• Gary Enfield
    112


    Tom

    I find myself agreeing with your point about terminology, but my gut instinct is that materialists won't accept any evidence that apparently contradicts their view, no matter how you label it. They are in denial.

    That is why I prefer to emphasize issues, rather than labels.

    If we are honest about the issues, we may begin to work towards a solution.
  • Gary Enfield
    112


    Hi Enrique

    No matter what TClark tries to imply - no mechanism even vaguely exists within these explanations. It is just wishful thinking that something might emerge in future that conforms to your principles. Yet a splitting membrane does nothing for DNA replication - which is the real issue.

    There have been several theories about the nature of the first membrane and there are several simple ones which begin with fatty globules - but strategically they all have to encompass the right machinery which must be one that is already self-contained once it is encompassed.... because there would be little scope for interaction afterwards.

    I do agree that some intermediate steps might be possible before the first cell as we know it.
    I also agree that we don't know what those steps might be.
    I also agree that the residues on the rocks might not be evidence of the first cells - although you are the first person I have come across who is prepared to put that in writing.

    However, if those residues are not evidence of the first cell, it would suggest to most people that the origin of life on earth took a lot longer than 100m years. I'm not sure where that would leave us, as it would mean that a driving process was less evident.

    But the point I was originally making was that you need the first cell for all of the other evolutionary steps you mentioned.

    The trouble with dismissing the emphasis on Amino Acids and Nucleotides is that those chemicals remain part of the only mechanism that is known to work, and as some Amino Acids do form spontaneously, it is hard to imagine that something would 'strive to achieve' other forms through some 3rd evolutionary process. Put another way, I can only imagine that natural processes working towards the first replication mechanism, would use things that exist, not things that have yet to be developed.

    People have done lots of research on nucleotides and nucleobases as the primordial 'starter points' for RNA and nothing comes close to a replication mechanism. Dismissing them is wishful thinking until you can find an alternate mechanism.

    I am quite prepared to accept another viable alternate mechanism for replication and evolution - but the killer for me is that materialists can offer no mechanism for providing an evolutionary direction even if they do come up with a 2nd means of replication .... as I posted in the OP.

    Crude mechanisms for awareness outside the strictures of physical Matter might be one avenue - as Agudhep pointed out - whether it is by interacting energy waves or something else. But most materialists are not prepared to go there as yet.

    Your vision has too many gaps. We need materialist thinking to plug a few, rather than deny the gaps exist..
  • Tom Storm
    714
    Understand totally. I think the loudest voices on both sides of the debate are often the most doctrinaire, rigid and unpleasant ones.
  • Gary Enfield
    112


    Hi Pop and Adughep

    One day soon, Sutherland says, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.”Pop

    Just because Sutherland says it, doesn't make it true.
    People have been trying since the 1950s and Stanley Miller's first experiment. They have tried different mixes, different heat, and different re-activity agents - all failed spectacularly to even make all of the necessary amino acids.
    As I said before. I think you are better at making your own points with your own preferred & specific evidence, rather than quoting dubious sources.

    I would also say that the problem in expanding your 'evolutionary test bed' to the whole of the universe is that the distances are too great, and the conditions too extreme in deep space, to allow anything living to survive for the period and circumstances required to get to our Earth.

    I personally feel that if the conditions here were the only ones suitable for life to emerge, within many light years of distance, then you basically have to start your speculation about the emergence of life with processes here - and within the timeframes that science has identified for our solar system and planet.

    I fundamentally disagree with you about the nature of evolution. I do not see how you can equate cooling rocks, (which just lose energy), with a process of replication and increasing technical complexity. Magma does not replicate anything. Nor does it become more sophisticated. And while chemistry alone can explain the organisation demonstrated by the formation of crystals; and the nuclear process of suns can forge sub-atomic particles into bigger natural formations, I don't see self-organisation in the sense you imply, before the living cell.

    At best, chemicals will make one-off arbitrary changes based on reactions that will occur if they come into contact with other chemicals. Until they achieve a viable level of complexity within the timeframes, they will not create any form of ongoing process for life as we understand it.... unless you have another mechanism to hand.

    Put another way - if you wish to keep your timeframes reasonable they can't be based on chance encounters, and simply saying that the universe self-organizes without any process to do so, (other than the inevitable mechanics of chemistry), takes us nowhere that materialists haven't been before.

