Nowhere357

I don't understand. Gravity only exists once. It seems to be fundamental. It is treated as such. Life also seems to be fundamental. It is not treated as such. Why the difference?

There is only one instance of matter existing. So we say "matter exists". This is a fundamental quality of reality.

I propose that life, or at least the tendancy of matter to form life, is a fundamental quality of reality.

Without this fundamental quality, there is no sufficient explanation for the emergence of mind. Pain is not "illusion", and cannot be "merely" deterministic. This is a fact of observation.

With this fundamental quality, however, I think then we could begin to formulate appropriate laws.

Shadowy Man

Well, neither can the 11-year Solar cycle, but that doesn't mean the Solar cycle is a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity is.

Because life isn't fundamental like gravity is. It may seem that way to you, but I don't believe it is.


One day we may learn enough about the sun to explain the 11-year Solar cycle. We may also one day know enough about the conditions necessary for the origin of life to explain that too.

Darwin's Beagle

Ok, so you believe that life began naturally.

OK, so only things in the natural world have intelligence.

See, here you go again. Given everything above wat do you mean that "life cannot be derived ...". If you mean we do not know the exact mechanism by which life arose then this is obviously correct but of little import since it is impossible for us to know exactly how it arose. However, if you mean that life could not have POSSIBLY arisen given our present understanding of the laws of nature, you are implying that there IS some supernatural force directing it. If this is the case, the only way I can square what you have said above is that you think the supernatural force directing it is NOT intelligent. That would be an interesting concept ... Abiogenesis by a RANDOM SUPERNATURAL process.

I think for people who believe that life began by natural means, life is a bit more than "assumed", we have excellent evidence for it. It is all around us.

Nowhere357

This point is a good one, and is the closest thing to an answer that I've found so far.

It's not quite good enough though. The 11-year cycle does not stand out from all other phenomenae as being different in kind. Live matter is clearly different then non-alive matter. No where else do we find the existence of minds.

That there are stars can be derived from the laws of physics, I think. The behavior of stars becomes complicated, and probably cannot be derived directly from physical law. Interestingly, this complication seems to be linked to the existence of life. The sun is a necessary part of life, and religions may even worship it.

Well, okay, you are reduced to assertions.

I expect so, also. I also expect that the explanation for origin of life will involve strange and radical concepts.

The existence of minds (and therefore life) is a presumed, assumed, necessary pre-requisite to the discovery of any knowledge at all. To then claim life and mind is illusion I think is circular, and begs the question.

Thanks for the input, SM.

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

It's not quite good enough though. The 11-year cycle does not stand out from all other phenomenae as being different in kind. Live matter is clearly different then non-alive matter.

I don't think that's the case. Self-organizing complexity is hardly unique to living organisms. Nor is living matter "clearly different" from non-living matter. If it were there wouldn't be so much debate over whether viruses and prions are alive or simply complicated organic molecules.

Coacervates and proteinoid microspheres are known to form spontaneously under certain circumstances, and they look and behave so much like living cells that they sometimes fool experienced microbiologists.

As George Carlin perceptively noted, we think life is special because we're alive. It's by no means obvious that an intelligent, non-living entity would regard living beings as particularly "special."

Cheers,

Michael

Nowhere357

I need to vent a little bit first.

Atheism has nothing to fear from theism, as you know. Why then, the pre-emptive strikes? As I read your post, I felt like you were not trying to understand my POV. Rather, you seem to be manuevering for counterstrikes.

My position coming in here was that my POV was not generally accepted, by many smart people who have thought hard on the subject. I want to know WHY they concluded so. That way I can more easily correct my own understanding.

I have no vested interest in this theory, or in any other theory. My interest is in building the strongest worldview I can. My vision is no clearer than anyone else's. Like many atheists, I am comfortable forming my own opinions, and I am not vulnerable to public opinion or to peer pressure. I am comfortable with saying that the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. One strength I bring to the table is the ability to consider differing POVs.

Okay I feel better now.

Of course. Everything is natural. Even god, if there is such a thing.

Again, this is truism. If something exists, it exists in the natural universe. I feel like you are poking your spear into the bushes, but I'm over here in the rocks! Put that thing away before someone gets hurt!

