"The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted

[Dragnet]

From a purely observational position it would appear that an overly exuberant verbosity is what seems to be an attempt to appear erudite, when in fact what has transpired is an impression of philosophizing. 

[Immediacracy]

"Joe was able to understand them but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them." Narrator - Idiocracy

[MadBunny]

Analogy: If you pour ping pong balls over an open, empty egg carton, ping pong balls will eventually nest in the pits in the carton.  Even though the motion of the ping pong balls is basically random, the result is a non-random array of 12 ping pong balls arranged 6 x 2.  It's the shape of the egg carton that provides a non-random arrangement of ping pong balls within it.  Likewise, it's the conditions of a given environment that create niches for some creatures, and drive others to extinction.

That's a great analogy. If taken back to the dawn of life though, it supports my point of the need for a priori egg cartons for self-replication, organization, and sentience.

@Immedicracy: Do you recall that I noted earlier about chemistry, how it is non-random?

[MadBunny]

Who is arguing that conditions did not exist prior to life emerging?

If you have life potentiating conditions, who needs randomness? Why have this thread? The whole OP is to prove that odds aren't as long as you might think and that it's not so outrageous to claim the emergence of life through randomness alone.

Oh, wait, nevermind it appears that you already understand that the preconditions for abiogenesis were likely not random.
Perhaps a clarification on your part as to what you are arguing might help me understand what you're trying to say here.

Can you draw a 2 of spades from a deck that is missing that two of spades? Obviously not. It is impossible. Is this really so hard to understand?

Obviously. So I ask you, what determines whether there is a two of spades in the cosmic deck or not?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.[1]

It is one thing to talk about a known and finite set of conditions, in this case a deck of cards.  It is impossible, for example to pull a fully functional drill press from a deck of cards, since that isn't part of what a "deck of cards" consists of.  If you were to include fully functional drill presses  as a part of a deck of cards then you would need to redefine what 'deck of cards' means.

Where we are talking about the topic of abiogenesis, we 'know' most of the cards, but not all of them.  In any case, what we don't know is what the exact combination was that resulting (if you'll indulge the metaphor a bit more) in a winning hand that produced life, which then fit into the non-random natural selection matrix.  It is quite possible that there are many combinations that are sufficient to that purpose, but as yet those are uknown.

1.	Donald Rumsfield

[Immediacracy]

Where we are talking about the topic of abiogenesis, we 'know' most of the cards, but not all of them.  In any case, what we don't know is what the exact combination was that resulting (if you'll indulge the metaphor a bit more) in a winning hand that produced life, which then fit into the non-random natural selection matrix.  It is quite possible that there are many combinations that are sufficient to that purpose, but as yet those are uknown.

Right, sure, but even knowing most of the cards doesn't explain them, and that missing explanation I think would be the true origin of life, rather than deck shuffling. Without the cards which provide for the possibility of cells, cell division, etc on the outside and feeling, thriving or dying on the inside any possible combination that could come up wouldn't really be much like life.

That's why I'm saying that the randomness plays a minor role in the development of life and consciousness, with the major role being played neither by accidental or deliberate creation but rather by the preexisting architecture of the Cosmos that makes it all possible. That architecture is expressed in timespace to us, but being outside of timespace itself, it has no limitation of causality or dependence on physical substance or force. It's back-end programming; timespace is runtime.

[MadBunny]

There are a lot of pre-existing conditions that apply.  As with KCradys egg crate metaphor, the ingredients maybe more or less random, but the way that they interact with each other is mostly fixed.

It's possible that we area actually in agreement with each other, but stumbling over terminology.

Right, sure, but even knowing most of the cards doesn't explain them, and that missing explanation I think would be the true origin of life, rather than deck shuffling. Without the cards which provide for the possibility of cells, cell division, etc on the outside and feeling, thriving or dying on the inside any possible combination that could come up wouldn't really be much like life.

