Then tell me what bio-chemistry is all about?
Ummm ... the chemicals life uses for communication in it's various forms?
Then tell me what bio-chemistry is all about?
Watch the clip!Ummm ... the chemicals life uses for communication in it's various forms?
Actually bio-chemicals are the stuff from life (regardless whether you are talking this planet or not). Synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes is not the same as synthesizing life. To say the least, demonstrating how life arises from chemicals does not appear to be as easy as demonstrating how life arises from life.Watch the clip!
Bio-chemicals are the stuff of life on earth and almost surely are in abundance on other earth-like planets throughout the universe.
Competely incoherent statement........Actually bio-chemicals are the stuff from life (regardless whether you are talking this planet or not). Synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes is not the same as synthesizing life. To say the least, demonstrating how life arises from chemicals does not appear to be as easy as demonstrating how life arises from life.
If a bio-chemist is studying chemicals that don't come from life, they can drop the "bio".Actually bio-chemicals are the stuff from life
(regardless whether you are talking this planet or not).
When he begins by accepting the premise of abiogenesis, that's kind of a clue the discussion was theoretical, as opposed to demonstrative.Synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes is not the same as synthesizing life. To say the least, demonstrating how life arises from chemicals does not appear to be as easy as demonstrating how life arises from life.
A bio-chemist does not study non bio-chemistry. As Hazen said, living things use about 500 bio-chemicals.If a bio-chemist is studying chemicals that don't come from life, they can drop the "bio".
Oh and this statement by you is not "star trek"?Just in case you wanted to go full "star trek"
Are you claiming life created bio-chemicals?Musika said,
Actually bio-chemicals are the stuff from life (regardless whether you are talking this planet or not
When he begins by accepting the premise of abiogenesis, that's kind of a clue the discussion was theoretical, as opposed to demonstrative.
The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized
microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates. The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is unknown. They may have lived earlier than 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years ago, not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Champagne_vent_white_smokers.jpgThe earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are fossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.
Hence the "bio".A bio-chemist does not study non bio-chemistry. As Hazen said, living things use about 500 bio-chemicals.
I am claiming that synthesizing the chemicals life produces/has is not the same as synthesizing life.Are you claiming life created bio-chemicals?
Doesn't "conscious" include a sort of "ego", and the knowledge to be an individual?
But plants for sure have communication skills with other plants. And maybe some fungi and insects.
Yes. This is called life.While I agree that plants cannot think, they seem to be aware of their environment and will grow towards the light even if this light is some distance away.
The remarkable result of the experiment was that the second nearby uninfected tree somehow "knew" of a threat and also began to produce tannin, though it had no physical contact with the infected tree.
How did this "communication" happen?
How does it show it?The division of biology from chemistry and/or physics (as opposed to being a sub branch of such things) shows it nicely.
Emergentism, for example.Perhaps the first step along that path would be explaining how arriving at such a conclusion could be philosophically possible.
There you go again with your claim of it being "self evident".If you can't successfully encapsulate biology within the disciplines of physics and chemistry it's self evident.
Relevance?So does trying to go beyond the fundamental limits of empiricism.https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/what-we-cannot-know-auid-787
I am not the one holding that the universe is deterministic.Also do not be confused that you are just talking about what might be the case. Talking about a detetministic universe and proving it are completely different things ... especially when one can talk about proving a detetministic universe being logically impossible.
Sure, but the work they do does not show that necessary laws of cause and effect no longer apply.Thats a problem for the physicists. Professionals in biology and behaviour can still do their thing.
Please detail how I begged the question.Lol
Begging the question much?
Yes, it went from a "might" to detailing what the "might" would result in - i.e. the "actual" is still with reference to the "might".(Your discussion just went from "might" to "actual")
So you lied when you said "Yes, determinism means necessary laws of cause and effect."?So just a recap.
In order to prove the universe is not complely detetministic, one must first prove that it is deterministic. This may be a problem however because it appears to be not only logically impossible but also plagued by the possibility that deterministic phenomena need not be driven by necessary cause and effect.
But is it sentient?Yes. This is called life.
but in the Hazen, Seth and as well as the Hameroff clips, it is clear that sentience (sensory experience) is a chemical as well as a bio-chemical reaction to stimuli, at any level.Notice that your description of the communication doesn't imply any from of consciousness at all; it merely labels it as mysterious.
Oh, but you a wrong. It is true that a Mayfly emits pheromones, which males up to some twenty miles can "detect" and "recognize".The communication is biochemical. What does that have to do with consciousness?
No.But is it sentient?
You are using the word 'language' metaphorically.But, IMO there are as many languages as there are species, all atuned to and specifically recognized by the same species.
Yes. None of which require consciousness.Bio-chemicals (such as DNA) are just the building instructions from which living biochemical objects and organisms are formed.
If the constituent chemicals can be synthesized and then arranged the same way as they are in living things, how would you distinguish the result from living things?I am claiming that synthesizing the chemicals life produces/has is not the same as synthesizing life.
It's how the beings that are "synthesizing life" now do it, continually.I am claiming that synthesizing the chemicals life produces/has is not the same as synthesizing life.
Mathematical functions are a form of information which all things must follow. It is the language of nature.You are using the word 'language' metaphorically.
Right, I never claimed "consciousness", I claimed "sentience", the ability to respond to external and internal stimulation.Even if you wish to stick to that rather fuzzy definition, then it simply means language does not require consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SentienceSentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.
Right, I never claimed that. Plants don't need to know the lanuage, all they do is follow the instructions.Plants don't make up the words for their languages, any more than your proteins make up the language to communicate with your cells.
I disagree, IMO, this is sensory ability........dfference.Yes. This is called life
Which has nothing to do with the topic.Mathematical functions are a form of information which all things must follow. It is the language of nature.
Which is not what sentience means - even according to your Wiki reference.Right, I never claimed "consciousness", I claimed "sentience", the ability to respond to external and internal stimulation.
All life responds to external stimuli. It's part of the definition.Question; can a tree suffer? And how does it respond to injury? Chip a rock and it does not respond in any observable way, but a "living organism" does respond to external stimuli.
Anecdote: I had an apple tree which yielded just a few apples p/yr. My neighbor, a old time farmer, sggested I take a sledge hammer wrapped in a jute sack, so as not to damage the tree, and give the tree a few hard whacks. The idea is to cause stress to the system and thereby make the tree defend its existence by producing more flowers, resulting in more apples. True enough after hitting the base of the tree an few times, the next season produced a much larger numer of flowers and bees did the rest. Result, lots of apples (seeds).
This phenomena is known by all biologists, put a flowering plant under stress and the result is that it begins to spend all it's energy in order to produce flowers, a natural attempt to preserve survival of the species.
Because a chemical reaction in a molecule triggered by light causes a shortening of the fibres on that side of the stem.Why do flowers follow the sun's position in order to get maximum exposure? Why do the leaves of plants seek light? Why do flowers fold their petals at night?
No.If this is done via sensors, then by definition the organism is sentient, albeit at a very rudimentary level, not necessarily at a conscious level, but at a reflexive level. IMO.
I am not sure what you are asking. The difference between synthesizing life and synthesizing the chemicals life uses seems obvious. Bringing synthetic chemicals to a host doesn't circumvent the prime requirement for a host.If the constituent chemicals can be synthesized and then arranged the same way as they are in living things, how would you distinguish the result from living things?
So what? That only means that they are very patient. What's the difference between a synapse and a microchip?Unless you have evidence to the contrary, like a secret language of communication amongst automobiles, it makes zero difference to a car whether it is polished on display for a hundred years or totalled five minutes after leaving the dealers yard.