    To limit evolution to animate matter suggests a predisposition to a dualistic understanding where life is something separate to the rest of the universe, rather then a monistic understanding of how elements of the universe evolve to life.Pop

    While I suppose I do incline towards a loose dualistic interpretation, it is because certain facts break other models of existence in some fundamental respects. In basic terms - if one type of stuff can't do it, then you either need to change the definition of that stuff, or you need at least two types of stuff.

    However, I really wouldn't mind if there was a monist explanation based on physical matter - but if we are being honest about things, the idealist concepts (even if you look at Metaphysical Solipsism), are probably the ones which come closest to a full monist view.

    Frankly I am just looking for something potentially viable, rather than philosophical point scoring.
    What I dislike are exponents of certain philosophies that deny evidence which counters their preferred view.

    If you can explain your concept of self organisation in any other way than chemistry, but within Matter/Energy, then fine we can bring things within a monist outlook - but at the moment you have some big gaps in the thinking which you have articulated here.
  • Gary Enfield
    112


    Hi Josh S

    Thanks for the quote - it must have taken a while to copy out.
    I haven't seen it before, but I think Goodman is mixing concepts with no sense of ideological discipline.

    He is not recognising the distinction between things that are conceptual and relative vs physical and definable. He evens transitions from where something is, to whether is it an object or not - without logic or context.

    I think he is just trying to justify a need for meaning when things might exist without any meaning.

    Equally, I do not see how my statement is invalidated. If something is a fact then it is not in dispute and can be something 'firm' around which we can hang interpretation and meaning.

    I stand by my comment that "if someone chooses to place a different interpretation on the same facts, the facts haven't changed".
  • Adughep
    16
    I would also say that the problem in expanding your 'evolutionary test bed' to the whole of the universe is that the distances are too great, and the conditions too extreme in deep space, to allow anything living to survive for the period and circumstances required to get to our Earth.

    I personally feel that if the conditions here were the only ones suitable for life to emerge, within many light years of distance, then you basically have to start your speculation about the emergence of life with processes here - and within the timeframes that science has identified for our solar system and planet.
    Gary Enfield

    Yes i also did not insist on that. Outside solar system will overcomplicate things, but i wanted to at least say the possibility of interactions with other solar systems.

    If we stick only to planet Earth and our solar system, do you think we can say that the evolution of an early planet Earth into a planet that sustains live has a very strong similarity with the evolution of a "mix of chemicals" into a "living cell" ?
    Almost the same undergoing processes that transformed Earth, the same were applied to a "mix of chemicals" to "forge" a "living cell" but at a lower scale and maybe frequency too.We can say the transformation for a "living cell" might be fewer then the ones that occur on Earth.
    Since all happen in the same place i think the theory has a good logic.

    Using the above theory the first cell had no order or stability(i like to call it empty cell or chaotic cell :smile: ) , but after multiple interactions and undergoing processes it became a "living cell".
    The same way our planet that at first was chaotic and volcanic, after many transformations process it became the Earth of today.
    https://www.livescience.com/64970-early-earth-spin-magma-ocean.html

    That is one of the reasons why is very hard to create a living cell from zero or from a "mix of chemicals" in a laboratory .We can maybe create a stage or multiple stages of transformation in a laboratory, but not the whole process of formation or the entire stages that led to a "living cell".
  • Pop
    651
    I' m inclined to think that "the order" and the "life cells" you see today are a process of evolution, (the end result ) and are not something that emerge on Earth because we had from start a "friendly", ordered and stable planet.Adughep

    I would agree with @Gary Enfield that alien origin is a long shot, and it just shifts the problem to another planet. I would agree with you that the evolution of the Earth created life, meaning that the early chaos was necessary to create the complex molecules like amino acids, and then subsequently, once a magnetic field developed, and when some stability / order eventuated, complex configurations of these amino acids could self organize due to finding themselves in a situation where they had to.