Highlited: I agree with this statement.  The rest I'm not so sure about, 'specially the part about cells having feelings.

http://flint.sdu.dk/research/protocell.html
Not a lot of feeling happening here, also note how all of the actions and interactions happen on a basic mechanical level?  Again, we but up against the idea of a system with limitations and rules.

*edit: changed eg to egg.

[Immediacracy]

I agree with this statement.  The rest I'm not so sure about, 'specially the part about cells having feelings.

http://flint.sdu.dk/research/protocell.html
Not a lot of feeling happening here, also note how all of the actions and interactions happen on a basic mechanical level?  Again, we but up against the idea of a system with limitations and rules.

Certainly cells don't have human-like or animal-like feelings, but since our feelings either originate in cellular processes or actually are cellular processes themselves I have no reason to rule out some rudimentary sense in single celled organisms.

Because our sense organs are specialized cells and tissues which carry signals to 'us' in the brain, it seems likely to me that stem cells could have a weak generalized sensitivity to energy such as electromagnetic and acoustic vibration, matter such as nutrients and toxins, and orientation to gravity. The cells of the retina would need to get the idea that electromagnetism exists from somewhere.

My hunch is that inanimate patterns make no such footprint in the subjective feeling dimension, but it's possible that the duration of a pattern over time acts as a kind of 'feeling' that the universe has. Total speculation, but I consider life to be a functional fifth dimension, which recapitulates the first four and superimposes them on a secondary level of abstraction. A cell is a kind of microcosm - a bubble of life-time in space-time.

In any case, we have no direct experience of our physical body, it's all mediated through neurological simulation (stimulation simulation, hah). That simulation could just as easily be an amplification and focusing of aggregate cellular states rather than it's own purely neurological recipe. The nervous system could be thought of as a political network which organizes and represents the conditions of billions of cells into a primitive language 'we' can understand.

[screwtape]

My hunch is that inanimate patterns make no such footprint in the subjective feeling dimension, but it's possible that the duration of a pattern over time acts as a kind of 'feeling' that the universe has. Total speculation, but I consider life to be a functional fifth dimension, which recapitulates the first four and superimposes them on a secondary level of abstraction. A cell is a kind of microcosm - a bubble of life-time in space-time.

In any case, we have no direct experience of our physical body, it's all mediated through neurological simulation (stimulation simulation, hah). That simulation could just as easily be an amplification and focusing of aggregate cellular states rather than it's own purely neurological recipe. The nervous system could be thought of as a political network which organizes and represents the conditions of billions of cells into a primitive language 'we' can understand.

Dude, you just took kcrady's gift, the lifeline he threw to you, and swam away from it as fast as you could.

Good luck.  I give up.

[Immediacracy]

Dude, you just took kcrady's gift, the lifeline he threw to you, and swam away from it as fast as you could.
Good luck.  I give up.

I guess the lifeline was for you, not me.

[MadBunny]

I'm sorry, how is that stuff relevant?

I thought we were discussing the idea that abiogenesis fit within a reasonable framework to occur, and that the idea that just because all of the potential combinations to create a living cell are theoretically immense; that it is still quite possible since all of the protiens and chemicals required follow some basic patterns of interaction rather than simple random bumpings.

By the time natural selection gets to the point of eyes and brains we're way past abiogenesis as a concept.  Natural selection as an engine of change is substantially proven conceptually.

[Immediacracy]

I'm sorry, how is that stuff relevant?

I thought we were discussing the idea that abiogenesis fit within a reasonable framework to occur, and that the idea that just because all of the potential combinations to create a living cell are theoretically immense; that it is still quite possible since all of the protiens and chemicals required follow some basic patterns of interaction rather than simple random bumpings.

By the time natural selection gets to the point of eyes and brains we're way past abiogenesis as a concept.  Natural selection as an engine of change is substantially proven conceptually.

You were making the statement that there wasn't a lot of feeling happening in a simple organism, so I was explaining that that's not necessarily true at all.

Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.

