the actual Vitalism wikipedia page for example. Wikipedia wrongly says about Vitalism (February 21, 2018):

“Living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things”

This is completely wrong and it is specially very wrong because that is, paradoxically or deliberatedly, the classical individualist antropocentric positivist dualist stand! (The one that we more want to update!)

Vitalism may consider all to be animated, or inanimated things to have a different kind of living experience, at least and for sure it doesn’t consider inanimated things to governed by different laws than the animated ones, since vitalism is a holistic stand. Vitalism consider humans as one more thing that is also alive, as the whole rest of things. We may want to use the concept of animated, as we use organism or soul (see definiciones) to describe this complexization of matter that has evolved within a initial set of the more simple and still active laws governing it all.

So we should edit the Wikipedia entry with some argument like this one: “Despite science won’t be able to explain the entanglement of an organism soul as a part of an alive system in a continuum evolution or explain how entropy evolved-created them, Vitalism is still an field that could be useful for an hypothethical research that could approach interesting replies to such questions”.

Wikipedia entry keeps on trolling to Vitalism with this clear phrase:

“Biologists consider vitalism as a religion and not as a science”

Biologist, as any other scientist, has the pressure of the mainstream propaganda. So most biologists, as wikipedia says in its Life entry, have the belief that:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that do have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes…

Biological processes are the processes vital for a living organism to live. Biological processes are made up of many chemical reactions or other events that are involved in the persistence and transformation of life forms

Scientists or biologists have not found a coherent explanation about basic things they will need to have to prove their own stands within its own dogmatic mechanistic reasoning technic. We can see their most flawed stand when they say things like the quoted above about: «Biological processes are made up of many chemical reactions or other events».

With this stand they want to mean: chemistry may not depend on their underlying physics, we can simply refer to «other events» instead. The problem here is that basic research issues get imposible to be better explained simply because they are deprecated in favour of the «other events» that finally become a research for the existence of UFOs (or outer lifes), finally failing into their own «religious» accusation they make to Vitalists. They go even deeper in their incoherent justifications. With their own rivalry values, coming from the formal logic that is eliminativist of the natural fuzzyness coming out of the basic and needed equilibrium, wikipedia keeps trolling on vitalism:

 “Vitalists believe in a non mechanicism»

This is again completely wrong because Vitalists believe there is something else that we will never be able to to explain its mechanics, which is a much different stand. This is something that all theories, if they don’t explicitly say, they have failed in and will always fail into explaining it. The mechanics of cause-effect gives a view, but is not truer than to say that we will never be able to describe the full mechanics of Life (nor even an absolute cause nor the first cause in mecahnical terms), since then if we could, we will become the almighty God they say they don’t believe in. Reality, nature, universe or the whole is a mechanism. You can stop there, or you can observe as a mechanism with life, or a life mechanism, and then simpler the Whole as a Life, since it is very incoherent to say: We live in a mechanism that is not alive while we are alive in a mechanism (or motion or process).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.