    The trouble with dismissing the emphasis on Amino Acids and Nucleotides is that those chemicals remain part of the only mechanism that is known to work, and as some Amino Acids do form spontaneously, it is hard to imagine that something would 'strive to achieve' other forms through some 3rd evolutionary process.Gary Enfield

    I'm glad that you acknowledge self organization in amino acids. This is the foundation of life - where inanimate matter becomes animated. If we then jump from the beginnings of life to its ultimate achievement - human consciousness, I think you will agree that it arises from self organization, for the purpose of self organization. Also all the layers of the system in between are self organizing, as are their component parts - amino acids self organize to form proteins, the self organization of proteins forms cells, the self organization of cells forms organs, etc., etc. When an organ is transplanted, the donor organ is not reconnected to the nervous system, as that is not currently possible. The organ carries on working regardless - it knows what to do as it is self organizing. Systems like the immune system are entirely self organizing. Components like a white blood cell work independently - untethered to a system of control. The entire system as a whole, as well as all of its component parts are self organizing!

    How can self organization occur without consciousness? I don't think it can.

    I think it needs to be understood that everything exists in a relation to something else. Indeed everything exists in a relation to a multiplicity of externalities. It is not a static relationship, but an evolving one. So everything exists in a process of interrelational evolution - both the living and nonliving evolve through a process of interrelational evolution. If this is true for everything, then it is also true for the first living cell. This gives me the confidence to state that the first living cell arose through a process of interrelational evolution - simply because no alternative of being exists!

    As a number of people have stated, the multifactorial mechanism of a living cell could not have been created in one hit - it requires an evolutionary process.

    One way of Answering the OP would be to raise the profile of what is happening at the evolutionary level by showing how interrelational evolution is a form of information integration, cognition and action, and at the same time lowering the profile of human consciousness by drawing correlations between what is happening at the evolutionary level and at the human consciousness level. In the end concluding that self organization in the process of interrelation evolution is a form of consciousness – that is ubiquitous! So concluding with panpsychism.

    An idealist panpsychism, that can not become solipsism as it is in a process of interrelational evolution, so absolutely cannot condense down to a singularity as it relies on a relationship with externalities for its existence.


    Frankly I am just looking for something potentially viable, rather than philosophical point scoring.
    What I dislike are exponents of certain philosophies that deny evidence which counters their preferred view.
    Gary Enfield

    It is not about point scoring. It is more about the constructivist curse - we can not see that which is outside of our consciousness. To see some things, we need to alter our consciousness - and that can not happen overnight, nor due to another persons opinion, and in some cases it is a total impossibility for reasons of self organization / consciousness.

    I can relate to your questions as I also began asking the same questions some time ago. Philosophers I have mentioned to you - Verala, Thompson, Theise, and Capra, are all biologist philosophers who were also confronted with this conundrum at the cellular level, and in the process of trying to understand it had to create new interpretations.

    This is the other interesting thing about cellular complexity - that an understanding requires a shift in paradigm. I wonder how you will go. You haven't hinted at any conclusions as yet?
  • Adughep
    16
    I'm glad that you acknowledge self organization in amino acids. This is the foundation of life - where inanimate matter becomes animated. If we then jump from the beginnings of life to its ultimate achievement - human consciousness, I think you will agree that it arises from self organization, for the purpose of self organization. Also all the layers of the system in between are self organizing, as are their component parts - amino acids self organize to form proteins, the self organization of proteins forms cells, the self organization of cells forms organs, etc., etc. When an organ is transplanted, the donor organ is not reconnected to the nervous system, as that is not currently possible. The organ carries on working regardless - it knows what to do as it is self organizing. Systems like the immune system are entirely self organizing. Components like a white blood cell work independently - untethered to a system of control. The entire system as a whole, as well as all of its component parts are self organizing!

    How can self organization occur without consciousness? I don't think it can.
    Pop


    Thank you for the ideas, i agree with the above words you said.
    Using your words i prefer to give a more simple definition to human "consciousness" .
    The human "consciousness" is an ordered organization of "living cells" from the result of multiple stages of evolution of multiple complex cells.

    As you said before bacteria also has "consciousness", but you can not compare it to humans.
    Bacteria "consciousness" is a lower or under-evolve evolution stage of complex cells.
    A small reptile also has "consciousness", a dog too has one , but is lower or maybe not lower just different evolution of the "living cells" apart from the evolution of humans cells.This is the reason i prefer not to use the word "consciousness", as we might try to compare with human "consciousness" levels which is not right and correct in this contexts.

