The Creation of life on Earth explained

[Heathen Hammer]

Please explain how what he stated is not a truth.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Ya. Ya.

And for an intelligence that is evolved out of such chemicals to know such wonderful complicated things and assert them as the truths is astounding -- not stupid.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think it's a refutation by inferring his statement is untrue, via irony.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Either that or we're about to be assaulted by the premise that nothing can be proven. Only time will tell wtf it is.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Only time will tell wtf it is.

Lol, that's an optimistic outlook, I think.

Nice to see you here. Glad you decided to give it another go.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, it's definitely a good place! I appreciate the direction.

 

[atanu]

In any situation where DNA or RNA is able to self replicate, it will, as it must have during the period when life was first developing.

You are so sure?

(I cited views of biologists on this and you branded me as ignorant. )

DNA is an enormously complex chemical, so expecting it to perform the things it's capable of in the absence of the innumerable other chemicals it needs to do so is obviously ridiculous.

Ya. So, what are those other chemicals?

And for an intelligence that is evolved out of such chemicals to know such wonderful complicated things and assert them as the truths is astounding -- not stupid.

Originally by Henderson
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I do not think that i can explain this to you at this stage. But if you are really interested we can touch upon that. At this stage, it is sufficient topoint out that a product of a process has never been seen to investigate the process and its origin itself.

 

[PolyHedral]

But if you are really interested we can touch upon that. At this stage, it is sufficient topoint out that a product of a process has never been seen to investigate the process and its origin itself.

Have you ever looked into the structure of mathematical argument? When presented with a statements of the form, "There does not exist..." or, "For all...", a single counterexample is enough to disprove the statement. However, there's a third form of statement, and it's the type that's being used here: "There exists a..."

"There exists..." arguments can only be disproved by demonstrating that the object in question cannot exist. Saying that we have merely never seen one is insufficient, since we are not omniscient. Thus, unless you can demosntrate otherwise, I'm confident that there exists a processor that is aware of itself as an external entity.

 

[atanu]

"There exists..." arguments can only be disproved by demonstrating that the object in question cannot exist. Saying that we have merely never seen one is insufficient, since we are not omniscient. Thus, unless you can demosntrate otherwise, I'm confident that there exists a processor that is aware of itself as an external entity.

Oddly, i also believe so, with a slight difference. For the external entity, nothing can be internal or external as it must be external to all entitities and all boundaries.

:angel2:

 

[PolyHedral]

Oddly, i also believe so, with a slight difference. For the external entity, nothing can be internal or external as it must be external to all entitities and all boundaries.

:angel2:

...I'm not entirely sure that even means anything. Can you expand?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

You are so sure?

(I cited views of biologists on this and you branded me as ignorant. )

Pretty sure, yes. The current understanding of abiogenesis involves the evolution of both DNA and RNA separate from what we currently accept as being "life"

Ya. So, what are those other chemicals?

Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine for DNA self replication, innumerable other compounds for the formation of those compounds and the eventual construction of organisms from the resultant DNA strands.

I do not think that i can explain this to you at this stage. But if you are really interested we can touch upon that. At this stage, it is sufficient to point out that a product of a process has never been seen to investigate the process and its origin itself.

What an odd and slightly pretentious thing to say. At the moment, the only organism capable of performing such investigations known to us is us. That would make your claim wrong.

 

[atanu]

Pretty sure, yes. The current understanding of abiogenesis involves the evolution of both DNA and RNA separate from what we currently accept as being "life"

Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine for DNA self replication, innumerable other compounds for the formation of those compounds and the eventual construction of organisms from the resultant DNA strands.

But that replication is not life and intelligence.

What an odd and slightly pretentious thing to say. At the moment, the only organism capable of performing such investigations known to us is us. That would make your claim wrong.

Not at all. It is based on your proposition that inert materials are the source of life and intelligence. We have not seen one example of such. It is common experience that product of a structure cannot investigate the structure. To disprove this you have to show a product that can unravel its creator or owner or its source.

 

[PolyHedral]

t is common experience that product of a structure cannot investigate the structure. To disprove this you have to show a product that can unravel its creator or owner or its source.

Common in your line of work, maybe. I, meanwhile, have three words to prove you wrong:

using [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.aspx"]System.Reflection[/URL];

To elaborate, System.Reflection is a C# module that allows a system to investigate its own structure, up to and including creating and manipulating new programs entirely. There is, AFAIK, nothing that the brain can do that that module cannot, in principle, do. AI is simply a case of someone bothering to write it.

Also, arguably, any computer can unravel its own source, since all computers (biological ones included) are fundamentally implementations of the same functions. It is simply a case of a computer learning about and simulating its own creation process, which is perfectly possibly in principle.

 

[atanu]

Common in your line of work, maybe. I, meanwhile, have three words to prove you wrong:

using [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.aspx"]System.Reflection[/URL];

To elaborate, System.Reflection is a C# module that allows a system to investigate its own structure, up to and including creating and manipulating new programs entirely.

Back to the square one. I will tell you an incident.

15 years back when i first earned a MS certified professional tag, i went to my boss to break the happy news. He was a genuine learning type of person. He was happy. He asked me a few things about Visual Basic. That time, OOP was in vogue and i described enthusiatically about reusable objects etc. He reflected for a few seconds and then spoke to himself, mumbling "Our guys have all become mere objects. Give them instructions and they will do that. They do not even ask the basis of the instructions."

There is, AFAIK, nothing that the brain can do that that module cannot, in principle, do. AI is simply a case of someone bothering to write it.

To write everything, you first need to know everything. And i thought that you undestood that everything is not knowable. Writing will come later.

And then a writer/creator is required.

 

[PolyHedral]

Back to the square one. I will tell you an incident.

15 years back when i first earned a MS certified professional tag, i went to my boss to break the happy news. He was a genuine learning type of person. He was happy. He asked me a few things about Visual Basic. That time, OOP was in vogue and i described enthusiatically about reusable objects etc. He reflected for a few seconds and then spoke to himself, mumbling "Our guys have all become mere objects. Give them instructions and they will do that. They do not even ask the basis of the instructions."

...Yes. The metaphor is entirely accurate, assuming you want to allow what constitutes an "object" to become arbitararily complex.

To write everything, you first need to know everything.

Why would I want to even try writing everything? I only need to write specific things.

 

[atanu]

Why would I want to even try writing everything? I only need to write specific things.

To know the infinity through mind you will need to know every specificity first.:slap:

 

[PolyHedral]

To know the infinity through mind you will need to know every specificity first.:slap:

But I don't know to compute the results in order to know the algorithm.

 

[atanu]

But I don't know to compute the results in order to know the algorithm.

I do not follow you. I am aged and my hardware and sofware are outdated, you know?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

It is based on your proposition that inert materials are the source of life and intelligence. We have not seen one example of such. It is common experience that product of a structure cannot investigate the structure. To disprove this you have to show a product that can unravel its creator or owner or its source.

Me. Done.

 

[atanu]

Me. Done.

No doubt.:yes: