Nowhere357

It is the origin of consciousness that brings me here. I'm trying to shed light, by looking at the origin of life.

I want to stay on thread, so that our friendly moderaters won't put this somewhere else. Still, the concept of subjective mental experiences is key to my POV.

SO I don't want to switch focus.

The idea I bring here, concerning consciousness, is that in fact consciousness exists. It is not adequate to claim consciousness as an "illusion". IOW the deterministic explanation for consciousness is accurate, but incomplete. I will support this idea, to the extent I'm required to. However, I suspect that you will not have a problem with the idea.

As I said to Shadowy Man:

I have explored and rejected the idea that the "mental entity" is supernatural.

I have explored and rejected the idea that the "mental entity" consists of energy, in the classic sense.

I have explored and rejected the idea that the "mental entity" does not exist at all (ie "illusion").

Hence this thread.

I thought maybe the origin of life is related to this mystery.

I reject the supernatural, simply because of definition.
I reject classic energy, because that moves the problem back a step, but does not solve it.
I reject illusion, because of direct experience.

SO I'm looking at the idea that we have missed the forest for the trees, so to speak, and that there is something fundamental about life that has been overlooked.

I understand the most basic and accepted reality map to look something like this:

Patterns of matter/energy in space/time exist.

"Patterns" allows many things. Everything, really. But all patterns are not alive. The fact of life still seems unaccounted for. And that's where I am.

Darwin's Beagle

I'm sorry you felt that way. I am trying to understand what you are saying. But I still am unable to make sense out of what you say.

Here is the problem. You assert that everything even the origin of life is a natural process. Then you say the following:

1). The laws of nature do not imply life
2). Life cannot be derived from our [current] understanding of reality
3). the existence of life is not explained by physical law.

To me this is implying that you are making the statement that life cannot have arisen by natural means. If not by natural means then what else is there other than supernatural means?

Perhaps I am wrong. Do you think that life arose by natural means? If you believe it did then how can you possibly say that life is not explained by natural (physical) law? What exactly about life contradicts physical law?

Simple. It happened between 4 and 3.5 billion years ago. We cannot ever know exactly what happened. Suppose I come up with a way to create a lifeform from purely abiotic chemicals in the lab. All that shows is a possible way for life to be produced. It does not show that life was actually created that way. So we will never know how life was actually created.

I would have a little more confidence that you meant this if you hadn't said that God (if he exists) is natural. But for the moment I will take your for it.


No, it doesn't. Quite obviously life is a derived property. It wasn't fundamental to the universe. To the best of our knowledge it didn't occur until 9 billion years after the universe first appeared.

Did you know you have an annoying habit of making statements that make a person have to guess exactly you mean.

If you are referring to the theory that the visible universe is just a part of the much greater universe, some of which is receeding from us faster than the speed of light, so no matter how long you wait we will never be able to see it ... then I am aware of that theory.

If you are referring to spaces in this universe smaller than planck's length and are therefore theoretically impossible to explore due to limitations of quantum mechanics ... then I am aware of that too.

But I fail to see how either of these possiblities enter into the discussion.

If you are referring to anything else, then I am not aware of it. How about explaining it and giving its relevance.

Regards,
DB

Shadowy Man

Well, after reading your posts I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by the term "fundamental", but in essence what I am saying is this:

Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them.

That is, you can have some simple rules, like particles have mass and charge and there are forces that drop off as one over distance squared, and you can get highly complex entities and behaviors emerging from these rules. These behaviors are fully supported by the rules, but couldn't have been predicted based on the rules alone and it may even be difficult to actually explain the exact circumstances that caused these behaviors to happen.

I, too, find human consciousness to be an astounding and amazing thing indeed, but I see it as one end of a spectrum of behaviors that are all consistent with the rules that govern our universe. I don't see that they need any supernatural forces to explain them, even though we clearly can't identify or explain the circumstances related to their emergence.

Nowhere357

I'm using the term in the general sense:
Fundamental: serving as an original or generating source, or serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.

I understand this (or at least am aware of it). Emergent properties.

