Life from non-life?

[lightgigantic]

Indeed.

Yet again, with his wonderful analogies, he fails to take into account decay of biological matter in the absence of certain things - i.e. the brain decays as soon as you "switch it off" rendering it unable to be restarted. The light bulb does not decay.
And he uses this difference to try to persuade us that it is consciousness preventing the switching on again within a brain.

Now, if lightbulbs, once switched on for the first time, started to decay as soon as they were switched off again, the analogy might be better - but then of course the conclusions able to be drawn would be very different. So no wonder he doesn't use more accurate analogies.


Marvellous.

actually it's a requirement of the argument from your side.
if you want to argue that life does not exclusively arise from life, you have to provide an example of taking matter and creating life from it.
If you can't do that, you simply have an issue of theory.
:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

Jagadish Chandra Bose pioneered the field with plants.
I guess it depends in what ways the word "consciousness" is used.

Which is why a working definition is necessary.. else we won't know what the other one is talking about..

If we cannot even properly define how we ourselves are conscious certainly we will have problems in figuring out how other things are conscious.

So how did you figure out that plants have consciousness ?

It's not clear why you insist contingency is not a valid explanation
(I mean aside from your values on the subject of course)
eg

What contingency ?

from our previous discussion of consciousness, it appears that you are more into discuss issues of similarity of processes of intelligence (as opposed to issues of dissimilarity) - like a machine that can fool a person into thinking it is a person has the nous (if you could indicate a machine that could understand how something is not conscious or pretending to be conscious perhaps you would have hit a mark closer to home)

Not the issue here.

 

[Enmos]

actually it's a requirement of the argument from your side.
if you want to argue that life does not exclusively arise from life, you have to provide an example of taking matter and creating life from it.
If you can't do that, you simply have an issue of theory.
:shrug:

You have to show that living organisms consist of anything more than matter alone. And you can't.

Why don't you expand your definition of life to "life = consciousness = soul" ?

Edit: Also, your 'life exclusively comes from life' premise presumes God.
In the absence of evidence for a God, the only possibility left is that life arose from inanimate matter. If you want to counter that, you will have to prove the existence of God first.

 

[lightgigantic]

What contingency ?

that consciousness is a contingent property of life, much like burning is a contingent property of fire.

Its kind of like a simultaneously monistic and dualistic issue.
Practically there is no question of separating the property from the said object (like say a fire that doesn't burn - aka monism), yet you can still talk separately of the burning qualities of fire (aka dualism).

In the same way, there is no practical means of indicating consciousness from life, yet consciousness can be discussed of separately in terms of thinking, feeling and willing.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have to show that living organisms consist of anything more than matter alone. And you can't.

Why don't you expand your definition of life to "life = consciousness = soul" ?

Edit: Also, your 'life exclusively comes from life' premise presumes God.
In the absence of evidence for a God, the only possibility left is that life arose from inanimate matter. If you want to counter that, you will have to prove the existence of God first.

The issue is this
You were born of parents.
And so were your parents.
And also their parents.
etc etc.
The only way this leads to issues of god is perhaps in understanding the ultimate cause of life.
As it remains however, we have not seen life arise from anything but life.
The necessity of abiogenesis is simply to fulfill people's needs for a godless universe.
If you want to declare that life comes from non-life, you should be able to evidence it.
At least with the claim of god there is a methodology pioneered by persons laying claim to direct perception.
With abiogenesis however you have absolutely nothing, except a theoretical requirement for a godless universe.

 

[Enmos]

that consciousness is a contingent property of life, much like burning is a contingent property of fire.

Its kind of like a simultaneously monistic and dualistic issue.
Practically there is no question of separating the property from the said object (like say a fire that doesn't burn - aka monism), yet you can still talk separately of the burning qualities of fire (aka dualism).

In the same way, there is no practical means of indicating consciousness from life, yet consciousness can be discussed of separately in terms of thinking, feeling and willing.

First of all, what happened to my other questions and comments from that post ?
Secondly, and I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm perhaps not quite familiar with the meaning of the word contingency (?). According to the dictionary it means something almost opposite to what you use it for.. :shrug:

con·tin·gen·cy
–noun, plural -cies.
1. dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.
2. a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain: He was prepared for every contingency.
3. something incidental to a thing.

:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

The issue is this
You were born of parents.
And so were your parents.
And also their parents.
etc etc.
The only way this leads to issues of god is perhaps in understanding the ultimate cause of life.

Which is exactly what this thread deals with.. :bugeye:

As it remains however, we have not seen life arise from anything but life.
The necessity of abiogenesis is simply to fulfill people's needs for a godless universe.

LOL I'm sorry.. ?

If you want to declare that life comes from non-life, you should be able to evidence it.
At least with the claim of god there is a methodology pioneered by persons laying claim to direct perception.
With abiogenesis however you have absolutely nothing, except a theoretical requirement for a godless universe.

No, my friend..
Your 'life exclusively comes from life' premise presumes God.
In the absence of evidence for a God, the only possibility left is that life arose from inanimate matter. If you want to counter that, you will have to prove the existence of God first.

 

[Yorda]

If we would be made of non-living matter, it would mean that we are also non-living. Logically everything is alive, even matter that we call non-living.

