News6 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 mibn2cweus,
Splendid - a point of agreement that we have to agree on terminology to make real progress. E.g apart from mind and/or conciousness whatever happened to "soul" and "spirit"? They are all just words. Whether or not these are "separate entities is just a mish-mash which our forerunners DUMPED on US on AB to sort out.
I can neither agree nor disagree regarding your definition of the difference between "mind" and "conciousness" because I am too stupid to understand your argument. So for now I have stick with my thinking that they are both the same, differing in nomenclature only.
But hey there! You used the phrase "momentary awareness". Let's become famous (lol) and propose that conciousness is composed like light and electron energy shifts into quanta! Your and mine quantum theory of conciousness says these quantum waves occur at very high frequency in the brain and we interpret only the sum of these into an apparently continuous picture of the world.
It's analagous to the TV screen refresh rate of 60-100 hertz. Our brains see it as a continuous moving picture although it isn't.
Oh dear, not another Nobel Prize - I'll have to have a garage boot-sale to make space!
Respectfully,
SIQ.
Splendid - a point of agreement that we have to agree on terminology to make real progress. E.g apart from mind and/or conciousness whatever happened to "soul" and "spirit"? They are all just words. Whether or not these are "separate entities is just a mish-mash which our forerunners DUMPED on US on AB to sort out.
I can neither agree nor disagree regarding your definition of the difference between "mind" and "conciousness" because I am too stupid to understand your argument. So for now I have stick with my thinking that they are both the same, differing in nomenclature only.
But hey there! You used the phrase "momentary awareness". Let's become famous (lol) and propose that conciousness is composed like light and electron energy shifts into quanta! Your and mine quantum theory of conciousness says these quantum waves occur at very high frequency in the brain and we interpret only the sum of these into an apparently continuous picture of the world.
It's analagous to the TV screen refresh rate of 60-100 hertz. Our brains see it as a continuous moving picture although it isn't.
Oh dear, not another Nobel Prize - I'll have to have a garage boot-sale to make space!
Respectfully,
SIQ.
Dear Hypo,
Nope Hypo, regarding thought, you are way off beam. Thoughts are electric impulses travelling around our brains neural network. If I remember correctly this transmission occurs via standing waves of sodium/potassium ion exchange across the neuronal membrane.
They can be detected via electrodes implanted in the brain or attached to the scalp (see earlier) - no need for satellites.
So thoughts are chemical processes occuring WITHIN Naomi's fabric (the brain) - no need to ponder mass or momentum, although the electrons involved in the electric currents of neuronal tranmission have these, except when the little beggars "decide" they are waves.
Hence your idea of thoughts occurring in dimensionless(?) space would probably make a good science fiction novel. Indeed it might be just about feasible if you base it on quantum mechanics, notably Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle whereby if we can detect an electron's position we can't detect its momentum and vice-versa.
I apologise for any errors in the neurology and am open to correction. As a biochemist I always avoided neurology like the plague.
In fact I'm beginning to be uncertain of my definition of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, lol. Remember I just sit down and write, no checks or references.
Good stuff hypo,
SIQ.
Nope Hypo, regarding thought, you are way off beam. Thoughts are electric impulses travelling around our brains neural network. If I remember correctly this transmission occurs via standing waves of sodium/potassium ion exchange across the neuronal membrane.
They can be detected via electrodes implanted in the brain or attached to the scalp (see earlier) - no need for satellites.
So thoughts are chemical processes occuring WITHIN Naomi's fabric (the brain) - no need to ponder mass or momentum, although the electrons involved in the electric currents of neuronal tranmission have these, except when the little beggars "decide" they are waves.
Hence your idea of thoughts occurring in dimensionless(?) space would probably make a good science fiction novel. Indeed it might be just about feasible if you base it on quantum mechanics, notably Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle whereby if we can detect an electron's position we can't detect its momentum and vice-versa.
I apologise for any errors in the neurology and am open to correction. As a biochemist I always avoided neurology like the plague.
In fact I'm beginning to be uncertain of my definition of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, lol. Remember I just sit down and write, no checks or references.
