Since we are just throwing out random words that have to do with quantum effects how about the photoelectic affect or tunneling.:shrug:
Origin of Life - A New Concept
- Thread starter krishnagopal
- Start date
Since we are just throwing out random words that have to do with quantum effects how about the photoelectic affect or tunneling.:shrug:
NOW . . . you're thinking!! Both of your suggestions have merit.
Last edited:
I have to refuse to believe that you have a PhD in geology. I have too much respect for the field. IMO the only other options that I can see is that you have had a brain injury or are suffering from some sort of dementia. I am not making an accusation it is just my opinion - I am trying to come to grips with your alledged education and what comes out of your mind - there is a such a bizarre disconnect.
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
The same drive which has driven to polymerize the macromolecules, and the same drive which orchestrated these macromolecules to run metabolic cycles. The 'immediate' aim is to uphold membrane potentials to enable continuous awareness of the surroundings. The 'ultimate' aim is to "live for ever" - or if that is not possible -"enable reproduction to sustain its progeny".
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This does not have to be a conscious sensing and therefore they do not need to 'know' things. You appear to be using 'know' in such a general way that any hint of its standard meaning have evaporated.
Because animals and plants that lack the mechanisms or drives to reproduce do not leave offspring. Those that do possess such mechanisms and drives are more likley to leave offspring. The more effective these mechanisms and drives ar, the more offspring are left and the more these effective mechanisms and drives are spread through the population. Natural Selection.
Really. A daffodil knows it will ultimately die? A graptolite knew its entire phylum would become extinct?
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
Surely, every single reaction occuring in a cell, and everything else, for that matter, works at the quantum level. The only problem is that we do not know exactly how it can be applied to life's processes. The quantum theory may explain events at the microcosm (subatomic) level to some extant, but fails at macrocosm (universe) level. What we really need is a good "Theory Of Everything", which can explain allevents in the universe unequivocally. May be something like that is in the offing in the form of "Superstring Theory", but personally I doubt it. I would love to hear from you if you have any idea (even vague) how quantum mechanics works to generate membarne potential.
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
What I mean by ‘know’ is a sense of its surroundings. It should also include ‘response to stimuli’ and perhaps ‘adaptation’ as well. This may also be called awareness. You are right – the meaning of ‘know’ is distorted.
The mechanism by which this awareness operates is really subtle. A plant is certainly aware of its surroundings – otherwise how to explain phototaxis. A bacterium is aware of its surroundings – otherwise how do we explain chemotaxis.
Same way: Plants ‘know’ that they cannot stay put at a place forever, and that they have to find different places, different opportunities – the mechanism they adopt is the ingenious methods of “seed dispersal”.
Same way: Plants ‘know’ that they lose ‘vigour’ sooner or later if they do not crossbreed – they found out their versatile contrivances of cross-pollination.
Same way: Plants do ‘know’ that they may become extinct if proper action is not taken – that is their reason to invent mechanisms to adapt according to the changing environment in the form of mutation and natural selection.
Having said the above things, I find myself naïve in really understanding the true spirit of evolution. I cannot explain why certain species have become extinct and remain fossilized. And why some should continue for millions of years (perhaps billions of years, as in archaea) without interruption. I cannot explain many more of such things.
There is an element of luck involved as well. Put it down to good luck and bad luck. (Luck = random chance)
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
Luck is right - only that you cannot be lucky twice
No you are wrong there, you can only be unlucky once. You can be lucky forever. Like playing Russian roulette you are only unlucky once.
Unlucky in terms of evolution means extinction.
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
If luck drives life's processes we would all be extinct by now. how can a lion see a hare -it may see or it may not - at random. how can you perform your daily maths - you may get it right or wrong - at random.
Even "life-less" processes cannot be random - when you add bicarbonate to acid you may get a reaction or not - random choice.
It all appears random because human beings have not understood the grand design completely - No, no place for religion here - it is all beyond religion.
