the difference between life and non-life

[Squid]

The characteristics are not without their problems in that a solid definition of life is very difficult.  One example would be viruses.  The characteristics listed are based upon life found here on Earth.

For those investigating the origin of life and astrobiology, they are completely aware that these characteristics may not be sufficient.  They begin to focus on other aspects such as metabolisms and various types of replication aside from what we know.  Really life is hard to pin down because it's an emergent property - just like consciousness coming from the complex interaction and function of neural tissue, life arises out of the combined actions what our bodies are composed of.  Make any sense?  Clear as mud? Cool.

[TheJackel]

Sorry if this question has already been posed, just point me in that direction if you're terribly annoyed at my redundancy.
I'm only looking for simple answers.  I guess I'm most curious of the atheists'/naturalists' point of view.

What is the difference between life and non-life?

I'm not at all a biologist.  I'm assuming a naturalist sees a difference between a rock and a human, and I'm wondering what distinguishes them (as far as one being living and the other being "not-living").

In the simplest terms... It's simply active matter vs in-active matter... Life is basically a chemical reaction of organized patterns of information in the form of proteins, RNA, and DNA... The origins of life can all be traced back to a regression of in-active matter... Over millions of years of evolution, certain chemical reactions have become increasingly more complex, or at times less complex to form what you call life... If you want a really deep explanation you can visit my posted article... It answers your question rather nicely.. You can visit it here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4277

Note: some people originally thought it was spam .. I updated it so it would be easier to read as well (you can skip all the other stuff and go straight to the section on RNA!)

[templeboy]

Hmmm... great topic.
How do you define "organic molecules".



JoeActor

Joe- Organic molecules are fairly easy to define- basically they are molecules that contain carbon. Why is carbon so important? Because it is by far the most versatile element, able to form long chains, double-bond, triple-bond, bonding covalently with almost all elements...life from inorganic molecules is conceivable, but carbon is far and away the obvious element for life to be based on (for instance the chemically most similar element to Carbon, Silicon, is often suggested as an alternative, but it pales by comparison)

Towards the OP: Like many things in nature, "life" vs "non-life" is not in reality two distinct categories...there something of a continuum, and it is a fairly arbitary decision as to where we draw the line in the sand.

[theradwun]

ok I think that's what I'm trying to get at, self-awareness.  And the plant instance that you brought up is the curious middle ground of "life".  We have life-less rocks, living un-self-aware plants, and living self-aware animals.  I guess from the beginning I was curious about self-awareness and if there's any scientific explanation for it.  I feel like it points to something peculiar and insightful that shouldn't be ignored.  So since science is always claiming to be the only place we can find "real" answers, I was curious what science has to say...

[AlP]

ok I think that's what I'm trying to get at, self-awareness. And the plant instance that you brought up is the curious middle ground of "life". We have life-less rocks, living un-self-aware plants, and living self-aware animals. I guess from the beginning I was curious about self-awareness and if there's any scientific explanation for it. I feel like it points to something peculiar and insightful that shouldn't be ignored. So since science is always claiming to be the only place we can find "real" answers, I was curious what science has to say...

Not many animals have been demonstrated to be self-aware. My psychology textbook (Psychology by David Myers) lists chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, dolphins, elephants and magpies and I am sure there are others. I doubt anyone has found a way to test if a sea snail is self aware! Human infants demonstrate self-awareness from about 15-18 months old. Here is a link to a limited preview of the book. I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the page. It's page 194.

But that's probably not what you're really asking. You're asking why are we self-aware rather than what is self-aware? I think I am not misrepresenting science if I say nobody knows. I've heard it called "the hard problem" by psychologists.

It's impossible to not speculate on this problem of course. It's way to personal not to. My current assumption is that we are giving consciousness way more credit than it deserves. Honestly, thinking about the things I have done versus the things I consciously thought about doing, there's a huge discrepancy. The simplest explanation I can think of is that consciousness is not the primary thinking process that leads me to do things. And speculating even more wildly, is consciousness any more than a way of passively reflecting on what we do and what we perceive? Just saying =).

[AlP]

Hmmm... great topic.

I'd have to agree with many of the definitions, but they seem very "Earth-centric"

Granted, that's all we've got access to, but what about non-DNA/RNA life forms?
How do you define "organic molecules".

Surprised nobody has mentioned "Fire" yet (consumes, replicates, born, dies, reacts to environment, etc...)

