unifying theory of life?

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi all in a previous discussion a definition of life was given and it is undoubtedly a reasonable definition. However is it not possible that it only applies to life on a certain scale.

Consider the -protein- concept. It appears that the universe does not do the protein thing so it cannot be alive. But much in the universe does fit the definition and all of the creatures that fit the protein definition are part of the universe in perhaps the same way as our cells are part of us.

Perhaps what is needed is a definition of life that applies to the really really big just as in physics there is the need of a way of looking at things that works for the really really tiny?
Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Hi all in a previous discussion a definition of life was given and it is undoubtedly a reasonable definition. However is it not possible that it only applies to life on a certain scale.

Consider the -protein- concept. It appears that the universe does not do the protein thing so it cannot be alive. But much in the universe does fit the definition and all of the creatures that fit the protein definition are part of the universe in perhaps the same way as our cells are part of us.

Perhaps what is needed is a definition of life that applies to the really really big just as in physics there is the need of a way of looking at things that works for the really really tiny?
Brian

Hi Brian;
Ok . .this is the second time 'round for this concept of yours, so its got me thinking a little beyond what intuitively feels like major incongruity.

Perhaps I can interpret beyond the detail, and meet you somewhere on the aspect of scale.

Try this one:
If the universe we see, appears to us, as resembling self-similar repeating patterns (eg: many galaxies are spiral, or elliptical), and we see this repeated over and over again, then why wouldn't the patterns and processes exhibiting the same self-similar characteristics formed and used by life at the other end of the scale, (ie: such as chromosomes, genes, mitosis, meisos, etc), also be evident at some larger scale ?

If we're on the same playin' field here, then the next question would be how big is the pattern, and at what point can we expect the repetition to show up ?

If we are, by some strange co-incidence, on the same playing field, (in terms of thought), then maybe there is hope of mapping your thoughts into scientific legitimacy. (Mind you, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just jump directly into scientific legitimacy in the first place .. its kind of a warm and cozy place to be for those out in the cold, mate )

(I'm getting a little cheeky .. and punchy .. I've been at this too long today).

Feel free to comment.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Craig I haven't been out in the cold since I left Canada many years ago. As for 'scientific legitimacy' I'm willing to try anything that ain't illegal, immoral, too unhealthy, or tooooooo fattening!

Regrettably we are on the same playing field but I think we are going in opposite directions. My point is that if the traditional laws of physics break down when pushed to extremes of size why not the traditional laws that govern life?

As a Buddhist I have no belief in the G-d that is found in the Judeo - Christian - Muslim beliefs. But I have also had simply too many unexplainable, by main stream western thought, things occur in my life to believe that there is not a sentient life force that can be tapped into.

Many many years ago I was called to a native community in Canada to be trained to be a village pastor. Eventually things began to happen that have no scientific explanation. Two examples;

(1) If someone in the village was approaching death Raven would come and warn me. This warning came in the form of a flock of Ravens approaching me in flight with one particular Raven that stood out.

(2) One of the elders was in hospital. The old women of the village and the young doctors of the hospital were all in agreement he was going to die. To help the family prepare emotionally I went with my communion kit and we held a small service for a final communion with a most loved elder.

He was unconscious so I dipped the bread in the grape juice and held it to his lips.

There was a sudden shock like what one gets when touching a frayed cord... he opened his eyes... smiled at me... went to sleep and a few days later returned home and lived for quite a few more years.

I do not write these things to claim credit or impress people with powers I most certainly do not possess. However there is a long list of such occurrences and their weight has led me to believe that there is a life force out there that science or indeed myself really do not understand.

So I just thought that I would see if science could consider the possibility that the universe is alive and sentient

On a similar line if one chooses to believe in Darwin et al is it not a logical outcome to see a sentient being come into existence that has no body which would certainly make it hard for its enemies to kill it.

Brian

[avandonk]

If you try to define 'life' at the fundamental level it is most probably self organising information or data set carried by matter that is capable of replication by copying information to another data set as is the case with simple viuses or bacteria. Sexual reproduction is just two lots of information that can be mixed to produce the new data set. Evolution is just random errors or additions or deletions to the data.

Complex molecules in a nice solvent say water will always interact in much the same way. If you think about life on earth the most important chemical bond is the Hydrogen bond and this can only occur in an aqueous environment. It gets very tricky in the vacuum of interstellar space as ionization states are not always defined. Hydrogen bonds do not exist as there is no bound water shell on any molecules.

The only production of precusors to life that exists across all space is nucleosythesis in stars and super novae. This produces the nuclei of heavier atoms so they can then go on to randomly interact according to the laws of Physics and Chemistry in some nice aqueous environment on some bit of rock where water is a liquid.

