Abiogenesis

[Jimmy]

Life springing from thin air? Idk. Seems kinda far fetched. RNA to DNA? Must of been a pretty wild landscape for that to happen heh? I wonder why there’s no evidence. Probably because there’s too much time involved or whatever. Evidence would be cool though. Anyway, it might be God. Who knows? I mean if God gave us something as crazy as infinite space then creating life would be a cake walk.

 

[Valjean]

It was a miracle of God!

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It was a miracle of God!

Hmmm.....
"God springing from thin air? Idk. Seems kinda far fetched. Nothingness to Infinite & Perfect Complexity? Must of been a pretty wild landscape for that to happen heh?"

 

[Heyo]

Hmmm.....
"God springing from thin air? Idk. Seems kinda far fetched. Nothingness to Infinite & Perfect Complexity? Must of been a pretty wild landscape for that to happen heh?"

:Winner:

 

[Heyo]

Life springing from thin air? Idk. Seems kinda far fetched.

Yep. That's why nobody is claiming that.

RNA to DNA? Must of been a pretty wild landscape for that to happen heh?

Look at an RNA strand. It simply begs to be completed into DNA.

I wonder why there’s no evidence.

That's because you haven't looked. There's lots of evidence.

Probably because there’s too much time involved or whatever. Evidence would be cool though. Anyway, it might be God. Who knows? I mean if God gave us something as crazy as infinite space then creating life would be a cake walk.

You know what is lacking evidence (at least compared to abiogenesis)? The existence of gods.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Life springing from thin air?

Air?

I mean if God gave us something as crazy as infinite space then creating life would be a cake walk.

Have you ever really tried walking on a cake?

Also, we don't know whether or not space if infinite.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it inconceivable how we exist at all. The logical conclusion is that probably we do not, but most people refuse to accept this logic. They want to believe that they exist. They are completely irrational about it, sometimes, and will only accept the evidence of their eyes.

 

[Ella S.]

Is it inconceivable how we exist at all. The logical conclusion is that probably we do not, but most people refuse to accept this logic. They want to believe that they exist. They are completely irrational about it, sometimes, and will only accept the evidence of their eyes.

Descartes showed through deductive logic that he exists, at least.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Descartes showed through deductive logic that he exists, at least.

Cool. I think that is not really what he does though, just based on what I'm seeing from web sites about him. He declares his own existence to be 'Necessarily true'. So he presumes rather than shows. He considers thought to be evidence of a spirit and of his own existence, however it is easy to assume that thought can be nothing but an illusion. He presumes that he makes decisions, presumes that he changes the world around him which is itself a presumption of existence.

Descartes’ Meditations 1-3

A concise version of Rene Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy.”

1000wordphilosophy.com

Am I missing the argument? Hopefully not, but thank you for bringing this to my attention!

 

[Ella S.]

Cool. I think that is not really what he does though, just based on what I'm seeing from web sites about him. He declares his own existence to be 'Necessarily true'. So he presumes rather than shows. He considers thought to be evidence of a spirit and of his own existence, however it is easy to assume that thought can be nothing but an illusion. He presumes that he makes decisions, presumes that he changes the world around him which is itself a presumption of existence.

Descartes’ Meditations 1-3

A concise version of Rene Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy.”

1000wordphilosophy.com

Am I missing the argument? Hopefully not, but thank you for bringing this to my attention!

You think thought might be nothing but an illusion? I think that's not very thoughtfully considered

 

[wellwisher]

Cool. I think that is not really what he does though, just based on what I'm seeing from web sites about him. He declares his own existence to be 'Necessarily true'. So he presumes rather than shows. He considers thought to be evidence of a spirit and of his own existence, however it is easy to assume that thought can be nothing but an illusion. He presumes that he makes decisions, presumes that he changes the world around him which is itself a presumption of existence.

Descartes’ Meditations 1-3

A concise version of Rene Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy.”

1000wordphilosophy.com

Am I missing the argument? Hopefully not, but thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is much older and is the center of animal consciousness. The ego is newer; 6-10K years old, and only occurs within humans. Descartes is talking about his ego; secondary, which can be differentiated from his inner self; primary, and can thereby shown to be a separate center. I; ego, think, therefore I am; different from the inner self.

As a home experiment have someone agree to scare you when you are not prepared. They can jump out from behind a door, for example, several days in the future when you appear off guard. If this scare was to happen, perfectly, the inner self will react before the ego; instinct will take over. The ego awareness comes into this scenario, a split second later, trying to figure out what just happened; I observe and think.

If the inner self reacted in an awkward way; scream and start to run, before the ego can censor the reaction, to save ego face among its peers, the ego can become embarrassed. This is because the primary or the inner self center reaction, does not have to align with the choices of the ego center and vice versa. Both centers can think, but these two are out of phase, since the inner self can process data much faster, while inner self's instinct, also has it own agenda. The ego can become both ego and inner self aware, by the observed time delay and alternate choices. Ego logic and observation can differentiate the inner self and ego. The ego can observe and think therefore I am; unique, and different from animal man.

Abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis should be a part of any complete theory of evolution. But since there is no hard data for abiogenesis to correlate, Abiogenesis is assigned to be a separate branch of science. Evolution is really a correlation, based only on the data we know; fossils, etc. Where there are big data gaps; very early=abiogenesis, and in the entire future, the black box of casino math is in the dark, and does not align with the known data correlation. This makes evolution, as is, less than a complete theory. A good theory should be able to make future predictions with some accuracy.

There is a way to make evolution a better theory, so future predictions are possible.This is based on the premise that water was/is in charge of the natural selection, needed for life, at the nanoscale. All things in modern cells are tuned to water. Water is irreplaceable. We cannot substitute any other solvent for water in earth cells, because everything in life, on earth, was chosen by water, to be compatible to water; natural selection at the nanoscale.

If we use the casino math assumption of random changes on the DNA, random change creates a situation where more things that can go wrong, than right. This approach can still bring jackpots, but random change will also create a lot more losing tickets. Ask yourself how many times have you won the lottery, and how many times did you lose?

The question becomes, how does life and the living state deal with all the losing tickets, which can bottleneck things in healthy cells? It has to do with all the winners needing to align with natural selection by water. It anything does not align properly, it is recycled. The losing tickets go in the trash. The final result will be healthy cells, where all things work properly in water.

Let me explain how this works, in a nutshell. Water has an unusually high boiling point for such a small molecule. The boiling points of similar weight molecules are; Water is 100C, Ammonia is -33C, while Methane is -162C, with all three having about the same molecular weight. Both water and ammonia can form hydrogen bonds, which explains why both have higher boiling points than methane. But water molecules, in liquid water, can form up to four hydrogen bonds, each, which creates a lot of stability for liquid water matrix, compared to the hydrogen bonding of ammonia, which can form much fewer hydrogen bonds per molecule of ammonia.

Picture water as this very stable liquid matrix, held together by the strong secondary bonding forces of hydrogen bonding, like a 3-D matrix, up to four bonds per water molecule, which gives it its very high boiling point. When we add things into this very stable and adaptive water matrix, the stability of the water matrix comes first. Other things have to adapt to the cohesion strength, of liquid water matrix.

One useful observation, is what happens when we mix water and oil. If we mix water and oil and agitate, these they will form an emulsion; high surface tension. If we give it time to settle, the water-oil emulation; high surface tension, will reverse and lower until water and oil separate, into two lawyers. The strength of the water matrix; water-water interaction are so strong; total system stability; lowest free energy, it forces the oil and water out of the emulsion. Life is made of water and organics with the water and oil affect, and the water matrix stability, allowing organics to bunch and organize; beads of oil.

If you look at cells, from the cell membrane to cellular organelles, these are all very similar to complex beads of oil that the water has forced out of the matrix, to maximize the hydrogen bonding matrix of water. But at the same time, this creates order within the organics, so both the water and the oil; organics, can minimize system free energy. With water we do not have to wait for organs to randomly find each other,, since water will phase separate these out into "oil like" beads.

A classic observation of the water matrix in action is the folding of protein in water. Enzymatic protein will fold to create a hydrophobic core, since these reduced aspects of the protein, create the most surface tension in the water, and will need to be forced out of the water matrix; bead up first. The protein will continue to fold with less and less water potential; lower and lower surface tension moieties, until the final protein configuration has the least negative impact on the water matrix on its surface. The lipid bilayer of cell membranes, are configured to minimize the potential within the water; electric charges on the outsides of the bilayer and oil; lipids beads up, on the inside of the bilayer. The water matrix creates a logical path.