    Reading some science news on internet i saw today an interesting article, which i believe you want to read.
    It specify the formation of phosphorus from lighting bolts on soil clay.
    https://www.sciencealert.com/lightning-bolts-could-have-delivered-a-key-ingredient-to-start-life-on-earth
    That might support my idea that the living and complex cells are at base multiple waves of energy or maybe not ? :)
  • Pop
    651
    The human "consciousness" is an ordered organization of "living cells" from the result of multiple stages of evolution of multiple complex cells.Adughep

    :up:

    As you said before bacteria also has "consciousness", but you can not compare it to humans.Adughep

    Yes I agree to a large extent. Consciousness is something unique even between individuals - no two can have exactly the same manifestation of consciousness, so when compared between species the differences grow exponentially. But consciousness = self organization, and all living creatures have a system of self organization ( are a self organizing system ).

    That might support my idea that the living and complex cells are at base multiple waves of energy or maybe not ? :)Adughep

    I agree with your energy wave idea, and am playing with a similar concept myself. The way I see it is that matter is not fundamental. The relationship of energy and information = matter, from E=mc2. From this view matter is an emergent property that arises from the relationship of energy and information. So there seems to be a fundamental capacity in the universe to integrate energy and information into matter, and the integration of information is the modern definition of consciousness, so this reveals a universal system of self organization that is equivalent to consciousness, which would suggest panpsychism.

    Regarding the article. That is how Amino acids are created in the lab. Mineralized water is zapped with electricity, and eventually amino acids form.
  • Pop
    651
    The other thing that needs to be considered in all this is emergence. How in the relationship of disparate parts something novel can emerge.

    ** In physics, systems are driven to maximize entropy production. According to Boltzmann, "systems move in the direction of increasing entropy because such states have a greater number of configurations, and the equilibrium state of highest entropy is the state with the greatest number of molecular configurations."

    If we can imagine various amino acids trapped in a membrane, where they have to self organize, and there is a predetermined direction of self organization towards greater complexity, then this provides a model of how cellular proteins might have evolved initially. It is a viable explanation and answers how life might have arisen, but when asked why did this occur? physics can only provide another how explanation. It can not answer why! Physics answers how, not why. The why, however, can be answered by saying that this is how the universe has self organized.

    My interest is consciousness, and in trying to understand it I arrived at a definition: consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. Of course this begs the question of what is self organization? and as I try to understand it, all I am seeing is consciousness. That consciousness = self organization may be the only way to define them. Of course self organization and consciousness are both an evolving , open ended, processes - they elude definition as they are continually growing, and what they are today will emerge into something different tomorrow, so absolutely cannot be defined in terms of their product ( what they are ). The best that can be done is to define them as an expression of a system - to say that everything is part of a system, and all systems express self organization, where self organization = consciousness. So conclude with panpschism, to the best of my understanding.
  • Adughep
    16
    The relationship of energy and information = matter, from E=mc2. From this view matter is an emergent property that arises from the relationship of energy and information.Pop

    I will not called it matter.I know that is the formula for matter at is defined by Einstein.
    But lets called it another type of higher frequency energy instead of matter.
    So then "The relationship of energy and information = another state of higher(or different) energy" .Is not necessary that the result to be a higher energy, it can result in a different energy type (lower or higher).
    Is the same principle when using a beam of light, if you amplify it and excite the electrons ( you add information) it becomes laser.
    The same principle applies to cells when they evolve into something new, just with other types of energy levels.
  • Adughep
    16
    If we can imagine various amino acids trapped in a membrane, where they have to self organize, and there is a predetermined direction of self organization towards greater complexity, then this provides a model of how cellular proteins might have evolved initially. It is a viable explanation and answers how life might have arisen, but when asked why did this occur? physics can only provide another how explanation. It can not answer why! Physics answers how, not why. The why, however, can be answered by saying that this is how the universe has self organized.Pop

    I am not sure what you want to find. You want to know the purpose of life ?
  • Pop
    651
    I am not sure what you want to find. You want to know the purpose of life ?Adughep

    I am trying to understand consciousness. I think I have a pretty good understanding in terms of phenomenology psychology, and belief systems, and now am trying to understand how it fits into the big picture / how it creates the big picture.

    So then "The relationship of energy and information = another state of higher(or different) energy" .Is not necessary that the result to be a higher energy, it can result in a different energy type (lower or higher).
    Is the same principle when using a beam of light, if you amplify it and excite the electrons ( you add information) it becomes laser.
    Adughep

    Thanks for this, I was not aware. So if we change either the energy or the information, then a different pattern results. It is still matter - as different waves of energy propagating over something material / or a field. And ultimately everything is really just patterns of energy - pattern upon pattern in a space that is a pattern. Patterns of energy interacting with each other and perhaps changing their information in the process - could this be a fundamental information exchange?

