Sport1 min ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
"That’s the sort of statement that precludes investigation. It’s tantamount to saying ignore that which we cannot explain and concentrate upon that which we can. "
I certainly don't want to preclude investigation at all. I'm merely saying what is hopefully uncontroversial: that there is a promising approach to understanding how life works and we should surely pursue that line of thought until it's been exhausted. Which will hopefully be never. Other avenues of approach are fine but also have to produce something to justify that approach.
I actually feel that the reverse is true in some ways: constantly spreading the message that we can't know some things is surely even more likely to kill debate and investigation. After all, why bother trying something at which you are bound to fail?
Finally that paper I cited is an attempt to answer the original question, and shows that self-replicating molecules can perhaps emerge naturally. Whether there is a consciousness on top of that is a separate issue, but here I think we just have different ideas of what makes us "us". I don't think of things as having anything more than their physical nature, including humans and their thoughts, and not really seen any reason to believe that there is more to thought than the mechanism that creates it. In my viewpoint, understand the mechanism and you will understand everything there is to know about the thought -- though that full understanding will surely never be reached in practice, of course.
I certainly don't want to preclude investigation at all. I'm merely saying what is hopefully uncontroversial: that there is a promising approach to understanding how life works and we should surely pursue that line of thought until it's been exhausted. Which will hopefully be never. Other avenues of approach are fine but also have to produce something to justify that approach.
I actually feel that the reverse is true in some ways: constantly spreading the message that we can't know some things is surely even more likely to kill debate and investigation. After all, why bother trying something at which you are bound to fail?
Finally that paper I cited is an attempt to answer the original question, and shows that self-replicating molecules can perhaps emerge naturally. Whether there is a consciousness on top of that is a separate issue, but here I think we just have different ideas of what makes us "us". I don't think of things as having anything more than their physical nature, including humans and their thoughts, and not really seen any reason to believe that there is more to thought than the mechanism that creates it. In my viewpoint, understand the mechanism and you will understand everything there is to know about the thought -- though that full understanding will surely never be reached in practice, of course.
jake; //No thought = No Mind = No consciousness// Of course I agree with that: consciousness depends on the mind and the mind depends on the brain, the brain depends on the heart and 'ya knee bone connected to ya thigh-bone', etc. but it doesn't explain the state of consciousness.
Have you read chrisgel's link above? Dr. Koch seems to think he's well on the way to sorting this all out (good ploy for funding?) but as his detractors in the following comments point out, he is a long way from first base, and his submission, which he calls a 'theory', is merely a hypothesis.
Have you read chrisgel's link above? Dr. Koch seems to think he's well on the way to sorting this all out (good ploy for funding?) but as his detractors in the following comments point out, he is a long way from first base, and his submission, which he calls a 'theory', is merely a hypothesis.
That's a pretty fuzzy set of arguments in that article.
Bees are concious because they react to smoke? Presumably flowers are concious because they react to light then? - I don't think so!
I think what he's getting at is how complex behaviours can be 'emergant'. That is to say that complex patterns can arrise from a few simple rules - the way starlings flock in intricate patterns arise from following a few simple rules.
The thing is if you see such complex patterns it's easy to believe that there's more to it than just a few simple rules
I rather think it's the same with the brain
I don't see any reason to resort to panpsychism and many reasons not to
The most immediate as I say the illustration that damaged brains don't work - If conciousness were elemental you wouldn't have degraded or impared conciousness
You can't have a degraded element
Bees are concious because they react to smoke? Presumably flowers are concious because they react to light then? - I don't think so!
I think what he's getting at is how complex behaviours can be 'emergant'. That is to say that complex patterns can arrise from a few simple rules - the way starlings flock in intricate patterns arise from following a few simple rules.
The thing is if you see such complex patterns it's easy to believe that there's more to it than just a few simple rules
I rather think it's the same with the brain
I don't see any reason to resort to panpsychism and many reasons not to
The most immediate as I say the illustration that damaged brains don't work - If conciousness were elemental you wouldn't have degraded or impared conciousness
You can't have a degraded element
I agree with Jake's basic summary and argument at this stage of our limited understanding.