Even "life-less" processes cannot be random - when you add bicarbonate to acid you may get a reaction or not - random choice.
It all appears random because human beings have not understood the grand design completely - No, no place for religion here - it is all beyond religion.
This is such a weird thread. You are a reputed surgeon, but you remind me of the character that rolls in to town on a wagon and sets up a medicine show. You have all the markings of pseudoscience, yet the credentials to know when you are crossing the boundaries between truth and fiction. I think I would describe you as a deliberate pseudoscientist, as opposed to the many accidental pseudoscientists whose wagons are parked in other threads right around the corner.
Have you yourself ever been anesthetized? I have. I was out cold. I was already speaking when they woke me up, in other words, in an active dream state that was responding to their prompts, yet so thoroughly stoned I had zero perception that a conversation was under way. I just woke up into it.
Now that's what I call being unconscious. And it's no stretch to realize that during that time I had no consciousness. So even to declare that humans possess consciousness is qualified by whether or not they are actually awake. And then we wonder how many coma patients are permanently unconscious.
And yet you want to entertain the idea that bacteria have a consciousness, etc.? No. That's an elixer that's had the label swapped from the bottle that contained plain old glucose.
The idea that cell motility can be linked to a consciousness is purely a mind game. It looks like something you see moving which seems to have a consciousness of some kind — your banjo pluckin raccoon or whatever else you're carrying in that wagon. But it ain't no raccoon. It's just this nanomachine from 2 billion years BC. It has its own story, not the one we script for it. You can't reinvent nature from the top down and go sending the cause for its existence backwards in time. Assuming you're not the Supreme Commander of the Universe, that is.
Are you? Because I could use infinite wealth, eternal youth, and the powers of superman.
And as you could no sooner snap those into existence for me, you can't make nature into what it's not. Sorry to bust your bubble, but since you seem to be gushing with self-esteem, I think no harm is done by simply telling you you're flat wrong.
Have you yourself ever been anesthetized? I have. I was out cold. I was already speaking when they woke me up, in other words, in an active dream state that was responding to their prompts, yet so thoroughly stoned I had zero perception that a conversation was under way. I just woke up into it.
Now that's what I call being unconscious. And it's no stretch to realize that during that time I had no consciousness. So even to declare that humans possess consciousness is qualified by whether or not they are actually awake. And then we wonder how many coma patients are permanently unconscious.
And yet you want to entertain the idea that bacteria have a consciousness, etc.? No. That's an elixer that's had the label swapped from the bottle that contained plain old glucose.
The idea that cell motility can be linked to a consciousness is purely a mind game. It looks like something you see moving which seems to have a consciousness of some kind — your banjo pluckin raccoon or whatever else you're carrying in that wagon. But it ain't no raccoon. It's just this nanomachine from 2 billion years BC. It has its own story, not the one we script for it. You can't reinvent nature from the top down and go sending the cause for its existence backwards in time. Assuming you're not the Supreme Commander of the Universe, that is.
Are you? Because I could use infinite wealth, eternal youth, and the powers of superman.
And as you could no sooner snap those into existence for me, you can't make nature into what it's not. Sorry to bust your bubble, but since you seem to be gushing with self-esteem, I think no harm is done by simply telling you you're flat wrong.
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
When you deny the presence of 'awareness' in bacteria etc, and seems to be claiming that only humans are 'conscious' of their surroundings (and can slip into coma) - you appear to be caryying more of an anthropocentric view than anything else.
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
The discussion we are doing here is referred to as "pseudoscience", rightly or wrongly. The problem with such discussion is understandable. I have no business of examining "what (exactly) is life" - it is, so far, beyond human comprehension - there are >100 definitions, all individually stylized. But I am here to discuss the origin of cellular life – the discussion is not on why life appeared on the earth, but as to how it could have started. Though this task is not easy, this certainly falls in the purview of science, I believe. I am discussing such a thing here – not the “ethereal life” and “pseudoscientific conundrum” some people concoct to define life abstrusely.
