Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 18:04:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 3, 2013 22:43:32 GMT -5
The heading is "How did life begin?" Even if this guy's theory were correct (which I very much doubt), it wouldn't explain how life began.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 23:00:56 GMT -5
The heading is "How did life begin?" Even if this guy's theory were correct (which I very much doubt), it wouldn't explain how life began. What definition of life are you using?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 4, 2013 11:07:32 GMT -5
The linked article at Texas Tech Today gives a fuller presentation, but it is still an article for the general reader, not a scientific paper, so my comments are necessarily tentative, being based, as they are, on limited information.
That being said, this
[quote}“This is bigger than finding any dinosaur,” Chatterjee said. “This is what we’ve all searched for – the Holy Grail of science.”[/quote]
seems a little "over the top." The holy grail, if he does say so himself.
Although his "four steps of increasing complexity" may be a new way to describe it (not sure on that), there is not much new here. It has long been thought that water plus chemicals plus energy produced, over time, increasingly complex organic molecules which eventually produced something that could replicate. The "bombardment" period, bringing water and small organic chemicals to earth, has been well established for a long time. There have been many "primordial soup" scenarios suggested, from the proverbial quite little pond to undersea vents to just about anywhere you can think of that provides chemicals and water and energy, and we can add Chatterjee's "hydrothermal vent systems" to the list.
Again, these are just quick comments based on a non-technical article.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 5, 2013 5:38:16 GMT -5
To me, this thing about life occurring spontaneously when all the right chemicals are present under the right conditions begs the question: how come all those chemicals happen to exist in the first place? Why should the elements that make life exist? Where did they come from? To say that life arises when all these elements combine is like saying the turtle is standing on another turtle ("turtles all the way down"). And even if you could explain the chemistry of life, where does the impetus come from? Obviously it has to be inherent in the chemicals - unless you want to invoke omnipotent entities. In fact we know from experiments with robots and other random systems that matter, if left to its own devices, self-organizes. Which implies that the elements of life (which, at a certain stage of complexity develops consciousness) are already present in the "physical" atoms and molecules. Which means the universe itself is either alive, intelligent and conscious, or has potential life/intelligence/consciousness. No other conclusion is possible unless you believe that life originated outside the universe (and if we're using the word universe here to mean everything that exists, then by definition nothing can exist - or originate - outside it). So I see two opposite existential forces. On the one hand all the physical matter in the universe is heading in the direction of entropy - ie, the physical universe is "winding down". On the other hand all organic matter - life and consciousness - is moving in the opposite direction, towards increased organization and complexity.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 5, 2013 5:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 23:41:31 GMT -5
To me, this thing about life occurring spontaneously when all the right chemicals are present under the right conditions begs the question: how come all those chemicals happen to exist in the first place? Why should the elements that make life exist? Where did they come from? To say that life arises when all these elements combine is like saying the turtle is standing on another turtle ("turtles all the way down"). And even if you could explain the chemistry of life, where does the impetus come from? Obviously it has to be inherent in the chemicals - unless you want to invoke omnipotent entities. In fact we know from experiments with robots and other random systems that matter, if left to its own devices, self-organizes. Which implies that the elements of life (which, at a certain stage of complexity develops consciousness) are already present in the "physical" atoms and molecules. Which means the universe itself is either alive, intelligent and conscious, or has potential life/intelligence/consciousness. No other conclusion is possible unless you believe that life originated outside the universe (and if we're using the word universe here to mean everything that exists, then by definition nothing can exist - or originate - outside it). So I see two opposite existential forces. On the one hand all the physical matter in the universe is heading in the direction of entropy - ie, the physical universe is "winding down". On the other hand all organic matter - life and consciousness - is moving in the opposite direction, towards increased organization and complexity. Really good points. That's why I asked what defintion of life you were using. But that's not going to over real well here, sd you may already have noticed due to the many numerous responses. I myself believe the universe is conscious.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 6, 2013 11:25:00 GMT -5
This is an interesting variation on the old primordial soup hypothesis.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Nov 6, 2013 16:00:50 GMT -5
Lily: "I myself believe the universe is conscious."