For life to exist at huge dimensions you would have to show a mechanism that allows self organization and replication. Just because something looks similar ie galaxies does not mean it was a copy of anything.

I can suggest a mechanism where all matter is for ever 'linked' and that is quantum entanglement. How quantum entanglement can effect the behaviour af ravens I have no idea. Coincidence is far more likely.

The Universe is alive and sentient. It is all of us on this tiny bit of rock called Spaceship Earth. The 'mind' of the Universe does not need to be everywhere just like your mind does not reside in your hair or fingernails as they are made of dead cells.
If the Universe is teeming with life then it is everywhere.

My puny mind is only giving ideas for questions. I do not have all the answers. If anyone says they do they are delusional or lying.

Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

Well, I'm afraid to say that his is a journey you may have to solo on …

Originally Posted by Brian W

My point is that if the traditional laws of physics break down when pushed to extremes of size why not the traditional laws that govern life?

'Why not ?', in this instance, is a fair enough question.

Originally Posted by Brian W

(1) If someone in the village was approaching death Raven would come and warn me. This warning came in the form of a flock of Ravens approaching me in flight with one particular Raven that stood out.

Expecting your observations to be viewed and subsequently interpreted the same way by others, is where science distinguishes itself. A flock of Ravens may fly by with one Raven standing out, where there is no correlated incident of death observed. The hypothesis, (or theory), is disproven. Reformulate another one, and try again.

Originally Posted by Brian W

(2) One of the elders was in hospital ….

2) The human body is a survival machine. (We have millions of years of evolution, and abundant evidence of this). Observer's anticipations of what they think will happen, is disproven all the time. An observer can influence the outcome, (eg: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The placebo effect is real, and has been demonstrated in controlled trials, when it comes to matters concerning human ailments.

Originally Posted by Brian W

However there is a long list of such occurrences and their weight has led me to believe that there is a life force out there that science or indeed myself really do not understand.

Brian, you can believe whatever you like … just keep the observations separate from that belief, and you'll see nature in a different light.

Originally Posted by Brian W

On a similar line if one chooses to believe in Darwin et al is it not a logical outcome to see a sentient being come into existence that has no body which would certainly make it hard for its enemies to kill it.

Darwinian Evolution is a Theory which gives a consistent, plausible explanation, which closely aligns with abundant observations.

Belief has nothing to do with it.
Belief is what humans do with thoughts and perceptions, and lots of other 'stuff'.

I don't have to believe in Darwinian Evolution. Neither does anyone else.
If there there is no need to believe it, then the second part of your above statement, whilst logical, dissolves in its purpose.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

[QUOTE=CraigS;705998]Hi Brian;

Well, I'm afraid to say that his is a journey you may have to solo on …


'Why not ?', in this instance, is a fair enough question.

Well at least I have a fair question.

Expecting your observations to be viewed and subsequently interpreted the same way by others, is where science distinguishes itself. A flock of Ravens may fly by with one Raven standing out, where there is no correlated incident of death observed. The hypothesis, (or theory), is disproven. Reformulate another one, and try again.

My point is that in this case that is exactly what has happened. In the culture that I was immersed this occurrence was observed and verified many times over many centuries.

2) The human body is a survival machine. (We have millions of years of evolution, and abundant evidence of this). Observer's anticipations of what they think will happen, is disproven all the time. An observer can influence the outcome, (eg: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The placebo effect is real, and has been demonstrated in controlled trials, when it comes to matters concerning human ailments.

Agree that all of the above, except the placebo effect (he was comatose) are possible explanations

Brian, you can believe whatever you like … just keep the observations separate from that belief, and you'll see nature in a different light.

but the observations are what created the belief.


Darwinian Evolution is a Theory which gives a consistent, plausible explanation, which closely aligns with abundant observations.

and so does the native, and my belief

Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi Bert
-For life to exist at huge dimensions you would have to show a mechanism that allows self organization and replication. Just because something looks similar ie galaxies does not mean it was a copy of anything.

I am not suggesting that it is a copy but that it is perhaps another stage in the evolutionary system. Perhaps more akin to a butterfly from a caterpillar.

-I can suggest a mechanism where all matter is for ever 'linked' and that is quantum entanglement. How quantum entanglement can effect the behaviour af ravens I have no idea. Coincidence is far more likely.

Coincidence is a possible explanation but this has been observed over centuries so it is a thin possibility.

-The Universe is alive and sentient. It is all of us on this tiny bit of rock called Spaceship Earth. The 'mind' of the Universe does not need to be everywhere just like your mind does not reside in your hair or fingernails as they are made of dead cells.
If the Universe is teeming with life then it is everywhere.

