is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

[billvon]

It makes me sad that scientists still can't figure out why we feel pain and how the human body works at a deeper level.
Some people don't suffer from severe pain after injury and scientists today are still too stupid to figure out why.

We know why people feel pain. We know how it originates, how to fix problems that cause pain and how to treat chronic pain. Don't make the mistake of equating "I don't know why we feel pain" to "scientists don't know why we feel pain."

We will always be learning more about how the human body works.

 

[exchemist]

Why is that absurd? Have you tried formulating an answer at all?
Hameroff believes sentience begins with the wave collapse at the microtubular level
Roger Penrose believes sentience begins at quantum scale, wich would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent.

Why do we use terms like "half-life" for non-living objects? And that is not absurd? Be consistent.

You really do have trouble with the meaning of words, don't you? First we had "function" and now it seems we have "life".

Half-life has a perfectly well defined meaning, if you bother to look it up, related to "lifetime", which means duration of existence. In chemistry and physics we talk of the "lifetimes" of atomic or molecular states in the same sense. We do not mean to imply they are biologically alive. Because that would be silly, you see.

 

[origin]

Why is that absurd?

If you have to ask, you would not understand the response.

Hameroff believes sentience begins with the wave collapse at the microtubular level

So what.

Roger Penrose believes sentience begins at quantum scale, wich would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent.

No it doesn't! Have you lost your mind?

Why do we use terms like "half-life" for non-living objects? And that is not absurd? Be consistent.

Do you think this is a living being?

You are very consistent - but that is not a good thing.

 

[Michael 345]

Why do we use terms like "half-life" for non-living objects? And that is not absurd? Be consistent.

Because sensible people would understand the term half-life as being a period length during which half of the activity decays.

Not extend the life part into a absurd claim "its alive"

That sounds very anthropomorphic and a short step away from declaring the Universe to being god

 

[DaveC426913]

Roger Penrose believes sentience begins at quantum scale, wich would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent.

No. This is a non sequitur. The latter does not follow from the former.

(Roger Penrose beliving in something does not make it true. or even likely, just because he's a smart guy. But let's just take his belief as a truth, for argument's sake.)

Here's what you've constructed:

'Sentience beings at the quantum scale.'
This is synonymous with 'anything that has a quantum scale is sentient'.
Since the universe has a quantum scale, it is sentient.

The second statment is false.

Consider a similar construct:

Colouration begins at the molecular level.
This is synonymous with 'everyning with molecules has a colour'.
Since air has molecules, it is coloured.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do we use terms like "half-life" for non-living objects?

There are plenty of definitions of the word 'life' that have nothing to do with living things.

Just like there are plenty of definitions of the word 'run' that have nothing to do with my nose and cats.

And that is not absurd? Be consistent.

Consistency...

So one word, one meaning; and one meaning, one word?


"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. ... It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. ... In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston?"

- Orwell's 1984

 

[Write4U]

You really do have trouble with the meaning of words, don't you? First we had "function" and now it seems we have "life".

Did I invent the term half-life of an isotope?

 

[Write4U]

There are plenty of definitions of the word 'life' that have nothing to do with living things.

Then why get on my case for using them?

No. This is a non sequitur. The latter does not follow from the former.

(Roger Penrose beliving in something does not make it true. or even likely, just because he's a smart guy. But let's just take his belief as a truth, for argument's sake.)

Here's what you've constructed:

'Sentience beings at the quantum scale.'
This is synonymous with 'anything that has a quantum scale is sentient'.
Since the universe has a quantum scale, it is sentient.

The second statment is false.

Consider a similar construct:

Colouration begins at the molecular level.
This is synonymous with 'everyning with molecules has a colour'.
Since air has molecules, it is coloured.

 

[Write4U]

No. This is a non sequitur. The latter does not follow from the former.

Read closer, I am NOT proposing this as true.

(Roger Penrose believing in something does not make it true, or even likely, just because he's a smart guy. But let's just take his belief as a truth, for argument's sake.)

Here's what you've constructed:
'Sentience beings at the quantum scale.'
This is synonymous with 'anything that has a quantum scale is sentient'.
Since the universe has a quantum scale, it is sentient.

Tell Penrose about that, he is the esteemed physicist.