I don't understand that concept. Can you please explain it to me in detail?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 6, 2013 16:54:56 GMT -5
To me, this thing about life occurring spontaneously when all the right chemicals are present under the right conditions begs the question: how come all those chemicals happen to exist in the first place? Why should the elements that make life exist? Where did they come from? To say that life arises when all these elements combine is like saying the turtle is standing on another turtle ("turtles all the way down"). And even if you could explain the chemistry of life, where does the impetus come from? Obviously it has to be inherent in the chemicals - unless you want to invoke omnipotent entities. In fact we know from experiments with robots and other random systems that matter, if left to its own devices, self-organizes. Which implies that the elements of life (which, at a certain stage of complexity develops consciousness) are already present in the "physical" atoms and molecules. Which means the universe itself is either alive, intelligent and conscious, or has potential life/intelligence/consciousness. No other conclusion is possible unless you believe that life originated outside the universe (and if we're using the word universe here to mean everything that exists, then by definition nothing can exist - or originate - outside it). So I see two opposite existential forces. On the one hand all the physical matter in the universe is heading in the direction of entropy - ie, the physical universe is "winding down". On the other hand all organic matter - life and consciousness - is moving in the opposite direction, towards increased organization and complexity. Where did the elements come from? --Big Bang ► Hydrogen and Helium --Gravity attracts matter together ► Stars --Nuclear reactions in stars ► Heavier elements up to iron --Super Nova explosions ► Make elements heavier than iron and disperse material into space --Gravity attracts matter together ► New generation of stars --And so on. This is well established and well understood. There is no mystery here, and no turtles. Elements are made in stars.
There is no special chemistry of life to explain. Everything occurs according to the normal rules of organic chemistry. It is very complex, and we don't yet have a complete understanding of everything, but again, there is no mystery here, and no omnipotent entities required.
As to "elements of life" which are not the physical atoms and molecules and forces known to physics, there is not the slightest evidence that any such thing exists, and there is no void in our knowledge or theories that might be filled by such ideas. There is also no reason to suspect that the universe is alive or intelligent or conscious. Nor is there any reason to suspect that the universe itself needs to be alive or intelligent or conscious in order to produce or contain things that are.
It appears that everything that has happened since the Big Bang has happened in accordance with the laws of nature which we have discovered over the past several hundred years. The strong and weak nuclear forces, electro-magnetism, and gravity are sufficient to bring about the universe we see around us without any assistance or interference from anyone or anything. We still have much to learn, but there is no reason to suspect that we have missed anything significant enough to cause the abandonment of all our theories.
=========
There is a mystery, or let’s say something that seems completely unaddressed by modern cosmology, despite all the books about it ---
Where did the universe come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 16:55:55 GMT -5
Lily: "I myself believe the universe is conscious." I don't understand that concept. Can you please explain it to me in detail? Read Zak's post. That mostly explains it. I was agreeing with him. Have you heard of Jung's collective unconsciousness? Synchonicities? There's a book titled "Conversation with the Universe - How the World Speaks to us". Maybe read that for details. I'm basically just throwing out stuff that comes to mind. I don't mean to interpret Zak's post in such a way that he doesn't agree with. But anyway, read the post.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2013 12:15:12 GMT -5
Second attempt. Apparently a server went down when I tried to post this just now. Act of God?
Lily, my knowledge of Jung is superficial but his collective unconscious has at least two interpretations. The only one that makes any real sense is as an inherited set of behaviors that we all share to a greater or lesser degree. This is genetic and doesn't require any woowoo about a conscious universe. It is more in line with Stephen Potter who wrote about it in in "The Blank Slate".
I like raybar's post and will requote this from it:
"There is also no reason to suspect that the universe is alive or intelligent or conscious. Nor is there any reason to suspect that the universe itself needs to be alive or intelligent or conscious in order to produce or contain things that are."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 13:10:12 GMT -5
Who said "reason" had anything to do with it? Zak's post is at least more based on trying to reason things out. Me? Not really, although I agree with what Zak wrote.
One thing about those who will argue "reasoning" you cannot explain why there is life, even if there are chemicals from the Big Bang (which no one has yet explained). How do you define life? I define it as anything that has consciousness. Doesn't mean self-consciousness necessarily, but enough consciousness to be able to strive for survival and propagation. Even viruses do that.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2013 13:40:34 GMT -5
Raybar explained chemicals from the big bang just a couple of posts back. Did you not read it? There are several theories as to how there is life and eventually one will become the accepted theory. I don't define life, as the division between living and inanimate might be forever a bit blurry. Certainly I don't define it in terms of consciousness. The struggle to survive does not require consciousness. Check out Lensky's fabulous experiment here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experimentEven my use of "struggle" is anthropomorphizing bacterial behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 14:04:49 GMT -5
I don't have time right now to write a lot. But you misunderstand what I said about chemicals because I said it wrong. I didn't mean that chemicals weren't explain yet. I meant the Big Bang wasn't. Unless you can explain that to me yourself.
P.S. What is consciousness to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 14:11:45 GMT -5
Mike, if you would like to summarize that Wikipedia article, please do so. I gave it one look and gave up.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 7, 2013 14:22:36 GMT -5
No, I can't explain the Big Bang, but my brain was built by evolution for hunting and gathering so there's no reason it would need to be able to understand cosmology.
The Wiki article is about an experiment in accelerated evolution. It shows how populations in resource-limited situations can adapt through random mutation to become more efficient at using the available resources. They do not need to think in order to do this. It is an illustration of natural selection at work. Consciousness not required.
