Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am asking you what to make of the fact that there is not one thing alive in a cell but we classify that volume as "life".
Yes, you stated that perfectly. A living cell is not made up of living cells. I think a similar principle applies to consciousness. A conscious being does not have to be made up of conscious beings.
We can see, in principle, how life emerges from chemistry, because chemistry and the behaviors of life are all objectively observable phenomena. "Proto-life" can be somewhat comprehended in the principles of chemistry.
The subjectivity of consciousness makes it extra tricky. The Proto-qualitative aspects of subjective conscious experience don't logically follow from the quantitative objective principles of physics or chemistry. So we need to reconsider physics in terms that address the logical gap. But once we do this, we probably won't need consciousness to create consciousness, any more than we need living cells to be composed of living cells. We won't need conscious intelligence with a purpose to design intelligent beings who experience meaning and purpose.
Intelligent beings can emerge from the elements of the Earth and bring consciousness, meaning, and purpose along with them.
Yes, you stated that perfectly. A living cell is not made up of living cells. I think a similar principle applies to consciousness. A conscious being does not have to be made up of conscious beings.
We can see, in principle, how life emerges from chemistry, because chemistry and the behaviors of life are all objectively observable phenomena. "Proto-life" can be somewhat comprehended in the principles of chemistry.
The subjectivity of consciousness makes it extra tricky. The Proto-qualitative aspects of subjective conscious experience don't logically follow from the quantitative objective principles of physics or chemistry. So we need to reconsider physics in terms that address the logical gap. But once we do this, we probably won't need consciousness to create consciousness, any more than we need living cells to be composed of living cells. We won't need conscious intelligence with a purpose to design intelligent beings who experience meaning and purpose.
Intelligent beings can emerge from the elements of the Earth and bring consciousness, meaning, and purpose along with them.
well, yeah, that's what I have been saying. Like I said, I keep it to 50AU's. For me, A Universal purpose or Grand meaning isn't a requirement for me to classify the cell as life. Or to claim that it is far more reasonable to claim this region space as conscious than it is to claim it is not. "its not" just doesn't match observation.
it only requires life to be life now. We will learn more later. I don't get the big idea of needing more?
to me, Your qualia is based on machine language. I take a computer apart and it seems something is going on. Its acting like more than the chemistry we see. When the machine language is understood the synergy is understood. Its no longer as subjective as you imply. But we need some uncertainty or it wouldn't run at all. well, in fact, computers do lock up because of no uncertainty ...lmao. this is child's play.
Likewise, for this region of space to have consciousness doesn't require a grand meaning or purpose past what we know now. Get to a point in time where it can reproduce or pass on the information.
when a life form shoots one particle, at the correct angle, into a black hole it will reach the energy of this universe and and possibly illuminate it as such. "luminosity" use in the astronomy sense of the word.
its so simple i can't figure out atheists like trans don't jump on it as the reasonable explanation of the events around us. That claim matches observations. it offers a mechanism, explanation, and makes predictions. it is also very empirical. You call "brute fact".
But i figured, at first, he wouldn't care because we atheists were about describing how the universe works. i was wrong about his sect. But now I spot them a mile away. The problem is, guess, it effectively debunks his sect of atheism. They can't have that loos of power.
the war between statements of belief about god are based on keeping or gaining power. lol, it seems conservation laws keep them both tugging away at each other.
The point being (as near as I can determine} that "spirituality" recognizes a kinship, a connection within our environment, but the "lines" are apparently arbitrary. Where might we be willing to redraw those lines?
yuppers. "arbitrary" is a tricky word. It is used by both sides of the isle to gain an advantage. To gain an advantage for an agenda I see as children's play.
All I can say, based on the sciences, there is no place in our universe that is not universing. That's just a fact. but, I do keep it simpler. example ants: when is an ant the defining characteristic of the colony? The different functions of the ants and the various spaces in an ant hole line up almost exactly to a group of systems within any given multicellular organism.
atoms interact to form more complex molecules, molecules interact to form cells. cells interact to form a organism. The life forms emerges from the atoms. The colony emerges from the actions of the individual ants. I say, The biosphere emerges from the actions of the individual species.
arbitrary Lines? air is a fluid, and is used exchanges a lot of information between individuals within a species and other organisms. example: pheromones and other chemicals. That's in any biology 101 book. EMR also offers an information exchange mechanism. like colors on a bird's breast. again, in any basic biology book. In fact, i doubt I said one thing that is not common knowledge.
Look at a possum, well, playing possum. motionless, involuntary motion stopping habit (its not a conscious freezing) triggered by an outside stressor, it basically received information from another organism to "play dead" and to eject a foul smell from its anus in order to trick a predator into thinking "rancid meat do not eat". Obviously it wouldn't work for hyenas and other serous scavengers, but a neat trick none the less. lol, anytime we can get the word anus in there, it's fun ... sorry, I digress.
My line, I stop at biosphere, or 50 AU's. Just because the biosphere is empirical and can be understood by anybody. 50 AU's just is bigger, but still reasonable.
But what about the fabric of space? see 'elegant universe', As a point of fact, we don't know what energy is. so in a real sense, we emerge from energy. what else emerges from it? The whole of the universe emerged from this energy. where does it stop?
i don't know ... so back to 50 AU's I go. I with changes in density throughout the system of course. like changes in density in any organism we know of.
I would be willing to "follow" such a thread, but the point is well worth considering that the "lines" between physics, metaphysics and spirituality are arbitrary and I'd say the only conversation would be where to draw those lines and why.
oh man sorry nate, I thought you meant between life and non life.
for me, the line is experimental science, which can include labs being built to test an idea.
why? because we only know what we know. base our descriptions on what we do know with the explicit understanding that we can change our minds if/when we find new information. In fact, its rule number one.
1)its ok to change your mind when you learn something new.
At this point, I think we are talking about different "lines." Yours comes a little later: can we define ANY space that is not a part of a biological organism as "life" is, not certain for me, and I have not really delved into the nature of "spirit" in relation to "life." I'm out wondering where the line is between metaphysical and spiritual. Not at all sure that spiritual requires consciousness, though some form of directed self-sustaining activity seems to be essence.
SO, I am open, for instance, to the idea that AI could be on a par with biological self-awareness. The conclusion to me is that the mechanism that produced it would have to be classified as "alive" for as long as it operates. You are out of my league on the other.
My question still stands. How would we misrepresent the "chemistry" in a computer by taking it apart, studying its processes, and analyzing them if we did not understand that the binary language is what is determining how it behaves?"
I don't think we would misrepresent the chemistry exactly. The meanings of the binary language don't change the chemistry. What we would be doing is failing to comprehend the sign nature of the activity. In super simplistic terms, it would be like looking at smoke without realizing that it is a sign of fire. Or like studying the peaks and valleys of cosmic radio waves, without realizing that we are observing extraterrestrial communication. Bottom line: we would be missing information that is implicit in the patterns of activity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