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist, ... He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 WolfPrize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking

I am arguing from a neutral POV and citing existing proposals as illustrative of several different interpretations in regards to the emerge of sentience. Is all life sentient? Can something be sentient without being alive?

The second statement is false.

Oh, I agree, but there are millions of people who do believe in a sentient universe or even a supernatural sentient being outside of the universe. I'm not one of those.

Consider a similar construct: Colouration begins at the molecular level.
This is synonymous with 'everything with molecules has a colour'.
Since air has molecules, it is coloured.

Actually no.

Color charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

The "color charge" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to the everyday meaning of color. The term colorand the labels red, green, and blue became popular simply because of the loose analogy to the primary colors. Richard Feynman referred to his colleagues as "idiot physicists" for choosing the confusing name...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge
Imagine that......

Do molecules have color? - UCSB Science Line?
Since most molecules are smaller than the wavelength of visual light, individual molecules would not have a color. They do not absorb, reflect, or transmit light in the same way that bulk substances do.

scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=131

If I said "spooky action at a distance" people here would explode from mental distress.
Einstein says it and, everyone smiles "knowingly".......

Rather than picking apart linguistic details, why not discuss the content. I'm sure my posts are not so obtuse that no one knows what I am talking about....

p.s. at nano scale molecules have different color properties than at micro sized scales.
Gold at nano scale is not gold colored, but a beautiful deep red.

https://ninithi.wordpress.com/nanoscale-why-size-matter/

 

[Michael 345]

Can something be sentient without being alive?

No

there are millions of people who do believe in a sentient universe

Same millions are wrong

 

[Write4U]

The question is; at what point does "transferring information" become "thinking" (sentience)?

Is a Paramecium alive? Yes. It meets all requirements for a living organism.
Is a Paramecium sentient? Yes. It's behavior clearly demonstrates "awareness" of its environment.
Is a Paramecium intelligent? No. It's awareness is purely physically (mathematically) reactive.
But then the reaction is physically expressed with movement to avoid the physical obstacle (except for mating). Emergent "intelligence"?

My conclusion; A Paramecium is a mathematically pseudo-intelligent organism (a localized mathematically variable quantum pattern). Wrong?

As I understand it, Penrose takes the reactive quantum behaviors (information sharing) at nano-scale as experiential moments and calls them "threshold events".
In terms of evolution, that would be a good place to start a process of emergent sentience and intelligence, IMHO. This local phenomenon (pattern) had to start somewhere small in living organisms exposed to natural selection, no? How about the cyanobacteria?

Cyanobacteria, also known as Cyanophyta, are a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis, and are the only photosynthetic prokaryotes able to produce oxygen. The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria.

Pretty neat trick.

By producing and releasing oxygen (as a byproduct of photosynthesis), cyanobacteria are thought to have converted the early oxygen-poor, reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one, causing the Great Oxygenation Event and the "rusting of the Earth",[12] which dramatically changed the composition of the Earth's life forms and led to the near-extinction of anaerobic organisms.

Oh, and it is a self-repairing system....

DNA repair[edit]
Cyanobacteria are challenged by environmental stresses and internally generated reactive oxygen species that cause DNA damages. Cyanobacteria possess numerous E. coli-like DNA repair genes.[73] Several DNA repair genes are highly conserved in cyanobacteria, even in small genomes, suggesting that core DNA repair processes such as recombinational repair, nucleotide excision repair and methyl-directed DNA mismatch repair are common among cyanobacteria.

Wikipedia

A new epoch in the "life" on (of the) earth? Seems oxygen is a fundamental requirement for complex (intelligent) brains, even in ocean life.
Nothing smarter than the cyanobacteria until then.. and it was able to make "oxygen" (a fundamental particle)!...... <> How does it do that??<>

 

[Michael 345]

My conclusion; A Paramecium is a mathematically pseudo-intelligent organism (a localized mathematically variable quantum pattern). Wrong?

Wrong ✓

mathematically pseudo-intelligent organism (a localized mathematically variable quantum pattern)

This appears to be a weird type of classification

Intelligence requires much much more than a mere reaction to stimulation

 

[Write4U]

Wrong ✓
mathematically pseudo-intelligent organism (a localized mathematically variable quantum pattern)
This appears to be a weird type of classification

Yes, it's a loose interpretation of Tegmark's mathematical universe. He proposes that all of reality is expressed as mathematical patterns, including thought, a chemical process?

