Happy Atheist Forum

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").

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.

But then again there are things that lie somewhere in between such as prions.

Active DNA.

Quote from: "Will"Active DNA.

Well then I have to ask what is active DNA?

^^  And I understand I asked for simple answer.  The point was to start simple.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that there are no actual dead-straight divisions to anything in this universe. Rather, there is a gradual escalation of complexity. Keep in mind that even the unbelievably small is extroadinarily complex. And as things grow in size, they grow astronomically in complexity and in interaction.

But to say there is any inherent straight line that can be drawn, where everything on one side is dead, and everything on the other side is living is not realistic. Especially since, the only difference that can be observed between humans and a rock is a rather large difference in the degree of complexity. But all things possess complexity. And aside from that, to quote what's his face:

Quote"We're all made from the same stuff." -- Whatsisface

.

Was that helpful?  

Quote from: "theradwun"Well then I have to ask what is active DNA?

DNA which is still involved in ongoing processes. All throughout mu body, DNA is replicating and providing "instructions" on how my body functions and continues on. When I die some day, those actions and reactions will halt.

Still, my definition is based only on what I currently understand and have been exposed to. It is entirely possible that life could exist without DNA. If we ever come across something without DNA that can self-replicate, adapt, mutate, and have other traits which are common among known life-forms, I would need to reevaluate my understanding.

I have to wonder why this is in Philosophy rather than Science?  

But anyway...

I think it's an excellent question, theradwun.

Life from a biological perspective is generally described as a thing that eats, excretes, reproduces and reacts to stimuli.  But then as the other posters have pointed out, there are matters of complexity, things that reproduce without needing the other processes, etc.  Generally if you look at something such as a prion which is a protein capable of inducing mass replication of itself in a biological organism that results in diseases like Kuru, BSE and scrapie, it's not considered alive because even though it's capable of reproducing in the right environment, it doesn't qualify for the eating, excreting and reacting to stimuli criterion.  

The next level from there would be things such as RNA and DNA, but these molecules aren't generally found freely floating about, but are associated with RNA & DNA viruses, bacteria (DNA), higher animals (DNA) etc.  So is an RNA virus alive?  It doesn't eat, excrete or react to stimuli but only hijacks the hosts DNA to replicate itself.  It doesn't satisfy the criterion.

On to a bacteria.  It eats; by taking in necessary nutrients through it's cell wall (the actual biochemical processes are pretty complex), excretes; by emitting waste products through it's cell wall, reproduces by binary fission and reacts to stimuli by simple actions such as moving towards a light or food source and away from a gradient of a toxic chemical.  It does satisfy the criterion and is alive.

Now compare a rock to a bacteria.  A rock is simple chemically, made of of a few minerals.  A bacteria, though infinitesimally tiny, is much more chemically complex and it is ordered as well. It has a cell wall, flagella for motility, a plasma membrane, and free floating genetic material, among other things. These are orderly and arranged in a packet that can reproduce itself.  Under a microscope the difference in complexity and organization between a mineral and a living thing are very apparent.

Quote from: "LARA"I have to wonder why this is in Philosophy rather than Science?  

good point, moving....

Life itself is defined by the possession of particular characteristics to distinguish it from "non-life".  These are laid out by Audesirk et al. (2002) into 7 characteristics:

1. Organized structure consisting largely of organic molecules
2. Respond to stimuli from their environment
3. Maintain homeostasis
4. Acquire materials and energy from the environment and convert them to different forms
5. Growth
6. Reproduce themselves using DNA
7. Evolve

Hope that helps.

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on Earth (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Interesting list Squid, these are getting more specific than the ones I learned.  Of course I was answering off the top of my head for the definition rather than going back to the college texts.

A lot depends on the definition and your source of course.  But what happens if we were to, say, find what appears to be an extraterrestrial organism that uses a slightly different molecule than DNA to store it's genetic information?  The potentially alive organism in question would automatically be excluded from being considered life by this more narrow definition just on the basis of lacking DNA.

