Editor's Blog5 mins ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
17:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
Dear Khandro,
Ty for your post but I find it disappointing and inadequate in respect of your treatment of jomifl and indeed your ignoral or dismissal of many other contributors.
I don't bear grudges but remember e.g. your dismissal of my reasoning as "flim-flam" Please don't cite jake and clanad out of all the posts to support criticism of a sincere and wise example of chemistry at work.
You say the discussion is all about chance. Well you can't discuss chance without including probability. The bucket chemistry model was 100% right as was the probability of the reaction taking place.
And what about your post to jomifl saying "..my assessment of your performance..". Sorry but you are in no position to assess his or any rational contributor's performance as you lack the basic knowledge of the question you originally posed!
And please don't try the heinous trick of divide and rule. I refer to your phrase "scientific cohorts". There if no such clique.
To say that on AB, involvement is purely arbitrary is a truism but rudely out of place. Reminding people "where the door is" when they disagree with you is an ungentlemanly way to close a thread down!
If you don't pull yourself together and debate rationally I am afraid many or all of us will take the exit door leaving you to argue with yourself!
C'mon Khandro, "chair the meeting you called" to inspire contributors to continue and enjoy what should be fun for you and us.
SIQ.
Ty for your post but I find it disappointing and inadequate in respect of your treatment of jomifl and indeed your ignoral or dismissal of many other contributors.
I don't bear grudges but remember e.g. your dismissal of my reasoning as "flim-flam" Please don't cite jake and clanad out of all the posts to support criticism of a sincere and wise example of chemistry at work.
You say the discussion is all about chance. Well you can't discuss chance without including probability. The bucket chemistry model was 100% right as was the probability of the reaction taking place.
And what about your post to jomifl saying "..my assessment of your performance..". Sorry but you are in no position to assess his or any rational contributor's performance as you lack the basic knowledge of the question you originally posed!
And please don't try the heinous trick of divide and rule. I refer to your phrase "scientific cohorts". There if no such clique.
To say that on AB, involvement is purely arbitrary is a truism but rudely out of place. Reminding people "where the door is" when they disagree with you is an ungentlemanly way to close a thread down!
If you don't pull yourself together and debate rationally I am afraid many or all of us will take the exit door leaving you to argue with yourself!
C'mon Khandro, "chair the meeting you called" to inspire contributors to continue and enjoy what should be fun for you and us.
SIQ.
Let's move away from the fight. If I understand correctly, to be fair, Khandro, for all his ducking and diving, is asking a valid question. What is consciousness? What is a thought? We understand the mechanics by which a thought is produced, but we have no idea of the substance of a thought, so just where does that fit in – and should it be filed under the heading of ‘self-replicating molecules’? I think not.
Naomi, your question re. thoughts deserves an answer and I have been nagging away at how to express what they are in a lucid way. At present I haven't come up with a decent analogy that does the subject justice. All I can say at present is that trying to envisage a thought is a bit like trying to lift yourself with your bootstraps. You might just a well try to measure a rule with itself. Your thoughts are the electrical activity in your brain, well some of it at least as the brain does a lot of stuff below the level of conciousness. The workings of the concious mind are the most real thing the mind experiences, they may seem to be smooth and seamless but the brain doesn't 'know' any different. Just as when you think you see an image with your eyes, the only image is on your retina and most of that information doesn't get to the brain. All that gets to your brain is some encoded information about lines shapes and colours which appears to be an image because your brain cannot do any different. A lot of the brain's thinking goes on at a subconcious level without any concious thought. The concious brain seems to be a reporting system for what has been concluded in the 'back office'.
solvitquick; //Sorry but you are in no position to assess his [jomifl's] or any rational contributor's performance as you lack the basic knowledge of the question you originally posed!// Good God! does your arrogance know no bounds?
jomifl; Finally, (by naomi's prompting), you start to address the the question of consciousness - nothing to do with conscience-. I have stated earlier that I veer towards the Cartesian view, that is a refusal to adopt any proposition which cannot be clearly proven, science he said must be founded on self-evident truths, Descartes most famous self-evident truth being the renown cogito : 'I think therefore I am' I cannot doubt that I think without confirming that I am thinking, and therefore the judgement that I exist.
jomifl; Finally, (by naomi's prompting), you start to address the the question of consciousness - nothing to do with conscience-. I have stated earlier that I veer towards the Cartesian view, that is a refusal to adopt any proposition which cannot be clearly proven, science he said must be founded on self-evident truths, Descartes most famous self-evident truth being the renown cogito : 'I think therefore I am' I cannot doubt that I think without confirming that I am thinking, and therefore the judgement that I exist.
