Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[atanu]

Why is this a mental roadblock for you? When the wind whips up dust, the entropy of the dust is reduced. When water evaporates to form a cloud, the water's entropy is reduced. Local reductions in entropy happen literally all the time.

Do you not see difference between physical ordering and biological organisation? The former is static ordering while the latter is creative. Living systems are endowed with ability to self-regenerate, while simultaneously generating different, global patterns -- evolution, in short. Why does not dust or snow flake evolve?

 

[atanu]

I am very confused by your comments, some of which I posted above.

Perhaps it would be helpful to clearly and concisely spell out your positions regarding:

• Second Law
• abiogenesis
• evolution
• the rise of consciousness

'It evolved probably' was a reference to the discussion. and not to consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you not see difference between physical ordering and biological organisation? The former is static ordering while the latter is creative. Living systems are endowed with ability to self-regenerate, while simultaneously generating different, global patterns -- evolution, in short. Why does not dust or snow flake evolve?

Well, snowflakes and crystals tend to be *very* simple chemically. You don't get the extensive side-reactions with coupling between different cycles of reactions like what you see in living things.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you not see difference between physical ordering and biological organisation? The former is static ordering while the latter is creative. Living systems are endowed with ability to self-regenerate, while simultaneously generating different, global patterns -- evolution, in short.

There is no difference between the fundamental ordering and natural laws for non-organic chemistry and organic chemistry of life. I really do not understand what you are calling 'static ordering,' in terms of the nature of our physical existence, and chemistry.

Yes, living systems have the ability to replicate, but the organic chemistry of life still follows the same laws of nature as inorganic chemistry.

Why does not dust or snow flake evolve?

Huh?!?!? Dust and snow flakes are not living organisms, unless the dust contains microbes that reproduce, which is possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you not see difference between physical ordering and biological organisation?

Of course: the biological is a subset of the physical.

The former is static ordering while the latter is creative.

You assume it's creative.

If you want to argue for a creator, then do it. Don't just beg the question and expect people to accept it.

Living systems are endowed with ability to self-regenerate, while simultaneously generating different, global patterns -- evolution, in short. Why does not dust or snow flake evolve?

A lack of magic, obviously.



Metabolism, reproduction, inheritance, and all the other aspects of life work through physical processes. If you think that something about life can't be explained by physical processes, tell us what you think that is.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you not see difference between physical ordering and biological organisation? The former is static ordering while the latter is creative. Living systems are endowed with ability to self-regenerate, while simultaneously generating different, global patterns -- evolution, in short. Why does not dust or snow flake evolve?

A bit more detail.

Most crystals are *simple* chemically, and don't interact chemically in the crystal state. They do not reproduce and their growth is mediated primarily by electromagnetic interactions between the molecules. They are very simple systems compared to living things.

Living things, on the other hand, are very complex systems of interconnected chemical reactions. They couple their growth to the energy flow from high energy systems (like food and light) to lower energy systems (like wastes and heat). Much of the complexity comes from evolution: mutations for variation and natural selection leading to complexity. The degree of interaction both within organisms and between them is far higher than what is seen in crystals. And a good part of that interaction is chemical in nature. That also allows for a higher degree of complexity.

Finally, living things are characterized by polymers made out of fairly simple but varied components, allowing for very complex coding of information and thereby much more complex interactions. The polymers themselves are reactive in their environment and never actually reach an equilibrium because of the dynamics of the coupled energy flow mentioned before. Crystals, on the other hand, move toward equilibrium fairly rapidly and do not strongly interact once that is reached.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
I am very confused by your comments, some of which I posted above.

Perhaps it would be helpful to clearly and concisely spell out your positions regarding:

• Second Law
• abiogenesis
• evolution
• the rise of consciousness

'It evolved probably' was a reference to the discussion. and not to consciousness.

Oh, well, that cleared everything up.

 

[atanu]

A bit more detail.

Most crystals are *simple* chemically, and don't interact chemically in the crystal state. They do not reproduce and their growth is mediated primarily by electromagnetic interactions between the molecules. They are very simple systems compared to living things.

Living things, on the other hand, are very complex systems of interconnected chemical reactions. They couple their growth to the energy flow from high energy systems (like food and light) to lower energy systems (like wastes and heat). Much of the complexity comes from evolution: mutations for variation and natural selection leading to complexity. The degree of interaction both within organisms and between them is far higher than what is seen in crystals. And a good part of that interaction is chemical in nature. That also allows for a higher degree of complexity.