    If so then it is"discrete patterns of interacting energy exchanging information" that would have to self organize, as this is what happens in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic.

    The same principle applies to cells when they evolve into something new, just with other types of energy levelAdughep


    Wikipedia ( on self organizing systems ): "The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation."
  • Adughep
    16
    Thanks for this, I was not aware. So if we change either the energy or the information, then a different pattern results. It is still matter - as different waves of energy propagating over something material / or a field. And ultimately everything is really just patterns of energy - pattern upon pattern in a space that is a pattern. Patterns of energy interacting with each other and perhaps changing their information in the process - could this be a fundamental information exchange?

    If so then it is"discrete patterns of interacting energy exchanging information" that would have to self organize, as this is what happens in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic.
    Pop

    Yes this is my understanding after reading multiple articles, it is not something that is presented in a science document.Maybe others in this thread might not agree or think otherwise.


    I am trying to understand consciousness. I think I have a pretty good understanding in terms of phenomenology psychology, and belief systems, and now am trying to understand how it fits into the big picture / how it creates the big picture.Pop

    In my opinion, what you want is somehow related to finding the purpose of life.Which is a hard subject and might need another topic open.

    I think is "natural universe" the reason "why" the cells are trying to form something new.
    When you have two very big environment that are very "messy" and you collide them.The zillions of particles and the energies you gather, then the better the chance to form something new.
    Since the environments are very messy, they dont have a limit : there is no time limit or a space limit.Only the stages of ordered cells have a time and energy limits, everything else does not.
    Because of so many energy interactions and no limits, messy energies and particles can always form something new.
    "Why" they work like this, for now i dont think there is a logical reason for it.
    Is like asking why some "living cells" evolve into dinosaurs or why "living cells" evolve into birds, dogs or humans ?
  • Pop
    651
    In my opinion, what you want is somehow related to finding the purpose of life.Which is a hard subject and might need another topic open.Adughep

    It is a hard topic, like consciousness, which I used to think was impossible to understand, but I found as I keep on trying I continued to make progress, admittedly at a snails pace, but progress nevertheless, so I can not give up now. The ideas touched upon in this thread, which are still fairly fuzzy in my mind, need to be integrated and elucidated to a simple understanding accessible to all.

    That consciousness can be defined as an evolving process of self organization, and that the universe and everything in it belongs to a system that is an evolving process of self organization, hints at an answer as to what it is all about, IMO.

    Because of so many energy interactions and no limits, messy energies and particles can always form something new.
    "Why" they work like this, for now i dont think there is a logical reason for it.
    Is like asking why some "living cells" evolve into dinosaurs or why "living cells" evolve into birds, dogs or humans ?
    Adughep

    Every why question pertaining to natural phenomena can be answered by self organization ( more or less ). Why does a fish have scales? - self organization. Why does a dinosaur form here and a human there - self organization. Why is the universe just so? - self organization!

    What do you think self organization is?
  • Becky
    45
    The question is how did inorganic substance become organic? Science today still doesn’t understand they think that early earth had electrical storms that created organic.
    “ Electrical sparks simulated lightning to provide energy. In only about a week’s time, this simple apparatus caused chemical reactions that produced a variety of organic molecules, some of which are the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids” https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/module-1-evolution/origin-of-life/
    We are all chemicals interacting with other chemicals.
  • Tom Storm
    714
    Yes, the old way of putting it was, how did chemistry become biology?

    I wonder what would happen if we solved the question of anabiosis and actually managed do create it in a lab. I suspect the debate would hardly change.
  • Becky
    45
    Do you mean the Miller-Urey experiment? Where yes “Their 1950s experiment produced a number of organic molecules, including amino acids” https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/module-1-evolution/origin-of-life/
    They’ve actually been able to create cells from inorganic “Scientists in Scotland say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm
  • Adughep
    16
    Every why question pertaining to natural phenomena can be answered by self organization ( more or less ). Why does a fish have scales? - self organization. Why does a dinosaur form here and a human there - self organization. Why is the universe just so? - self organization!