Agreed. However the above indicates that you believe you know where the mind is located. I certainly would accept that science knows where the brain is located but this is the first time that I have heard of where the mind has been located.

-My puny mind is only giving ideas for questions. I do not have all the answers. If anyone says they do they are delusional or lying.

Or perhaps they are merely wrong. When my wife was in her early 20's she had all the answers. Now that she is 45 and has earned a doctoral she does not even think she has all the questions. In her early 20's I do not believe she was either delusional or lying but she sure was wrong.

Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

This thread hangs upon one of the truths that has directed my life;

SCIENCE, OR PHILOSOPHY, OR RELIGION CAN ONLY GIVE US ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OUR WORLD VIEW CAN ALLOW.

Which may well be why the belief that travel enhances the person is so well accepted and why exploring the cosmos either in person or by machine is so crucial to humanities advancement.

Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

but the observations are what created the belief.

Whilst I agree that humans are experts in giving an observation meaning .. and thus leading to belief, I spend much of my time training myself mentally, to resist falling into this paradigm.

I also rely on others to keep me grounded in the reality which exists outside of my own mind.

From my experience, not making a conscious attempt to do this, represents a massively lost opportunity for advancement of knowledge of the real world.

I know this sounds strange, but the more I think about all this, and through my IIS experiences specifically, I find much strength and solace in approaching as much as I can, from as little belief, as I can muster.

In some areas, I honestly find I have absolutely no beliefs in anything, which is entirely conscious and deliberate. These areas usually end up being where I learn vast amounts. The areas where I have beliefs, I generally learn very little.

Hilarious, isn't it ?

Originally Posted by CraigS

Darwinian Evolution is a Theory which gives a consistent, plausible explanation, which closely aligns with abundant observations.

Originally Posted by Brian W

and so does the native, and my belief.

The difference being of course, I have no need to believe in Evolution.
Where there is no need, (or dependence), there exists freedom to explore other possibilities and an expanded view of the universe.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

This thread hangs upon one of the truths that has directed my life;

SCIENCE, OR PHILOSOPHY, OR RELIGION CAN ONLY GIVE US ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OUR WORLD VIEW CAN ALLOW.

Which is the reason for my not taking any of them as beliefs !
(See my previous post #9).
Don't believeany of them, and your world view will shift … enormously !

Originally Posted by Brian W

Which may well be why the belief that travel enhances the person is so well accepted

.. another belief, eh ?
What if there's something more fundamental behind the observation, which the conclusion, (driven by belief), rules out ?
Eg: Try on : Human's ultimate survival may be dependent on our innate explorative inquisitiveness. (See your next sentence).

Originally Posted by Brian W

and why exploring the cosmos either in person or by machine is so crucial to humanities advancement.

.. not just 'enhancement', there fella.
How about our ultimate survival ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

When braindead people cannot agree that dead cells is not where your mind is. I am wasting my time.
You as an entity are all of you.

If you want to invoke any sort of religion you are welcome to it. I find any sort of religion a pathetic copout for real analysis.

We cannot scientifically investigate mere superstition!

I happen to believe that the Universe started three minutes ago. Prove me wrong! I will bring up absolute idiocy to prove that I am correct!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Coincidence is a possible explanation but this has been observed over centuries so it is a thin possibility.

Consider: correlation is not causation.

The causal relationship I assert, is in the mind .. not in the real world.

I know of three different types of reality (some credits to Bert & others):

1. Physical Reality (or, Reality in the Real World): Reality in the Real World is characterised by the following powerful example: ”Jack Russell dogs exist because they can be measured, weighed and characterised, repeatedly, by anyone (not just me) !

2. Individual Reality (in one’s own mind): Example (i): ”I imagined that giant Jack Russell dogs exist then I observed a big mountain that must’ve been caused by a giant Jack Russell. So therefore, giant Jack Russells are real, (but nobody else knows that, except me).
Example (ii) : Feeling hungry - hunger is real, folks but when I’m hungry I’m the only one who knows it !

3. Reality by Consensus: Eg: What politicians practise - eg: ”Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real”.

3.1. Reality by consensus on a common demoninator (yet to be ratified): "Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a giant Jack Russell is”. (For this one: Credits to: Bert's Jack Russell, Steven's denomination).

… All a little light-hearted, but there is a point in it all. Mixing the four distinctions invariably results in confusion (and occasionally, delusion).

Originally Posted by Brian W

Agreed. However the above indicates that you believe you know where the mind is located. I certainly would accept that science knows where the brain is located but this is the first time that I have heard of where the mind has been located.

Brian, if the brain dies, or the head is chopped off, or the organ is anaesthetised, 'mind' is absent.