Evolution is about the fine tuning that occurs, within the organic oil-bead zones, that allow water to get even more stable. Lingering potential is often used to help drive chemical reactions, through changes in shapes between stable and less stable conformations; relative to the water matrix, via beading substrates and products; selective catalysis.

If you look at DNA, it large size , hydrogen bonds and phosphate groups, makes it the most hydrated molecule in life. It is designed to have a very low potential within the water matrix as the double helix. The goal of the water, from day one of abiogenesis, was to achieve this water matrix stability. The DNA represents an end game molecule, that was chosen, because it has only a subtle potential in the water. It was destined to appear, as the countering pole with the cell membrane, which defines a higher potential in the water. Between the two an aqueous gradient is formed within hydrogen bonding matrix of water; information flow.

If you look at the early Abiogenesis experiments of Miller, they were tryin to simulate thunderstorms and lightening on the early earth to jump start life. Water was the original source of lightening; thunder clouds, as well as a key reactant that was used in conjunction with simple gases like CO2, N2, CH4, NH3, etc. The result was more amino acids than life uses. Water is a part of all amino acids; proactive changes for the future needs of the liquid water matrix; hydrogen bonding information matrix.

 

[Colt]

Life springing from thin air? Idk. Seems kinda far fetched. RNA to DNA? Must of been a pretty wild landscape for that to happen heh? I wonder why there’s no evidence. Probably because there’s too much time involved or whatever. Evidence would be cool though. Anyway, it might be God. Who knows? I mean if God gave us something as crazy as infinite space then creating life would be a cake walk.

Abiogenesis, lightning struck a pile of sand, primitive life forms suddenly appear, falling uphill for hundreds of millions of years, continually refunding what was inferior for what was superior, everything dies, meaning nothing. Wasn't that nifty!

 

[Heyo]

Just a short list of some points for discussion:

 

[Brickjectivity]

You think thought might be nothing but an illusion? I think that's not very thoughtfully considered

The burden is on him (Descartes) to show that thought implies existence, rather than to presume that it does. In his defense I will admit this is not the point of his argument. If he wanted to argue that we exist he might come up with something better.

But yes thought might be nothing but illusion. Suppose that there are mathematical hyper-graphs which can represent time and space. Then all of our thoughts and actions can simply be part of those along with the universe and many other possible universes. In which case existence is not, and in which case thought is no evidence for existence.

 

[Ella S.]

The burden is on him (Descartes) to show that thought implies existence, rather than to presume that it does. In his defense I will admit this is not the point of his argument. If he wanted to argue that we exist he might come up with something better.

But yes thought might be nothing but illusion. Suppose that there are mathematical hyper-graphs which can represent time and space. Then all of our thoughts and actions can simply be part of those along with the universe and many other possible universes. In which case existence is not, and in which case thought is no evidence for existence.

That's still existence. It's just a different kind of existence.

Here I was getting frustrated with solipsists rejecting the existence of external reality, but at least they maintain the sense to recognize that they themselves exist.

I get the Dharmic concept that our thoughts are not tangible things, they're ephemeral, and that it is an illusion to identify with them because we're actually just the pure awareness underneath the thoughts. I get that many Buddhists add on to this by pointing out that this awareness underlying everything is not only impermanent, but has no essence itself and is instead shunyata.

Except both of those positions are not only compatible with naturalism, but adherents of those positions have made contributions to science from those perspectives. They're not denying that we exist. They're denying that our thoughts define some essential "us-ness."

Even to deny your own existence, you have to exist to do the denying.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's still existence. It's just a different kind of existence.

Thought is only evidence that: if there were an existing thing like us then it could think. Contrapositive: If a thing could not think then it were not like us.

To most people existence means what? It doesn't mean potentially real. It means something else.

Here I was getting frustrated with solipsists rejecting the existence of external reality, but at least they maintain the sense to recognize that they themselves exist.

I get the Dharmic concept that our thoughts are not tangible things, they're ephemeral, and that it is an illusion to identify with them because we're actually just the pure awareness underneath the thoughts. I get that many Buddhists add on to this by pointing out that this awareness underlying everything is not only impermanent, but has no essence itself and is instead shunyata.

