Life from non-life?

[Enmos]

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."

Who's will ?
And things do "just happen".

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.

Are stones aware of themselves ?

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.

You mean matter is all there is.
I'm aware if this 'nothing'-theory, it says matter is made up of bubbles of nothing.. it's controversial at best.
But at least we agree that everything is made from matter, including life.

 

[draqon]

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.

rocks exist, yet they are not alive. Yet by your definition since rocks exist, than they are alive. What state are rocks than? Rocks don't exist?

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

“

”
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.

erm - the only problem is that there is a complete lack of evidence of life ever demonstrably arising from inanimate matter .... the need for a godless universe continues

 

[fadingCaptain]

We have artificially created amino acids and other basic building blocks for life in the lab I believe. Throw these in vast quantities on a young earth and let bake for a billion or two years. Seems reasonable that the highly unlikely eventually did occur.

On the other hand, the scifi fan in me likes to think life was seeded here by ancient ultra-intelligent aliens. That of course just pushes the question back further - from whence did they come?

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

my understanding is that all forms of life are conscious - ie they all exhibit some sort of will.
hence talking of conscious life is akin to talking of a burning fire

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.

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

what on earth makes you think I am saying that?
(what would distinguish a dead rock from a living rock?)

 

[draqon]

we are referring to Stanely Miller's experiment here...

Diagram of Stanley Miller's experiment

vs.

Distribution of gas in the visible universe at redshift 3, image made by: www.ncsa.edu

 

[lightgigantic]

We have artificially created amino acids and other basic building blocks for life in the lab I believe. Throw these in vast quantities on a young earth and let bake for a billion or two years. Seems reasonable that the highly unlikely eventually did occur.

On the other hand, the scifi fan in me likes to think life was seeded here by ancient ultra-intelligent aliens. That of course just pushes the question back further - from whence did they come?

There is a big difference between life and the chemicals that life utilizes
synthesizing amino acids is the same catagory as synthesizing urea

In the absence of anything demonstrative, it's not clear how your first paragraph also doesn't owe it's credence to the sci-fi fan within you

 

[Enmos]

Emnos

erm - the only problem is that there is a complete lack of evidence of life ever demonstrably arising from inanimate matter .... the need for a godless universe continues

There is a complete lack of evidence for God.. that tells you what ?
It tells you that life arose from something other that God. Understand ?
That only leaves inanimate matter, unless you have some other proposal..

 

[draqon]

there is no evidence for existence of God as there is no evidence for lack of existence of God

 

[Enmos]

my understanding is that all forms of life are conscious - ie they all exhibit some sort of will.
hence talking of conscious life is akin to talking of a burning fire

Where does this consciousness come from if not created by the brain ?
And are you sure you don't mean 'soul' when you speak of consciousness ?

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

Perhaps it is me, but can you please explain the meaning of the word contingent ?

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).

All rests on your presumptions.. which I don't agree with.

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.

Explain how that works for plants and bacteria..

what on earth makes you think I am saying that?
(what would distinguish a dead rock from a living rock?)

Maybe not you, but Yorda certainly.
No rock can ever be alive. The difference between a living organism and inanimate matter is the organization of the matter.

 

[Enmos]

Allow me..

life
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

 

[draqon]

I only disagree with biological term of life, which defines it as having carbon in all the molecules of life...except like CO2.

I feel like Silicon based life is just as possible...and than there are cybermachines with AI, are they not life? Were does life cease to be life?

 

[Enmos]

I only disagree with biological term of life, which defines it as having carbon in all the molecules of life...except like CO2.

I feel like Silicon based life is just as possible...and than there are cybermachines with AI, are they not life? Were does life cease to be life?

Please keep it simple, you don't want to go there yet lol

 

[lightgigantic]

There is a complete lack of evidence for God.. that tells you what ?
It tells you that life arose from something other that God. Understand ?
That only leaves inanimate matter, unless you have some other proposal..

Your first premise has problems
Actually your last premise seems a means to the ends of your first premise

 

[draqon]

The question you should ask yourself is whether you wish to believe that God exists or that God does not exist. And decide yourself. There are no inconclusive statements for us, we mask it with reassurances but deep inside our subconsciousness we make a choice in favor or not.

Do you wish God within yourself? Do you stand for what belief of God stands for?

Do you not wish for God within yourself? Do you not believe in what God stands for?

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
my understanding is that all forms of life are conscious - ie they all exhibit some sort of will.
hence talking of conscious life is akin to talking of a burning fire
”
Where does this consciousness come from if not created by the brain ?
And are you sure you don't mean 'soul' when you speak of consciousness ?

one could explain consciousness as a symptom of the soul
Hence issues of life, consciousness and the soul are inextricably connected

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that consciousness is a contingent property of life, much like burning is a contingent property of fire.
”
Perhaps it is me, but can you please explain the meaning of the word contingent ?

contingent - Determined by conditions or circumstances that follow

IOW the prerequisites for a phenomena
eg - heat is a contingent property of fire means that there is no question of heat until one has a fire - the fire is the cause of the heat.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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).
”
All rests on your presumptions.. which I don't agree with.

it's actually a construct of logic
a fire that doesn't burn is not a fire
you don't agree with that?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.
”
Explain how that works for plants and bacteria..

a living plant and bacteria exhibits a presence of will (even if its only the will for nourishment) in a way that a dead or afflicted plant or bacteria doesn't - Bose researched this extensively with plants

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what on earth makes you think I am saying that?
(what would distinguish a dead rock from a living rock?)
”
Maybe not you, but Yorda certainly.
No rock can ever be alive.

I agree

The difference between a living organism and inanimate matter is the organization of the matter.

that is a partial definition.
For it to be a complete one, you would have to demonstrate how life can be shown to arise by mere organization of inanimate matter

 

[lightgigantic]

The question you should ask yourself is whether you wish to believe that God exists or that God does not exist. And decide yourself. There are no inconclusive statements for us, we mask it with reassurances but deep inside our subconsciousness we make a choice in favor or not.

Do you wish God within yourself? Do you stand for what belief of God stands for?

Do you not wish for God within yourself? Do you not believe in what God stands for?

If God actually does exist however, our wishing on the subject doesn't amount to much.

 

[Enmos]

Your first premise has problems
Actually your last premise seems a means to the ends of your first premise

Please explain ?

 

[draqon]

If God actually does exist however, our wishing on the subject doesn't amount to much.

that is irrelevant. Your consciousness clearly cannot be defined by anything of this world. Or do you deny of your consciousness as well? Your world is what you experience from your perspective, whether it is illusion or reality from our perspective, it is all reality to you and REAL to you when experienced by you. Beliefs of yours are the same, reality or not, they bear the same fruits.

 

[lightgigantic]

Please explain ?

1. There's nothing demonstrative to evidence god (at least from your perspective)
2. There's nothing demonstrative to evidence abiogenesis (from anyone's perspective)

If you swing one way or the other (1 is true and 2 is false or 2 is true and 1 is false) it simply indicates your bias