Dead Matter to Live Aware Matter

[Valjean]

They meet all the definitions of life when activated. That's why they are such an amazing study concerning life and death, living and non-living.

Hogwash!
What features of life do they have? They have no organs, they have no protoplasm, they have no metabolism, they can't reproduce themselves, they don't eat or excrete. They're just snippits of nucleic acid in a shell.

They're no differen't from a computer virus; just self-replicating code.

 

[George-ananda]

How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

In my beliefs, it can not. There is also this thing called Consciousness/God/Brahman that science can not see/feel/touch or measure. All 'living' things are imbued with this mystery.

 

[Nakosis]

This is even a bit more than abiogenesis (how life came about through chemical processes). Where can we point and say, I think there is awareness there? Even at the most rudimentary levels of life, single celled organisms already display signs of learning so awareness is somehow present at the inception of life, the intelligent agent is itself. How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

I'm not sure what it means other than chemicals can alter their behavior based on repeated stimulus.

This is supposedly how life came about in the first place. The difference between live matter and dead matter is the ability to reproduce itself.

Prior to biological evolution there was chemical evolution. Both rely on the environment to cause change. However the entire mechanical process would have to occur to each individual group of chemicals to create a similar structure. Biological evolution, reproduction, could start off at the point of being a clone of the original. Then continue to evolve from that point. When it reproduced it had all the changes that had occurred to it at that point.

It be interesting to see if when the organism reproduced if the clone now continued with this new behavior.

 

[DavidFirth]

This is even a bit more than abiogenesis (how life came about through chemical processes). Where can we point and say, I think there is awareness there? Even at the most rudimentary levels of life, single celled organisms already display signs of learning so awareness is somehow present at the inception of life, the intelligent agent is itself. How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

It isn't. End of story. Next thread.

 

[Nakosis]

Hogwash!
What features of life do they have? They have no organs, they have no protoplasm, they have no metabolism, they can't reproduce themselves, they don't eat or excrete. They're just snippits of nucleic acid in a shell.

They're no differen't from a computer virus; just self-replicating code.

Being able to reproduce itself is pretty much the delineation between live matter and dead matter.

 

[Nakosis]

This is even a bit more than abiogenesis (how life came about through chemical processes). Where can we point and say, I think there is awareness there? Even at the most rudimentary levels of life, single celled organisms already display signs of learning so awareness is somehow present at the inception of life, the intelligent agent is itself. How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

I don't think awareness is a requirement. I suspect awareness developed much later. Then you'd need a central nervous system of some type.

 

[Nakosis]

Machines can learn. Learning isn't the sine qua non of life.

I'm waiting for the machines to take over and find biological life primitive and inefficient.

 

[bobhikes]

This is even a bit more than abiogenesis (how life came about through chemical processes). Where can we point and say, I think there is awareness there? Even at the most rudimentary levels of life, single celled organisms already display signs of learning so awareness is somehow present at the inception of life, the intelligent agent is itself. How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

Was it learning or was it starvation that made the cells receptive. The hungrier a human gets the more the human will try to eat, perhaps fungus is the same way. If it was learned behavior they wouldn't have to be taught again. The article says 2 days after removing the protagonist then reintroducing the fungus needed to go through the learning process again. For me if it learned anything it should have at least made a quicker process for finding the food. Alas I am not a biologist.

 

[blü 2]

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

Through evolution.

If some or other reaction to some or other stimulus is beneficial to surviving and propagating, the genes favoring it will be passed on in larger numbers and natural selection will occur.

If at some later point reaction A is built in and it becomes the case that beneficial reaction B follows iff reaction A pre-exists, you have a form of 'memory'.

 

[idav]

It isn't. End of story. Next thread.

Humans and animals aren't alive and aware? Alrighty then.

 

[Profound Realization]

They're not even alive.

They certainly are alive.

 

[Profound Realization]

This is even a bit more than abiogenesis (how life came about through chemical processes). Where can we point and say, I think there is awareness there? Even at the most rudimentary levels of life, single celled organisms already display signs of learning so awareness is somehow present at the inception of life, the intelligent agent is itself. How could dead matter ever accomplish such a feat?