    What do you think self organization is?
    Pop

    I think self organization in cells is interaction between : two same cells, two different cells, or a single cell and the environment where the old and the new "information" resulting from the interaction is preserved.
    Every interactions that preserve the old and the new resulting "information" , will come together and form a new ordered structure.
    When this type of interactions happen you might even call it a stage of the evolution process.

    In my opinion the Universe gives priority on interactions (of any kind) that preserve the old information.And to interactions that destroys "the old information", it makes them start back from basics.
  • Pop
    651
    In my opinion the Universe gives priority on interactions (of any kind) that preserve the old information.And to interactions that destroys "the old information", it makes them start back from basics.Adughep

    Yes, I can see why the information would have to be preserved, and at the same time a closed system would have to move in the direction of greater complexity ( due to the entropic principle outlined earlier ). So the information exchanged becomes more and more complex. Is this process enough then to be captured by evolution and progressed from there to something self sustaining? I suppose, if not, then the process wouldn't survive.

    I think what is significant is that it is information that is being exchanged ( as energy or form), and so ultimately it is the exchange of information that must become more complex, and self sustaining?

    I wonder what would happen if we solved the question of anabiosis and actually managed do create it in a lab. I suspect the debate would hardly change.Tom Storm

    Yes , this is the flip side of the coin, in that ultimately consciousness must decide what consciousness is. :smile: Or to put it another way - self organization must decide what self organization is! And when it does it must do so in a self organizing manner - so cannot change overnight. Changing one's self organization is a big deal in psychology. So integrating new understanding has to seep into consciousness over long periods of time.


    We are all chemicals interacting with other chemicals.Becky

    Yes, this is how it is traditionally understood. In the last 10 - 15 years these chemical reactions have been illustrated as molecular interactions in animations, and what is astounding is the level of complexity a chemical reaction can take. The complexity seen begs the question - do these chemicals have mind?
  • Tom Storm
    714
    They’ve actually been able to create cells from inorganic “Scientists in Scotland say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htmBecky

    I haven't been following the issue except via the odd smattering of media coverage. I have to say the origin of life has never been a preoccupation of mine partly because I don't think a scientific proof will change much. But I do own a fossil stromatolite from Western Australia which I got after seeing a lecture by physicist Paul Davies on the origin of life - stromatolites on Oz being the oldest known instances of life. It strikes me as amusing that most life on earth remains microbial. We don't seem to care for it.
  • Pop
    651
    It strikes me as amusing that most life on earth remains microbial. We don't seem to care for it.Tom Storm

    That is true, mostly we don't seem to care for it, except when we realize that human cells are eukaryotic cells, and that their self organization entirely creates us and ultimately forms every post in this forum, as well as all of life and its creations. You would think as philosophers we might take an interest?
  • Adughep
    16
    Yes, I can see why the information would have to be preserved, and at the same time a closed system would have to move in the direction of greater complexity ( due to the entropic principle outlined earlier ). So the information exchanged becomes more and more complex. Is this process enough then to be captured by evolution and progressed from there to something self sustaining? I suppose, if not, then the process wouldn't survive.

    I think what is significant is that it is information that is being exchanged ( as energy or form), and so ultimately it is the exchange of information that must become more complex, and self sustaining?
    Pop


    Yes looks that to be the main reason for many other interactions things, you can even say the main purpose of the evolution is to preserve the exchange of information.If some cell did not evolved into something more complex, it means it could not preserve the old information anymore.
    Hmm thinking more that is the core for business relations and personal relations in humans. You get "in love" if the other person has something that you are "craving for" or some new things about he/she "attracts you".
    "Love" actually tricked us into think that is better, then the cells started to release serotonin and adrenaline .. hahaha, maybe i am going too far :).
    An article that adds more support to the idea of passing information to newborns: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-a-new-way-fathers-pass-inheritable-information-to-their-children.
  • Pop
    651
    you can even say the main purpose of the evolution is to preserve the exchange of information.If some cell did not evolved into something more complex, it means it could not preserve the old information anymore.Adughep

    Can you elaborate on this a little? I can see how all elements of the system must continue to evolve interrelationaly, in order to preserve the system - is this what you mean? This occurs at all levels of the system - each level plays a role in maintaining the whole. Each level solves its own idiomatic problems, this would include buisness and love, but all levels have only one manner of being as a self organizing system in the process of interellational evolution.