Originally Posted by Brian W

Or perhaps they are merely wrong. When my wife was in her early 20's she had all the answers. Now that she is 45 and has earned a doctoral she does not even think she has all the questions. In her early 20's I do not believe she was either delusional or lying but she sure was wrong.

Why limit this example to your wife ?
How about yourself ?
(It works for me as well. )

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Ultimate survival? Craig there is no ultimate survival of anything. There is only change. Interconnected and interdependent but change nevertheless. Humanity is simply another species heading towards extinction.

You said that if I will not believe science, religion or philosophy then my world view will change dramatically. I take it that I have expressed your [I]belief [I] properly? And that you have arrived at this belief after a long and honest process that involved many things not the least of which was the simple question; does it work?

Which strangely enough is also how I arrived where I am.

Stating the belief that by suspending belief I have attained a new and better belief is getting real close to doublethink. Or am I mistaken about your belief?

Brian

[snas (Stuart)]

If you try to define 'life' at the fundamental level it is most probably self organising information or data set carried by matter that is capable of replication by copying information to another data set as is the case with simple viuses or bacteria

Bert

A good point you raise. Even smaller than the smallest virus is the prion, one of which causes BSE (Bovine Spongioform Encephalopathy) or mad cow disease. Others include Kreutzfeld Jakob disease in people and also Scrapie in sheep. These "information carrying particles" can hardly be decribed as being alive, and yet they manage to carry information and reproduce themselves. Is this life? or is it not? Some far better biologists than myself are still debating this.

Stuart

[Brian W (Brian)]

[QUOTE=avandonk;706053]When braindead people cannot agree that dead cells is not where your mind is. I am wasting my time.
You as an entity are all of you.

I did not say that the mind was in my dead cells. Neither am I brain dead. I as an entity am connected to all that has gone before. Where did you start Bert? With your parents, with their parents, logic dictates you started at the same time everything else did.

-If you want to invoke any sort of religion you are welcome to it. I find any sort of religion a pathetic copout for real analysis.

I realize Bert you have a problem with religion. But please note that nowhere have I invoked religion as an explanation for two occurrences in my life. I have merely recounted two experiences that I have had and asked for some scientific help in understanding them.

-We cannot scientifically investigate mere superstition!

Of course superstitions can be scientifically investigated. That's why some beliefs are called superstitions... they have been investigated and found to be false and yet people keep on believing them.

-I happen to believe that the Universe started three minutes ago. Prove me wrong! I will bring up absolute idiocy to prove that I am correct!

I would be a fool to doubt your ability to bring up absolute idiocy... but my watch tells me it started 5 minutes ago.

Descartes walks into his favourite tavern and the barkeep says 'I take it you will have your regular' Descartes looks at him, ponders for a moment, says 'I think not'... and promptly disappears!

Brian

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by snas

Bert

A good point you raise. Even smaller than the smallest virus is the prion, one of which causes BSE (Bovine Spongioform Encephalopathy) or mad cow disease. Others include Kreutzfeld Jakob disease in people and also Scrapie in sheep. These "information carrying particles" can hardly be decribed as being alive, and yet they manage to carry information and reproduce themselves. Is this life? or is it not? Some far better biologists than myself are still debating this.

Stuart

No they are a very strange form of anything. They are molecules that are similar to common molecules in the brain apart from a mutation. The scary thing is they cannot reproduce but induce 'normal' molecules to shift their conformation into the 'rogue' form. They do not replicate. They just infect.

Nearly all so called brain problems such as alzheimers and many more work this way.

They also have the ability to get through the blood brain barrier.

Do not eat the nervous tissue of ANY animal! Brain, spine etc. Especially your dead relatives!

Bert

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

This thread hangs upon one of the truths that has directed my life;

SCIENCE, OR PHILOSOPHY, OR RELIGION CAN ONLY GIVE US ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OUR WORLD VIEW CAN ALLOW.

Which may well be why the belief that travel enhances the person is so well accepted and why exploring the cosmos either in person or by machine is so crucial to humanities advancement.

Brian

I cant disagree more.
Science and religion is NOT to be put into the same context, ever.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Ok Bojan, take religion out of it and I will stand by the fact, belief, statement, hypothesis or whatever other name you care to give it that science can only only give us answers to the questions that our world view will allow.

Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Ok Bojan, take religion out of it and I will stand by the fact, belief, statement, hypothesis or whatever other name you care to give it that science can only only give us answers to the questions that our world view will allow.

Brian

Is there a problem with that ?

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Is there a problem with that ?

Cheers

I believe there is. A diamond is not much to look at until the facets are cut in. Each and every facet adds to the whole and when done properly enhances and glorifies the stone.

Questions and answers limited to one world view are like a diamond with only one facet cut into it. So much is missing.