[MadBunny]

Fair enough.
I disagree[1]., but that's fine, we can have that other conversation about protocellular feelings some other time.

1.	though I do agree that abiogenesis, creation, etc, do not expalin subjectivity, and concousness

[Graybeard]

The probability of something that has already happened is always 100%, because there is a 0% chance of history changing.

Quoted for truth... carry on...

[Str82Hell]

Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.

It doesn't explain how eyes, brains or hearts work either, but it does explain that it exists.

[RaymondKHessel]

Fair enough.
I disagree[1]., but that's fine, we can have that other conversation about protocellular feelings some other time.

1.	though I do agree that abiogenesis, creation, etc, do not expalin subjectivity, and concousness

Nooooo! Raymond demands it NAO!!! Not later! What if the Rapture comes or something? Don't put off until tomorrow what can be laughed about today!!!

For realz. I'm a little dissapointed. I was seriously liking the direction that was going. 

[Immediacracy]

Neither abiogenesis nor natural selection is sufficient by itself to explain qualia, feeling, subjectivity, consciousness, etc. Neither is intelligent design for that matter.

It doesn't explain how eyes, brains or hearts work either, but it does explain that it exists.

Sure, yeah I like abiogenesis, I'm just saying it doesn't account for awareness. In the model I'm working with now, awareness begins at the quantum level...basically electromagnetism is an awareness-like property of the interior of matter while gravity is the automatic, exterior force of spacetime.

[Str82Hell]

I understand what you're saying (i.e. abiogenesis and evolution don't explain how things work), but I disagree that it is a valid argument against either one of both theories.

[Immediacracy]

I understand what you're saying (i.e. abiogenesis and evolution don't explain how things work), but I disagree that it is a valid argument against either one of both theories.

Oh I agree with you. I think that both theories make the most sense as far as explaining physical origins of what we think of as life, I'm just saying they don't go far enough on the subjective side to explain the origin of awareness...which they don't have to, since it's an entirely different side of the equation, it's just that I want my equation to include both sides. I'm not a Creationist by any means, although I think that creativity is expressed within evolution. Mutation exists on the genetic level but I think qualitative variation exists on the level of the individual organism as well, and quality is an interior, creative ecological symbiosis.

[Str82Hell]

I think it does explain the origin of awareness. It either originated from evolution as a byproduct of enhanced brains or as an advantageous trait. How it exactly happened is difficult, if not impossible, to tell and how awareness works. Fact is that all organisms have a different level of awareness while humans are probably somewhat at the top of the list of most aware beings.

[Immediacracy]

I think it does explain the origin of awareness. It either originated from evolution as a byproduct of enhanced brains or as an advantageous trait. How it exactly happened is difficult, if not impossible, to tell and how awareness works. Fact is that all organisms have a different level of awareness while humans are probably somewhat at the top of the list of most aware beings.

In my model it's not difficult to tell how awareness happens or it works, because it takes place within matter itself. If you allow that matter recognizes itself and that it shares it's qualitative state (two atoms fusing would be a maximally excited state, for example. The brightness in your retina is your retina's attempt to recreate that distant experience - in it's own behavior, which is the same behavior that the electrons of your consciousness use to interpret it.). Organisms and humans do have different sorts of awarenesses, because they are different configurations of cells, tissues, organs, bodies. Same matter though. Same electromagnetism, and I think, same fundamental units of qualitative-cooperative-imitative subjectivity.

[Str82Hell]

Matter does not recognize itself. I'm curious what you actually mean by awareness. If you consider awareness a simple input/reply process, then yes, matter does have awareness; the laws of the universe. Awareness in human beings, however, is of an entirely different order, since we're not only able to process stimuli, but also be aware of our environment, of our wishes, of our inner feelings, etc.

[Immediacracy]

Matter does not recognize itself. I'm curious what you actually mean by awareness. If you consider awareness a simple input/reply process, then yes, matter does have awareness; the laws of the universe. Awareness in human beings, however, is of an entirely different order, since we're not only able to process stimuli, but also be aware of our environment, of our wishes, of our inner feelings, etc.