Evidence of conciousness, thinking etc. are gaining evidence from studies in which electrodes are inserted into the brain or stuck to the scalp and the electric responses to stimuli are recorded and thereby located to parts of the brain.
I have already cited evidence also derived from the effects of disease etc in respect of memory (see earlier). No-one disagreed that memory was purely in the materialistic - i.e. brain function only. I used the RAM analogy.
Important point here:
If we have conciousness and are able to appreciate ourselves and surroundings where does the concept of the "mind" fit in?
What is uniquely different about the "mind" from all other concious activities.
Is "the mind" something special or just, as I believe, a synonym for concious thinking and is now a redundant word?
Will someone please explain?
Thank you,
SIQ.
Evidence of conciousness, thinking etc. are gaining evidence from studies in which electrodes are inserted into the brain or stuck to the scalp and the electric responses to stimuli are recorded and thereby located to parts of the brain.
I have already cited evidence also derived from the effects of disease etc in respect of memory (see earlier). No-one disagreed that memory was purely in the materialistic - i.e. brain function only. I used the RAM analogy.
Important point here:
If we have conciousness and are able to appreciate ourselves and surroundings where does the concept of the "mind" fit in?
What is uniquely different about the "mind" from all other concious activities.
Is "the mind" something special or just, as I believe, a synonym for concious thinking and is now a redundant word?
Will someone please explain?
Thank you,
SIQ.
jake; I'm not clear on your assertion that "If consciousness were elemental you wouldn't have degraded or impaired consciousness"Isn't it thequote[brain] which is elemental? Isn't it possible to have an impaired brain and still be conscious? I can see though, that sleep, and more severely; coma, is a switching off off consciousness but not of the brain.
Dear mibn2cweus,
Good try but you don't convince me I'm afraid.
Your list of "banked" information on which conciousness draws are surely covered by short- and long term-memory which arise from the learning process.
Please re-read my contention that "mind" is not a separate entity by itself, just another word for conciousness.
To include in a debate two words which mean the same thing and treat them as though they were separate entities is a dangerous route as it will lead to confusion and - only if I am right - will render the debate barren.
Thank you for being the first to address my question as it is important that we are agreed on our terminology to usefully progress.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
Good try but you don't convince me I'm afraid.
Your list of "banked" information on which conciousness draws are surely covered by short- and long term-memory which arise from the learning process.
Please re-read my contention that "mind" is not a separate entity by itself, just another word for conciousness.
To include in a debate two words which mean the same thing and treat them as though they were separate entities is a dangerous route as it will lead to confusion and - only if I am right - will render the debate barren.
Thank you for being the first to address my question as it is important that we are agreed on our terminology to usefully progress.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
The conscious mind is merely the tip of the iceberg. The distinction between what is in the mind (that which it has accumulated over a lifetime) and what is one ones mind (at any given moment) is an important one to keep in mind for understanding the mind in general and specifically what consciousness is.
//... it is important that we are agreed on our terminology to usefully progress.//
With this much I totally agree.
//... it is important that we are agreed on our terminology to usefully progress.//
With this much I totally agree.
All the way back on page 14, Khandro sayeth:
---
jim; //Things have moved on since he died.// Well that sounds a trifle hubristic. How can you look at yourself, the world, and the universe you appear to inhabit, and suggest it is all a result of blind accident, originating by chance and taking place in the theatre of a meaningless universe, without a scrap of evidence for support for that view.
---
Personally, I quite like the idea of 'blind accident' and the concept of a "meaningless universe".
For all the pontificating on display in this thread, the people who've really got it all worked out are the people getting down at all the parties we aren't getting invited to.
;-)
@SIQ
//HEY, HYPO, YOU'VE JUST CATALYSED THE CREATION OF A
HETERO-POLYMER COMPOSED OF HUMANS! A new transient super-life form.
And because you are part of its composition you become a self-replicating molecular complex, lol.
Science, reasoning and common sense are such fun! //
:-D
Thanks.