Trees evolve. Are trees conscious?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 21:13:17 GMT -5
Yes, exactly.
Then why conciousness at all?
Trees evolve. Are trees conscious?
We, meaning human beings. define consciouness as we know it. That is, being aware of ourselves and what we do. Unless you or I can become a tree we don't really know anything about it's sense of self. Just to mention, there have been offbeat studies that have shown that plants scream when torn and also react to music and being talked to. I'm not saying these are valid, but it does ask something interesting anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 8, 2013 5:47:43 GMT -5
"Where did the elements come from?
--Big Bang ► Hydrogen and Helium"
This isn't an explanation of anything. It's like explaining the existence of an egg by pointing to the existence of chickens.
The question is why should the elements which, when they are organized in a particular way, arise in the first place. In other words why should elements come into existence in a "Big Bang" that have an inherent propensity to self-organize (or a potential to become conscious). We know from experimental work studying the behavior of non-organic systems that the "urge" to self-organize is inherent in "inanimate" matter.
For example, the experimental work carried out into self-organization by Stuart Kauffman is compelling evidence that the motivation behind the process of evolution is a "universal self-organizing force or principle", rather than random mutation.
Kauffman was studying medicine in California when he first became interested in the problem of how to devise a conceptual framework in which biological phenomena could be understood. Using a computer he began to investigate the possible ways in which order could arise from complexity. What he found was that highly complex systems with enormous numbers of elements, thrown together randomly and without any attempt at design or selection, have a tendency to spontaneously generate dynamic order. His experimented with tiny automata whose behaviour was determined by simple algorithms (termed Boolean functions).
Kauffman regarded each automaton as a gene whose activity was regulated by other genes. He then allowed these computer-generated genes to evolve in a random fashion. However, instead of wandering haphazardly through a vast number of possible permutations, as he had expected, the network of automata rapidly fell into simple cycles that were strongly suggestive of normal cell behaviour. In other words, they exhibited a propensity to self-organize in the absence of programming of any kind.
This contradicts the conventional assumption that the enormous complexity that exists in living cells is due to natural selection determining those qualities that are most useful to survival. “This idea is wrong”, says Kauffman. "Evolution can’t be explained by natural selection and genes alone. It is only much later that natural selection comes into play, as a fine-tuning process."
"At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity", 1995, Oxford University Press
Craig Reynolds, a computer animator with the Symbolics computer company in California, conducted research along similar lines. Reynold’s lived close to a cemetery in which large numbers of blackbirds congregated, and he was intrigued by the way the birds were able to fly in perfect formation and change direction in an instant, as though obeying the commands of a hidden controller. He set out to see if he could recreate this flocking behaviour on a computer, with virtual birds.
His flock of virtual birds became uncannily life-like in the way they behaved, and Reynolds was amazed at how synchronous their movements were, given the simple rules with which they had been programmed. However, the real surprise came when he decided to see how the birds would respond if he placed a row of obstacles in their flight path. In fact the birds were undaunted: they simply veered to avoid the obstacles and resumed their formation on the other side. This was a response that had not been programmed into them. In the months that followed, Reynolds noted many other examples of behaviour that were not implied by the rules he had imposed. For example, when one bird lost its bearings and crashed into a “pillar”, it stopped momentarily, as though stunned, then quickly took off again, increasing its speed to catch up with the rest of the flock.
“Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioural Model”, Computer Graphics, July 1987.
Of course, it has always been known that order can arise out of chaos: this is what growth and evolution is all about. What the new evidence shows is that this process is not restricted to living organisms but also occurs in non-living systems,
Artificial life scientists have come to accept the existence of an all-pervasive force or principle that in some unexplained manner promotes ever-increasing complexity, not only in living creatures but also in inorganic matter. What they are saying is that the propensity for life is inherent in complexity itself, rather than in the components of which it is made, and that life consists not in collections of matter, but of processes that organise matter.
In the words of American science journalist Steven Levy: "Researchers in the new field of artificiallife came to understand - indeed, to depend on - the observation that self-organization could be seen as a yet-uncharted force in nature, a force that encouraged the evolutionary regime that nudged systems towards increasing complexity. What they found is that, even against seemingly insurmountable odds, life *wants* to happen".
The "self-organizing principle" and the "emergent behaviour" it engenders has important implications with regard to the question of whether machines can ever attain consciousness. Basically it suggests that they can. The full implications of this self-organizing force with regard to the development of intelligent, autonomous computers are now beginning to be appreciated.
