the difference between life and non-life

[Whitney]

^how is that much different from me saying it evolved as the brain became more complex?

Talking about something complex needing to have started out simply does not explain how it started in the first place....just that we know it had to have simple origins.

[TheJackel]

^how is that much different from me saying it evolved as the brain became more complex?

Talking about something complex needing to have started out simply does not explain how it started in the first place....just that we know it had to have simple origins.

This is true.. This can be said for anything.. However existence it's self is entirely Complex to begin with.. And a GOD for example can not create that which he himself would require in order to exist either.. I am not saying we can quantify the entire sum of how consciousness exactly works or how existence works.. What I am telling you is that you do not need to understand the entire sum to give an accurate representation of the whole and how it basically functions..

Example: Do we need to know the exact GPS location of every atom on earth at any given moment in time to understand that Earth is a planet in a solar system that revolves around the sun? No we don't... We can give an accurate representation of existence as a whole  without the need to understand the entire sum of existence... Same goes with consciousness.. This only means that there is missing data between the lines... We know we are human and we know we exist.. That is the accurate description between the source of our existence and the end result to which we represent.

Existence simply can not be created.. And I have outlined that in my own thread... No mind can create the container to itself... All minds must also have separate containers apart from one another... There is no such thing as a creator of existence or of consciousness.. They must form through the process of cause and effect or formation... An Operating system of a computer can not create the code to which itself is written from or the hard drive that it is contained in... Infinite regress comes in to play because the OS does not represent a Universal Set of all sets...

So when we speak of consciousness and the origins of consciousness, we can all agree that it relies on something to give it reality.. This applies to any kind of consciousness.. It doesn't matter if you think it's supernatural or not...

[AlP]

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.

No sir, you must show that it is not baloney! This is what happens when you make an extraordinary claim. People will often be skeptical and this is a good thing.

Wrong.. Quantum Electrodynamic Physics proves otherwise.. In fact you failed to read the links IBM has already created a 4 atom quantum computer.. And is now in the process of creating an 8 atom quantum computer.. Quantum computing give seed to the processing ability of representing "probabilities, and possibilities" vs conventional computation based on switches like 0's and 1's..  It's already proven scientifically even if quantum mechanics and computation is not yet fully understood.. Quantum Physics is in it's infancy...

To call something nonsense just because you don't understand the basic concept is plainly an attempt to play ignorance.. At the very least the attempt to attack and avoid the argument.

Actually I have read some books on quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and attempts to unify theories in physics. Not a lot but not bad for a layman. I grasp the basics of it.

I have also read some books about neuroscience. I don't know a lot about neuroscience but not bad for a layman. Thinking about the kinds of structures in the brain and the nervous system, axons spring to mind. They're like wires that send signals between neurons. They work by pushing charged ions through what amounts to a tube. The signals travel really fast. But not as fast as an electrical signal passing through a wire in an electronic computer.

So I'm not sure why where quantum electrodynamics would be useful in explaining something that operates at a molecular scale. I'm not saying quantum electrodynamics is wrong. I'm just saying I don't see what the relevance is to understanding consciousness.

[Whitney]

So when we speak of consciousness and the origins of consciousness, we can all agree that it relies on something to give it reality.. This applies to any kind of consciousness.. It doesn't matter if you think it's supernatural or not...

Ya, that something is how our brains are wired.  I think you are unnecessarily complicating things.

[TheJackel]

So when we speak of consciousness and the origins of consciousness, we can all agree that it relies on something to give it reality.. This applies to any kind of consciousness.. It doesn't matter if you think it's supernatural or not...

Ya, that something is how our brains are wired.  I think you are unnecessarily complicating things.

