-
3 Basic Dilemma's Faced By Humans
Assalamualaikum!
https://youtube.com/shorts/gk8cM6oMsFY?si=Z6gNj9LYelmcMW5v
In the video above, Ghamidi Saheb poses 3 questions:
1. What is the origin of matter?
2. How does life begin in matter?
3. How does consciousness arise in life?
The first and the third questions remain truly unanswered to date. As for the second question, if you look at the detailed video, Ghamidi Saheb says that how do mere nutrients and macromolecules that we consume become part of the factory that is then able to produce life, is still unknown. I don’t get why the second one is even a question!
We do know very well literally the whole pathway from how nutrients are broken down in GI tract, absorbed in blood, which then become part of systemic circulation and are supplied to reproductive organs (I guess he refered to them as ‘factory’), and then nutrients and oxygen are supplied to the diploid cells which take them up, consume them and replicate their DNA and cellular components, and then divide into haploid cells, which are then modified. Upon successful fusion of gametes, the genetic material combines and the embryo formation starts.
In the whole process, there is NO “non living matter-to-living matter” conversion. The life/cells are already there. They just take up the supply that they’re given because they need energy and raw materials to make organelles, DNA, and proteins.
And the molecules that were non living are simply incorporated into the cellular machinery.
So, how is the second question relevant?
-
7 Replies
-
3 Basic Dilemma's Faced By Humans
updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago
3 Members
·
7
Replies
-
The three questions you noted above relate to two approaches foundational in science i.e. reductionism and emergence.
“Emergence” is the concept that points out gaps in continuum of scientific knowledge. How matter emerges from energy (or nothingness, if you start from creation ‘ex nihilo’). In simpler words, properties of “emerging” objects/phenomenon cannot be explained based on properties of constituents.
Similarly, emergence of life from non-living matter; emergence of consciousness in living matter; and emergence of moral, and aesthetic perception in consciousness are biggest mysteries in science.
Reductionist approach of science should clearly lead to explanations, without gaps, from consciousness to life to matter to quantum particles/waves/fields to the “cause” that initiates it all and makes it work from “nothingness” to thinking and questioning minds.
-
“Origin” of life is a big unsettled question in science, contrary to common belief based on “Darwinism”.
Note: Darwinism is distinct from Darwin’s theory of evolution. “Darwinism” is a political approach not a part of science.
-
I don’t think you understood the second question.
How did dead earth produce living things like animals. That’s the question. If you know the answer then put life back into a dead animal and let it move on its own afterwards.
What you pointed out that now the dead earth did somehow produce living beings on its own, those living cells had a means to keep themselves alive and had means to keep energizing themselves and reproduce. That is never the focus of the second question, the focus is how did the domino effect even started if not by The Ever-Living One?
-
I think we are talking in different premises.
Ghamidi Saheb clearly talks about already growing organisms in their mother’s wombs (from molecules to fetus). If you go in reverse, it is the process I described above.
I don’t think he’s talking about how primitive life originated on earth the first time.
(And as for the diversity of life is concerned, modern theory of evolution pretty much tells it in detail).
-
The three questions aren’t even Ghamidi Sahab’s original, they have been asked many times before. Being:
1. Something out of nothing.2. Life out of dead.
3. Consciousness/Awareness out of no consciousness.Here is the context, can you point out where he clearly says ‘growing organism in their mother’s wombs’ part.
1:05 – 9:55
https://youtu.be/Ggv5FYXKAFw?t=70
-
-
I found the questions phrased by the host and Ghamidi sahb’s responses clean, clear, and accurate on where science stands, and how philosophy deals with it. And, of course his understanding of Quran is extremely methodical. They both used precise academic terminology where necessary. But Ghamidi sahb kept his response mostly in plain language.
Please point out which specific statement is wrong with reference to science or philosophy.
In most cases people face difficulties in understanding an explanation because of the manner language is used. If academic terminology is used only highly specialized people with advanced degrees are able to understand it. If it is explained in plain language so everyone can understand, some general knowledge of terminology and concepts create confusions for many people.
-
Most debates and confusions arise from disagreements on use of language rather than any specific point.
An amusing debate among top physicists these days is whether gravity is a “force” or not. It is an intense debate, which is more about linguistics than physics.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