Finally, living things are characterized by polymers made out of fairly simple but varied components, allowing for very complex coding of information and thereby much more complex interactions. The polymers themselves are reactive in their environment and never actually reach an equilibrium because of the dynamics of the coupled energy flow mentioned before. Crystals, on the other hand, move toward equilibrium fairly rapidly and do not strongly interact once that is reached.

Thank you. So, you seem to take the degree of complexity as the main criteria for differentiating living and non living things.

I will pose myself as the first example of a living thing. I am self aware. I do not know whether simple chemicals are self aware too or not. I intuit fundamental difference between spontaneous ordering and structure formation in inert material and organisation in living organisms.

As of now I am not capable of expressing that in terms of thermodynamics etc. But I do not agree that our awareness makes no difference to self organisation. It is known that meditation etc. can initiate structural changes.

 

[atanu]

Of course: the biological is a subset of the physical.
You assume it's creative.
If you want to argue for a creator, then do it. Don't just beg the question and expect people to accept it.

And this is example of being reactive. Word 'creative' brings on a reaction?

Are you not creative? By creative I mean self awareness. By meditation you can slowly change structures of brain. That is creative. You may decide to build a house today. And if you make appropriate arrangements, you will get a house built. That is creative.

Our self awareness and intentions matter, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this is example of being reactive. Word 'creative' brings on a reaction?

Are you not creative? By creative I mean self awareness. By meditation you can slowly change structures of brain. That is creative. You may decide to build a house today. And if you make appropriate arrangements, you will get a house built. That is creative.

Our self awareness and intentions matter, imo.

Why do you place such a strong value on awareness? If you try to measure it you will find that throughout the animal kingdom that as intelligence increases so does self awareness. If you tried to claim that other great apes were not self aware you would be terribly mistaken.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Even insects have a rudimental sense of ego, and are egocentric. It is our midbrain that is responsible for our basic capacity for subjective experience(consciousness). Our cortex determines WHAT we are aware of experiencing, but it is our midbrain that makes us capable of being aware in the first place. Less than 5% of our mind is generated by the conscious brain's activities. The other 95% of our mind is generated by the non-conscious brain activities. We also lack enough energy to multi-task, or to sustain the firing of more than 16% of all brain cells at once. Consciousness is only the byproduct of having over 86 Billion neurons packed inside a small cranium. Hence, we are not self-aware all the time. This means that over 95% of all cognitive experiences are relegated to the non-conscious and subconscious states of the mind. This also means that your behavior, decision-making, personality, thoughts, and emotions, are all preprogrammed from the information, that is already stored in our subconscious and unconscious mind.

No matter how much you try to force the brain to change, only a maximum number of cells will still fire at any given time. The brain is a biological system. Therefore any given action to one part of the system, will have some effect to another part of the system. Try giving up an addiction and see what I mean. Fortunately evolution has given us less than 5% control over our mental activities. And, left over 95% OUT of our control. Mother nature was wise indeed. Can you just imagine what would happen if humans had 50% control over all of their bodily and mental functions? Our species would become extinct very quickly.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the Earth was here before any life began? Therefore life either began from non-life, or it was deposited here in some other manner. In one case life came from non-life(chemical evolution), and in the other its foundation was deposited from outside of the Earth(panspermia or extraterrestrial). In either case, fossil and other evidence suggests that life progressed over time, from the simplest form to the more complex form. From a single-celled organism to a multicellular organism. Not sure what role intelligence plays at this level of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. So, you seem to take the degree of complexity as the main criteria for differentiating living and non living things.

As far as the intent of the thread goes, NO, 'degree of complexity is not the main criteria for differentiating living and non-living things.'

The criteria for living things at the level of abiogenesis is the ability to self-replicate, self-regulate, and the ability to be independent of outside energy sources.

I will pose myself as the first example of a living thing. I am self aware. I do not know whether simple chemicals are self aware too or not. I intuit fundamental difference between spontaneous ordering and structure formation in inert material and organisation in living organisms.

Based on the very basic fundamental science, and chemistry simple chemicals are not self aware. There is no difference in nature between 'spontaneous ordering? (not a concept in science), and structure formation of inert material (non-life) and the organization in living organisms. The terminology you are using here is not functional in science.

As of now I am not capable of expressing that in terms of thermodynamics etc. But I do not agree that our awareness makes no difference to self organisation. It is known that meditation etc. can initiate structural changes.