Ok, I will try to simplify:)

The evidence that we can look at in simple terms is that a Consciousness can not be the creator or source of origin of consciousness.. Basically, a consciousness can not create consciousness itself.. If you state that it can, you are still admitting that consciousness has a process to it's creation or formation.. Hence, you are admitting to the fact that consciousness has an origin from unconsciousness and is subject to infinite regress, and is comprised of subsets, or levels of complexity.. And in stating that a higher level conscious being created consciousness you thus trying to claim reverse creationism is possible.... Hence, stating that consciousness preexisted itself in order to create itself... This is logically impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------------

*simplification off*

I will now revert back to complication

[TheJackel]

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.

No sir, you must show that it is not baloney! This is what happens when you make an extraordinary claim. People will often be skeptical and this is a good thing.

Wrong.. Quantum Electrodynamic Physics proves otherwise.. In fact you failed to read the links IBM has already created a 4 atom quantum computer.. And is now in the process of creating an 8 atom quantum computer.. Quantum computing give seed to the processing ability of representing "probabilities, and possibilities" vs conventional computation based on switches like 0's and 1's..  It's already proven scientifically even if quantum mechanics and computation is not yet fully understood.. Quantum Physics is in it's infancy...

To call something nonsense just because you don't understand the basic concept is plainly an attempt to play ignorance.. At the very least the attempt to attack and avoid the argument.

Actually I have read some books on quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and attempts to unify theories in physics. Not a lot but not bad for a layman. I grasp the basics of it.
 
I have also read some books about neuroscience. I don't know a lot about neuroscience but not bad for a layman. Thinking about the kinds of structures in the brain and the nervous system, axons spring to mind. They're like wires that send signals between neurons. They work by pushing charged ions through what amounts to a tube. The signals travel really fast. But not as fast as an electrical signal passing through a wire in an electronic computer.

So I'm not sure why where quantum electrodynamics would be useful in explaining something that operates at a molecular scale. I'm not saying quantum electrodynamics is wrong. I'm just saying I don't see what the relevance is to understanding consciousness.

Fist I am not claiming that Quantum Physics has "Solved the entire puzzle"... I am stating that it is pointing in the right direction.. With that being said, Quantum Electrodynamic physics attempts to explain the creation of the "Stuff", or the bi-products that represent the substance of our very existence... Yes, it is true that total unification has not yet been solved...However, it is likely to be solved!... For example, the unification of magnetism and electricity was solved through quantum physics.. This made the discovery that magnetism and electricity were two forms of the same thing..... What quantum physics is trying to do now is piece all the other pieces together.. And there is also the notion of subset laws of physics..  For example,  E=MC2 could be subset laws of physics to quantum physics to where it appears to be a free agent.. But, in this respect it really isn't a free agent! It becomes an agent that formulates it's own laws from the substance of the universal law... Kind of like how our own Legal system of laws are subsets them selves, but they still rely on the universal set/law for their own existence.. So when anti-particles collide with particles and create the bi-products of our existence. a new set of laws form as subsets of the universal set of laws... This is where different elements of any given law come together to form another law... Kind of like how one color can merge with another color to produce a different color without the need of any of the other colors but the two that made it... Discovering the unification of this in terms of physics isn't so easy... You have to find what parts of the universal law make up all the other laws of physics.. And you simply can't do that when you do not yet fully understand it... Quantum physics, still in it's infancy... In another 100 years or so,  we could only begin to imagine what people will say on this very subject..

But. yes.. i can not with 100 percent certainty state that it's all fact... But I can verify that enough information is there to logically state that a creator is not likely the answer to existence... And that non-existence is not plausible... Quantum Physics may have a long road ahead of itself, but i can say with confidence that it's headed in the right direction.

 

 This process of unification will not be easy or verified anytime soon..

You are basically trying to reverse engineer existence... And that is not going to be an easy task.. Even if you were a "GOD"...

[AlP]

Ok, I will try to simplify:)

The evidence that we can look at in simple terms is that a Consciousness can not be the creator or source of origin of consciousness.. Basically, a consciousness can not create consciousness itself.. If you state that it can, you are still admitting that consciousness has a process to it's creation or formation.. Hence, you are admitting to the fact that consciousness has an origin from unconsciousness and is subject to infinite regress, and is comprised of subsets, or levels of complexity.. And in stating that a higher level conscious being created consciousness you thus trying to claim reverse creationism is possible.... Hence, stating that consciousness preexisted itself in order to create itself... This is logically impossiple.

