>>I don’t think it’s about our being smart enough to answer Stein’s question<<
I do.
>>Living things are part of the furniture of the physical world<<
No, there is a big difference between life and the physical world, although living beings do have a connection with the physical world. I guess if you can’t understand that, that explains why you underestimate Ben’s question.
I want science to learn all it can about everything (as long as it does it without abusing living things), but science needs a super-sized dose of humility WRT life.
No, there is a big difference between life and the physical world, although living beings do have a connection with the physical world. I guess if you can’t understand that, that explains why you underestimate Ben’s question.
If I am understanding you as you seek to be understood, you are claiming that I am wrong in saying that living things are part of the furniture of the physical world, and you are further claiming to know that there is a big difference between life and the physical world. How do you know that? What is the source of that 'knowledge'? Is it scientific knowledge? Apparently not. Does it come from some sort of 'higher intution'? If so, where is the supporting evidence for it? And if you have no supporting evidence for it, why should we believe it?