Good stuff hypo,
SIQ.
I really ought to read the links LG posted but am in dire need of sleep just now. I was taken aback by the idea that something on the level of morals could be affected by electromagnetism!
Just to clarify though, I was following on from naomi's point which was trying to emphasis the difference between 'the thinking process' - the electical impulses within the brain - from 'the thought' - the thing which was being conceptualised.
I said myself that electromagnetism could stimulate neurons to fire and that effect, in itself, should be expected to disrupt thinking processes. 'A thought' consisting of zero mass and charge should, theoretically not be influenced by this e/m field. However, like the TV picture analogy SIQ has put forward it is a case of the thought having to be refreshed constantly by continuous neural activity so, I must admit, we are unable to separate the influence of EM on the neurons and the effect of EM on 'the thought' itself.
@jim360
When I said "dimensionless", I think I was describing what mathematicians would call a one-dimensional system. A pinpoint of zero size. Were it not for the fact that I'd have to be able to explain how we interact with it, I would say that its physical location could be 'anywhere' and not necessarily within our 4D frame of reference. ('Existing everywhere' not appealing to me just yet, fwiw) How thoughts happen within the confines of something of zero size is a conceptual difficulty to tackle later.
Just to clarify though, I was following on from naomi's point which was trying to emphasis the difference between 'the thinking process' - the electical impulses within the brain - from 'the thought' - the thing which was being conceptualised.
I said myself that electromagnetism could stimulate neurons to fire and that effect, in itself, should be expected to disrupt thinking processes. 'A thought' consisting of zero mass and charge should, theoretically not be influenced by this e/m field. However, like the TV picture analogy SIQ has put forward it is a case of the thought having to be refreshed constantly by continuous neural activity so, I must admit, we are unable to separate the influence of EM on the neurons and the effect of EM on 'the thought' itself.
@jim360
When I said "dimensionless", I think I was describing what mathematicians would call a one-dimensional system. A pinpoint of zero size. Were it not for the fact that I'd have to be able to explain how we interact with it, I would say that its physical location could be 'anywhere' and not necessarily within our 4D frame of reference. ('Existing everywhere' not appealing to me just yet, fwiw) How thoughts happen within the confines of something of zero size is a conceptual difficulty to tackle later.
SIQ; I think in descending (for want of a better word) order, it goes something like this: Consciousness -- Mind -- Brain -- Heart -- Living being -- and continues on to S-R molecules. On the forerunner of these we seem to be stuck.
It is interesting though that as all the cells in our bodies are constantly being replaced, and the slowest to be replaced are cells deep in our teeth which take about seven years to do so. It is salutary to note that as the physical SIQ of 8 years ago no longer exists, the only thing which connects him to that former person is his memory, the seat of which is his mind, which can only be ascertained through his consciousness which has no (sez me) physical existence.
It is interesting though that as all the cells in our bodies are constantly being replaced, and the slowest to be replaced are cells deep in our teeth which take about seven years to do so. It is salutary to note that as the physical SIQ of 8 years ago no longer exists, the only thing which connects him to that former person is his memory, the seat of which is his mind, which can only be ascertained through his consciousness which has no (sez me) physical existence.
"'A thought' consisting of zero mass and charge should, theoretically not be influenced by this e/m field."
Problem is that this is exactly what defines the photon, which is precisely the EM field. So in some way is would be influenced by it in the complicated manner described already by current theories.
"When I said "dimensionless", I think I was describing what mathematicians would call a one-dimensional system. A pinpoint of zero size. Were it not for the fact that I'd have to be able to explain how we interact with it, I would say that its physical location could be 'anywhere' and not necessarily within our 4D frame of reference. ('Existing everywhere' not appealing to me just yet, fwiw) How thoughts happen within the confines of something of zero size is a conceptual difficulty to tackle later. "
In that case you mean, I think, existing in a higher dimension rather than in no dimension at all (a pinpoint of size zero has no dimensions). It would be an odd thought that is so clear to us but also implies the existence of higher dimensions -- especially given that there have been extensive searches for such higher dimensions that have turned up nothing. Still, perhaps if only the thoughts existed in that it shouldn't be too surprising that we have found nothing. But then how would you look for it?