Okay I think you are pointing out an implication of Descartes' model of consciousness. His view was that consciousness is a relation between an immaterial subject (basically the soul) and a material object (the worldly human). And then that self-consciousness is a further relation between another immaterial subject and itself as object. Your argument is that if consciousness is always consciousness of something then there is a dilemma because it implies an infinite chain of conscious acts. Either that or you have to break the regress by introducing a new kind of consciousness, which isn't actually conscious, i.e. an unconscious consciousness. This is Sartre's argument. Sartre used this argument against Descartes. He disagreed with the Cartesian view.

I think that both Descartes and Sartre were over-analyzing things; although I love Sartre because he is impossibly difficult to follow sometimes.

I will no revert back to complication I will now clearly state that since we can establish the existence of various levels of consciousness, We can conclude that  consciousness is absolute evidence of the process of evolution by  A cause and effect process, to a calculated process that can, but not always lead to higher levels of complexity... from unawareness (in active matter.), to simple awareness (bacteria or active matter), to complex awareness (instinct) , to a higher complexity level of awareness (simple consciousness (dolphin), to Complete self awareness (human beings) to perhaps higher levels of consciousness... You can correlate this to levels of divinity.. To me when someone states that they believe in a God, all they are saying is that they believe in a being of a higher level of conscious complexity... This can be modeled in dimensional representation to where the higher the dimension the more complex each dimension becomes.. But by no means are any of these the "Creator" or the universal set to existence because they all rely on the lower subsets to be a set themselves.. Hence, humans are closer to the origin of consciousness than a higher being of consciousness..

Wow there. I for one do not conclude that there is an infinite chain of consciousnesses. I conclude that Descartes was wrong and that consciousness is not a relation between a subject and an object. I don't know what consciousness is. This argument is I think still over-complicated.

[TheJackel]

Ok, I will try to simplify:)

The evidence that we can look at in simple terms is that a Consciousness can not be the creator or source of origin of consciousness.. Basically, a consciousness can not create consciousness itself.. If you state that it can, you are still admitting that consciousness has a process to it's creation or formation.. Hence, you are admitting to the fact that consciousness has an origin from unconsciousness and is subject to infinite regress, and is comprised of subsets, or levels of complexity.. And in stating that a higher level conscious being created consciousness you thus trying to claim reverse creationism is possible.... Hence, stating that consciousness preexisted itself in order to create itself... This is logically impossiple.
Okay I think you are pointing out an implication of Descartes' model of consciousness. His view was that consciousness is a relation between an immaterial subject (basically the soul) and a material object (the worldly human). And then that self-consciousness is a further relation between another immaterial subject and itself as object. Your argument is that if consciousness is always consciousness of something then there is a dilemma because it implies an infinite chain of conscious acts. Either that or you have to break the regress by introducing a new kind of consciousness, which isn't actually conscious, i.e. an unconscious consciousness. This is Sartre's argument. Sartre used this argument against Descartes. He disagreed with the Cartesian view.

I think that both Descartes and Sartre were over-analyzing things; although I love Sartre because he is impossibly difficult to follow sometimes.

Not exactly.. I used it as an example so people get the general idea.. And we can never "over-analyze" things.. That is how we cough up a truth or get to the heart of the problem.. The answer is not going to be as simplistic as you would hope to receive.. It's not going to be "GOD did it", and thus no further need to ask any questions.. It's forcing you to actually think critically on the subject.. If you want the simple version then the quote "Consciousness can not preexist to create consciousness"  Sartre is basically stating the same exact thing.. Consciousness must form from an unconscious process... And that simply means, the increase level of complexity through a cause and effect process that achieves a complexity level great enough to ignite consciousness.. It's not hard to understand... It makes complete sense..