And the structure is necessarily defined as being composed largely of organic molecules. I suppose that any highly complex future computer system would also necessarily be excluded from the "life" category by the materials it was composed of, even though it could in some ways be considered as qualifying for the other criterion.

I am of course, keeping in mind that the text was titled "Life on Earth" on all my examples are, at this time, mostly hypothetical.

I do, however, think that while such a narrow definition for life will at present suffice, we might perhaps someday come up against very interesting tests as humanity reaches out into space and the fields of computer science and AI.

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...)

Off to watch "Andromeda Strain",
JoeActor

I have to admit I'm pretty lost in this discussion; I think I have a more specific question for those who seem so informed. (And I think this is where the philosophy would come in...)

Do scientists make a distinction between "things" which simply react to their environment and those that make decisions according to their environment?  
Take, for instance, me and a rock.  I pick up the rock and throw it.  The rock had no choice in the matter.  If I (or anything else) didn't move it, it would never have moved.
But if someone tried to pick me up and throw me, I make a decision... I fight them off physically and stop them from throwing me, or I try to reason with them as to why they shouldn't throw me, or I let them throw me.  

I'm not sure how to ask this question, but what do scientists make of decision-making capabilities?

Quote from: "theradwun"I have to admit I'm pretty lost in this discussion; I think I have a more specific question for those who seem so informed. (And I think this is where the philosophy would come in...)

Do scientists make a distinction between "things" which simply react to their environment and those that make decisions according to their environment?  
Take, for instance, me and a rock.  I pick up the rock and throw it.  The rock had no choice in the matter.  If I (or anything else) didn't move it, it would never have moved.
But if someone tried to pick me up and throw me, I make a decision... I fight them off physically and stop them from throwing me, or I try to reason with them as to why they shouldn't throw me, or I let them throw me.  

I'm not sure how to ask this question, but what do scientists make of decision-making capabilities?

I don't quite understand your question.  A rock is not alive and doesn't have the ability to make decisions however a flower is alive and doesn't have the ability to make decisions.  Are you asking if there is a special scientific classification for creatures which are self aware?  If you are just asking what scientists think of being self aware then that certainly would be a philosophical question however there wouldn't be an answer since scientists wouldn't necessarily agree with each other as it is not a scientific question.

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.

Quote from: "theradwun"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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4277)

Note: some people originally thought it was spam :P.. 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!)

Quote from: "joeactor"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.

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...

Quote from: "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...

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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=3lI4wSrSryUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=psychology+myers&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=self-concept&f=false). 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 =).

Quote from: "joeactor"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?  

Quote from: "theradwun"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "theradwun"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]

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

Quote from: "AlP"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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kQYPSD6t6c&feature=related)

Some interesting reads:

http://www.drgdiaz.com/quantum_computing.shtml (http://www.drgdiaz.com/quantum_computing.shtml)
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/ijcai/IJCAI-2003/PDF/276.pdf (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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI)
http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html (http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html)

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Under sedation, your brain activity is actually much lower than the brain activity when you are in REM sleep

Why is this important?

Quote from: "TheJackel"All consciousnesses are subject to infinite regress

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

Quote from: "TheJackel"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?

Quote from: "TheJackel"fear that it's true?

Fear what exactly?

Quote from: "AlP"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?

Quote from: "AlP"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.

Quote from: "leonswan2000"

Quote from: "AlP"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.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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 ;)

Quote from: "TheJackel"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..

Quote from: "TheJackel"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)

Quote from: "TheJackel"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

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "AlP"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.

Quote from: "leonswan2000"

Quote from: "AlP"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?

^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.

Quote from: "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.

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...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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 ;)

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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"...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"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.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "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..

Quote from: "TheJackel"I will no revert back to complication :/

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Point taken... Sometimes I forget this isn't just a forum of atheism vs religion :P.. 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...

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Point taken... Sometimes I forget this isn't just a forum of atheism vs religion :P.. 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 (http://alternativespirituality.suite101.com/article.cfm/does_plant_intelligence_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

Something new for this topic... "Prions"

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

Non-organic, evolution?

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.

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.

Oops...sorry, I posed an unedited and an edited version of my piece.