Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Dante Writer]

When I was a sophomore (as my son is now) I had what I now feel to be a sophomoric thought:

1. Consciousness is nothing more that a certain level of complexity in a system.
2. The universe is mega complex.
3. The universe is therefore conscious.

Are you conscious?

That is probably a more important question?

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.

What do we know of consciousness except the only experience we have of our own? From a single instance, of my own personal experience of what my consciousness is, I have to assume that other people around me probably have it too. But do I know? I don't. I can safely assume it, I think, but can I test it and know it for sure? Not really. One of those problems for AI. How do you know if an AI has reached consciousness? What if we're all just zombies who acts like we're conscious but in reality we're just pretending?

One book that I thought touched on the question was Solaris by Stanislav Lem. Great story. Didn't like the movie, however, since the planet being alive kind'a got lost.

Oh boy, this is really deja vu all over again. Let me try to cut to the chase.

My discussion of this, almost a half century ago, led me to coin a new term: taxocentristic. Think of it as anthropomorphic, but related rather than to being human, referencing any taxonomic clade you are focused on at the moment, looking out from the bias of your inner fish, or your inner mammal or your inner ape, as it were. Place one of those other taxons in the foreground and consider consciousness. Try to get beyond the limitation of the belief system that has been drummed into you and consider that chunk of consciousness that was part and parcel of each branch of the bush. What I came to think is that consciousness is not an exclusively human trait and not that we have more highly developed it than any other taxon, we have amplified the problem solving part of it. While at university I had a job as an Orca trainer. My whale was named Kenau and working with her changed a lot of my views concerning consciousness, as well helped to refine my ideas concerning the wrong-thinking inherent in the multitude of taxocentristic baggage we each (mostly) unknowingly carry. Anyway, I see consciousness as a continuum not a hurdle to get over, but I am not sure that I am ready to extend it to the non-living, except in the abstract or metaphorical as in Lovelock's Gaia.

 

[Dante Writer]

As the local sheriff says about an abduction,
1) We have identified a potential suspect, but the case is still under investigation.
2) No Sir, we have no reason to believe that it was done by aliens from outer space. But thanks for calling us.

Humans have such limited intelligence maybe you just can't see past your own limitations.

 

[Dante Writer]

Oh boy, this is really deja vu all over again. Let me try to cut to the chase.

My discussion of this, almost a half century ago, led me to coin a new term: taxocentristic. Think of it as anthropomorphic, but related rather than to being human, referencing any taxonomic clade you are focused on at the moment, looking out from the bias of your inner fish, or your inner mammal or your inner ape, as it were. Place one of those other taxons in the foreground and consider consciousness. Try to get beyond the limitation of the belief system that has been drummed into you and consider that chunk of consciousness that was part and parcel of each branch of the bush. What I came to think is that consciousness is not an exclusively human trait and not that we have more highly developed it than any other taxon, we have amplified the problem solving part of it. While at university I had a job as an Orca trainer. My whale was named Kenau and working with her changed a lot of my views concerning consciousness, as well helped to refine my ideas concerning the wrong-thinking inherent in the multitude of taxocentristic baggage we each (mostly) unknowingly carry. Anyway, I see consciousness as a continuum not a hurdle to get over, but I am not sure that I am ready to extend it to the non-living, except in the abstract or metaphorical as in Lovelock's Gaia.

"Try to get beyond the limitation of the belief system that has been drummed into you"

Wow- that would sure be good advice for all people now wouldn't it Sapiens?

Now how long has the public school system been drumming evolution into you?

 

[Sapiens]

"Try to get beyond the limitation of the belief system that has been drummed into you"

Wow- that would sure be good advice for all people now wouldn't it Sapiens?

Now how long has the public school system been drumming evolution into you?

Drumming? Never.

Examining through Socratic Method ... life long.

My earlier education was at a mixture of private and public institutions, so I am hardly a product of any one system. My university experience was at what was (at the time) the top rated university in the world (where I had the pleasure of having Dawkins as my instructor in Animal Behavior).

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh boy, this is really deja vu all over again. Let me try to cut to the chase.