I will no revert back to complication :/

[Whitney]

The evidence that we can look at in simple terms is that a Consciousness can not be the creator or source of origin of consciousness.. Basically, a consciousness can not create consciousness itself.. If you state that it can, you are still admitting that consciousness has a process to it's creation or formation.. Hence, you are admitting to the fact that consciousness has an origin from unconsciousness and is subject to infinite regress, and is comprised of subsets, or levels of complexity.. And in stating that a higher level conscious being created consciousness you thus trying to claim reverse creationism is possible.... Hence, stating that consciousness preexisted itself in order to create itself... This is logically impossible.

   Ok...no one was saying that consciousness created consciousness.

[TheJackel]

The evidence that we can look at in simple terms is that a Consciousness can not be the creator or source of origin of consciousness.. Basically, a consciousness can not create consciousness itself.. If you state that it can, you are still admitting that consciousness has a process to it's creation or formation.. Hence, you are admitting to the fact that consciousness has an origin from unconsciousness and is subject to infinite regress, and is comprised of subsets, or levels of complexity.. And in stating that a higher level conscious being created consciousness you thus trying to claim reverse creationism is possible.... Hence, stating that consciousness preexisted itself in order to create itself... This is logically impossible.

 ... The name of the website kind of puts you in that mindset .. However, if you are going to ask about the origins of consciousness, you have to go through a logical process of elimination... This just means that I personally conclude that quantum physics is much closer to answering this than anything other option available to choose from.

[AlP]

Point taken... Sometimes I forget this isn't just a forum of atheism vs religion .. However, if you are going to ask about the origins of consciousness, you have to go through a logical process of elimination... This just means that I personally conclude that quantum physics is much closer to answering this than anything other option available to choose from.

I suggest reading some more psychology. Speculating about consciousness is fun but the idea that it has something to do with quantum physics is quite a leap. Maybe it has something to do with neurons firing and sending signals to each other? Just a thought...

[TheJackel]

Point taken... Sometimes I forget this isn't just a forum of atheism vs religion .. However, if you are going to ask about the origins of consciousness, you have to go through a logical process of elimination... This just means that I personally conclude that quantum physics is much closer to answering this than anything other option available to choose from.

I suggest reading some more psychology. Speculating about consciousness is fun but the idea that it has something to do with quantum physics is quite a leap. Maybe it has something to do with neurons firing and sending signals to each other? Just a thought...

That still complies with quantum physics... We are talking about computation that gives you the ability... And such ability can only be through the computation of probability... The firing of neurons is only one aspect to consciousness... And I would agree that they are necessary Complexity achieved through probability is logical.. This means it's not just consciousness that relies on Quantum computation... Evolution as a whole would... It explains why all living things have some level of awareness... Even a single celled organism is aware, but not fully aware like we are... Here is an interesting article on plant awareness

http://alternativespirituality.suite101 ... ence_exist

or

 Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:

    * Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
    * Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
    * Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
    * Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
    * Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
    * Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
    * Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
    * Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
    * Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
    * Kinesis - Movement
    * Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
    * Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
    * Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
    * Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
    * Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
    * Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
    * Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
    * Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
    * Plant physiology - The science of plant function
    * Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
    * Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
    * Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
    * Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
    * Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
    * Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
    * Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
    * Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
    * Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

[joeactor]

Something new for this topic... "Prions"

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100101_prions

Non-organic, evolution?

[elmonte09]

The various answers to the difference between life and non-life are wonderful and amazing. At 67,and with a pretty hefty cache of reading in the bag, I feel I just went through a crash course in basic science.
The original question feels sort of fundie, I mean, funny because it could lead to a question of what about life-after-death and into explanations that no decent, rigorous, logical adult (scientist or not) would not be interested in considering.
Maybe I've been burnt by so many rhetorical questions posed by religionists and believers when they discover that I don't belief in the bible god, and I think that when I am dead and my body decomposes I am gone forever. I might gradually move from life into death, and could possibly be in an extended coma that slowly melts into clinical death and then some bodily functions might continue after there is no brain activity...but at some point I'll be no longer. All of me will return to more elemental substances and be integrated into the ongoing biosphere.

