Abiogenesis: Life before evolution

Originally posted by Heronumber0
TP - I may be wrong, but I thought the concept of the Selfish Gene was that genes used organisms to perpetuate their continued existence. My view of soul is the religious view of a consciousness which survives death. Anyone who belives in evolution would find it difficult to even suggest the existence of such a consciousness. It seems pointless and extraneous to the complex nature of evolution and not only fuddy-duddy Natural Selection but the concepts of genetic drift and epigenetic controls on genotype and phenotype.

[edit on 15/12/2008 by Heronumber0]

Like he said, the idea doesn't have to be comforting to be true.

We, humans, are simply organisms, whose bodily processes are run by organ systems, composed of organs, formed by tissues, which are groups of cells united in common function, the cells being comprised of organelles, which are composed of molecules.

Really, we're just a self-aware composition of chemicals, and your personality, thoughts, and emotions are the product of electro-chemical reactions in the central nervous system. There's nothing ethereal or supernatural about any of it.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I must say this. If you see logic in that, then there must be a mind behind it. And it is not just your mind.

Not really... this is just your mind's attempt to explain away a concept it doesn't fully comprehend.

If there's a mind behind it... where did that mind come from?

Infinite regression is a MOFO....

reply to post by DangerDeath


There is no "mind"... you're confusing Philosophy with science again...

Think of it this way... how often do you find yourself concentrating on involuntary muscle responses? like a flinch? or perhaps, digesting?

There's no mind... its an autonomous reaction/response... its even handled by a section of the brain that bypasses thought completely...

I thought you were trying to explain a way to describe involuntary and instinctual reactions earlier... now I just see we were setting up a straw man...

Really, we're just a self-aware composition of chemicals, and your personality, thoughts, and emotions are the product of electro-chemical reactions in the central nervous system. There's nothing ethereal or supernatural about any of it.

So you've solved 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' have ya? You should publish it ASAP. Of course, do it in a philosophy journal, 'cause it aint science. Your gonna be rich!


"Cogito, ergo sum"


Your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I must say this. If you see logic in that, then there must be a mind behind it. And it is not just your mind.

Not really... this is just your mind's attempt to explain away a concept it doesn't fully comprehend.

If there's a mind behind it... where did that mind come from?

If there's a natural cause behind it... where did the natural cause that caused it come from?

Infinite regression is a MOFO....

Indeed. Ya need one of those uncaused causes. An Alpha and an Omega all rolled into one. An I Am.


Any ideas?

No one is saying life isn't possible without evolution, it's just that to say the human body is not a product of evolution is simply ignorant. Intelligence as we have come to perceive it, can only possibly be an evolved quality... as a result of a constant bombardment of changes in a species' environmental circumstances. It can not blink into existence. A human body can not blink into existence. I think that's where this argument derails. We have two sides not understanding what either side actually believes. Are you saying it's possible for some type of intelligence to come into being without having some motivator, without circumstantial changes in its environment to bring it about? I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you if that was your point. But then again, how is this applicable to humans, because surely both our psychology and physiology is evolutionarily derived; surely it did not blink into existence. To say otherwise would be entirely contingent on speculation and wishful thinking.

"If there's a natural cause behind it... where did the natural cause that caused it come from?"

This is where empiricism fails. A rational thinker would never deny the existence of God. Whether he is an anthropomorphic being, whether God is matter itself, etc. however, is completely unknown... (this is where empiricism reconciles the rational thinker's deficiency).

You guys should read Immanuel Kant.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by Rren

If there's a natural cause behind it... where did the natural cause that caused it come from?

Are you serious? You're going to have me do cause and effect all the way back to the big bang?

you answered a question with a question though... in essence, you deflected my question by asking one of your own...

however, you fail to realize that if my answer is wrong, it does not make your answer correct...

both answers could very well be massively incorrect...

Come on Rren, I know you're better than that... lets not resort to the tactics used by the "fundies" (Not calling you a fundie, but pointing out that the tactic you used is widely used by them.)

Indeed. Ya need one of those uncaused causes. An Alpha and an Omega all rolled into one. An I Am.

No you don't. Trust me. we'll figure it out...

however, the scientific answer doesn't start out with infinite complexity...

reply to post by cognoscente


I think its important here to define "god" than...

When I refer to god, I am speaking of a concious, supernatural magic man...

If we're allowed to make our own definitions of god... than Deism would be the only logical solution...

