanding of this sounds okay to me but I would add that shape
and location are only relevant/applicable in our 3D perception of the Universe. In other words shape and location mean nothing to the Universe itself.

You wrote:

However it states it's "breathed by its own nature" i.e. it is entirely self-sufficient. I'll concede the "location" argument for the moment and go with it.

If there is nothing other than the Universe then it must be self-sufficient otherwise how would it be sustained? Again this is covered by various ancient writings. It does not need location as there is nowhere else, or no other possible location if the Universe is all there is.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

You wrote:

Why is all "indiscriminated chaos"? Was there no causality, no identity?

I think you are using 'chaos' in the modern sense, i.e. dis-ordered. In the original Greek meaning, and I know the Rig is Indian, Kaos meant un-ordered and Kosmos meant ordered. This is confirmed by the use of the word 'indiscriminated', i.e. unsorted.
Note the capitalised 'All'. This All is the Universe. The part of the Rig I took the passage from is describing this All/Universe becoming aware of itself. The darkness is the aether. The self-awareness is the causality, (or the seeking/achieving of self-awareness is). Of what use is
identity when there is only the Universe? Identity is only required when there is self and other, or in your terms A and B.

You wrote:

Everything that existed was void (nothing) and formless (shapeless)?

Not 'nothing' in the sense I think you are using it. I would think of it as a space where no thing (any thing) has yet been formed. Think of it as a silent auditorium before the music begins. The potential is all there but no part of that potential has yet been realised. There is no physical universe at this point, the Universe is still 'thinking' things through, still weighing up its options.. (See below).

I appreciate the reference but I can't help but see myriad self-contradictions, unless you can translate it for the better.

Hope my interpretation helped.

P.S. 'myriad' in ancient terms is 10,000 (10^4). In the I Ching the physical world and its denizens are called the 'myriad creatures' or 'the ten-thousand things'.

[altonhare]

Hey GC,

No, nor do I deny the existence of my liver, blood, cells etc. I view
us as part of this thing called Universe rather than us being merely in it as I am 'in' the UK.

but also

What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

How do these go together?

To me this just states there was a third condition neither non-existent nor existent as we conceive of these terms. (This is also consistent with the Law of Three).

And exactly how do we define and communicate that which we cannot conceive of? For the purposes of science the words used in an explanation must be defined and used consistently throughout the explanation. That's what science is, but this is a moot point because you don't care for science and aren't one. I just want you to understand why, as a scientist, this is unacceptable.

Your understanding of this sounds okay to me but I would add that shape
and location are only relevant/applicable in our 3D perception of the Universe. In other words shape and location mean nothing to the Universe itself.

These are the definitions for the purposes of science, because they can be used consistently. Therefore that which exists has shape and location or can be illustrated/demonstrated via shapes with location.

If there is nothing other than the Universe then it must be self-sufficient otherwise how would it be sustained? Again this is covered by various ancient writings. It does not need location as there is nowhere else, or no other possible location if the Universe is all there is.

Oh we mis-communicated here, I was conceding the "location" criteria because I agree with the statement of the self-sufficiency of a lone entity, not in spite of it. You're absolutely right here.

Of what use is
identity when there is only the Universe?

But the universe has constituents, each with an identity.

Not 'nothing' in the sense I think you are using it. I would think of it as a space where no thing (any thing) has yet been formed. Think of it as a silent auditorium before the music begins. The potential is all there but no part of that potential has yet been realised. There is no physical universe at this point, the Universe is still 'thinking' things through, still weighing up its options.. (See below).

It seems clear that you're talking about an entity made of parts. Does it 'create' the universe from 'nothing' then?

Hope my interpretation helped.

P.S. 'myriad' in ancient terms is 10,000 (10^4). In the I Ching the physical world and its denizens are called the 'myriad creatures' or 'the ten-thousand things'.

Thanks!

[niin]

Free will: The ability to choose between two or more options.
If people have ever chosen anything then free will “exists” by definition. So have you ever chosen something?

All you've done is name a behavior. You just said "I chose to post this" and defined free will as "saying I chose to do this". You haven't actually learned anything from this. To actually probe deeply (and learn something) you have to define the word "chose". If you just define it as "what I do that I call choose" you're just chasing your tail.

No, I really did chose to post it. I had a choice.
To choose: Controlling an action.
To have a choice: to have control of 2 or more possible actions.
A choice: at least one action is possible.
Have I now probed deeply?

Violence has nothing to do with this. According to "free will" the person with a gun to their head can choose to either do what you say (not risk death) or oppose you (risk death).

Violence has nothing to do with what? My point was that the threat of violence didn’t affect my capacity for choice.

yes, Animals can't understand concepts, only humans can do that.