My discussion of this, almost a half century ago, led me to coin a new term: taxocentristic. Think of it as anthropomorphic, but related rather than to being human, referencing any taxonomic clade you are focused on at the moment, looking out from the bias of your inner fish, or your inner mammal or your inner ape, as it were. Place one of those other taxons in the foreground and consider consciousness. Try to get beyond the limitation of the belief system that has been drummed into you and consider that chunk of consciousness that was part and parcel of each branch of the bush. What I came to think is that consciousness is not an exclusively human trait and not that we have more highly developed it than any other taxon, we have amplified the problem solving part of it. While at university I had a job as an Orca trainer. My whale was named Kenau and working with her changed a lot of my views concerning consciousness, as well helped to refine my ideas concerning the wrong-thinking inherent in the multitude of taxocentristic baggage we each (mostly) unknowingly carry. Anyway, I see consciousness as a continuum not a hurdle to get over, but I am not sure that I am ready to extend it to the non-living, except in the abstract or metaphorical as in Lovelock's Gaia.

Sure. My point isn't that you or I have to accept any idea like this. The point is, that we really don't know what consciousness or intelligence is. And perhaps it's because our definitions are loose and badly defined. IQ tests supposedly show intelligence, but how is it really measured? Against an average of other humans. 100 IQ is just being the normal average Joe. And it changes. The tests aren't the same, and what was intelligent on an IQ test 30 years ago, is not on todays. If it was clear what intelligence was, we wouldn't have it changing like that. And consciousness... I'm aware. Of what? What does it mean to be aware? It's all in the area of things that we can't say either way, so is intelligence inherent in nature, or is nature becoming intelligent through us? I don't know.

 

[Sapiens]

Sure. My point isn't that you or I have to accept any idea like this. The point is, that we really don't know what consciousness or intelligence is. And perhaps it's because our definitions are loose and badly defined. IQ tests supposedly show intelligence, but how is it really measured? Against an average of other humans. 100 IQ is just being the normal average Joe. And it changes. The tests aren't the same, and what was intelligent on an IQ test 30 years ago, is not on todays. If it was clear what intelligence was, we wouldn't have it changing like that. And consciousness... I'm aware. Of what? What does it mean to be aware? It's all in the area of things that we can't say either way, so is intelligence inherent in nature, or is nature becoming intelligent through us? I don't know.

Sure, did you know, that by scientific test, half the people on Earth are so stupid that they have an IQ of 100 or less?

I guess my point is, that like so many things that people look for binary changes in grade, abiogenesis, consciousness, etc., such on/of switches are not there, the answers are much more complex, the questions are much more difficult. Is a virus alive? Is a dog conscious? People want simple answers where there are often only complex questions to be found.

 

[metis]

If you only have those two theories to evaluate maybe you need to broaden your horizons.

A Diety is a religious belief with magical or supernatural powers.

Intelligent Design does not require any Diety or even a genius or a being as we understand that.

Computers can create and design many things based on a simple code of 1's and 0's.

The laws of the universe seem to all be mathematically connected and operate on some system of math we can not yet understand.

So maybe the intelligence is that code which has just always existed and everything else is just the result of the laws in action.

Just an idea!

If you only have those two theories to evaluate maybe you need to broaden your horizons.

A Diety is a religious belief with magical or supernatural powers.

Intelligent Design does not require any Diety or even a genius or a being as we understand that.

Computers can create and design many things based on a simple code of 1's and 0's.

The laws of the universe seem to all be mathematically connected and operate on some system of math we can not yet understand.

So maybe the intelligence is that code which has just always existed and everything else is just the result of the laws in action.

Just an idea!

LOL! I looked into that looooooooooong ago, and if you study both Buddhist and Hindu dharma, you can also deal with this in some serious depth. You haven't invented the wheel, bub.

 

[Dante Writer]

LOL! I looked into that looooooooooong ago, and if you study both Buddhist and Hindu dharma, you can also deal with this in some serious depth. You haven't invented the wheel, bub.

Then why after all the times you have been shown ID does not require a Deity do you still refer to it as having one?

Sounds like you just can't accept that fact!

 

[Dante Writer]

Sure, did you know, that by scientific test, half the people on Earth are so stupid that they IQ of 100 or less?

I guess my point is, that like so many things that people look for binary changes in grade, abiogenesis, consciousness, etc., such on/of switches are not there, the answers are much more complex, the questions are much more difficult. Is a virus alive? Is a dog conscious? People want simple answers where there are often only complex questions to be found.

" the answers are much more complex"

Well it took along while but finally you are saying something reasonable.