So what is the self-evident truth that says that molecules cannot be thermodynamically driven into a coherent state and so creating what we call "life"?
Also I can't help but notice that you go increasingly further back in time to find yet another great name to support your views. That misses everything that has changed in the field since then. When Descartes was around there was still no calculus yet; no-one had appreciated how tiny life can get, nor how varied it truly is; we were unaware of the true scale of the Universe, in either direction. Neither Descartes, nor Lao-Tsu, nor Buddha, nor some other great spiritual leader or scientist of the past, is worth invoking if you dn't also check what has changed since they were speaking. And the further back you go the more will have changed, almost perforce.
a page or so ago I linked to a paper that is one of the more recent steps towards an understanding of how life might have arisen naturally -- specifically, how self-replication in early life can be a perfectly natural process. That is the sort of thing you ought to be looking at to answer your original question.
Also I can't help but notice that you go increasingly further back in time to find yet another great name to support your views. That misses everything that has changed in the field since then. When Descartes was around there was still no calculus yet; no-one had appreciated how tiny life can get, nor how varied it truly is; we were unaware of the true scale of the Universe, in either direction. Neither Descartes, nor Lao-Tsu, nor Buddha, nor some other great spiritual leader or scientist of the past, is worth invoking if you dn't also check what has changed since they were speaking. And the further back you go the more will have changed, almost perforce.
a page or so ago I linked to a paper that is one of the more recent steps towards an understanding of how life might have arisen naturally -- specifically, how self-replication in early life can be a perfectly natural process. That is the sort of thing you ought to be looking at to answer your original question.
Jom, //Your thoughts are the electrical activity in your brain //
Thought is a product of electrical activity in the brain, but as far as I’m aware, the properties of ‘thought ’itself are unknown. Ideas can be examined, but we cannot examine the fabric of ‘thought’.
Jim, //Not sure Naomi's ever explained why the thought has to be anything more than its physical nature -- or perhaps something less strong, such as why even make that speculation in the first place.//
But we don’t know what its ‘physical nature’ is – that’s the point. I don’t speculate because I have no idea – and I’m happy to say I don’t know - which is why I have never explained it. I can’t – and, currently, neither can anyone else.
//how self-replication in early life can be a perfectly natural process. That is the sort of thing you ought to be looking at to answer your original question.//
That’s the sort of statement that precludes investigation. It’s tantamount to saying ignore that which we cannot explain and concentrate upon that which we can. We don’t understand how ‘consciousness’ works and in seeking the processes of the evolution of life, since that is relevant to life, Khandro is right to question it.
Khandro, by continually quoting other people you end up in the realms of airy-fairy land seeking the supernatural rather than a rational physical answer. I doubt we’ll find one in the ramblings of philosophers.
Thought is a product of electrical activity in the brain, but as far as I’m aware, the properties of ‘thought ’itself are unknown. Ideas can be examined, but we cannot examine the fabric of ‘thought’.
Jim, //Not sure Naomi's ever explained why the thought has to be anything more than its physical nature -- or perhaps something less strong, such as why even make that speculation in the first place.//
But we don’t know what its ‘physical nature’ is – that’s the point. I don’t speculate because I have no idea – and I’m happy to say I don’t know - which is why I have never explained it. I can’t – and, currently, neither can anyone else.
//how self-replication in early life can be a perfectly natural process. That is the sort of thing you ought to be looking at to answer your original question.//
That’s the sort of statement that precludes investigation. It’s tantamount to saying ignore that which we cannot explain and concentrate upon that which we can. We don’t understand how ‘consciousness’ works and in seeking the processes of the evolution of life, since that is relevant to life, Khandro is right to question it.
Khandro, by continually quoting other people you end up in the realms of airy-fairy land seeking the supernatural rather than a rational physical answer. I doubt we’ll find one in the ramblings of philosophers.
Naomi, Of course thought is a physical process, is there any evidence to the contrary?. I think you are trying to see more than there is re. 'thoughts'. If a stimulus produces a 'thought' and that 'thought' produces an action then all that is required is a bit of neural 'rewiring', nothing more. Jim's claim that the development of life is a natural process is beyond dispute, he hasn't said that it is not worth investigation. Khandro's world of snappy quotes and famous names doesn't seem to help him understand a damn thing. When he asks a question and gets a reasoned anwer which conflicts with his baseless preconceptions he insults the person who give the answer. I think he should seek his answer in religion since his mind is belief oriented. He certainly won't find it in 'science'
Jom, //Of course thought is a physical process, is there any evidence to the contrary?.//
No, and I’m not suggesting there is - and I agree that the development of life is a natural process. I don’t believe I’m trying to see more than there is – I’m simply saying that the processes that produce the thought aren’t the thought itself - they are simply the mechanism for producing it. Khandro’s ideas are steeped in religion and philosophy – but I see no reason whatsoever to attribute the unknown to the unknown, so I don’t think he’ll find definitive answers there.