Professor Kevin Warwick of Reading University, England, who is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts in cybernetics, drew attention to what he regarded as sinister developments in the behaviour of a “colony” of miniature robots that he and his team had built. These “intelligent” automata, which have a brain power of just 40 neurons (compared with the billions involved in human intelligence) were behaving in a way nobody had foreseen, co-operating with each other in performing tasks and exhibiting other signs of “flocking” and group-mind behaviour - the same co-operative behaviour that Stuart Kauffman had observed in his electronic genes. Communicating with each other by way of infrared signals, Warwick’s automata elected a natural leader who took command and began to direct their actions. By pooling their resources in this way they were quickly able to learn some of the basic skills that take living creatures years to acquire.
Steven Levy, Artificial Life, 1992, Jonathan Cape, London.
So what does all this tell us? It tells us A/ that matter has an inherent propensity to self-organize, and B/ that when matter self-organizes to a certain level of complexity, it "comes to life". It is this *propensity" for self-organization that impels systems towards life. Whether or not the chemicals are present is incidental. But the fact that they are cannot be dismissed as accidental.
So, again, there are two seemingly competing forces at work in the universe (though they may in fact be complementary): entropy, which says that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems; and self-organization, which says that all matter is striving towards complexity and life.
The parallel to this (and probably the explanation) is the contradiction or inconsistency between Newtonian physics and quantum physics - ie, the fact that the laws physical governing macro events are quite different to those governing micro (subatomic) events. In simplistic terms, Newtonian physics are anti-organization, and quantum physics are pro-organization. Self-organization can be understood in quantum physical terms if we assume that information, not energy or matter, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe.
As for the "Big Bang", this really doesn't explain anything, since in order for the Bang to occur there had to be something there already. It is also meaningless to say that the only thing that existed was a tiny particle. First because even a tiny particle had to have come from somewhere, and second because size is relative, so that if the only thing that existed was a particle, it would be infinite in its dimension. There's no difference between a particle and a universe.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 8, 2013 10:33:33 GMT -5
Lily, I don't quite follow your reasoning. What does "exactly" mean? My point about our capacity to understand the Big Bang was that not being able to understand something does not give us justification for inventing things to explain what we don't understand. The fact that no one has explained the big bang, and indeed that the big bang is not the only theory out there, seems to me to be somewhat irrelevant to the question of the origin of life. The universe existed for billions of years before there was life. Life is not the reason for or the purpose of the universe. The origin of life is a matter of chemistry and we will find the answers to that eventually. The big bang, maybe never.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 12:55:44 GMT -5
I had to think about your question for a while to get to the point where I think I understand it. My counter to the question as to what is my justification for believing/thinking as I do regarding the universe and how I view it is why should I need justification? (I'm ignoring the slightly demeaning word "inventing".) I'm not presenting a scientific premise. It's just personal to me. However, being this is a skeptic board, to question a belief or feeling or viewpoint like this one, is perfectly justified, which I can't answer to any skeptic's satisfaction. It's the same with questions about religion or the paranormal or gods and all similar to that. Maybe that kind of topic should be on the converstional board since beliefs aren't scientific. But the topic of this thread morphed into this other area, so that's where it is.
Oh, almost forgot about your question about my use of the word "exactly". It just meant that I agreed with you about human's understanding of cosmology.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 8, 2013 15:13:27 GMT -5
... My counter to the question as to what is my justification for believing/thinking as I do regarding the universe and how I view it is why should I need justification? ... I'm not presenting a scientific premise. It's just personal to me. However, being this is a skeptic board, to question a belief or feeling or viewpoint like this one, is perfectly justified, which I can't answer to any skeptic's satisfaction. It's the same with questions about religion or the paranormal or gods and all similar to that. ... That's fine. You can believe whatever you like. Lots of people have beliefs based on faith or feeling or upbringing or because it "rings true" and so on. I do not share such beliefs, but I don't argue against them very much either unless someone is pushing ideas known to be false (creationism, for example) or in a context like this which is set up for such discussion. The question I ask, and which I have never had answered, is "why do you believe that?" Why do people believe things for which they can can site no evidence, or for which the evidence is so weak that no conclusions can drawn, or even despite solid evidence to the contrary?
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 8, 2013 16:33:13 GMT -5
Just rereading my post I noticed I wrote Stephen Potter as the author of The Blank Slate. It is of course Stephen Pinker, not Potter.
I haven't heard of Kauffman previously so I had to google a bit and read up on him. First of all, no one claims that mutation is the only mechanism at work in evolution and Kauffman apparently isn't saying that self-organization is the only mechanism either. There seems to be room for both, (in addition to genetic drift, sexual selection and some others I don't remember off the top of my head) although I don't yet understand exactly what is meant by self-organization in this context. Certainly if chemicals organize into life-precursors they do so under the influence of energy sources such as electric charges, light, and heat. I doubt if Kauffman is suggesting anything different. He is not a proponent of unknown forces or of molecules being conscious from what little I have read about him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -5
Raybar writes: I think you would appreciate this, Raybar. It's about an author writing about a character, but I think it could apply to a movie script as well.
|
|