I think that matter on the atomic level does likely have some elementally simple 'experience' of it's own condition and, given the proper spatial range, and nature of the behavior that condition inspires, matter shares it's condition with separated instances of itself - whether physically adjacent or when separated by a vacuum.

Awareness in human beings is of course of an entirely different order. Comparing the 'awareness' of an atom to even a single celled algae would be like comparing 1+1=2 to . The subjectivity of algae compared to that of a human brain is like a single note of music to every version of every piece of music that can ever be composed.

It's still just notes, but the patterns and meta patterns of notes are what we experience as a trillion cell human body. Our self-awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system, organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition the cellular nano selves it represents. Cells communicate with each other in tissues, tissues communicate collectively in organs, and organs function synchronistically as the body, including the brain.

[Str82Hell]

I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness, but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?

"Our self awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system", true, but "it is not organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition of the cellular nano selves it represents", but in such a way that we have some of the best tools to understand and interact with other human beings and our environment.

[penkie]

I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness, but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?

Immediacracy displays argumentation styles that is similar to a crank, on this specific topic. He has this theory (e.g. this thread) that science cannot cope with parts of reality and that this special theory of his can. His theory is senseless and unfalsifiable, however. The funny thing is, that within other discussions he is using proper reasoning, but this is also a quality seen in cranks.

I've known people like Immediacracy before, and discussions with cranks about their topics are typically senseless.

I just learned about this term yesterday in another thread in a response to someone else that was using similar discussion patterns.

[Immediacracy]

I don't understand what a random formula from Wikipedia has to with awareness,

I'm comparing the complexity of the proposed subjectivity of individual atoms with the subjectivity we are familiar with, to show that it's orders of magnitude greater while still being based on the same fundamental principles.

but you state that you think that matter on the atomic level has awareness, can you prove this? Or can you demonstrate why it is suggested to be so?

Neuroscience shows us, through an MRI for example, that consciousness is associated with the electrical activity of a living brain. Electrical activity governs the function of the heart. Electrical activity underlies all chemical changes in every cell, tissue, and organ of the body.

Where do we get our consciousness from? What are we if not electrical activity in a fantastically elaborate pattern?

"Our self awareness is based on our bio-electronic nervous system", true, but "it is not organized in such a way as to recapitulate the inner condition of the cellular nano selves it represents", but in such a way that we have some of the best tools to understand and interact with other human beings and our environment.

They are the same thing. In order to be able to understand not only other human beings, but our own body - it's needs, the physical status of it's tissues and organs, the emotional status of it's complex inner states - it seems entirely unavoidable that there be a common language, and that such a language would be electromagnetic. At what point does a reality of automatic billiard balls suddenly become able to experience a feeling and why?

A nervousness in our stomach is a 'recapitulation of the inner condition of the cellular-tissue level nano-micro level experience' of that area of our body which are understood by areas of the brain and nervous system associated with the stomach. The nervous system reports the news and carries feedback from limbic and cortex, which can issue electromagnetic commands to parts of the body which are under voluntary control.

[Immediacracy]

Immediacracy displays argumentation styles that is similar to a crank, on this specific topic. He has this theory (e.g. this thread) that science cannot cope with parts of reality and that this special theory of his can.

It's not my special theory, it's just just one idea of many theories and observations going back to Taoism and Vedanta, and it's similar to contemporary theories like David Bohm's Implicate Order, Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, etc. The idea that the contemporary scientific worldview in it's current form is inadequate to explain subjectivity is by no means limited to myself, and may, if you count religious people, be an overwhelming majority of the world.

Is this guy a crank? If so, then sure, please call me a crank too.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEl-fTtP2tw[/youtube]

His theory is senseless and unfalsifiable, however. The funny thing is, that within other discussions he is using proper reasoning, but this is also a quality seen in cranks.

