Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Musika, Mar 26, 2018.
Mushrooms (fungi) aren't plants or animals, they are their own thing.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Does it matter? What role or utility do you see between human consciousness and other forms of consciousness?
Is the ultimate purpose continuity of the individual or continuity of the species? Is there any purpose at all, other than a mathematical contuinity caused by dynamic change?
Grass definitely knows it's purpose. It has the ability to "grock".......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Heinlein)
And certain mushrooms are able to make us "grock".........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Castaneda)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But this may be more useful than a bad joke. The following is a defense of the Hameroff-Penrose concept of micro tubular consciousness as far down as in single cell organisms.
What would evidence of the "non-physical" in the physical look like? .... aside from a model of the physical that cannot adequately analyse everything before us ...
No, I am not talking about scientists proving what is already apparent. I am talking about scientists including dualistic approaches into their work (such as abandoning the "brainless" model if fatigue to increase athletic performance )
Well if they are scientists, and its working, a more obvious angle is that your ideas of science are constrained by ideology.
And it is routinely called reproduction.
Attempts to further synthesize the process (ie introduce artificial/man made/synthetic catalysts that take the process out of its natural context) are limited to synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes, as it goes about its natural process of reproducing.
So in all cases, the process is limited, contained and performed by the natural processes of reproduction. As such, there remains a clear distinction between synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes, and synthesizing life itself.
It means everything has a material cause, even if you want to obfuscate things through the vagueries of "emergence".
Some more clearly than others.
This is the very thing we are trying to achieve. If nature can do it, we should be able to, except no one knows the exact circumstances when the first reproducing polimer occurred. It took the earth about 4 billion years, why should we expect to just throw a few chemicals together and expect self replication. The Miller-Yuri experiment shows that molecules can be formed by the thousands in a very short time, but which is far too many, to learn much more than that chemicals are easily formed.
Hazen called the ideal condition as the "bottleneck ", i.e. a rare event when all conditions were just right.
But then he estimates that the earth has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion (natural) chemical experiments during it's lifetime and changes, one of which (or perhaps even several times) hit the right combination under the right conditions.
Not easy to duplicate in a lab.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But on his back-0f-the envelope notes he also does not exclude the possibility that "reproduction" might form in several different ways. He cited self-organization, surface organization, black smokers, and the formation of RNA all having the potential to form life, even as it may not necessarily be human. That would set an unwarranted limitation on the definition of "living organisms"
According to him, life (reproduction and evolution) has a high probability of occurring on other cinderella planets throughout the universe. The combinatory richness and numbers of universal chemical reactions is immeasurable. If there are other "earths" out there, some form of life is likely to exist there as well.
i am fairly convinced that for the creation of life there must be a moon that creates tidal movement.
no flow no life.
Perhaps you're right, but I myself cannot see that as absolute necessity for creation of life on earth. The very impact of Theia may have been responsible for the right condition, but such events are not exclusive to earth.
But, it is noteworthy that event did occur some 4.5 billion years ago.
And a mixing of chemicals, and then we get to panspermia, which IMO, increases the probability that life may have formed elswhere. The Universe is a big place.
they still havent figured out how the water got here have they ?
P.S edit above ... clarification specificity...
life in the forms that we acknoledge animals, i.e fish birds reptiles mamals etc...
i share the opinion that life is dominantin the known universe in microbial form.
getting it to walk and talk and build rocket ships however.. requires a few extra things.
thats where i place my current opinion that a tidal wash process is required.
something that creates long term movement.
like putting all the ingrediants for a cake in a box and expecting it to make its self into a cake.
no mixing = no cake !
no baking = no cake !
When you refer to "dualism" are you referring to substance dualism, or property dualism?
Most, I would imagine, when they hear the term "dualism" would assume that you are referring to substance dualism, but I suspect that this is not the case, so clarification would be welcome.
Otherwise you might create considerable confusion.
What is already apparent?
You do have a habit of simply asserting that things are apparent, or self-evident, without ever offering anything other than a rather glib notion to what you are alluding.
I am assuming by using the term "scientists" and "dualistic approaches" in the same sentence that you are referring to property dualism?
This is yet another example of where, rather than offer any actual example so that people can understand your point better, you simply claim that there are examples.
This really is not particularly helpful.
So any mention of bacterial reproduction - at least - is referring to the synthesis and arrangement, by a bacterium, of all the chemicals that make up another bacterium.
That's how they reproduce.
The process is not "limited, contained, and performed" by itself. The syntheses involved are the natural processes of reproduction in bacteria.
It would be the other way around, if anything. The reproduction is limited by the circumstances and requirements of the necessary chemical synthesis, which the bacterium may or may not engage in. The bacterium, on the other hand, is normally undertaking all kinds of syntheses other than those involved in the reproduction.
Perhaps Theia was a frozen ball of ice? There is a lot of hydrogen in the universe. It's the most abundant element in the universe and was formed very early in the life of the universe. There is your water and even without the moon we'd have tides caused by the sun's gravity.
can water coalesce ?
maybe earth was a molten lump centre (got hit-up by Theia) turned into gasious super baby giant which slowly cooled and gravitated the coalescent water to its surface over several million years...
but... how is oxygen created ?
it is not an element created by stars is it ?
As I understand it, some chemical reactions produce free oxygen
IMO, the fundamental building blocks of physical existence is of a chemical nature.
The Table of Elements may be incomplete but when we look down at nano scales of matter we find only chemicals and chemicals interact with consistent mathematical precision, given the same environmental conditions, which allow for symmetrical complexity in all physical things.
But speaking of consciousness, I just saw a remarkable NOVA presentation on Butterflies, a surface species alien to humans, just as the cuttlefish is an aquatic alien to humans, just as life around Black smokers is unique from all other life on earth.
I watched and marveled at the mathematical complexity of metamorphosis and the short but breathtaking life of this remarkable expression of evolution. A true NOVA quality presentation.
Not my problem. It's the problem of those who propose the idea.
But they aren't, and it's not.
Why couldn't that happen in a place where there are daily rains but no tides?
If we are talking about mental processes, it might look like this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180329141012.htm
and this: https://www.sciencenews.org/article...n-flowing?mode=magazine&context=194578&tgt=nr
Unless you are claiming that something without a defined mass, shape, size, lifetime, particular structure, or precise location, is "physical".
May I add "value" (potential) to the list?
Separate names with a comma.