I'm not a scientist: I've been a high school English teacher, a political activist and am currently a project director with a non-profit education advocacy organization. I have been an eclectic bookworm since I learned to read, and as I begin my 67th year, I face a large bookcase in my studio, with about 500 books, about 100 still to be perused or read.

I do have a very deep and loving respect for the scientists who continue to do the tedious, persistent observation and documentation of the earth, life and everything the senses behold, extended through modern marvelous instruments and processes. Life and non-life have a huge, magnificent team of humans recording, documenting, making connections, posing hypotheses and testing them rigorously, and adding to the riches in knowledge and understanding gathered by our predecessors. All of this without any direction, informing nor revelation from any deity or spirit.

As a lay person to the earth and biological sciences, I have very crude notions of the distinctions between life and non-life, and I would be very careful to attempt a philosophical conversation about it even though I do have a slightly better preparation in that discipline. My concern about the question is that it can become quicksand, flypaper or icky goo (pick your metaphor) when it is rooted in a faith/belief question that is watered by things other than observable evidence and proveable premises. As much as I love poetry and literature, many saccharine and cloying definitions of life are floating around. I can't be very comfortable or trusting of a conversation about life and non-life with someone whose background and reasoning powers I don't trust.

[elmonte09]

The various answers to the difference between life and non-life are wonderful and amazing. At 67,and with a pretty hefty cache of reading in the bag, I feel I just went through a crash course in basic science.
The original question feels sort of fundie, I mean, funny because it could lead to a question of what about life-after-death and into explanations that no decent, rigorous, logical adult (scientist or not) would not be interested in considering.
Maybe I've been burnt by so many rhetorical questions posed by religionists and believers when they discover that I don't belief in the bible god. I attract proseletyzers when I tell them that when I am dead and my body decomposes I am gone forever. I might gradually move from life into death, and could possibly be in an extended coma that slowly melts into clinical death and then some bodily functions might continue after there is no brain activity...but at some point I'll be no longer. All of me will return to more elemental substances and be integrated into the ongoing biosphere. And then I get a shower of biblical/religious questions and statements, all quite predictable, condescending, boring and really insulting.

I'm not a scientist: I've been a high school English teacher, a political activist and am currently a project director with a non-profit education advocacy organization. I have been an eclectic bookworm since I learned to read, and as I begin my 67th year, I face a large bookcase in my studio, with about 500 books, about 100 still to be perused or read.

I do have a very deep and loving respect for the scientists who continue to do the tedious, persistent observation and documentation of the earth, life and everything the senses behold, extended through modern marvelous instruments and processes. Life and non-life have a huge, magnificent team of humans recording, documenting, making connections, posing hypotheses and testing them rigorously, and adding to the riches in knowledge and understanding gathered by our predecessors. All of this without any direction, informing nor revelation from any deity or spirit.

As a lay person to the earth and biological sciences, I have very crude notions of the distinctions between life and non-life, and I would be very careful to attempt a philosophical conversation about it even though I do have a slightly better preparation in that discipline. My concern about the question is that it can become quicksand, flypaper or icky goo (pick your metaphor) when it is rooted in a faith/belief question that is watered by things other than observable evidence and proveable premises.

As much as I love poetry and literature, many saccharine and cloying definitions of life are floating around. I can't be very comfortable or trusting of a conversation about life and non-life with someone whose background, beliefs and reasoning powers are incompatible with mine. I don't mind a good argument or debate, and am quite ready to lose but I will not subject myself to another Christian tongue-lashing, no matter how smilingly and with what gentle words it is delivered.

So, if whomever posed this question has any hidden faith/bible agenda and some gospel answers ready to spring on this site: cease and desist. I want no part of that. I will stick my fingers in my ears and lalalalalala very loudly. Better still, I'll go over to the exChristian site or to my Twitter atheist colleagues and enjoy their company for awhile.