Ultimately, though, there is a very good theory to describe the properties of thought that already works well. Even though there is a long way to go for complete understanding, treating thought as a purely electrical process seems sufficient to explain its behaviour.
Problem is that this is exactly what defines the photon, which is precisely the EM field. So in some way is would be influenced by it in the complicated manner described already by current theories.
"When I said "dimensionless", I think I was describing what mathematicians would call a one-dimensional system. A pinpoint of zero size. Were it not for the fact that I'd have to be able to explain how we interact with it, I would say that its physical location could be 'anywhere' and not necessarily within our 4D frame of reference. ('Existing everywhere' not appealing to me just yet, fwiw) How thoughts happen within the confines of something of zero size is a conceptual difficulty to tackle later. "
In that case you mean, I think, existing in a higher dimension rather than in no dimension at all (a pinpoint of size zero has no dimensions). It would be an odd thought that is so clear to us but also implies the existence of higher dimensions -- especially given that there have been extensive searches for such higher dimensions that have turned up nothing. Still, perhaps if only the thoughts existed in that it shouldn't be too surprising that we have found nothing. But then how would you look for it?
Ultimately, though, there is a very good theory to describe the properties of thought that already works well. Even though there is a long way to go for complete understanding, treating thought as a purely electrical process seems sufficient to explain its behaviour.
@jim
//Problem is that this is exactly what defines the photon, which is precisely the EM field. So in some way is would be influenced by it in the complicated manner described already by current theories.//
Swing and a miss.
If I say the word 'apple', a pattern of electrical activity occurs in your brain. For that aspect, I use the phrase tokens "thought process", "thinking process", "neural activity".
However, the --concept-- of 'apple' exists in everyone's brain. The exact matrix of neural activity required to generate this (or any) concept doesn't have to be the same size or shape. Different people will picture different varieties of apple.
Using the phrase token 'a thought', what I was saying is that the concept part is not, itself, a material thing. Hence all the stuff about zero mass and charge. I must clamp down further and insist that it contains no EM and no energy whatever. A completely abstract thing.
Warn me when I stray into metaphysics territory, will you? ;-)
//Still, perhaps if only the thoughts existed in that it shouldn't be too surprising that we have found nothing. But then how would you look for it?//
If physics detector equipment is a language, I don't speak it. Sorry.
This is where the idea breaks down but then we're left with the conclusion that they'll have to muck along in 4D, like the rest of the universe.
// treating thought as a purely electrical process seems sufficient to explain its behaviour. //
As long as telepathy and its ilk remain in the 'debunked' quantum state, yes.
//Problem is that this is exactly what defines the photon, which is precisely the EM field. So in some way is would be influenced by it in the complicated manner described already by current theories.//
Swing and a miss.
If I say the word 'apple', a pattern of electrical activity occurs in your brain. For that aspect, I use the phrase tokens "thought process", "thinking process", "neural activity".
However, the --concept-- of 'apple' exists in everyone's brain. The exact matrix of neural activity required to generate this (or any) concept doesn't have to be the same size or shape. Different people will picture different varieties of apple.
Using the phrase token 'a thought', what I was saying is that the concept part is not, itself, a material thing. Hence all the stuff about zero mass and charge. I must clamp down further and insist that it contains no EM and no energy whatever. A completely abstract thing.
Warn me when I stray into metaphysics territory, will you? ;-)
//Still, perhaps if only the thoughts existed in that it shouldn't be too surprising that we have found nothing. But then how would you look for it?//
If physics detector equipment is a language, I don't speak it. Sorry.
This is where the idea breaks down but then we're left with the conclusion that they'll have to muck along in 4D, like the rest of the universe.
// treating thought as a purely electrical process seems sufficient to explain its behaviour. //
As long as telepathy and its ilk remain in the 'debunked' quantum state, yes.
Dear Khandro,
Ty for your communication. I'm so pleased we are back to friendly debate.