Thus, it becomes relevant here to quote the points put forth “scientifically” by Fraggle Rocker sometime ago, regarding the general consensus of biologists to qualify life:
Fraggle Rocker had included evolution as apart of adaptation.
Now, let us examine this scientifically – Metabolism and Homeostasis can be grouped under the one heading; Growth, Organization and Reproduction and perhaps evolution can be grouped under one heading; and Adaptation and Response-to-stimulus can be grouped under one heading. But it must be stressed here that for life to continue all these components must be present. To illustrate this point we take the example of a seed in storage. For years a seed can be stored, before it starts germinating. All those years the seed must maintain some form of metabolism at the most basic level – if it ceases to run metabolism completely, it dies. The seed must also retain a potential to regenerate – it must have a capacity to grow to a full plant to fulfill the life’s cycle – if this potential disappears it will not grow again. The seed also must also be equipped with a mechanism to respond to favorable external environment – if its surroundings are conducive it must respond to the various stimuli (like water, air, light) and start adapting to the environment – this also appears to need a sensing mechanism. This mechanism has to be activated first, which in turn activates the other two mechanisms.
The scientific community has explored the first two mechanisms with great enthusiasm, and their study has progressed enormously. The last of these features – the exact mechanism of adaptation and response-to-stimuli (is there anything wrong when I say this is awareness?) – is also studied, but not to the same extent. We do not fully understand the mechanisms of adaptation. It became a taboo in the scientific community to discuss mechanisms of awareness. Like in the following:
A thorough examination of adaptive responses and the mechanisms of awareness is no pseudoscience and no philosophy.
Thus, it becomes relevant here to quote the points put forth “scientifically” by Fraggle Rocker sometime ago, regarding the general consensus of biologists to qualify life:
Fraggle Rocker had included evolution as apart of adaptation.
Now, let us examine this scientifically – Metabolism and Homeostasis can be grouped under the one heading; Growth, Organization and Reproduction and perhaps evolution can be grouped under one heading; and Adaptation and Response-to-stimulus can be grouped under one heading. But it must be stressed here that for life to continue all these components must be present. To illustrate this point we take the example of a seed in storage. For years a seed can be stored, before it starts germinating. All those years the seed must maintain some form of metabolism at the most basic level – if it ceases to run metabolism completely, it dies. The seed must also retain a potential to regenerate – it must have a capacity to grow to a full plant to fulfill the life’s cycle – if this potential disappears it will not grow again. The seed also must also be equipped with a mechanism to respond to favorable external environment – if its surroundings are conducive it must respond to the various stimuli (like water, air, light) and start adapting to the environment – this also appears to need a sensing mechanism. This mechanism has to be activated first, which in turn activates the other two mechanisms.
The scientific community has explored the first two mechanisms with great enthusiasm, and their study has progressed enormously. The last of these features – the exact mechanism of adaptation and response-to-stimuli (is there anything wrong when I say this is awareness?) – is also studied, but not to the same extent. We do not fully understand the mechanisms of adaptation. It became a taboo in the scientific community to discuss mechanisms of awareness. Like in the following:
A thorough examination of adaptive responses and the mechanisms of awareness is no pseudoscience and no philosophy.
Last edited:
Krishnagopal: Here is an interesting article . . . . re: brain functions/consciousness via quantum interactions: http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html
krishnagopal
Registered Senior Member
Thank You, I have studied the article on "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I will go through your reference also - hope this clears a few facts.
What a crazy spin to put on the word anthropomorphic. Let me get this straight: if I say a creature can't have a trait that I know I can't possess (as when unconscious), then this qualifies as anthropomorphic?
the dictionary said:
Note: I do not deny the presence of awareness in bacteria, because one can only deny what is established or believed true. Bacterial awareness is not believed true (other than by you). The correct word is reject, but the only thing I reject is your claim, because it's nothing more than a fantasy that exists in your mind. It has no bearing on the real world.