Intelligence requires much much more than a mere reaction to stimulation.

Abstractly I agree, but practically the brain has several limitations in processing detailed external information from awareness and observation of its environment. Most large predators far outstrip human sensory awareness. Human thought is also subject to false illusions.
Optical illusions are common. It's actually very easy to fool the brain.

I think a brilliant lecture by Anil Seth in regard to consciousness.
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

 

[Michael 345]

including thought, a chemical process?

Chemical AND electrical (electrical activity from chemical reactions)

Abstractly I agree, but practically the brain has several limitations in processing detailed external information from awareness and observation of its environment. Most large predators far outstrip human sensory awareness. Human thought is also subject to false illusions.
Optical illusions are common. It's actually very easy to fool the brain.

Regardless Intelligence requires much much more than a mere reaction to stimulation stands

Downloading video now to watch tonight and will see if I have a comment afterwards
Cheers

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why get on my case for using them?

You make no sense.

Why do we use terms like "half-life" for non-living objects? And that is not absurd? Be consistent.

That's you complaining.

 

[DaveC426913]

Read closer, I am NOT proposing this as true.

I read exactly what you wrote.
You took something Penrose said and you ran with it.

These are your words:
"... wich would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent."

This is a science forum. Stop playing games.

 

[DaveC426913]

Rather than picking apart linguistic details, why not discuss the content.

Rather than playing fast and loose with linguistic details, why not provide some content?

It's almost like you pick a word at random (oh, say, "colour") and Google for the least relevant definition you can find. And then posit a fanciful connection.

This is fine for Free Thoughts or some of the soft science fora, but please, knock off this stuff in the science fora, will ya?

 

[Write4U]

I read exactly what you wrote.
You took something Penrose said and you ran with it.

These are your words:
"... which would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent."

Yes, a logical conclusion drawn if Penrose is correct. How would you define a universal quantum computer? With mainstream science?

This is a science forum. Stop playing games.

Do you think the OP question can be solved with conventional science?
And what scientific discipline do you suggest that will lead us to an answer to the OP question?

Rather than playing fast and loose with linguistic details, why not provide some content?

I make it a habit of providing more informed supporting papers or examples by known scientists.

It's almost like you pick a word at random (oh, say, "colour") and Google for the least relevant definition you can find. And then posit a fanciful connection.

No, I do not. I usually research every word that IMO has significant meaning to my argument. (I do make mistakes). But if I find a term with one or several definitions synonymous with what I want to express, I'll use that. If the term itself is obscure in every day application, that is not my fault.

This is fine for Free Thoughts or some of the soft science fora, but please, knock off this stuff in the science fora, will ya?

And what discipline in mainstream science do you suggest will lead us to an answer to the OP question? C'mon, stick your neck out. I do ... and it often leads to interesting discussions, unless we get distracted by literary critique. Why not discuss the proposition on its merits?

Do you think the OP question even belongs in the science section to begin with? By what criteria?

 

[Write4U]

deleted for duplication

 

[NotEinstein]

Actually no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge
Imagine that...…

No, I do not. I usually research every word that IMO has significant meaning to my argument. (I do make mistakes). But if I find a term with one or several definitions synonymous with what I want to express, I'll use that. If the term itself is obscure in every day application, that is not my fault.

Erm, you might want to do some more of that "research" into what color charge is, and realize it has nothing to do with color as the word was being used here. In fact, color is an EM phenomenon, and color charge is a strong interaction phenomenon: they are literally related to two different fundamental forces!

The funniest thing about this is that you are completely contradiction yourself. I remember you arguing that color was made up of three fundamental frequencies, and after asking many, many times, you could only give seven frequency ranges. So please explain to me how color charge is related to those mystical three fundamental frequencies of yours? Hint: it's not.

The only connection here is that one term contains a word with the same lettering as the other. This is a clear demonstration of the depth of your "research", and your understanding of the terms involved. But we established that in the past: your "research" often is just a game of match-the-words Google-search.​

It's almost like you pick a word at random (oh, say, "colour") and Google for the least relevant definition you can find. And then posit a fanciful connection.

It's not "almost"; that's exactly it.

I'm quite surprised that such infantile nonsense is being allowed in the science-section though?​