---
jim; //Things have moved on since he died.// Well that sounds a trifle hubristic. How can you look at yourself, the world, and the universe you appear to inhabit, and suggest it is all a result of blind accident, originating by chance and taking place in the theatre of a meaningless universe, without a scrap of evidence for support for that view.
---
Personally, I quite like the idea of 'blind accident' and the concept of a "meaningless universe".
For all the pontificating on display in this thread, the people who've really got it all worked out are the people getting down at all the parties we aren't getting invited to.
;-)
@SIQ
//HEY, HYPO, YOU'VE JUST CATALYSED THE CREATION OF A
HETERO-POLYMER COMPOSED OF HUMANS! A new transient super-life form.
And because you are part of its composition you become a self-replicating molecular complex, lol.
Science, reasoning and common sense are such fun! //
:-D
Thanks.
Interesting new direction that the thread has gone in. Normally I'd moan about it not being posted as a new thread but, on this occasion, I'm glad not to have missed out, since I might not have been attreacted by the new thread's title.
@naomi
//I don’t disagree with that, but it simply demonstrates that thought is a product of the brain. It doesn’t explain the fabric of the product. //
As far as I see it, the product has no fabric and it's immaterial {pun, pun} that this is the case, as far as I'm concerned.
Thoughts have zero mass - if they did, then 7 billion humans, thinking thousands of things, each, per minute would create gravitational anomalies which matched our patterns of population density. There is/have been a satellite/s monitoring surface gravitational anomalies and they'd have picked this up, if present.
Zero mass means zero momentum which means zero kinetic energy stored within them. It also means that they can exert no force.
Thoughts have zero charge - if they did, then they'd immediately feed back into the nerve fibres which spawned them and likely cause a neuron or three to discharge and there would be cascade effects aplenty.
Thoughts have zero magnetism - counterpart to the zero charge situation. No reported ill effects from the intense magnetic field inside hospital CT scanners.
I would like to say something along the lines that the above set of properties mean that thoughts can exist in a dimensionless space (no need to 'travel' from place to place or, being massless, can travel at speed of light) but that would be entirely conjectural and also over-reaching myself because I wouldn't understand the level of mathematics required to prove it.
@naomi
//I don’t disagree with that, but it simply demonstrates that thought is a product of the brain. It doesn’t explain the fabric of the product. //
As far as I see it, the product has no fabric and it's immaterial {pun, pun} that this is the case, as far as I'm concerned.
Thoughts have zero mass - if they did, then 7 billion humans, thinking thousands of things, each, per minute would create gravitational anomalies which matched our patterns of population density. There is/have been a satellite/s monitoring surface gravitational anomalies and they'd have picked this up, if present.
Zero mass means zero momentum which means zero kinetic energy stored within them. It also means that they can exert no force.
Thoughts have zero charge - if they did, then they'd immediately feed back into the nerve fibres which spawned them and likely cause a neuron or three to discharge and there would be cascade effects aplenty.
Thoughts have zero magnetism - counterpart to the zero charge situation. No reported ill effects from the intense magnetic field inside hospital CT scanners.
I would like to say something along the lines that the above set of properties mean that thoughts can exist in a dimensionless space (no need to 'travel' from place to place or, being massless, can travel at speed of light) but that would be entirely conjectural and also over-reaching myself because I wouldn't understand the level of mathematics required to prove it.
Hypognosis, //I would like to say something along the lines that the above set of properties mean that thoughts can exist in a dimensionless space (no need to 'travel' from place to place or, being massless, can travel at speed of light) but that would be entirely conjectural ....//
Conjecture, yes, but I like it. :o)
Conjecture, yes, but I like it. :o)
Hmm.
Magnetism can affect morality through an observed process known as transcranial magnetic stimulation - so how does that affect the concept of dualism?
http://
More generally, magnets have been demonstrated to interact with peoples ability to frame their thoughts etc.
http://
http://
So, those bottom 2 references point to how magnets can affect the process of thought, the mechanics of it, and this can be understood because of, well, electro-magnetism - neurons, electrical impulses and all of that.