That's awfully specio-centric of you. I'd even argue that there is no such thing as a living entity that cannot understand concepts. I mean, what life-form can get by without understanding up, down, hunger, etc.?

I am perfectly willing to change my mind about this. You only need to provide me with some evidence for animals having an understanding of concepts.
Knowing where “up” is, is not the same as understanding the concept of “up”.

Yeah. Animals can’t understand concepts. They still feel emotions, but they don’t understand intellectual concepts.

This assertion is ludicrous. Although animals have not demonstrated what humans think of as "intelligence" in every area and to the extent that humans have, they have demonstrated AN ability in almost every conceivable area. It is arguable that many "lesser life forms" are in fact a good deal better than humans at various activities involving conceptualization.

Like what? Which animal activities involve using concepts?

In your view, nin, I think you need not show why animals "understand concepts". I think you need to show that humans do .

You do realize that you are included in the category “humans”. Right? :p

Your definition does not result in any meaningful conclusion.

Making definitions is not about coming to conclusion. We make definition as part of the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. Conclusion only comes after we have a hypothesis and a theory. It’s still too early for conclusions. Even if we were at that stage and we didn’t get any “meaningful conclusions”, it would still be irrelevant. Conclusion shouldn’t effect definition. If they did, it wouldn’t be science.

[altonhare]

No, I really did chose to post it. I had a choice.
To choose: Controlling an action.
To have a choice: to have control of 2 or more possible actions.
A choice: at least one action is possible.
Have I now probed deeply?

Making definitions is not about coming to conclusion. We make definition as part of the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. Conclusion only comes after we have a hypothesis and a theory. It’s still too early for conclusions. Even if we were at that stage and we didn’t get any “meaningful conclusions”, it would still be irrelevant. Conclusion shouldn’t effect definition. If they did, it wouldn’t be science.

We're not questioning whether you can define something as free will and then call it free will or not. Do you have an actual hypothesis, theory, and conclusion to offer?

How about answer the scenario I described?

You do realize that you are included in the category “humans”. Right? :p

Of course. I'm asking you to illustrate to me that humans "understand concepts". Of course if you believe only humans are capable of this you must know exactly why you think so.

Like what? Which animal activities involve using concepts?

Let's start with humans. Tell me which human activities actively use concepts.

I am perfectly willing to change my mind about this. You only need to provide me with some evidence for animals having an understanding of concepts.
Knowing where “up” is, is not the same as understanding the concept of “up”.

First give evidence of humans understanding concepts.

[niin]

We're not questioning whether you can define something as free will and then call it free will or not. Do you have an actual hypothesis, theory, and conclusion to offer?

Well free will is a hypothesis. I don’t really feel like sharing any theories and conclusions right now. I’m just trying to help you.

How about answer the scenario I described?

I don’t know if you would get the same result every time. I don’t really see why it would matter what result you got. The only thing that matters to me is if you can make a choice. It doesn’t matter what an outcome of an experiment is. An experiment is for proving theories and free will is not a theory, it’s a hypothesis and can’t be disproven.

Of course. I'm asking you to illustrate to me that humans "understand concepts". Of course if you believe only humans are capable of this you must know exactly why you think so.

You only need to think about what you know yourself. But an example could be a forest. I think most humans understand that concept. Then there is time, death and taxes, which give people a little more trouble. God is also a concept. Things like that. Some people understand concepts better than others. I presume that you understand concepts yourself. Right? My evidence is you.

Let's start with humans. Tell me which human activities actively use concepts.

I would rather start with animals. So please answer my question. I would really like to know if I have made a mistake. I would hate to be saying something that wasn’t true.

[Plasmatic]

Ahhh, sooo much to reply to... Ive been rather focused on less philosophical venues[coaching my nephew through his first wrestling season,the reclamation of the 8-pack of my youth ] So ill take a little at a time.
Since Alton and I discuss this on the phone and alot of what we discuss is already in the thread ill start with

Web:

1. Determinism is a key component of materialism.
2. "Determinism" is largely about philosophy, and not the only view of "causality".
3. Both philosophy and science require careful definitions, but...
4. There is a difference between philosophy and science.
5. Science is about recognizing and explaining patterns of reality we observe in the universe.
6. It is possible to be "scientific" without agreeing on the rhetoric of determinism.
7. It is possible to do science without being a materialist, by my previous definition...
8. It is probably not possible to do science apart from a philosophy.

[3.a] Indeed because they both[as with every topic] involve concepts which rest upon the axioms which...

[4.a] Is the provence of the science of Philosophy which ..

[5.a] differs from the other sciences because it deals with the topics that must be covered to even discuss the rest of the specific observations involved in the other sciences.

[6.a] Indeed if "determinism" is not a valid conceptual footing..

