Is life nothing more than a chemical reaction

[exchemist]

Every entity, object, and phenomenon is involved in a web of relationships with everything around it. The qualities of any given thing, or event, is defined by those evolving relationships.

Indeed, it has been argued from both philosophy (see Berkeley, Kant, Descartes etc) and from quantum physics (see Wheeler, Fuchs, Rovelli etc), that entities have qualities only in respect of their interactions with other entities, and with observers.

"An isolated object, taken in itself...has no particular state. At most we can attribute to it a probabilistic disposition to manifest itself one way or another. But even this is only an anticipation of future phenomena, a reflection of past phenomena, only and always relative to another object."
- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland, 2020

True, but one can push this too far. For macroscopic objects, there are continual interactions with other radiation and matter, to such an extent that the intermittency (assuming Rovelli's view is correct) can safely be ignored.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True, but one can push this too far. For macroscopic objects, there are continual interactions with other radiation and matter, to such an extent that the intermittency (assuming Rovelli's view is correct) can safely be ignored.

Well one can push any idea to the point of absurdity or irrelevance, sure. Or seek to apply it in an arena where it doesn't really say much.

But key to Rovelli's ontological premise, is the view that the world is populated not by objects, but by events. Even rock, he suggests, is a temporary convergence of forces maintaining equilibrium for what, in the context of universal space and time, is little more than a moment. Consistency, in other words, is only temporary. All that is solid melts into air (he quotes this line from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' quite frequently).

 

[PureX]

Science is about understanding nature through observation and modelling it. The test of the model is its abiltiy to predict. But it most assuredly is the model we are after, because we have good reason to think that a good model reflects, albeit imperfectly, physical reality.

See, this is how you all fall into 'scientism' without realizing that you've done so.

You tell yourselves that science is the pursuit of truth (you called it "understanding") even as you proclaim that science can't ever prove any proposed theory about physicality true or false, but only whether it's predictably functional or not. So your presumption that scientists pursue truth is not possible even by your own admission. And yet you continue to insist that this is what science does, and not only that, but it's the only reliable method for doing so.

When in fact all science pursues is the means of controlling our fate within physical existence. Like studying plate tectonics so we can predict eruptions and earth quakes and tsunamis and get out of their way before they happen. Science has nothing to tell us about truth. It can only tell us about how the physical realm functions. Yet the 'scientism' crowd insists that it's the singular determiner of all reality and truth. Even as they also say it's not, and that they don't believe it to be.

Like you thinking that we study plate tectonics because we want to know the 'truth' about how the geology of the Earth functions, physically. But the whole reason we humans want know how the physical world functions is so we can gain control of it, or of our own fates in Relation to it. We don't give a crap about 'truth'. Only about predictive accuracy. Because that's power, and that's how we survive.

Science is not the fountain or arbiter of truth. It's not even seeking the truth. It's all and only about gaining predictable functionality. Not that this is a bad thing. But let's stop pretending it's anything more than what it is.

 

[wellwisher]

It's all inter-related but both chemical and bio-electric elements are necessary. They work together to allow us to do things like making sarcastic jokes or having them fly right over our heads.

The second part of my post was the significant one. Feel free to address that.

Life has many aspects, such as cells which are not conscious, to humans who are conscious and can even have self awareness. The water connection permeates both cells and consciousness, but in terms of consciousness there are other things involved connected to a higher ratio of electro-chemical potential.

Neuron expend about 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchanging ions. This huge percent of their energy budget, tells us this action is key to consciousness. Why invest so much energy, unless it is to help create the conditions needed for the main brain function; matrix for consciousness.

If ions were placed in a glass of water, they will dissolve and increase entropy; most degrees of freedom. The ion pumping processes of neurons are doing the opposite, segregating and concentrating ions, against the second law. This is very energy intensive. It would be like a sugary soft drink suddenly un-dissolving all its sugar and other ingredients into little piles in the middle of the glass. This is almost impossible, since it would reverse the second; from chaos to extreme order. However, this is the goal of the ion pumping. Sodium ions builds up on one side of the membrane; outside, and potassium the other side; inside. These two ions exited the bandwidth of the water matrix compared to pure water.

