|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2012 : 14:05:49 [Permalink]
|
i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun.BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions.
If we were totally objective observers ,or else we had nothing to do with life,we would be able to see it.But unfortunately, we cannot do that, because of our perspective.We are a small part of these reactions and we are living inside the system, so we judge from a perspective that is confusing when you are trying to study what is life.
The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.
I don't know how can i explain it better, but definitely the whole idea is extremely easy , even though it is not passive knowledge. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 00:57:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun.BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions.
If we were totally objective observers ,or else we had nothing to do with life,we would be able to see it.But unfortunately, we cannot do that, because of our perspective.We are a small part of these reactions and we are living inside the system, so we judge from a perspective that is confusing when you are trying to study what is life.
The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.
I don't know how can i explain it better, but definitely the whole idea is extremely easy , even though it is not passive knowledge.
|
I think I agree with that. "Meaning" is always a subjective observation, and we are observing from splat in the middle of the randomly organized mess that is life. Maybe another way of putting it is that concepts like "meaning," "purpose," and even "design" are emergent concepts of self-aware observers? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 01:43:23 [Permalink]
|
| More ramblings. |
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 02:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun. |
Good! You're way ahead of most creationists in your understanding of biology.
BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions. |
And onw you lost me. Do you mean in respect to the laws of thermodynamics?
If we were totally objective observers ,or else we had nothing to do with life,we would be able to see it.But unfortunately, we cannot do that, because of our perspective.We are a small part of these reactions and we are living inside the system, so we judge from a perspective that is confusing when you are trying to study what is life. |
Are you alone elevated above this bias that we-the-living have because of us being a part of this life system?
The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.
I don't know how can i explain it better, but definitely the whole idea is extremely easy , even though it is not passive knowledge.
|
I don't see determinism everywhere. Nuclear reactions like atomic decay brings a randomizing factor into chemical reactions, making them non-deterministic.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2013 : 11:09:31 [Permalink]
|
We see determinism in biological procedures.Thats what i am trying to say.For instance, when you are studying embryology you see this extremely complex network of things that happen that all leads to the creation of a full child.Both at the macroscopic and microscopic level everything is so complex and so coordinated that they seem to obey in a deterministic rule:to create a new human.I am a arguing that our human perspective, as a result of all these , is what gives a meaning to these reactions, that are actually random.For instance, a little rock in the floor that is not involved in life procedures, doesn't see anything special about all these chemical reactions.
We must get rid of our misconception that our point of view is totally objective.After all, we are in planet that spins around itself, moves around the sun,our solar system moves, our galaxy moves...How much are we aware of all these in our everyday life?.Human is a part of the universe and actually a very small part.Every major breakthrought resulted from realizing that our point of view is not so objective(remember geocentricism, relativity etc)More breakthroughs will come by abandoning even more stubborn perceptions of self importance and rightness. |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2013 : 13:07:36 [Permalink]
|
To avoid misconceptions lets answer to some possible questions:a)how can an embryo creation be a random procedure?We already know the end result
answer:If life on earth as a whole is a random system, then in the long term some groups of reactions will gain repeatabitibity and will show cyclical patterns.In the long term only these repeatable reactions will mostly prevail because in every other case they would lead to dead ends and dissapear.This gives us the perception of reproduction.
2)how can all these hypothesis lead to anything credible?
answer:Remember that viruses are the scale where all our human made definitions about life become uselless and utterly fail.In physics for instance all current theories fail at the scale of the subatomic particles.So we create large colliders to study the properties of these particles, so we can create new theories and then to generalize them to see if we can explain a wider range of phenomena than before, and then we see if we can design experiments to test these new theories.
Similarly ,generalizing what we observe in viruses , to me its a great idea to test..
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2013 : 23:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
We see determinism in biological procedures.Thats what i am trying to say.For instance, when you are studying embryology you see this extremely complex network of things that happen that all leads to the creation of a full child.Both at the macroscopic and microscopic level everything is so complex and so coordinated that they seem to obey in a deterministic rule:to create a new human.I am a arguing that our human perspective, as a result of all these , is what gives a meaning to these reactions, that are actually random.For instance, a little rock in the floor that is not involved in life procedures, doesn't see anything special about all these chemical reactions.
|
But the rock has no mental process. It has no perception. It is not alive in any sense.
And the development of an embryo is not random, it follows a very sofisticated program from the moment of conception to the day the human die.
We must get rid of our misconception that our point of view is totally objective.
|
Who says we claim to be?
| After all, we are in planet that spins around itself, moves around the sun,our solar system moves, our galaxy moves...How much are we aware of all these in our everyday life? |
My senses aren't exact enough to detect galaxy movements, I can't even detect the different positions in earth's orbit from day-to-day. But I can rely on other people using instruments that have this ability. I can reflect upon this every day.
