Life from non-life?

[Enmos]

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.

Thanks, at least I know what you mean by it now

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

I agree that a fire that doesn't burn is not a fire.. but your logic is ased on the existence of God. That I don't agree with. Or maybe I misunderstood.. :shrug:

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

Who says a plant or bacteria has will..? Has this been scientifically proven ?

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

Which I can't do, as you very well know..
You expect me to solve the riddle of life right here on Sciforums.. ? lol
If I could, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

 

[lightgigantic]

that is irrelevant. Your consciousness clearly cannot be defined by anything of this world.

God also has a similar quality

Or do you deny of your consciousness as well?

not at all

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.

just as consciousness is not an issue of belief, neither is god.
And even then, we experience that our consciousness has limitations of expression - namely limitations of the body it inhabits and limitations of the mind it inhabits.
:bawl:

 

[draqon]

die and be free.

 

[Enmos]

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

Ok, from my perspective (and please try to see from my point of view, imagine there is no God):

1. There's nothing demonstrative to evidence god
2. Life came from somehwere
1+2 -> what are the possibilities ?

 

[draqon]

first possibility: we created ourselves, future created the past, past created the future
second possibility: this is all some sort of matrix...program of a sort

 

[Enmos]

first possibility: we created ourselves, future created the past, past created the future
second possibility: this is all some sort of matrix...program of a sort

lol lets keep it conventional for the moment.. please

 

[Yorda]

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

that's just the definition of one specific (advanced) type of life.

Then if Conciousness is made of matter shouldnt there be a means to measure it,

consciousness is made of the thought that i am separate from the world, and since thoughts are measureable, consciousness should be measureable.

shouldnt there also be a (as of yet undiscovered) way to construct conciousness from matter,

consciousness exists in all matter and all matter exists in consciousness, so of course it's possible.

Are stones aware of themselves ?

they are aware of feelings. why are stones attracted and repelled by other stones? because they feel love and fear, the basic emotions. only humans are conscious of thoughts...

I'm aware if this 'nothing'-theory, it says matter is made up of bubbles of nothing.. it's controversial at best.

it's perfect at worst because matter CAN'T be made of anything but nothing.

 

[shichimenshyo]

consciousness exists in all matter and all matter exists in consciousness, so of course it's possible.

So you would argue that a rock is concious of itself? I disagree that everything has a degree of conciousness, maybe things like rocks contain the materials that could percievably make up conciousness but not in the right order to make it actually concious. Its all about the basic building blocks, and arguing the definition of life doesnt forward the discussion. The discussion is about the conventional definition of life and how its created, not some random personal interpretation of what you think life is.

 

[Enmos]

that's just the definition of one specific (advanced) type of life.



consciousness is made of the thought that i am separate from the world, and since thoughts are measureable, consciousness should be measureable.



consciousness exists in all matter and all matter exists in consciousness, so of course it's possible.


they are aware of feelings. why are stones attracted and repelled by other stones? because they feel love and fear, the basic emotions. only humans are conscious of thoughts...



it's perfect at worst because matter CAN'T be made of anything but nothing.

Come on...
You don't really believe that do you ? Are you trolling again.. ? :bugeye:

 

[fadingCaptain]

Are we really talking about rocks having feelings? What the hell?

Light,
"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"

Do you have a better alternative? Truth is ascertained on probabilities. I'd say the most probable right now is the primordial soup argument. Why? It appears the building blocks and conditions for life to arise were possible. Extremely unlikely in the short term but possible. You know what happens when highly unlikely scenarios are given incomprehensible periods of time to unfold? They happen.

 

[Enmos]

Shichimenshyo,

maybe you should request that this thread be put in the biology subforum.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Shichimenshyo,

maybe you should request that this thread be put in the biology subforum.

Yes, who do I pm about that ?

 

[Yorda]

I disagree that everything has a degree of conciousness,

You can disagree with that if you want to be wrong.

Its all about the basic building blocks,

There are no basic building blocks because the world is made of language, like computer programs.

Are we really talking about rocks having feelings? What the hell?

When two humans are attracted or repulsed by each other, it's love or fear, but when rocks do it, it's suddenly some mysterious "law of nature". Animals don't feel the same kind of love as humans do, but we can still say that they feel (some kind of) love, and we can say that plants and matter feels it.

 

[shichimenshyo]

You can disagree with that if you want to be wrong.

How productive

There are no basic building blocks because the world is made of language, like computer programs

Life is made up of language?

When two humans are attracted or repulsed by each other, it's love or fear, but when rocks do it, it's suddenly some mysterious "law of nature".

