Vitalism

[treegod]

sorry, but there is no problem explaining life from just atoms, or what life is, Philip.

Interesting. Apparently it was this belief in vitalism in Victorian science that ensured a split of specialisations between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry.

"Early chemists long believed in a vital force that made chemicals from living organisms wholly different from inorganic chemicals. This belief was the justification for the separation of organic and inorganic chemistry. It implied that organic chemicals such as sugar or fat could be analysed but never synthesised in the laboratory. The German chemist Friedrich Wöhler (1800-82) in 1828 was the first to question the faith in vitalism. He took what to him was an unequivocal inorganic chemical, ammonium cyanate, and showed that when heated it transmuted into urea. Until Wöhler did his experiment, urea was catgorised as an organic chemical, something made only by living organisms. Soon chemists found that they could make other organic chemicals, but it was not until the chemist Hermann Kolbe (1818-84) synthesised the familiar organic chemical acid that vitalism was at last rejected. Chemists went on to synthesise the intricate molecular structure of cholesterol, vitamins and even proteins. Now it looks as if everthing existing in living organisms can be synthesised from "inorganic" materials." James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

Had they not had this belief in vitalism the different fields of science might now look very different!

[cursuswalker]

Just to say I think your picture is great, Cursuswalker!

Thanks! I couldn't resist giving it another outing.

Gnome

By the way, I read some Spinoza years ago, there was some idea about reality having one substance with two recognisable attributes, matter and mental. So, the material of a human and the idea of it. Perhaps if we have the idea of a light body, there might be a material of it? I know that's a bit spurious.

This, again, is a dualistic idea. Dualism is the idea that thought/mind/consciousness is separate from matter. It is a necessary precurssor to any idea of god/soul/afterlife/spirit and is thus a desirable idea to anyone who wants to live beyond death and to have some order to existence.

As far as the light body goes, if it could be photographed or a sample could be taken of it, then that would provide some basis for further study. And beware mentioninf kirlian photography as possible evidence.

On the other hand the VISUALISATION of a light body as part of a meditation is very potent indeed. In fact it has lost none of its power for me since I ceased to believe in the supernatural. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

[cursuswalker]

Had they not had this belief in vitalism the different fields of science might now look very different!

A fascinating idea in itself.

Personally, although evolution and abiogenesis are not counted as the same theory, I still see them as parts of the same process. But in our modern disciplines, the former is biological, while the latter is purely chemical.

[treegod]

Had they not had this belief in vitalism the different fields of science might now look very different!

A fascinating idea in itself.

Personally, although evolution and abiogenesis are not counted as the same theory, I still see them as parts of the same process. But in our modern disciplines, the former is biological, while the latter is purely chemical.

Yes.

Probably due pracitcal applications the two field, organic and inorganic chemistry, might have eventually emerged in some form or another. But at the time the Victorian scientists were very jealous of their "realms" and didn't really communicate with "others". If the two fields had emerged another way there probably would have been far more cross-fertilisation between them and far closer association.

Two more quotes form the same author.

"The recognition that the old division of chemistry into organic and inorganic was an artificial one did not, at the time, lead to the wider recognition that the chemistry of life and the chemistry of the material environment are part of one continuum..."

And

"Inorganic chemists continued to work with minerals, metals, and strong corrosive chemicals. Organic chemists rarely consorted with their inorganic counterparts..."

[Greygnome]

Hi, I checked up on Spinoza and the idea is along the lines of:

There is one substance, not dual as such. But, it has two attributes, thought and extension. Which are basically one and the same thing.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_spin.html

Sorry I am not sure how to create this here as a link. It's worth a look as an interesting view of Spinoza and similarities in Yogic thought. As I not an expert in either, merely a curious reader, feel free to have a look or not, I don't mean to say it is correct or a way we should behave etc, just a good read!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoza/

Is a more academic summary. I will be honest, I googled to get these references to update myself, but hope they might be of interest. It's not a case necessarily of believing in a dualism, more of a one-ism!

Gnome