In terms of neurons, this lowering of ionic entropy and the reversal of the second law; ions pumping, creates an entropic potential or a spontaneous need to increase entropy. The free flow of Consciousness is connected to this spontaneous 2nd law push, from the organized ions; electrochemical potential, as they gain entropy and lower free energy.

This spontaneous increase in entropy, creates the natural urge for consciousness to become more and more complex; learning and analysis potential toward higher complexity. This still come down to the dynamics of ions in water, and the impact on their hydrogen bonding switches at synapses and along neuron branches. These specific ions were also selected by water, since they ads extra muscle and dynamic range to the aqueous data matrix. Sodium moves the switches one way; covalent, while Potassium does it the other way; polar, for higher ratios on either side of the membrane compared to pure water; kosmotropic and chaotropic affects, respectively.

 

[We Never Know]

FUNCTIONALLY predictive. It's not the "models" we are after. It's the predictive functionality. It's control over our physical environment through that predictive functionality. That control is humanity's "super power". It's how we survive and thrive in the world. Don't mistake any of this for a pursuit of truth. It's all about control.


Life is a whole array of transcendent possibilities that did not and does not otherwise exist apart from it. Consciousness, for example. Self will. Imagination. The list is long and extraordinary.

Bacteria are life. Is it the same for them?

 

[Audie]

Every entity, object, and phenomenon is involved in a web of relationships with everything around it. The qualities of any given thing, or event, is defined by those evolving relationships.

Indeed, it has been argued from both philosophy (see Berkeley, Kant, Descartes etc) and from quantum physics (see Wheeler, Fuchs, Rovelli etc), that entities have qualities only in respect of their interactions with other entities, and with observers.

"An isolated object, taken in itself...has no particular state. At most we can attribute to it a probabilistic disposition to manifest itself one way or another. But even this is only an anticipation of future phenomena, a reflection of past phenomena, only and always relative to another object."
- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland, 2020

That's all fine, but, like another response, tangental to what I said.

 

[exchemist]

See, this is how you all fall into 'scientism' without realizing that you've done so.

You tell yourselves that science is the pursuit of truth (you called it "understanding") even as you proclaim that science can't ever prove any proposed theory about physicality true or false, but only whether it's predictably functional or not. So your presumption that scientists pursue truth is not possible even by your own admission. And yet you continue to insist that this is what science does, and not only that, but it's the only reliable method for doing so.

When in fact all science pursues is the means of controlling our fate within physical existence. Like studying plate tectonics so we can predict eruptions and earth quakes and tsunamis and get out of their way before they happen. Science has nothing to tell us about truth. It can only tell us about how the physical realm functions. Yet the 'scientism' crowd insists that it's the singular determiner of all reality and truth. Even as they also say it's not, and that they don't believe it to be.

Like you thinking that we study plate tectonics because we want to know the 'truth' about how the geology of the Earth functions, physically. But the whole reason we humans want know how the physical world functions is so we can gain control of it, or of our own fates in Relation to it. We don't give a crap about 'truth'. Only about predictive accuracy. Because that's power, and that's how we survive.

Science is not the fountain or arbiter of truth. It's not even seeking the truth. It's all and only about gaining predictable functionality. Not that this is a bad thing. But let's stop pretending it's anything more than what it is.

Your profound ignorance about, and hostility towards, science are showing, now.

We do NOT study plate tectonics in order to predict earthquakes. We do it to find out how the Earth works, to explain mountains, seas, the shapes of the continents and many more things we observe.

You know nothing about what motivates scientists. I do.

 

[Audie]

My view is similar to this. On a causal level, I believe life is indeed a combination of physical processes. For example, humans stop being alive when our bodies stop functioning. If there were anything causing life and consciousness besides physical processes, I would expect a different outcome than that.