You have to show that living organisms consist of anything more than matter alone.

Consciousness (me) is not made of matter.

 

[Enmos]

If we would be made of non-living matter, it would mean that we are also non-living. Logically everything is alive, even matter that we call non-living.

Consciousness (me) is not made of matter.

So what is it then ? What ARE we made of, if not from inanimate matter ?

 

[Pandaemoni]

if all of us and everything in the universe as we know it right now is built up from the same basic building blocks, atoms and subatomic particles then how can life not come from non-life?

I am sure it's been said (I don't have time to read through the thread at the moment), but there is a very big assumption there. *If* everything in the universe is made up *solely* of atoms and particles, then life and nonlife seem to be connected.

If, on the other hand, "life" requires both particles and something more (perhaps even "something supernatural"), then that's a big difference.

I suspect 99.9% of the people who claim that life cannot arise from non-life believe that there is a supernatural or divine spark to true life that cannot be accounted for by atoms alone.

Water, 35 liters.
Carbon, 20 kilograms.
Ammonia, 4 liters.
Lime, 1.5 kilograms.
Phosphorous, 800 grams.
Salt, 250 grams.
Saltpeter, 100 grams.
Sulfur, 80 grams.
Fluorine, 7.5,
Iron, 5,
Silicon, 3 grams,
and trace amounts of 15 other elements.

It's all the ingredients of the average adult human body, right down to the last specks of protein in your eyelashes. And even though science has given us the entire physical breakdown, there's never been a successful attempt at bringing a human to life. There's still something missing. Something scientists haven't been able to find in centuries of research....And in case you're wondering, all those ingredients can be bought on a child's allowance. Humans can be built on the cheap. There's no magic to it.

Just a matter of time.... Science will find a way. Science is the answer to everything. If I were you, I'd drop the scriptures and pick up an Alchemy book. We're the closest things to gods there are.

 

[Yorda]

So what is it then ? What ARE we made of, if not from inanimate matter ?

Perfect question. Our bodies are made of LIVING matter, but consciousness is made of Nothing. It's like the space. It consists of nothing, but it still exists and it's the container of everything.

I contain all thoughts like personalities and bodies, but they are not me, they are my creations. I can't be created or destroyed because space can't be created or destroyed. It just exists.

 

[Enmos]

Perfect question. Our bodies are made of LIVING matter, but consciousness is made of Nothing. It's like the space. It consists of nothing, but it still exists and it's the container of everything.

I contain all thoughts like personalities and bodies, but they are not me, they are my creations. I can't be created or destroyed because space can't be created or destroyed. It just exists.

lol
Ok what is this 'living matter' exactly ? Where can I find it ?

 

[Yorda]

lol
Ok what is this 'living matter' exactly ? Where can I find it ?

like i said earlier, everything is alive. there is no non-living or inanimate matter. we call it inanimate but that doesn't mean it is... everything has life in it...

if atoms were not alive they would have no reason to move. they move because they have will. will is the only thing that can make things move. scientists call will a "natural law" when they talk about the will of atoms and such...

 

[Enmos]

like i said earlier, everything is alive. there is no non-living or inanimate matter. we call it inanimate but that doesn't mean it is... everything has life in it...

if atoms were not alive they would have no reason to move. they move because they have will. will is the only thing that can make things move. scientists call will a "natural law" when they talk about the will of atoms and such...

Fine, so you just call it differently..
Care to define 'life' ?

 

[shichimenshyo]

What about forms of life with no brain?

still unclear what you are talking about here

I am wondering, if the basis for life comming from other life is based on the fact that concious thought is made of something other than matter, what about those creatures who have no concious though process?

 

[Enmos]

What about forms of life with no brain?



I am wondering, if the basis for life comming from other life is based on the fact that concious thought is made of something other than matter, what about those creatures who have no concious though process?

You're not getting it, they say that even rocks are conscious.. :wallbang:

 

[shichimenshyo]

You're not getting it, they say that even rocks are conscious.. :wallbang:

.....Ohhhh..

 

[draqon]

killing one stone with 10 birds

 

[Yorda]

Fine, so you just call it differently..

the difference is that "will" actually explains why atoms move while scientists word (natural law) does not explain it. "natural law" is no different from the word magic: it explains nothing. it's like saying: "it just happens."

Care to define 'life' ?

i'll tell you EXACTLY what life is: life is this experience that we're having. life is existence, so everything that exists is alive. life is also movement because without movement there is no existence.

I am wondering, if the basis for life comming from other life is based on the fact that concious thought is made of something other than matter,

it's impossible that something would be made of something "other" than matter because matter means everything that exists.

keep in mind that while everything is "made of" matter, matter itself is made of NOTHING.

 

[shichimenshyo]

it's impossible that something would be made of something "other" than matter because matter means everything that exists.

keep in mind that while everything is "made of" matter, matter itself is made of NOTHING.

Then if Conciousness is made of matter shouldnt there be a means to measure it, shouldnt there also be a (as of yet undiscovered) way to construct conciousness from matter, and if it is made up of individual pieces of this matter then couldnt it be said that conciouness comes from unconciousnes? Hence life from non-life?