    What is interesting about the article is that the system does not fail totally due to folate deficiency, but institutes a workaround by configuring itself differently. And this different configuration is passed on generically. So the information of how the system was effected ( how it changed form ) was preserved, unfortunately not all the story that caused its change of form, is preserved in the form. Still the continuity of information is evident, even though we can not decipher it totally.

    This would mean that the original information that created the system would be preserved in the form of elements of the system somehow. The RNA hypothesis seems pretty strong to me. It did not self replicate, according to Stuart Kauffman, but copied its neighbour RNA, whilst at the same time its neighbour RNA copied it! Its easy to see how out of this relationship DNA could evolve as a double helix of RNA.

    ribonucleic_acid_and_deoxyribonucleic_acid.jpg
  • Adughep
    16
    Can you elaborate on this a little? I can see how all elements of the system must continue to evolve interrelationaly, in order to preserve the system - is this what you mean? This occurs at all levels of the system - each level plays a role in maintaining the whole. Each level solves its own idiomatic problems, this would include buisness and love, but all levels have only one manner of being as a self organizing system in the process of interellational evolution.Pop

    Yes you are correct, that i had in mind.
    For example you got simple cells that preserve basic information.After multiple stages of evolution you combine multiple cells into something more complex(an organ or maybe a complex protein).
    But each cell from that complex "organ" has the role to preserve its specific part of the information, as a hole the organ role is to preserve the information combined of all the cells.This is the definition how complex information is stored.


    So the information of how the system was effected ( how it changed form ) was preserved, unfortunately not all the story that caused its change of form, is preserved in the form. Still the continuity of information is evident, even though we can not decipher it totally.Pop

    Yeap, only the information resulted from the interactions was preserved.The causes can be many, but to the evolution process that does not matter, its focus is only to the end results.


    This would mean that the original information that created the system would be preserved in the form of elements of the system somehow. The RNA hypothesis seems pretty strong to me. It did not self replicate, according to Stuart Kauffman, but copied its neighbour RNA, whilst at the same time its neighbour RNA copied it! Its easy to see how out of this relationship DNA could evolve as a double helix of RNA.Pop

    Yes the original information is there.
    I think yes you are right about RNA see https://phys.org/news/2021-03-lab-closer-life-earth.html.


    There is also a theory called "memory of water" with DNA teleportation sustain by Luc Montagnier.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_teleportation

    You have two recipients of water: one with water + DNA sample, and second recipient with empty water.
    If you put them close(but not real contact) and you spin them using centrifugation, so each sample can emit electromagnetic fields . After some time the electromagnetic result can be replicated into the empty container and after DNA analysis of the empty container, they found DNA is present there as well.
    So the conclusion is the DNA from the first container got replicated to the empty container without physical contact, only by electromagnetic fields.


    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0 -- this is an interesting documentary, which will explain some things about water memory better then me

    I believe that the evolution main purpose is to preserve information, so it can evolve maybe in something better or more complex.It does not matter how you evolve and what caused it(that's why the causes are not stored ), but if you have new information it tries to keep it if it can.
    If the interactions can not be stored, then the data is destroyed and most of the times the sources of the interactions are destroyed as well.
  • Pop
    651
    You have two recipients of water: one with water + DNA sample, and second recipient with empty water.
    If you put them close(but not real contact) and you spin them using centrifugation, so each sample can emit electromagnetic fields . After some time the electromagnetic result can be replicated into the empty container and after DNA analysis of the empty container, they found DNA is present there as well.
    So the conclusion is the DNA from the first container got replicated to the empty container without physical contact, only by electromagnetic fields.
    Adughep

    This would be sensational! But it has been 11 years and nobody has replicated it, and it seems a very simple experiment to replicate, so I don't have much confidence in it. :sad:

    I believe that the evolution main purpose is to preserve information, so it can evolve maybe in something better or more complex.It does not matter how you evolve and what caused it(that's why the causes are not stored ), but if you have new information it tries to keep it if it can.Adughep

    I would largely agree with this. It would mean preserving the first bit of information is what life is all about :smile: I wonder what it is? I would guess relationship, since you fundamentally need at least two things to create information, where one thing informs the other, and subsequently everything exists via interrelational evolution. This is also consistent with the view that the minimum requirement for an emergent property is a relationship.
  • Gary Enfield
    112
    Apologies to all for not being part of the debate recently.
    For some reason my system did not update for your messages over several days and I had assumed that the subject had gone cold.