I have three points to make, the last of which you are probably very interested in.
(a) My order of importance in individual life development is:
Life - bodily organs/brain -conciousness-thinking (notably curiosity) - learning - storage in the brain's memory - application of learning - survival/reproduction. Note my order is "mindless", lol.
Evidence? Frog spawn!
Those tranparent spherical bodies with a black nucleus. These frog eggs are alive but lack all the other properties. The black nucleus contains the DNA which codes entirely for the eventual frog. The clear part (cytoplasm) contains the proteins inc. enzymes by which the DNA code is progressively unzipped in "small" regions and translated to mRNA etc. in a DNA-code-dictated order to yield, via metamorphosis:
A frog!
You are intelligent enough to fill in the gaps and hence see my order above even tho' you disagree with it.
By the way, the first cloning was done using frog spawn to yield cloned frogs. This is because the nucleus is so big, it can be extracted via a pasteur pipette under a binocular microscope. Carried out by Sydney Brenner, Cambridge University in the 1960's if I remember correctly I was doing my Ph.D at the time and very excited and inspired by the news although it was nowhere near to my type of biochemical study.
(b) Please, please give me your definition of "mind" as a separate entity from conciousness and the brain. What is this entity which you rank between the latter two?
The "mind" doesn't exist in my list as I've argued earlier in the thread, I contend it's a history-inherited word meaning conciousness.
(c) Surely you are a great believer in the german originated concept of Gestalt: "The total is greater than the sum of its individual parts". True and beautiful - take your PC for example. Just bits of plastic, metal and silicon etc., but when put together here we are chatting.
I can't be specific but am sure this applies to the jellied-meat we call the brain.
Waddya think Khandro?
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Ty for your communication. I'm so pleased we are back to friendly debate.
I have three points to make, the last of which you are probably very interested in.
(a) My order of importance in individual life development is:
Life - bodily organs/brain -conciousness-thinking (notably curiosity) - learning - storage in the brain's memory - application of learning - survival/reproduction. Note my order is "mindless", lol.
Evidence? Frog spawn!
Those tranparent spherical bodies with a black nucleus. These frog eggs are alive but lack all the other properties. The black nucleus contains the DNA which codes entirely for the eventual frog. The clear part (cytoplasm) contains the proteins inc. enzymes by which the DNA code is progressively unzipped in "small" regions and translated to mRNA etc. in a DNA-code-dictated order to yield, via metamorphosis:
A frog!
You are intelligent enough to fill in the gaps and hence see my order above even tho' you disagree with it.
By the way, the first cloning was done using frog spawn to yield cloned frogs. This is because the nucleus is so big, it can be extracted via a pasteur pipette under a binocular microscope. Carried out by Sydney Brenner, Cambridge University in the 1960's if I remember correctly I was doing my Ph.D at the time and very excited and inspired by the news although it was nowhere near to my type of biochemical study.
(b) Please, please give me your definition of "mind" as a separate entity from conciousness and the brain. What is this entity which you rank between the latter two?
The "mind" doesn't exist in my list as I've argued earlier in the thread, I contend it's a history-inherited word meaning conciousness.
(c) Surely you are a great believer in the german originated concept of Gestalt: "The total is greater than the sum of its individual parts". True and beautiful - take your PC for example. Just bits of plastic, metal and silicon etc., but when put together here we are chatting.
I can't be specific but am sure this applies to the jellied-meat we call the brain.
Waddya think Khandro?
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
SIQ; To tired to reply cohesively now (this really is set to run longer than 'The Mousetrap') If you are still about, maybe you could have a look at http://
jom; You are becoming more and more metaphysical by the day ! :-)
jom; You are becoming more and more metaphysical by the day ! :-)
Dear Khandro,
I understand your tiredness. After a short break perhaps you should have started a new thread.
Please take your time with my 3-point post.
I suggest, if you wish to reply (I hope so), that you break it down to a point at a time in separate posts.
I really would be fascinated by your views.
With best wishes,
SIQ.
I understand your tiredness. After a short break perhaps you should have started a new thread.