But the physical processes lead to the emergence of consciousness, abstractions, meaning, emotions, relationships, philosophies, and hobbies, among other things. When I think of life, I don't just think of the physical aspects and go, "My goal today is to wake up and survive another day of biological interactions within my body." I think of what I want to do, what meaning I obtain from my actions, who I want to be with or where I want to be, etc.

Of course

 

[PureX]

Bacteria are life. Is it the same for them?

Yes, just to a lesser degree. It's how we identify it as 'life'.

 

[PureX]

Your profound ignorance about, and hostility towards, science are showing, now.

I am not in the least bit hostile toward science. Only toward scientism: the phony characterization and inaccurate adulation of science.

We do NOT study plate tectonics in order to predict earthquakes. We do it to find out how the Earth works, to explain mountains, seas, the shapes of the continents and many more things we observe.

You know nothing about what motivates scientists. I do.

Why do you think we want to know those things? What do you think we do with that information?

 

[Audie]

FUNCTIONALLY predictive. It's not the "models" we are after. It's the predictive functionality. It's control over our physical environment through that predictive functionality. That control is humanity's "super power". It's how we survive and thrive in the world. Don't mistake any of this for a pursuit of truth. It's all about control.


Life is a whole array of transcendent possibilities that did not and does not otherwise exist apart from it. Consciousness, for example. Self will. Imagination. The list is long and extraordinary.

"Not about truth, but control". That's religion.
Science at least tries to deal with what is true. " Truth" is
a chimera of religion and "philosophy'.

 

[Audie]

Yes, just to a lesser degree. It's how we identify it as 'life'.

Prease exprain?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is about understanding nature through observation and modelling it. The test of the model is its abiltiy to predict. But it most assuredly is the model we are after, because we have good reason to think that a good model reflects, albeit imperfectly, physical reality.

That is not at all the same as "control". Plate tectonics allows us to understand why there are earthquakes and the various sorts of volcanoes and tells us where we should expect to find each. But we have no more hope of controlling them than we do the nuclear processes of stars. That's not why we study it. We do it out of curiosity: knowledge-seeking.

Well, one version of science. Another is to understand what it means to be a human, be in the world and what the world is to humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Not about truth, but control". That's religion.
Science at least tries to deal with what is true. " Truth" is
a chimera of religion and "philosophy'.

Science is not about what is true. You are doing philosophy and religion yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, just to a lesser degree. It's how we identify it as 'life'.

I've never thought of bacteria having self will, imagination, etc.

How about grass?

 

[We Never Know]

Science is not about what is true. You are doing philosophy and religion yourself.

I thought the aim of science was to build true and accurate knowledge based on evidence

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I thought the aim of science was to build true and accurate knowledge based on evidence

The debate about whether science is about something true or not, is in effect different cultural views.

 

[PureX]

I've never thought of bacteria having self will, imagination, etc.

How about grass?

Yup, same. Consider the difference between 'animate' and 'inanimate' matter. It's not conscious self will as with more complex life forms, but it is an expression of self will nevertheless. Like the face of a sunflower following the sun across the sky.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's all fine, but, like another response, tangental to what I said.

Well I was responding to your analogy of a painting being pigment on parchment, which I found quite interesting; I agree with the response of the poster who replied that it is more than that, in particular that the qualities and meaning assigned to it by the observer transform it into something else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I thought the aim of science was to build true and accurate knowledge based on evidence

To a scientific realist, that’s broadly true. Not all scientists are realists though, in the sense of believing that laws of science tell us facts about the world.

A lifelong dialogue between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr centred at least in part on whether theoretical physics could offer a description of the world, or whether it’s purpose was purely functional; the fundamental nature of reality, to Bohr, could only be understood in abstract, mathematical terms. Reality, he famously said, was compromised of entities that could not be described as real.

This did not satisfy Einstein, the realist, but Bohr is widely regarded as having ‘won’ that debate. Not everyone agrees; the words “Einstein was wrong” should always be exercised with extreme caution.