[7.a] Agreed based on your definition [though I think you are referring to more than is included in your definition when you refer to "materialism']

[8.a] Completely impossible! Glad you get this.

And a couple of questions, looking for some succinct replies :
How does this discussion relate to:
1. the EU, eg. its place in the history of science?
2. Objectivism? (eg. Is determinism an essential component of Oism?)
3. Spirituality? (this subtopic for some of my friends who have not put in their two cents yet!)

[1.a] It is unclear particularly since there is no clear statement regarding this and will not be unless the Team reach an agreement upon the particular topic and express it explicitly. [which would be interesting to say the least ]

[2.a] I answered this in the first part of the thread. The answer is NO.

[3.a] "Spirituality" as refers to its conceptual origin and framework boils down to acausal reification as far as Im concerned. Now Oist do use the word "spiritual" to refer to the activity of consciousness without the acausal baggage and assumptions. I think this is a silly recycling of words apart from their origin.[ GC I know you want to discuss this, and I also know some of the originators of the evidence proving this point are very unhappy to see the evidence integrated to its logical conclusions.....Forgive me if I dont derail the thread with examples GC ]

Be back when time permits!

[altonhare]

You only need to think about what you know yourself. But an example could be a forest. I think most humans understand that concept. Then there is time, death and taxes, which give people a little more trouble. God is also a concept. Things like that. Some people understand concepts better than others. I presume that you understand concepts yourself. Right? My evidence is you.

YOU tell ME why YOU think humans understand concepts. Then we'll extend that reasoning to animals.

[niin]

YOU tell ME why YOU think humans understand concepts. Then we'll extend that reasoning to animals.

In my life i have talked with people that have shown that they understand concepts by correctly talking about them.
Now, please answer my question.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
Grey Cloud wrote:

No, nor do I deny the existence of my liver, blood, cells etc. I view us as part of this thing called Universe rather than us being merely in it as I am 'in' the UK.
What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

You asked how do these two go together. Just as my organs etc are part of me, I view me, the planet, the stars etc as parts of the Universe. Is that what you meant or have I missed the point?

You asked:

And exactly how do we define and communicate that which we cannot conceive of?

Short answer is that we don't or can't. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Whether this is done by saying that the Universe has always existed or that a singularity did a Big Bang or that an eternal god started the ball rolling. The Greeks deal with this one way and the
Indians deal with it another. Notice the last part of the Rig passage:

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Any problems which science has with this are caused by scientists. Science restricts itself as to what it can or will investigate and also by using a strict methodology. There are several billion people on this planet each with a unique perspective/perception yet science would have
us all think and operate in one very narrow way. Everything in the Universe moves, evolves, changes etc yet science would lock us into one way of thinking. I prefer a more eclectic approach and stick my nose into all sorts of subjects.

The shape of the Universe is of no great interest to me as I don't see how it affects anything. The Greeks for example, viewed it as spherical as this fitted in with their views on harmony and proportion etc. I'm not sure what shape the Indians viewed it.

You wrote:

But the universe has constituents, each with an identity.

Agreed, just as my body has constituents each with an identity, shape and location.

It seems clear that you're talking about an entity made of parts. Does it 'create' the universe from 'nothing' then?

Yes it is an entity of parts but they are parts of a whole, they are not (totally) independent parts. It creates them out of itself not out of nothing. 'Creates' is a somewhat misleading word and carries lots of religious baggage, 'constructs' would be a better word in my opinion. In my previous post I used the analogy of a silent auditorium. Consider what happens once the music begins: it is still the same air it is just that the air is now vibrating at various frequencies.
On another thread you are having a debate with JL about vibration. I may be misrepresenting your views here but you appear to be saying that vibration is a property of a thing or is something a thing does. The way I view it is that the vibration is the thing. No vibration equals silence, stillness, darkness depending on which analogy one uses. (Let there be light, in the beginning was the Word, Aum, etc (and the Maya, the Egyptians and others share this view)). It's a cart and horse thing.
Ancient writings such as the Rig or the Iliad are written in verse. They have a certain (deliberate) number of lines; same with the total number of syllables; same with the number of syllables per line. All this is done to produce a certain vibration. One reads such works with an open mind not a focused brain.

[flyingcloud]

I speak loosely for the sake of avoiding excessive verbage. I don't "know" DNA perpetuates itself, this is an explanation of an observation. Specifically I observe that a collection of molecules I term "DNA" are found within entities I identify as "living".

dead things have DNA too

[altonhare]

I speak loosely for the sake of avoiding excessive verbage. I don't "know" DNA perpetuates itself, this is an explanation of an observation. Specifically I observe that a collection of molecules I term "DNA" are found within entities I identify as "living".

dead things have DNA too

Granted, but to be "dead" an entity must have once been "alive".