The first link offered is a more intriguing one, since it suggests that not just the mechanism by which thoughts are generated, but the nature of the thought itself - observations of peoples changing moral judgement -that demonstrate to me at least that thought, the mind is an emergent property of the brain rather than being anything more profound than that.
Magnetism can affect morality through an observed process known as transcranial magnetic stimulation - so how does that affect the concept of dualism?
http://
More generally, magnets have been demonstrated to interact with peoples ability to frame their thoughts etc.
http://
http://
So, those bottom 2 references point to how magnets can affect the process of thought, the mechanics of it, and this can be understood because of, well, electro-magnetism - neurons, electrical impulses and all of that.
The first link offered is a more intriguing one, since it suggests that not just the mechanism by which thoughts are generated, but the nature of the thought itself - observations of peoples changing moral judgement -that demonstrate to me at least that thought, the mind is an emergent property of the brain rather than being anything more profound than that.
Khandro - please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of panpsychism is that the mind somehow is fundamental to the Universe and exists everywhere in everything
http://
This really is some of the most blithering nonsense I've come across
The fact that mind is a artifact of a brain - and not everything in the Universe is clear from the fact that when the brain is damaged the functioning of the mind is impaired.
Do you disagree with Searle? Do you think that termostats posess conciousness? even a little bit of conciousness?
Seriously I sometimes think that such ideas can only come about in a world where philosophers behave like ancient Greeks - distaining such ideas as evidence and the scientific method
http://
This really is some of the most blithering nonsense I've come across
The fact that mind is a artifact of a brain - and not everything in the Universe is clear from the fact that when the brain is damaged the functioning of the mind is impaired.
Do you disagree with Searle? Do you think that termostats posess conciousness? even a little bit of conciousness?
Seriously I sometimes think that such ideas can only come about in a world where philosophers behave like ancient Greeks - distaining such ideas as evidence and the scientific method
"I would like to say something along the lines that the above set of properties mean that thoughts can exist in a dimensionless space (no need to 'travel' from place to place or, being massless, can travel at speed of light) but that would be entirely conjectural and also over-reaching myself because I wouldn't understand the level of mathematics required to prove it."
I don't think this is that far from the truth -- just replace "dimensionless" by "moving in the usual four dimensions" and you have it already in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics. I think thoughts can be adequately described almost by this, but if not then you could write down a new theory with a similar structure. Actually that would appear to be the problem -- because we can experience thoughts that tells us that anything "new" (beyond current understanding) can interact with ordinary matter and at low energies. I think that should mean that we ought to have either detected this new thing already or at least should easily be able to. Indeed my argument is that we already have in the fact that electricity is well-described by current theories. The magnetic effects on thought as mentioned by LazyGun support that idea strongly: that thought is "just" normal electrical signals.
I don't think this is that far from the truth -- just replace "dimensionless" by "moving in the usual four dimensions" and you have it already in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics. I think thoughts can be adequately described almost by this, but if not then you could write down a new theory with a similar structure. Actually that would appear to be the problem -- because we can experience thoughts that tells us that anything "new" (beyond current understanding) can interact with ordinary matter and at low energies. I think that should mean that we ought to have either detected this new thing already or at least should easily be able to. Indeed my argument is that we already have in the fact that electricity is well-described by current theories. The magnetic effects on thought as mentioned by LazyGun support that idea strongly: that thought is "just" normal electrical signals.
jake; //please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of panpsychism is that the mind somehow is fundamental to the Universe and exists everywhere in everything//
No, I don't believe in that at all, but I believe mind cannot be defined in purely material terms, and yet it requires the matrix of a sentient being for its existence, in a similar sense to say, 'joy'.
No, I don't believe in that at all, but I believe mind cannot be defined in purely material terms, and yet it requires the matrix of a sentient being for its existence, in a similar sense to say, 'joy'.
Latest Posts
Supreme Court Gives Us Presidents...
News2 mins ago
Has Anyone Won Anything In July's...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Business & Finance13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