It's also seen in the Creative Personality (Trait Number 8 - Conservation and Rebellion)

My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow. (The idea that it is the sharing of experience between observers that makes it real makes more sense to me.)

I've known people like Immediacracy before, and discussions with cranks about their topics are typically senseless.

I've known pseudoskeptics before, and discussions about any topic other than reaffirmations of conventional wisdom are typically frustrating and amusing.

[Immediacracy]

To be clear, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe what I'm saying. I'm trying to get you to ask yourself if what I'm saying could be true. I want you to help me confirm or deny the truth of the idea. Does the idea of light being a phenomenon that your nervous system imitates locally make sense? Might it explain the sticky issues of quantum mechanics, consciousness, and cosmology?

At this point it appears to me to be that way. A couple weeks ago, my line of thinking was that color is produced locally to consciousness and that the nuomena of color was unknowable. This new view describes consciousness as a behavior of matter in direct communication with other matter. Color as a shared direct experience of material expression and locality, not intangible energy units from physics to biology, to neurology through transduction.

Of course I could be wrong. I don't know enough about electronics to run the theory through every relevant invention. It seems like the math shouldn't change whether particles imitate each other or whether a wave/particle is launched from one to another (or all others in range...somehow). It would require someone with electrical engineering skills to really sit down and reverse engineer the 20th century from this perspective to see what it would look like. Not a debunking pseudoskeptic, but a true skeptic pioneer who is willing to temporarily forget they ever heard the last 50 years of physics and impartially look at the devices. How would television 'really' work under this theory, etc.?

I may have no choice but to gradually try to do it myself. I'm trying to let it simmer on it's own for a while, maybe it will prove itself flawed in some way I haven't noticed yet.

[xphobe]

My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow. (The idea that it is the sharing of experience between observers that makes it real makes more sense to me.)

Regardless whether the QM model makes intuitive sense to us, QM does allow us to make specific mathematical predictions about the behavior of the real world, which turn out to hold up.  Does your theory do the same?

[penkie]

It's not my special theory, it's just just one idea of many theories and observations going back to Taoism and Vedanta, and it's similar to contemporary theories like David Bohm's Implicate Order, Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, etc.

You take a 2000 year old religion (Taoism), which like every religion is based on nonsense, connect it to a pseudo-scientist (Wilber) that translated the religion into new-age stuff, which makes it not anything more truthful and then say there is a relation with a real scientist (Bohm) to give it credibility, with just your own added ingredient of non-science. That is a strange mixture of ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’. It shows that you are clever. Not that what you say holds any merit at all.

The idea that the contemporary scientific worldview in it's current form is inadequate to explain subjectivity is by no means limited to myself, and may, if you count religious people, be an overwhelming majority of the world.

Are your sure that, on this specific forum, you want to claim that your 'theory' is supported because many people believe something similar? Moreover, you don't say in any way why a scientific world view is inadequate, even though you throw in 'contemporary' and 'current form' to hide behind vagueness.

Is this guy a crank? If so, then sure, please call me a crank too.

No, he is not. He is a scientist. Quantum mechanical theory is supported by countless evidence. Your 'theory' is not. Comparing yourself to a scientist is nice, but it doesn't mean your ideas are not 'cranky'.

My theory is no more senseless and unfalsifiable than a Quantum Mechanical worldview which conceives of a universal vacuum filled with intangible, invisible particle-wave, probability events which only make sense if the observer is factored in somehow.

But the big difference is, again, that it is supported by evidence. You can do the simple experiments yourself and verify that the theories predictions come true every time. So quantum mechanics is not unfalsifiable. At all.
Your theory is. What predictions do you make that we could verify and isn't explainable by any other scientific theory?

I've known pseudoskeptics before, and discussions about any topic other than reaffirmations of conventional wisdom are typically frustrating and amusing.

It's ironic that you are smart enough to see this trait in others, but not enough to see it in yourself.