Come on now, has anyone ever observed rocks communicating? what about breeding? Your just reaching now.

 

[Pandaemoni]

When two humans are attracted or repulsed by each other, it's love or fear, but when rocks do it, it's suddenly some mysterious "law of nature".

Actually when two humans are attracted or repulsed by each other, it's an entirely different definition of "attraction" and "repulsion" than is used with respect to rocks. There is a root similarity between the two concepts, but they are just different things, with the differences being understood in context. You might as well argue that a man who spends his nights at "his local bar" must be a lawyer (since lawyers also have "local bars"). Same word, similar roots, but ultimately different meanings that should not be confused.

You can disagree with that if you want to be wrong.

 

[iceaura]

contingent - Determined by conditions or circumstances that follow

Simple enough: It's like cause and effect only backwards.

And you can sometimes tell it's not just "correlation", because science has provided a mechanism - after which science can just shut up, thank you.

The hard part is deciding, in various circumstances, which is the contingent and which the given of two correlated and named entities or properties or whatever we have named today. That's especially difficult when science has shut up and returned to its proper place. For this we turn to philosophy, especially theologically corrected (i.e. capable of apprehending truth) philosophy.

For example: you have phlogiston, and heat. Which is contingent? Philosophy has shown that heat (what follows) determines the presence of phlogiston, which is thereby shown to be contingent.

Why is this so hard for the unbeliever to understand ?

 

[Enmos]

You can disagree with that if you want to be wrong.



There are no basic building blocks because the world is made of language, like computer programs.



When two humans are attracted or repulsed by each other, it's love or fear, but when rocks do it, it's suddenly some mysterious "law of nature". Animals don't feel the same kind of love as humans do, but we can still say that they feel (some kind of) love, and we can say that plants and matter feels it.

Do you have ANY evidence or indications of these 'theories' of yours ?

Btw.. rocks make out ?? :roflmao:
So they reproduce, grow etc. ?

 

[invert_nexus]

It would seem that random combinations of these basic building blocks would eventually yield some type of living thing.

Big error here. The 'basic building blocks' don't combine randomly. They follow very strict rules of interaction. Chemistry and whatnot.

my understanding is that all forms of life are conscious - ie they all exhibit some sort of will.

Nope. You'd be wrong in that one. The most basic forms of life simply react to their environment in a limited number of ways which are prescribed by their physical makeup.
It all boils down to interaction at the molecular level.

There is a big difference between life and the chemicals that life utilizes

How fine can you split a hair? How many pieces can you cut a cell into before you can say that this bit is no longer alive?
Are viruses alive?
Crystals?



Anyway.
The topic of this thread is abiogenesis, not consciousness. I'd suggest sticking to topic, but I'm no longer moderator of this thread as I have moved it as per request of the thread starter. I will issue a formal request to cease and desist all religious ramblings and stick to a biological perspective to the opening post.


On the topic, I would like to say this. The bit that intrigues me most about the creation of life is the evolution of the genetic code. It is this little trick that makes a bunch of molecules that follow simple chemical rules into something greater than the sum of its parts. Everybody goes on and on about the wonders of DNA and, it's true, DNA is a wonderful storage medium (relatively speaking. From a design perspective, better choices could have been made, but I digress). It's not the DNA that is the magical part of the process. It's the tRNA. That's where the code lies. That's where the instructions for reading the code lies. That's where the assembly of proteins from the DNA becomes reality.

There's also all the epigenetic goings on which we learn more about every day, but the magic of magics is tRNA.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

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
”

Ok, from my perspective (and please try to see from my point of view, imagine there is no God):

1. There's nothing demonstrative to evidence god
2. Life came from somehwere
1+2 -> what are the possibilities ?

hence my words "it simply indicates your bias"
it's not science

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,
"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"

Do you have a better alternative? Truth is ascertained on probabilities. I'd say the most probable right now is the primordial soup argument.

how do you determine probabilities in an unknown set?
for instance suppose I have a six sided dice with the numbers 1-3 shown on 3 sides and 3 faces covered with black tape.
How do you propose the probability of it turning up a 4,5 or 6?
(for all you know it could have an 11, a star or a smiley face on it)

Why? It appears the building blocks and conditions for life to arise were possible. Extremely unlikely in the short term but possible. You know what happens when highly unlikely scenarios are given incomprehensible periods of time to unfold? They happen.

not unless there are superior issues at hand
for instance how many years of you jumping do you think it would take before you can jump over your knees?
ten?
a thousand?
ten thousand trillion?