Every major breakthrought resulted from realizing that our point of view is not so objective(remember geocentricism, relativity etc)More breakthroughs will come by abandoning even more stubborn perceptions of self importance and rightness.
|
I don't believe this is true in the general way you claim. I can agree that some discoveries can be attributed to a change in perspective, geocentrism, for example. But remember, geocentrism was church dogma not a scientific conclusion. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2013 : 21:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
We see determinism in biological procedures.Thats what i am trying to say.For instance, when you are studying embryology you see this extremely complex network of things that happen that all leads to the creation of a full child.Both at the macroscopic and microscopic level everything is so complex and so coordinated that they seem to obey in a deterministic rule:to create a new human. |
No. A "new human" is a massively vague concept given the tremendous amount of variation between parent and offspring. We do not see determinism, we see stochastic processes sometimes leading to a seemingly pre-determined result. The fact of the matter is that some third of the meetings between egg and sperm don't result in implantation, and some largish percentage of implantations result in spontaneous miscarriages, all for a variety of environmental and genetic reasons, all random. But even ignoring all the sheer dead-ends, there's no way to tell what a child's fingerprints will be just from reading their DNA (for example). Random environmental factors ensure that despite whatever determinism exists at the quantum level on up, we'll never be able to detect or "read" it and know that things really are deterministic.| I am a arguing that our human perspective... |
There is no single human perspective. A utilitarian, scientific perspective (as described above) is a human perspective, just as is a mystical, theological perspective that imputes deific "meaning" to those same random chemical interactions.
Besides, you're using the term "objective" incorrectly. What you're describing as "objective" is actually "anthropocentric" (or even "egocentric"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 08:26:23 [Permalink]
|
Dr Mabuse
1)As far as i know,there is not such a thing as a scientific conclusion that anthropocentrism is the correct perspective.Its more like a human dogma.
2)A rock has no mental processes but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as an observer.There are physical laws in relation with it.For instance, according to mars or venus, the sun is moving.That doesn't mean that venus or mars have mental processes to realize sun's motion.
3)Science tries to find simple laws behind sophisticated programms, not sophisticated programms behind simple laws.Don't attribute human qualities to everything that is unknown.
Dave W
1)There is a random effect, but generally many things follow a specific program that the whole process cannot be considered totally random.But i am arguing that this is only because of our specific position in nature.Its like watching inside a mirror..
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 10:13:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
1)There is a random effect, but generally many things follow a specific program that the whole process cannot be considered totally random. |
First, there's a difference between "stochastic" and "totally random." Second, all of biology, at the molecular level, is stochastic. Things like this video make it look like cells are full of completely deterministic properties, but it's just for illustrative purposes. For example, almost halfway into that video, you'll see a representation of a kinesin molecule steadily marching down a microtubule. In reality, kinesin molecules randomly tap-dance along the microtubules, but with a preferred direction. Later, you'll see a ribosome plop right onto a pore in a membrane like it was called there, but nothing so neat occurs in real life. It'd be bouncing around in the chaotic cytosol until it got lucky (also missing are all the tRNA misplacements during transcription).| But i am arguing that this is only because of our specific position in nature.Its like watching inside a mirror.. |
I don't get the simile. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2014 : 07:59:44 [Permalink]
|
| There are tRNA misplacements during transcription, ribosomes are bouncing around a chaotic cytosol, but i agree all these are not totally random, but only if we consider ourselves as the absolute reference frame. If we are a sum of reactions and through our point of view we judge the very reactions that lead to us, it is normal that we would see a purpose in what we observe. This is not necessarily a reality, but it only be a result of our specific position inside the whole system we observe. After all, the power that forces the ribosomes to finally find their way are naturally occuring. Nothing supernatural occurs. Only our subjective consideration that finally happened the 'right thing'. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2014 : 19:41:42 [Permalink]
|
| No, even if we exclude ourselves, the reactions aren't totally random. Water molecules are shaped like they are because of the basic laws of physics, totally independent of our existence. Ribosomes lock onto membrane pores because of chemistry, not because we have brains and can see them do it. There is no "higher purpose" for a ribosome to to behave like it does, it just does, and it's a stochastic behavior, and still would be stochastic if we didn't exist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2014 : 11:15:20 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry I didn't respond to this post earlier. I missed it completely.
Originally posted by minass
Dr Mabuse
1)As far as i know,there is not such a thing as a scientific conclusion that anthropocentrism is the correct perspective.
|
It's not a correct perspective. It is a starting point. Our starting point, as flawed as it is. We have to work build a body of knowledge from somewhere, and since our perception is our starting point, the beginning of our work will naturally and necessarily be anthropocentristic. But I think calling it dogma is wrong, unless you take an active stance to put humans in the center and always first (as the church, and religions do, claiming Man to be the crowning achievement of creation). But that is not science philosophy. Science builds on the idea that there's an objective reality which exists separately from our perception.