Funny, I was thinking about the experiment I did at school where we grew crystals on a piece of thread dangling into salt solution. I think fire's a better example though =).

In terms of general definitions of life that aren't Earth-centric and would exclude things like fire and crystals, I'll take a shot. Life is anything that can replicate itself and optimize itself (actively or passively) so as to replicate more efficiently. Unfortunately, although that excludes fire and crystals, it includes ideas. Do this season's fashion trends count as life?  

[Whitney]

I guess from the beginning I was curious about self-awareness and if there's any scientific explanation for it.  I feel like it points to something peculiar and insightful that shouldn't be ignored.  So since science is always claiming to be the only place we can find "real" answers, I was curious what science has to say...

I don't really know the details of the scientific explanation for how self awareness came to exist or if there is a solid theory on it yet.  However, self awareness is probably simply a byproduct of a brain which was evolving into a more complex computer for hunting.

Being self aware isn't magical, it's simply knowing that you are an individual with thoughts of your own.  The why we are self aware may not really have a reason like why we don't have tails has no particular reason; it's simply what was beneficial so those who had these traits got their genes passed along.

[TheJackel]

I guess from the beginning I was curious about self-awareness and if there's any scientific explanation for it.  I feel like it points to something peculiar and insightful that shouldn't be ignored.  So since science is always claiming to be the only place we can find "real" answers, I was curious what science has to say...

I don't really know the details of the scientific explanation for how self awareness came to exist or if there is a solid theory on it yet.  However, self awareness is probably simply a byproduct of a brain which was evolving into a more complex computer for hunting.

Being self aware isn't magical, it's simply knowing that you are an individual with thoughts of your own.  The why we are self aware may not really have a reason like why we don't have tails has no particular reason; it's simply what was beneficial so those who had these traits got their genes passed along.

Actually there is...

[youtube:1j9wjmu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJOIQWkfWA[/youtube:1j9wjmu8]

[AlP]

A|P's baloney detector just went off. Sorry TheJackel, this is not convincing to me.

[TheJackel]

A|P's baloney detector just went off. Sorry TheJackel, this is not convincing to me.

Then feel free to explain why it's "bologna"... It's really not that hard to grasp... In fact, If I were to sedate you for an operation you will lose complete self-awareness and consciousness.. You wouldn't even have a dream until the time period to where the drug wares off, and when you start to wake up.... Under sedation, your brain activity is actually much lower than the brain activity when you are in REM sleep...  All consciousnesses are subject to infinite regress..  Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than just state "this isn't convincing to me"... Feel free to prove it wrong.. What is your body of evidence to suggest otherwise? A personal belief? fear that it's true?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kQYPSD6 ... re=related

Some interesting reads:

http://www.drgdiaz.com/quantum_computing.shtml
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/ijcai/IJCAI-2003/PDF/276.pdf

There is even the notion of AC... Artificial Consciousness..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI
http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html

[AlP]

Then feel free to explain why it's "bologna"

Your idea is certainly not Bologna. Bologna is a city in Italy. I accused you of "baloney", which means nonsense.

Do you understand what quantum processing means?

No. Forgive me if I assume it is nonsense. Whenever the word "quantum" comes up, it is invariably nonsense.

All your brain does is process and interpret information on a quantum level... It's really not that hard to grasp...

In my experience of actually reading about physics, things involving quantum mechanics are not easy to grasp.

In fact, If I were to sedate you for an operation you will lose complete self-awareness and consciousness.. You wouldn't even have a dream until the time period to where the drug wares off, and when you start to wake up

I'm not an anaesthetist but if that's true it doesn't surprise me.

Under sedation, your brain activity is actually much lower than the brain activity when you are in REM sleep

Why is this important?

All consciousnesses are subject to infinite regress

I actually know what infinite regress means. Sorry, I read philosophy.

Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than just state "this isn't convincing to me"... Feel free to prove it wrong.. What is your body of evidence to suggest otherwise? A personal belief?

So wait... I say you haven't convinced me and now it's my responsibility to prove you wrong? What if I don't care?

fear that it's true?

Fear what exactly?

[leonswan2000]

Hi theradwun. I'm not a biologist either but I think a reasonable definitions would be that living things reproduce whereas things that are not living do not.

I dont reproduce am I dead? Or just unlucky?