Impossible? Why?

Supernatural forces do not exist, so clearly this is not what I'm trying to say.

Exactly. That, plus the idea that the existence of life is not explained by physical law, plus the idea that life and mind must exist in order for anyone to study anything at all, lead to the idea that life is a fundamental property.

Darwin, are you aware that there exists a part of the natural universe, which is not accessible to physical science? I think my awareness of that fact is key to my POV in this thread. Many people have a difficult time with the concept.

Nowhere357

Agreed. Crystal formation, for example. By "clearly different" I meant sufficiently advanced life. The exploration of the fuzzy area beween life and non-life is exciting.

I think this partially reduces my POV to the existence of order. I am starting to study about complexity and chaos theory, and their relationship with life.

I say partially, because the existence of mind hasn't been reduced. The existence of subjective mental experiences is different in kind from all other observed phenomenae. I guess the existence of mind will at least partially reduce to the same thing that is associated with or responsible for the existence of order, and the arisal of life from matter, but I don't know what that is or how to look deeper.

I have read a little about microspheres. This is part of the reason I think the existence of order and the existence of life share a root cause.

I guess I understand the point. Such an entity may see us as less than bread mold. I think it's irrelevant, though, because ultimately I define my own existence in and of itself. I really do not require verification that I exist. We are all incredibly tiny sparks of consciousness in an incredibly vast reality, and I guess that's special.

Thanks, Kimosabe. Good post.

Wounded King

Dear Nowhere,

Could you elaborate on your statement that
Im just not quite sure what you mean. Is the ofcus of the thread switching from the origin of life to the origin of consciousness?

Shadowy Man

Actually, the 11-year Solar cycle does stand out from other phenomenae. It is completely unexplained, and hasn't been observed anywhere else, and we haven't a clue as to its origin.

Yes, living matter is different than non-living matter. So what. I don't know why you are elevating life to some special status above all other emergent properties of nature.

Actually, I"m not sure, I'll have to check on this, that there are any simulations that can currently actually make stars from gas clouds. So, though the existence of stars and their continuing evolution can be supported by physical laws, it isn't necessarily known how they exactly form.

Surely, the existence and evolution of life is supported by physical law. We just don't know how the first self-replicating molecules actually formed.
Well, it's just your assertion that life is fundamental. You have given no support at all to that assertion, other than it seems that way. Gravity appears to exist in every part of the universe we look in. We've only found life here. Life appears much more to be an emergent property of the universe, not a fundamental one.

I disagree. Though the process of life may appear to be something extraordinary, there isn't too much special about molecules composed of various amounts and configurations of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen (which, by the way, are four of the top six or so most common elements in the universe) interacting with each other.

Cheers,

Shadowy

Nowhere357

If I were an 11-year solar cycle, I would agree. I suppose stars go through cycles. The difference between cycles of any sort, and the existence of life, is not merely a difference of degree. No other phenomenae is know to give rise to minds. Minds are different in kind than any other phenomenae ever observed. This fact makes life profound. I think there is nothing controversial in this view. The controversy is in the meaning of that fact.

There is a scratch on my desk. This scratch occurs no where else but on my desk, and no one knows how it got there. I think it's obvious that this data is not in the same ballpark as the existence of life.

Because minds arise from life.

Minds (and therefore life) necessarily exists, to even began to formulate laws of any kind. This implies that minds are more fundamental than even the laws of physics.

I think if I claim that life is fundamental, that would be assertion. To claim life seems fundamental, is an observation. But then I'm not a logician.

I have provided support. Here again, in a nutshell:

"Life exists. That, plus the idea that the existence of life is not explained by physical law, plus the idea that life and mind must exist in order for anyone to study anything at all, lead to the idea that life is a fundamental property."

I'm just exploring ideas. I haven't claimed anything else.

Are you saying here, that emergent properties cannot be fundamental? Please elaborate? Maybe this is where my conceptual error lies.

I don't find anything "special" about chon, either. In much the same way, I don't find anything special about the stimulus-reactions of a living creature.

What IS special is that a "mental entity" perceives the stimulus as a subjective mental experience.

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.