Originally posted by nj2day
When I refer to god, I am speaking of a concious, supernatural magic man...

Do you actually believe that? Are you using that definition purely to serve a conceptual purpose for this discussion?

[edit on 16-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


I am an Atheist... if pressed to declare a god, I would have to state something like deism... an unconscious natural god...

I use that definition when I refer to god, because that is how people expect the word "god" to be used.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by Rren

If there's a natural cause behind it... where did the natural cause that caused it come from?

Are you serious? You're going to have me do cause and effect all the way back to the big bang?

You mentioned an infinite regress and I simply pointed out how it applied to natural causes as well. ( past the BigBang... what caused it and what caused that, ad infinitum.)

you answered a question with a question though... in essence, you deflected my question by asking one of your own...

however, you fail to realize that if my answer is wrong, it does not make your answer correct...

both answers could very well be massively incorrect...

I believe in an initial uncreated creator; the infinite regress (only other option unless you know of another way to violate Causality) doesn't apply to my philosophical world-view (i.e., a non-contingent first mover) it applies to yours. I was simply pointing that out.

Come on Rren, I know you're better than that... lets not resort to the tactics used by the "fundies" (Not calling you a fundie, but pointing out that the tactic you used is widely used by them.)

I have no interest in getting in a pissing match here but, I did not employ a 'widely used fundie tactic', that's just ridiculous. Instead, I pointed out an ages old philosophical argument which you brought up first and failed to understand it (and its implications.)

Indeed. Ya need one of those uncaused causes. An Alpha and an Omega all rolled into one. An I Am.

No you don't. Trust me. we'll figure it out...

You have Faith. That's nice.

however, the scientific answer doesn't start out with infinite complexity...

Never heard of "infinite complexity" what is that?

What if we exist in some type of simulation? Any discrepancies we are capable of observing, but not understanding, such as infinite regression, could be attributed to this so-called creator's programming insufficiency. But of course the notion that we are doomed to never fully comprehending our universe goes directly parallel to contemporary scientific theory, and it sure would ruin a lot of people's days. Though I think the fact I even entertained such an idea only shows this fear of uncertainty is a socially evolved characteristic in itself, so who can really blame me?

Sorry, but I don't really understand the argument of this thread. Are we trying to define life? Are we trying to prove individual lifeforms can exist without being "conscious"? Are we trying to extend the definition of consciousness? Should we exclude the human psychological consciousness, the super ego?

[edit on 16-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by nj2day

I would give you the actual scientific report... but as it is recent... I have to have a paid membership to one of the scientific website...

this one you mean?

astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by nj2day


The Big Bang was never proved.

They're still stuck at 10 on -43 sec.

That is not real science.

This kind of science will always pretend to look for the final answer, and it will always get stuck with an excuse: Well, one day science will answer it. We just need more data, m ore time, more funds, more resources. This is the true bad infinity practice.

I say that God is Force, the metaphysical. Force is knowledge because force "knows" how )to affect matter). That is all God can be, and all other descriptions of God are pure speculation and manipulation, as is proved in historical practice.

Force is not physical, it has no physical characteristics, that's what First law of thermodynamics says. It is immeasurable not because it is so "huge" but because measures don't apply to it. It is the principle of undiscerning.

Science, etymologically, means discernment. Science is about the effects of the force.

What I am saying is that "mind" is that force (which is knowledge) and that mind, or force, or God if you please, is what gives meaning and logic and rules, if there are any at all. And that logic we can perceive with our own minds, which means that we have at least some of that force within ourselves and that force has no cause. So this is what we have to start with and try not to confuse things.

I will repeat:

Force is the metaphysical. It affects matter. Matter cannot move without force. Force is not physical. The way force affects matter cannot be broken into a "process". It is immediate action. That is possible only because Force knows how. This is where it is obvious that Force is same as Knowledge, and same as God. Any other definition of God is result of various, mostly manipulative, speculations, and regretfully, this kind of (mis)"understanding" is repulsive to most "scientists" and creates a taboo when it comes to dealing with metaphysical.

Originally posted by Rren
So you've solved 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' have ya? You should publish it ASAP. Of course, do it in a philosophy journal, 'cause it aint science. Your gonna be rich!

Simply because we don't know the exact way consciousness works yet does not mean

a) it does not have a scientific explanation, or
b) we have no idea how the brain works.