Most definitely not science as far as thermodynamics is concerned.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even insects have a rudimental sense of ego, and are egocentric. It is our midbrain that is responsible for our basic capacity for subjective experience(consciousness). Our cortex determines WHAT we are aware of experiencing, but it is our midbrain that makes us capable of being aware in the first place. Less than 5% of our mind is generated by the conscious brain's activities. The other 95% of our mind is generated by the non-conscious brain activities. We also lack enough energy to multi-task, or to sustain the firing of more than 16% of all brain cells at once. Consciousness is only the byproduct of having over 86 Billion neurons packed inside a small cranium. Hence, we are not self-aware all the time. This means that over 95% of all cognitive experiences are relegated to the non-conscious and subconscious states of the mind. This also means that your behavior, decision-making, personality, thoughts, and emotions, are all preprogrammed from the information, that is already stored in our subconscious and unconscious mind.

No matter how much you try to force the brain to change, only a maximum number of cells will still fire at any given time. The brain is a biological system. Therefore any given action to one part of the system, will have some effect to another part of the system. Try giving up an addiction and see what I mean. Fortunately evolution has given us less than 5% control over our mental activities. And, left over 95% OUT of our control. Mother nature was wise indeed. Can you just imagine what would happen if humans had 50% control over all of their bodily and mental functions? Our species would become extinct very quickly.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the Earth was here before any life began? Therefore life either began from non-life, or it was deposited here in some other manner. In one case life came from non-life(chemical evolution), and in the other its foundation was deposited from outside of the Earth(panspermia or extraterrestrial). In either case, fossil and other evidence suggests that life progressed over time, from the simplest form to the more complex form. From a single-celled organism to a multicellular organism. Not sure what role intelligence plays at this level of evolution.

Interesting, but not really the topic of the thread. I do plan to start a thread on the evolution of the brain and nervous, system, and the resulting mind, consciousness,and intelligence.

The topic of this thread is the science of abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

And this is example of being reactive. Word 'creative' brings on a reaction?

The word 'Creative' evokes a philosophical/theological intent, and does not relate to the subject of the thread.

Are you not creative? By creative I mean self awareness. By meditation you can slowly change structures of brain. That is creative. You may decide to build a house today. And if you make appropriate arrangements, you will get a house built. That is creative.

Our self awareness and intentions matter, imo.

Of course they do, but not the subject of the thread.

 

[Polymath257]

And this is example of being reactive. Word 'creative' brings on a reaction?

Are you not creative? By creative I mean self awareness. By meditation you can slowly change structures of brain. That is creative. You may decide to build a house today. And if you make appropriate arrangements, you will get a house built. That is creative.

Our self awareness and intentions matter, imo.

All learning changes structures in the brain. That is the mechanism of learning.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you. So, you seem to take the degree of complexity as the main criteria for differentiating living and non living things.

I will pose myself as the first example of a living thing. I am self aware. I do not know whether simple chemicals are self aware too or not. I intuit fundamental difference between spontaneous ordering and structure formation in inert material and organisation in living organisms.

As of now I am not capable of expressing that in terms of thermodynamics etc. But I do not agree that our awareness makes no difference to self organisation. It is known that meditation etc. can initiate structural changes.

First, there is a difference between being a live and being conscious. Bacteria are alive, but they are not conscious.

The difference in organization between crystals and living things is, to a great extent, due to the complexity and that most crystal only involve one or two basic chemicals.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Interesting, but not really the topic of the thread. I do plan to start a thread on the evolution of the brain and nervous, system, and the resulting mind, consciousness,and intelligence.

The topic of this thread is the science of abiogenesis.

I doubt very seriously that the science of Abiogenesis(whatever that means) is the topic of this thread. However, I am looking foreword to reading your take on how the autonomic, central, and peripheral nervous systems work together. Including, your take on the relationship between mind and body.

 

[atanu]

First, there is a difference between being a live and being conscious. Bacteria are alive, but they are not conscious.

I beg to differ because to me consciousness is the competence to discern. It is not the manifested human like intelligence that some always impose on other living beings. In my perspective, plants and unicellular organisms also have ability to discern. I had earlier cited scientific evidences that favour my view. Let me repeat some of those.

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic
Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic
The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell
A single-celled organism capable of learning
Scientists Discover That Slime Mold Is Capable of Learning

The difference in organization between crystals and living things is, to a great extent, due to the complexity and that most crystal only involve one or two basic chemicals.

Again I beg to differ. Even to discern distinction between simple and complex structures, intelligence is a pre-requisite. A 'complex structure' cannot be the subject and object both.

 

[atanu]

All learning changes structures in the brain. That is the mechanism of learning.

The point is that we can consciously do that.

 

[Polymath257]

The point is that we can consciously do that.

Well, *my* point is that it is a sequence of physical events. We consciously do it through other sequences of physical events.