Here is an article that gets into single celled learning capabilities, which states learning happened in evolution even before nervous systems and brains. How is that possible?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

Always have been intrigued by this. Nice thread. Another good read: The Beautiful Intelligence of Bacteria and Other Microbes

I personally believe that “consciousness” has something to do with plasma/cytoplasma/blood/water, animated and conducted by energy/light... as like a stream flowing within.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure what it means other than chemicals can alter their behavior based on repeated stimulus.

This is supposedly how life came about in the first place. The difference between live matter and dead matter is the ability to reproduce itself.

Prior to biological evolution there was chemical evolution. Both rely on the environment to cause change. However the entire mechanical process would have to occur to each individual group of chemicals to create a similar structure. Biological evolution, reproduction, could start off at the point of being a clone of the original. Then continue to evolve from that point. When it reproduced it had all the changes that had occurred to it at that point.

It be interesting to see if when the organism reproduced if the clone now continued with this new behavior.

I find it pretty fascinating that matter eventually finds a need to reproduce itself by any means necessary at the expense of energy that it inevitably craves. Star dust going through such lengths to look back at itself is why I am not a nihilist or atheist

 

[Nakosis]

I find it pretty fascinating that matter eventually finds a need to reproduce itself by any means necessary at the expense of energy that it inevitably craves. Star dust going through such lengths to look back at itself is why I am not a nihilist or atheist

I find it fascinating as well but I'm both an atheist and a nihilist.

 

[idav]

Through evolution.

If some or other reaction to some or other stimulus is beneficial to surviving and propagating, the genes favoring it will be passed on in larger numbers and natural selection will occur.

If at some later point reaction A is built in and it becomes the case that beneficial reaction B follows iff reaction A pre-exists, you have a form of 'memory'.

Do you think that consciousness isn't really anything special in that it is merely a benifical trait that easily propagated.

 

[idav]

I find it fascinating as well but I'm both an atheist and a nihilist.

I could be wrong but I kinda figure nihilistic universes don't have stars looking at themselves in awe.

 

[Thief]

Hogwash!
What features of life do they have? They have no organs, they have no protoplasm, they have no metabolism, they can't reproduce themselves, they don't eat or excrete. They're just snippits of nucleic acid in a shell.

They're no differen't from a computer virus; just self-replicating code.

they can't reproduce themselves??!!!!

then Who is making each one?

and genetics that reproduce are not living?

 

[Thief]

I'm waiting for the machines to take over and find biological life primitive and inefficient.

and the robot behind the character is running a program.....

YOU ARE NEXT!!!!! sucker

 

[Thief]

there is currently on Netflix a one hr documentary about mushrooms
perhaps not related to this discussion in terms of drawing the line we seek

but it's interesting

 

[Valjean]

Being able to reproduce itself is pretty much the delineation between live matter and dead matter.

But lots of non-living things can reproduce themselves, there are even self-reproducing molecules.

They certainly are alive.

Name one feature of living things that viruses have.

they can't reproduce themselves??!!!!
then Who is making each one?
and genetics that reproduce are not living?

No, they can't reproduce themselves. Evidently you don't know much about viruses.

Viruses are software. They're no different from a computer code instructing the computer to print the code sequence. Is the code "reproducing itself," or are the computer and printer reproducing it?

Viruses, as I said before, are just snippets of code. If the sequence gets into an actual, living cell, the cell will read it just as it does its own code, but the viral code is an instruction to copy itself, in effect, it hijacks the cell's machinery and causes it to print endless copies of the viral code -- and the viral code is the virus.
A living cell is making the viruses, not the viruses themselves.

A printer can spew out endless sheets of paper with "print this code" on them, but the text: "print this code," is not a living thing.

I find it pretty fascinating that matter eventually finds a need to reproduce itself by any means necessary at the expense of energy that it inevitably craves. Star dust going through such lengths to look back at itself is why I am not a nihilist or atheist

It doesn't "find a need to reproduce itself" or crave anything. You're adducing intentionality where none is necessary. It's an automatic, physical or chemical reaction, like crystal growth or gravitational accretion.

We see examples of things reproducing themselves because only things that could replicate left any specimens of themselves for us to find. This is not evidence of intent.