Except both of those positions are not only compatible with naturalism, but adherents of those positions have made contributions to science from those perspectives. They're not denying that we exist. They're denying that our thoughts define some essential "us-ness."

Even to deny your own existence, you have to exist to do the denying.

To most people existence does not mean potentially real. It is an assumption that we are solid. That we appear to exist is far more amazing than abiogenesis is.

 

[wellwisher]

The burden is on him (Descartes) to show that thought implies existence, rather than to presume that it does. In his defense I will admit this is not the point of his argument. If he wanted to argue that we exist he might come up with something better.

But yes thought might be nothing but illusion. Suppose that there are mathematical hyper-graphs which can represent time and space. Then all of our thoughts and actions can simply be part of those along with the universe and many other possible universes. In which case existence is not, and in which case thought is no evidence for existence.

Descartes makes sense if you think in terms of humans having two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The ego is the center of the conscious mind, while the inner self is the center of the unconscious mind.

Mr Spock of Star Trek fame, tries to use pure reason, while attempting to suppress his emotions. Why does he need to suppress emotions, if there is only one center for data processing? Mr Spock sees his spontaneous emotions as an adversary to his clear thinking. However, he also observes Captain Kirk, whose emotions can at times be ingenious and creative, finding new ways, that his logic cannot deduce or infer. The inner self has both lower; instinct, and higher human potential. Mr Spock tries to avoid the lower side of the inner self, but admits there are times when intuition can be spot on. Spock knows you first have to wade in the mud before the green grass appears.

The quote by Descartes has to do with how the ego is more wired/connected to left side of the brain that processes data in 2-D; cause and affect. The inner self is more wired as 3-D; other or right side of the brain. This creates a translation barrier between, that helps separate each.

I think therefore I am; ego, is about the ego using the 2-D matrix of thought, exclusively. This differs from the 3-D matrix, allowing unique choices and will. Choice means we do not have to become spatially integrate with nature; 3-D instinct, but rather we can differentiate ourselves, in space and time, with our observed unique cause and affect in 2-D.

The inner self will still try to lead the ego higher, toward 3-D; intuition and faith. Love, for example is 3-D, since it spatially integrates people both inside and outside, themselves. This is why it is attributed to God; higher potential. Love is often fickle and may not last forever. This is because, the inner self will induce it, with the ego going along for the ride. The inner self sets the timer; time projection, and when this ends, the ego returns to 2-D, and wonders where love went. To be like Jesus and stay in love, would mean setting the inner self timer to the max. Then life would be easy.

Exploring the unconscious mind may be the last frontier in science, since it requires the ego use brain exercises, so it can enter the other parts of the brain, to see how how the operating system of the inner self is laid out. I think therefore I am is needed, so the ego has a solid footing within its aspects of the brain, so it can migrate, collect data and return.

One becomes the both scientist; ego, and the experiment; inner self, using how the inner self and ego are separated in terms of brain utility. If you seek proof there is a way, but it is inside and not outside. The inner self often projects, outside, since the ego expects things to be outside, based on its logic matrix.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Descartes makes sense if you think in terms of humans having two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego.

It was Ella S. that brought that writer up. I have not read Descartes. He appears to be someone trying to press the existence of God through arguments, and I frown upon that. I think of it as trying to make God visible and something I consider idolatrous or divination. If I could show you God then you wouldn't choose God for the right reasons. Instead of being drawn in and seduced you might become an automaton doing what you thought was expedient. Thereofore if Descartes is trying to do what I think he is, then I think he's really just trying to make himself popular and is not a good resource. He could have us join the church of Descartes, think his thoughts and do whatever he says God tells him.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it inconceivable how we exist at all. The logical conclusion is that probably we do not, but most people refuse to accept this logic. They want to believe that they exist. They are completely irrational about it, sometimes, and will only accept the evidence of their eyes.

Delicious irony!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Abiogenesis, lightning struck a pile of sand, primitive life forms suddenly appear, falling uphill for hundreds of millions of years, continually refunding what was inferior for what was superior, everything dies, meaning nothing. Wasn't that nifty!

Well, I suppose your synopsis might be considered "nifty," at least by you. But of course, it isn't what real scientists think happened. Thus, I think it's more of an "in joke."