    I still need to read all of the posts - but from the early ones which I saw, I would like to say that the 'self-organisation' of chemical elements into molecules as complex as Amino Acids, was always portrayed by materialists as a purely inevitable result of their chemical structure and the energy levels within the molecule that forced other elements to come in and fill the appropriate gaps.

    That always seemed, to me, to leave a step in the conceptual logic unanswered:- ie. why other elements didn't fill certain gaps in the molecule, instead of the same chemicals for Amino Acids each time.

    If we add to that, the continuing questions about the source of the unexplained observations from nature and lab experiments, that cause seemingly impossible effects within the confines of matter/energy alone, then it seemed to me that there was at least one factor missing in our equations. That in turn might be the missing factor/influence for crude awareness, all the way to the Mind and Consciousness.

    Technically such a suggestion made me a 'dualist', even though I didn't necessarily attribute god-like status to the missing factor, and I was thinking of something more mundane.

    However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about!
  • Pop
    651


    If information preservation is fundamental, then everything is integrating information. This is consistent with the modern definition of consciousness ( information integration ). It occurs through self organization. Self organization is caused by external elements. Self organization creates a self, entirely from elements external to self. The only thing that belongs innately to the self is the information it preserves. The information is stored as a pattern of materials. Simply put, the information is the arrangement or pattern of materials. In the case of living things it is an animated pattern of materials. The animation is itself an emergent pattern. Life is an animated pattern. An animated pattern is a process.

    Does this make sense?

    However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about!Gary Enfield

    I cant see anything on their website?
  • Gary Enfield
    112


    However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about!
    — Gary Enfield

    I cant see anything on their website?
    Pop

    Pop - I got it from the BBC headlines.

    Pop & Adughep

    Looking over your recent posts there was a strong emphasis on the nature of consciousness and the way in which the underlying, but unknown, mechanisms which might create it, influence the development of life.

    Can I ask that when delving into that subject, you separate the factors which existed before the first cell (first life as we know it), from the evolutionary developments that occurred afterwards? I find it very confusing when the two are blurred.

    Almost everyone accepts evolution as a process of change and increasing complexity, once the first cell existed - but things must be very different before life - without an alternate evolutionary mechanism - just basic chemistry (with lightning or without it).

    The scientific method is always to try and break processes down into their fundamental components, and people have, in their different ways, distinguished between factors that might combine to generate consciousness. I felt that your discussion was weakened by treating consciousness as a single thing.

    Finipolscie talks of 3 components - Awareness, Control, and Thought.
    I think he settled on these three because they are all scalable, and seem to reflect different properties that could potentially be attempted by mechanical/chemical processes.
    Other authors may find different ways to sub-divide consciousness, but ultimately an explanation must be found in the basic processes of nature.... and I don't see you focusing-in on what the necessary base-level requirements might be.

    Whether you go via interacting energy waves or some sort of influence from this new force, what do you hope it/they would bring to the party?

    Hi Becky

    “ Electrical sparks simulated lightning to provide energy. In only about a week’s time, this simple apparatus caused chemical reactions that produced a variety of organic molecules, some of which are the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids” https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/module-1-evolution/origin-of-life/Becky

    They’ve actually been able to create cells from inorganic “Scientists in Scotland say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htmBecky

    Hi Becky - as has been mentioned elsewhere in this topic, the variants of Stanley Miller's experiments have never achieved all of the necessary Amino Acids from one original chemical mix, and literally NONE of the necessary nucleotides have been produced. From this you can't even construct a single protein, let alone an entire cell with all of its complexity.

    That argument still holds true for the experiments in Glasgow, if you read the article. They are hoping for breakthroughs but are not even close yet.... and similar experiments have been attempted for decades.

    The difficulty that you face with your argument from base chemicals is that there is always a conceptual point for which no chemical solution can be expected, because the issues break the principles of Matter/Energy as we know them - from codes, to control, to a direction for evolution.... the things that you didn't discuss.

    This is why Pop and Adughep are talking about controlling influences similar to consciousness.

    The newly discovered force may help to introduce a missing factor into the mix, but in the meantime do you have any thoughts on the difficult bits?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.