Yes it is very very complex and we are greatly limited by our technology and our own barely evolved intelligence so we should not accept any theory including Evolution as the only answer and there may be other mechanisms at play.

We are sure as hell never going to find those mechanisms if we don't explore and if we remain rigid and strictly follow one theory.

 

[metis]

Then why after all the times you have been shown ID does not require a Deity do you still refer to it as having one?

Sounds like you just can't accept that fact!

I said as such because I thought that's where you were coming from. And your last sentence makes not one iota of sense, btw.

So, let's deal with this situation-- tomorrow. Ever research dharma, for example? Which, if any? Maybe spell out where you're coming from and what you can present to support you position. All I see you doing is nit-picking everyone else without really do much to support what you believe and why.

 

[Sapiens]

" the answers are much more complex"

Well it took along while but finally you are saying something reasonable.

Yes it is very very complex and we are greatly limited by our technology and our own barely evolved intelligence so we should not accept any theory including Evolution as the only answer and there may be other mechanisms at play.

We are sure as hell never going to find those mechanisms if we don't explore and if we remain rigid and strictly follow one theory.

It is import too keep an open mind, it is even more important to be sure that it is no so far open that your brains fall out. Good balance is everything.

 

[Dante Writer]

Drumming? Never.

Examining through Socratic Method ... life long.

My earlier education was at a mixture of private and public institutions, so I am hardly a product of any one system. My university experience was at what was (at the time) the top rated university in the world (where I had the pleasure of having Dawkins as my instructor in Animal Behavior).

So you went to Oxford?

You claim it is not drummed into you but you sure have a hard time exploring or letting anyone else explore any other theories or mechanisms that do not fit your own agenda. To the point you and your buddies tried to trash my entire discussion which you now seem to have enjoyed being a part of.

Rigid thinking is not a sign of maturity and Dawkin's allowed himself to explore a different direction and you should to.

If you don't explore you never progress!

 

[Sapiens]

So you went to Oxford?

You claim it is not drummed into you but you sure have a hard time exploring or letting anyone else explore any other theories or mechanisms that do not fit your own agenda. To the point you and your buddies tried to trash my entire discussion which you now seem to have enjoyed being a part of.

Rigid thinking is not a sign of maturity and Dawkin's allowed himself to explore a different direction and you should to.

If you don't explore you never progress!

Again you make wrong assumptions based on inadequate data. You'd best check Dawkins' C.V.

As far as trashing is concerned, you started playing pigeon chess and got far less than you deserved. If you do it again I suspect that you will elicit the same spontaneous response.

 

[Thief]

God did it.

No need for any further discussion, right?

right

 

[Thief]

as I recall.....in the film....I Am by Shadyac....
an example of logic is dealt

I could take my car apart and scatter the pieces
and knowing how to reassemble the items.....put it together and start the engine

can't do that with my dog

 

[Dante Writer]

I said as such because I thought that's where you were coming from. And your last sentence makes not one iota of sense, btw.

So, let's deal with this situation-- tomorrow. Ever research dharma, for example? Which, if any? Maybe spell out where you're coming from and what you can present to support you position. All I see you doing is nit-picking everyone else without really do much to support what you believe and why.

My position is not rigid so explaining it would be ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I look at all mechanisms for life on earth and evaluate them based on how they could happen.

All of them answer a portion of the problem and none of them answer everything so it is probably a combination and still mechanisms we don't understand.

What you see as nit picking is challenging your rigid position to see if you have substance and it may broaden your horizons and certainly broadens mine.

 

[Dante Writer]

as I recall.....in the film....I Am by Shadyac....
an example of logic is dealt

I could take my car apart and scatter the pieces
and knowing how to reassemble the items.....put it together and start the engine

can't do that with my dog

Good point!

You could however take some DNA from that dog and clone it to make a copy.

Would that be the same dog with the same personality but not the same memories?

 

[Dante Writer]

It is import too keep an open mind, it is even more important to be sure that it is no so far open that your brains fall out. Good balance is everything.

I agree!

 

[Sapiens]

as I recall.....in the film....I Am by Shadyac....
an example of logic is dealt

I could take my car apart and scatter the pieces
and knowing how to reassemble the items.....put it together and start the engine

can't do that with my dog

Sure you can ... you just need to be more careful. I knew someone who did heart lung transplants on two pairs of dogs per day, for rejection suppression drug studies. I guess he knew how to be more careful.