2)A rock has no mental processes but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as an observer.There are physical laws in relation with it.For instance, according to mars or venus, the sun is moving.That doesn't mean that venus or mars have mental processes to realize sun's motion. |
Be careful now how you phrase your statements. There's a difference between observing and observing.
Being an observer in a metaphysical sense, or in an intelligent cognizant sense, or in a quantum physical interaction sense, is very different things and must not be confused or you risk conflating them. Conflation of terms will invariably lead you to flawed conclusions.
| 3)Science tries to find simple laws behind sophisticated programms, not sophisticated programms behind simple laws.Don't attribute human qualities to everything that is unknown. |
Who does? And, can you give us examples?
(Edited some spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/20/2014 11:24:56 |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2014 : 05:02:04 [Permalink]
|
I have previously explained a different viewpoint suggesting that life was actually occur in a kind of evolution and natural selection of random chemical reactions on earth that were becoming more and more over time in term of numbers and complexity with the help of external energy coming to earth mainly as solar energy has 2 basic philosophical implications. If life is seen as a whole, there is a constantly growing entropy as the system of random reactions is becoming more and more complex. Also the system of reactions continues to be random actually. We are a sum of chemical reactions inside this system and we view the whole system from an inside-out viewpoint. This particular perspective is the critical factor why we perceive a totally random system as sophisticated, deterministic, etc etc. (What is the value of living chemical procedures for a non living object (e.g. a stone) apart from meaningless random reactions?)
1)This seemingly obvious viewpoint can have major influence in other aspects of human knowledge apart from biology as well. In physics for instance. We are composed of some matter and we are participating in various moving systems that we don’t realize, like the motion of earth, the solar system motion, the galaxy etc etc. Thus we don’t have a totally objective viewpoint. In other words, we are not the perfect reference frame. This means that perhaps in physics, research should be focused in finding simple physical laws for more objective reference frames than us, instead of trying to invent more and more complicated mathematical models under the assumption that we have an objective viewpoint of things.
2)Life occurred in a system like our solar system that has some properties that can support it. Thus we are trying to find other systems out there with similar properties as candidates for extra-terrestrial life. However, our above mentioned viewpoint suggests that it is not the particular conditions that support life formation, but the fact that life was formed and we judge the system from our particular perspective. Thus, life can be formed anywhere theoretically.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2014 : 06:18:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
I have previously explained a different viewpoint suggesting that life was actually occur in a kind of evolution and natural selection of random chemical reactions on earth that were becoming more and more over time in term of numbers and complexity with the help of external energy coming to earth mainly as solar energy has 2 basic philosophical implications. If life is seen as a whole, there is a constantly growing entropy as the system of random reactions is becoming more and more complex. Also the system of reactions continues to be random actually. We are a sum of chemical reactions inside this system and we view the whole system from an inside-out viewpoint. This particular perspective is the critical factor why we perceive a totally random system as sophisticated, deterministic, etc etc. (What is the value of living chemical procedures for a non living object (e.g. a stone) apart from meaningless random reactions?)
1)This seemingly obvious viewpoint can have major influence in other aspects of human knowledge apart from biology as well. In physics for instance. We are composed of some matter and we are participating in various moving systems that we don’t realize, like the motion of earth, the solar system motion, the galaxy etc etc. Thus we don’t have a totally objective viewpoint. In other words, we are not the perfect reference frame. This means that perhaps in physics, research should be focused in finding simple physical laws for more objective reference frames than us, instead of trying to invent more and more complicated mathematical models under the assumption that we have an objective viewpoint of things.
2)Life occurred in a system like our solar system that has some properties that can support it. Thus we are trying to find other systems out there with similar properties as candidates for extra-terrestrial life. However, our above mentioned viewpoint suggests that it is not the particular conditions that support life formation, but the fact that life was formed and we judge the system from our particular perspective. Thus, life can be formed anywhere theoretically.
|
OK. Here is where you are loosing me.
You appear to be trying to attach meaning to biological processes. And you don't believe that physics should be as complex as it can be.
Biological processes simply are. They need no higher meaning to exist.
The thing is, when we are talking about processes in physics that only involve two or three variables, the formulae tend to be simplier. Such as determining force present in a body in motion. (F=MA) Get into multiple forces and the calculation by extension tends to get more complex. I don't think saying "this equasion is too complex, it must be wrong" works in physics.
As for life existing elsewhere and where we are focusing searches for extra-terrestrial life, that is based on where we have seen life before (I.E. here) and why we search for life (perhaps similar to our own) in Earth-like planets. Conceptually, it could also be on non-Earth like planets possibly non-carbon based. But there is no evidence currently for that not an impetus to search down rabbit holes quite yet. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
origin of life