[Whitney]

A|P's baloney detector just went off. Sorry TheJackel, this is not convincing to me.

Same here, but I call it my bullshit detector.

What part of the video even talks about an explanation for the origins of consciousness?  I kinda lost my ability to pay attention when it talked about "wishing" for more 1s that a machine would produce more 1s....did they even mention the name of the experiment so that people can research it themselves?  All I caught is that it had been performed 100s of times with the same results; the same can be said of poorly run experiments which 'prove' prayer works.

Hi theradwun. I'm not a biologist either but I think a reasonable definitions would be that living things reproduce whereas things that are not living do not.

I dont reproduce am I dead? Or just unlucky?

Your body creates a new your every x number of years...so in a way you do reproduce, just on an internal level.

[TheJackel]

Then feel free to explain why it's "bologna"
Your idea is certainly not Bologna. Bologna is a city in Italy. I accused you of "baloney", which means nonsense.

Fist you must prove that it is "baloney" before you can claim that it is "baloney".. And we clearly see that you fail to do so.

Do you understand what quantum processing means?"
No. Forgive me if I assume it is nonsense. Whenever the word "quantum" comes up, it is invariably nonsense.

Wrong.. Quantum Electrodynamic Physics proves otherwise.. In fact you failed to read the links

Under sedation, your brain activity is actually much lower than the brain activity when you are in REM sleep
Why is this important?

It ought to be quite obvious... If my CPU isn't running at full load it's obvious not processing anything that can stress it's computational ability.. Hence, I am not playing a game atm, I am only browsing the web... This applies to your brain and level of consciousness..

All consciousnesses are subject to infinite regress
I actually know what infinite regress means. Sorry, I read philosophy.

I never suggest you didn't know what infinite regress is.. But you seem to fail to apply it to your own Philosophy... Just because a Philosophy sounds good, doesn't make it true when it has obvious contradictions and impossibilities in it... If you know what infinite regress is, then you ought to know how it applies to your own philosophy or ideology.. (and I am not assuming you don't know this)

Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than just state "this isn't convincing to me"... Feel free to prove it wrong.. What is your body of evidence to suggest otherwise? A personal belief?
So wait... I say you haven't convinced me and now it's my responsibility to prove you wrong? What if I don't care? It was a ploy to get to you address the issue vs merely "Call BS" without providing a valid reason why

[TheJackel]

A|P's baloney detector just went off. Sorry TheJackel, this is not convincing to me.

Same here, but I call it my bullshit detector.

What part of the video even talks about an explanation for the origins of consciousness?  I kinda lost my ability to pay attention when it talked about "wishing" for more 1s that a machine would produce more 1s....did they even mention the name of the experiment so that people can research it themselves?  All I caught is that it had been performed 100s of times with the same results; the same can be said of poorly run experiments which 'prove' prayer works.

Hi theradwun. I'm not a biologist either but I think a reasonable definitions would be that living things reproduce whereas things that are not living do not.

I dont reproduce am I dead? Or just unlucky?

Your body creates a new your every x number of years...so in a way you do reproduce, just on an internal level.

The origins of consciousness relies on certain parts of the brain... It's a proven medical fact that consciousness can not be viable if certain parts of the brain are removed from the big picture.. The videos attempt to address this in terms of quantum physics. mechanics and computation.. The coin toss only represents probability... There is no such thing as an actual random number.. There is only the probability of any given number to be selected.. Hence, the difference between cause and effect and calculated processes... Cause and effect still achieves a result , and levels of higher complexity without calculation.. It's stating that consciousness must first be formed through a cause and effect process that leads to a level of complexity capable of processing other bits of information.. To become an observer... This is similar to the notion that you can not have a 3D object until such object is formed into existence through the 0D,1D, and 2Dimensional planes of existence.. Hence, Quantum Electrodynamic Physics..

An example of 0D,1D,2D interaction or process that leads to a 3D reality is a formulated Idea of a car which leads to a design on paper, and then leads to the production of said car.... Here, any number of probabilities can occur or be processed... Choices or decisions can not be made without first have knowledge or information on the background of any given set of choices, or decisions... Thus, leads to the probability of one choice being selected over another based on further information that gives one choice more weight than the other... This is basically how quantum computation works... And IBM has already proven this with the 4 atom quantum computer... In fact artificial consciousness is likely possible within the next 200 to 300 years...

So if artificial consciousness is plausible does this make man potential GODS?