Please take your time with my 3-point post.
I suggest, if you wish to reply (I hope so), that you break it down to a point at a time in separate posts.
I really would be fascinated by your views.
With best wishes,
SIQ.
Dear jomifl,
"Life is a wave of organisation through which matter travels".
What in the name of Jesus H. Christ does that mean? - using sane terminology please. Or draw me a picture as I am so thick.
Pmsl!
I think even Khandro must be in total shock at one of the weirdest statements ever made on AB. Well maybe not, he's very open minded.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
P.S I've wet my trousers with laughter and it's all your fault jomifl!
"Life is a wave of organisation through which matter travels".
What in the name of Jesus H. Christ does that mean? - using sane terminology please. Or draw me a picture as I am so thick.
Pmsl!
I think even Khandro must be in total shock at one of the weirdest statements ever made on AB. Well maybe not, he's very open minded.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
P.S I've wet my trousers with laughter and it's all your fault jomifl!
Dear Jim and Hypo,
It's very late and I'm way out of my field - hence confused but please correct and educate me.
I thought the surface of the Mobious Strip was a one dimensional "thing".
And I thought a dimensionless point was a "singularity".
Also, can you comment on jomifl's statement "Life is a wave of organisation through which matter travels"
My Thursday tactic is and has been to chuck out lots of questions to get a peaceful Friday just reading answers - if any are worth the effort.
Oops, it's Friday already.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
It's very late and I'm way out of my field - hence confused but please correct and educate me.
I thought the surface of the Mobious Strip was a one dimensional "thing".
And I thought a dimensionless point was a "singularity".
Also, can you comment on jomifl's statement "Life is a wave of organisation through which matter travels"
My Thursday tactic is and has been to chuck out lots of questions to get a peaceful Friday just reading answers - if any are worth the effort.
Oops, it's Friday already.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
@SIQ
I'll tackle this in reverse order, starting with the familiar
3 dimensions - left-right, forward-back, up-down
2 dimensions - a flat plane of zero thickness. In a 'thought experiment' written description of a 2D flat world, some artistic licence was taken, granting its inhabitants the ability to walk on the surface of a planet, a surface which couldn't exist without the third dimension. All the same, flatworld's inhabitants can only walk so far before they meet someone coming the other way and cannot walk through them. There is no going around them to get past one another.
1 dimension - a line of zero thickness but freedom of movement along the line.
0 dimensions - a point of zero size. No movement is possible; there are no directions to travel in, 'inside' and 'outside' have no meaning, there is no space for matter to exist in. Whether or not the mathematics of it means it can contain pure energy is something I'll have to leave up to the experts.
I think this fits the description of 'singularity'. Plays havoc with a lot of otherwise perfectly serviceable astrophysics equations... (chortle)
The Mobius Strip? I'm not sure how it is classified. It has one face and one edge but you need to have 3 dimensions in which to manipulate the object to show that this is the case.
I'll tackle this in reverse order, starting with the familiar
3 dimensions - left-right, forward-back, up-down
2 dimensions - a flat plane of zero thickness. In a 'thought experiment' written description of a 2D flat world, some artistic licence was taken, granting its inhabitants the ability to walk on the surface of a planet, a surface which couldn't exist without the third dimension. All the same, flatworld's inhabitants can only walk so far before they meet someone coming the other way and cannot walk through them. There is no going around them to get past one another.
1 dimension - a line of zero thickness but freedom of movement along the line.
0 dimensions - a point of zero size. No movement is possible; there are no directions to travel in, 'inside' and 'outside' have no meaning, there is no space for matter to exist in. Whether or not the mathematics of it means it can contain pure energy is something I'll have to leave up to the experts.
I think this fits the description of 'singularity'. Plays havoc with a lot of otherwise perfectly serviceable astrophysics equations... (chortle)
The Mobius Strip? I'm not sure how it is classified. It has one face and one edge but you need to have 3 dimensions in which to manipulate the object to show that this is the case.
^^ For "Khandro" read "idiot" :-) jomifl, your Christmas present; Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