In fact, by measuring levels of activity in various areas of the brain, researches can now use the information to "project" the actual image being imagined visually.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

reply to post by SamuraiDrifter


Brain may as well be just a "reflector" instead of the "source" of images.

You can perhaps claim that horse doesn't have reason, the way we have it, the ability of logical conjuncture, but it sure as hell has the ability to know.

Knowledge (experience) will affect behavior faster than physical or chemical reaction in living beings. Chemical reaction can as well be the effect and not the cause of behavior.

Lobsters have very rudimentary nervous system, but lobsters live long and can we claim that they have absolutely no experience collected during their life?

Experienced player exits time/space continuum when playing. His performance does not depend on linear processing of data necessary to play an instrument. If he wasted time on that his performance would never be virtuous.

So experience is very much, if not the same, like this subconscious mind which operates living organisms.

If you look into a mirror, you will perceive all the phenomena of the world, and you will perceive order in the arrangement of that perception, but if you are not aware that it is only a reflection of the "subject" outside of the mirror, you will draw wrong conclusion that logic and sense belong to manifestations.

reply to post by DangerDeath


You're mixing science and philosophy there mate...

You're personifying force now... force is nothing but energy...

Why are we assigning human traits to everything? It sounds like a flaw in your thinking...

unless your suggesting there is nothing in the universe that is completely indescriminant... but that would negate entropy... and with that, you have a lot more math to do...

This would also negate "free will", but thats so far off the topic of Abiogenesis, I'll leave it alone lol

Edit: I forgot to define what I meant by Infinite Complexity...

An infinite consciousness with infinite power, would be complex indeed! with so many infinite characturistics, we might say, its "Infinitely Complex".

At least science has very simple answers... remember occam's razor!




[edit on 16-12-2008 by nj2day]

What is and what is not...

Maxwell had a different theory:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll try to be very simple.

Are you claiming that all matter, big or small, has a code in itself which determines its actions and interactions, so as result we get what we call nature, together with life in it?

If yes, is that code built from material blocks? Like, every single particle has in itself its own kind of DNA?

Would such a structure be the cause of Infinite Complexity?

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter

Originally posted by Rren
So you've solved 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' have ya?

Simply because we don't know the exact way consciousness works yet does not mean

a) it does not have a scientific explanation, or
b) we have no idea how the brain works.

You seemed to imply that there already was an "a)" which there isn't and I didn't argue anything like "b)".

In fact, by measuring levels of activity in various areas of the brain, researches can now use the information to "project" the actual image being imagined visually.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Thanks for the link. Although, I don't see what it does to show that:

Really, we're just a self-aware composition of chemicals, and your personality, thoughts, and emotions are the product of electro-chemical reactions in the central nervous system. There's nothing ethereal or supernatural about any of it.

Which was what I commented on.

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by nj2day

I would give you the actual scientific report... but as it is recent... I have to have a paid membership to one of the scientific website...

this one you mean?

Yes, that's the one. I put a link to the paper in my first post on page1.

There's not a whole lot to it.

Originally posted by nj2day


Edit: I forgot to define what I meant by Infinite Complexity...

An infinite consciousness with infinite power, would be complex indeed! with so many infinite characturistics, we might say, its "Infinitely Complex".

Why do you feel it necessary to tack on "complex" was what I was trying to get at. So then, is there such a thing as infinite simplicity?

At least science has very simple answers... remember occam's razor!

What's so simple about an infinite chain of natural causes? Indescribable, undetectable.... heck, undefinable really. Sound familiar?


Although, ol' Friar Ockham was the man wasn't he!

Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary. For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Good Times.

If we cannot define life, how do we know about life in the first place?
Science claims that life is a mystery. It doesn't know the answer.
Oh, well!
Is then any action of force, which results in material phenomena life?

What we perceive as energy is not direct perception of force. Energy is the expression of force, and we perceive several kinds of energy: magnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear, heat... and all of them define a state of matter affected by force.

Matter which is not affected by force doesn't exist. There are no layers of "pure" matter unaffected by force. Matter alone does not create chemistry.
If replication is life, who creates conditions for it to occur? Chance action of force?

If we have discovered patterns in behavior of matter, it has to be something, call it force or call it mind. We cannot resolve this without philosophy, because science has limited itself to observable, empirical and measurable evidence.

But there is no measure in nature, it is a characteristic of mind. Mind establishes measure (that is an act of free will, an act of creation).