No, and I’m not suggesting there is - and I agree that the development of life is a natural process. I don’t believe I’m trying to see more than there is – I’m simply saying that the processes that produce the thought aren’t the thought itself - they are simply the mechanism for producing it. Khandro’s ideas are steeped in religion and philosophy – but I see no reason whatsoever to attribute the unknown to the unknown, so I don’t think he’ll find definitive answers there.
In the discussion about duality, that is the view that the world consists of two fundamental entities; mind and matter, - directly connected to thought and consciousness, mentioning the name of Descartes "to support my views" is hardly inexcusable as the concept is inextricably linked to him, and is as valid today as it was in the 17th century.
Quoting one's sources is standard academic practice, and to call dualism the 'ramblings of a philosopher' leaves me rather speechless.
Quoting one's sources is standard academic practice, and to call dualism the 'ramblings of a philosopher' leaves me rather speechless.
There is no dualism - no seperation of matter and conciousness.
the problem with harking back to 17th century philosophers is that they didn't have access to today's evidence.
Today we know that conciousless is no more than electrical activity in the brain (matter).
We know that because we can see the effects when that activity is disrupted, conciousness can be impared or extinguished.
Mind is no more than behaviour of matter
If you don't believe me go and consume a litre of Johhny Walker's best matter and see the effect on your mind!
the problem with harking back to 17th century philosophers is that they didn't have access to today's evidence.
Today we know that conciousless is no more than electrical activity in the brain (matter).
We know that because we can see the effects when that activity is disrupted, conciousness can be impared or extinguished.
Mind is no more than behaviour of matter
If you don't believe me go and consume a litre of Johhny Walker's best matter and see the effect on your mind!
Dear Khandro,
I'll ignore your classication of me as arrogant simply because I challenged your qualifications to stand as Assessor of Contributors' to the question you originally posed - surely that is real arrogance!
You are rich on quotations from philosophers to physicicists - I've never met such a polymath as you if they originate from your past in-depth studies. I admire such wide knowledge.
I'm sure you do not get them from the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations or from searching the internet.
I know one person on here who is itching to support your accusing me off arrogance so carry on person "X".
Spat over Khandro? - Agreed? I dont want us to continue this way, rather I wish to rebuild on what I thought was considerable mutual respect. However feel free to respond to anything immediately above as it maybe taken wrongly and I don't want to end a spat with me having the last word.
Regards,
SIQ.
I'll ignore your classication of me as arrogant simply because I challenged your qualifications to stand as Assessor of Contributors' to the question you originally posed - surely that is real arrogance!
You are rich on quotations from philosophers to physicicists - I've never met such a polymath as you if they originate from your past in-depth studies. I admire such wide knowledge.
I'm sure you do not get them from the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations or from searching the internet.
I know one person on here who is itching to support your accusing me off arrogance so carry on person "X".
Spat over Khandro? - Agreed? I dont want us to continue this way, rather I wish to rebuild on what I thought was considerable mutual respect. However feel free to respond to anything immediately above as it maybe taken wrongly and I don't want to end a spat with me having the last word.
Regards,
SIQ.
No I'm not - I'm very much not
I'm saying without the brain there is no mind - mind is the manifestation of the brains activity
This is shown again and again with studies of people with brain trauma
Probably first with Phineas Gage who survived a spike through his head
http://
People at the time remarked on his personality changes
Since then there have been countless demonstrations of how the mind and personality is intimitely linked to the brain.
There's nothing mystical about the mind, it's a result of brain activity.
I'm saying without the brain there is no mind - mind is the manifestation of the brains activity
This is shown again and again with studies of people with brain trauma
Probably first with Phineas Gage who survived a spike through his head
http://
People at the time remarked on his personality changes
Since then there have been countless demonstrations of how the mind and personality is intimitely linked to the brain.
There's nothing mystical about the mind, it's a result of brain activity.
BRAIN;'The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of grey matter and white matter. It is the primary centre for the regulation and control of bodily activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting information to the muscles and body organs. It is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.'
MIND; 'The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.'
The former allows us to walk, the latter; Der Ring des Nibelungen.
MIND; 'The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.'
The former allows us to walk, the latter; Der Ring des Nibelungen.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