As far as I know, the only emergent property that includes "minds" is life. Minds are required to know about properties in the first place! So calling minds "emergent" is circular, and begs the question.

That's a bit unfair. I've said at least twice that no supernatural forces are required.

I would agree with this, if I can say that there are rules yet to be discovered.

Thanks for your help, Shadowy Man.

Celsus

In which case, everything you argue is circular as well. However, from what we know of evolution, the neural system which we and other animals use is an expensive function (just look at the animals that don't have brains and how well and how long they've survived), unless it conferred some important survival advantage. In this case, the ability to accurately interpret the world around around us, to make inferences such as "B follows A," which would have aided our survival. If our consciousness was a haphazard construct of the world about us, then natural selection would have weeded it out long ago, considering the costs, the complicated evolutionary development required, and so forth.

Joel

Nowhere357

Hi Joel. A bit to my surprise, my experience has been that ALL positions reduce to a tautology. In this case, I know my position can reduce to "I exist, therefore I exist" or something like that.

It's easier (for me) to see flaws in opposing views, then in my own. I would like to hear your view on how my position is circular.

I think I understand your point here - the survival value of the emergence of minds.

If consciousness is passive only - that is, we just "watch" as our brain does it's stuff, then there is no reason for consciousness to have evolved. It seems clear that the brain is "interested" in how we "feel" about the stuff displayed to our consciousness. I also think that our consciousness includes an active quality - the ability to move and focus our attention within our minds, but that's another thread.

It seems to me that the mystery of life has been "pushed back" until we understand everything, except how life started in the first place.

Abiogenesis looks like xian science, or something, and I'm not convinced I should spend time studying it.
Complexity theory has my attention right now, but it's very complex (haha).
I'm not sure where else to look.

Wounded King

Cosnciousness itself does not require an evolutionary advantage to have evolved, it may be not only an emergent property but an irrelevant byproduct of the way the human brain has evolved.

I am not convinced that it is in any way clear that the brain is interested in how we feel. As you say the question of volition and how much, if any, we really have is a very complex one, and I know there are one or two other threads discussing that very topic.

In what way do you feel scientific investigation of abiogenesis is akin to Xian science. I can understand that it may very well be impossible to reconstruct the exact set of conditions which gave rise to life on earth, but not being able to identify and characterise the original abiogenetic event does not preclude showing that abiogenesis is possible given a variety of conditions.

Celsus

You've just admitted to your own solipsistic tendencies by claiming that all positions reduce to a tautology. I'm not saying your position is circular, but if you claim that

• Minds are required to know about properties in the first place! So calling minds "emergent" is circular, and begs the question.

then your position is necessarily circular as well, since your argument is based on activities going on in your head. However, there are good reasons to believe that our mind does interpret the objective nature of the world around us (as I've argued above).
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. See this thread over at Theology Web for more on this.

Nowhere357

I understand this POV. I think however that it requires a "bigger" assumption than the alternative, and IMO Occam's Razor applies.

I think this issue comes down to whether or not consciousness has an "active" quality.
If we assume for a moment that the state of our consciousness actually affects the state of our brain, for example the brain reacts to the FEELING of pain), then would we agree that consciousness would have survival value?

If so, then we will need to get more precise about the meanings of words like "consciousness", for me to defend my position.

What I meant I guess is that it seemed biased, but that is based on just a couple of google skims, so I readily admit I may be wrong. If you recommend an on-line primer, I will give it attention.

BTW I'm almost ready to agree that calling life a "fundamental" property is a currently uneeded assupmtion.

Nowhere357

so·lip·sism
Date: 1874
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.

I guess I agree with the first part, but deny the second part. So I'm not a solipsist.

Isn't a pure deterministic view also based on a tautology? The natural universe exists because... it exists.

So I'm confused why "claiming that all positions reduce to a tautology" implies solipsism.

I strongly agree with this.

Thanks for the link. I've skimmed it, and will go back to read it closer. (I find the theologyweb depressing.)

For this thread, I should say that I'm starting to become comfortable the fact that there is no reason from the deterministic POV to assume life as a fundamental quality.