Mod+ Life - It's arrival, it's evolution, and so on [Resources][Biology][Evolution]

Discussion in 'Consciousness & Science' started by Sciborg_S_Patel, Apr 13, 2014.

  1. Like other resources threads, idea here is mostly to provide material for people wishing to investigate the topic.

    Some commentary/debate is useful but please, if such discussion seems to be getting long [over 3-5 posts] create a separate thread and link to continue.

    =-=-=

    One of Nagel's criticisms in Mind & Cosmos is that no one has explained life arising from nonliving matter to his satisfaction.

    Do we have any good working theories on this? I heard a guy from MIT was doing the math to show that life is an inevitable outcome of the universe's starting conditions but I'll have to track that down.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2016
  2. Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life

     
  3. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    What is he criticizing? The fact that science is incomplete and he wants answers before he dies? Does he criticize historians for the same problem?

    There are various working hypotheses, but no good theory. It's a tough problem.

    ~~ Paul
     
  4. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Maybe a problem harder than the hard problem of consciousness.
    A problem even harder to answer is-What is alive?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  5. Entropy & Syntropy: From Mechanical to Life Science

    23 pages organized as follows:

    Ch. 1: Discussion of mechanical concepts w.r.t. time & causality
    Ch. 2: Relativity and the "supercausality" of QM
    Ch. 3: Syntropy and a unified theory of physics and life
    Ch. 4: Discussion on how teleology is outside science's purview as backwards causation cannot be observed directly.
    Ch. 5: Attractors and Fractals
    Ch. 6: Quantum Consciousness possiblity
    Ch. 7: Overcoming the fracture between science and religion

    eta: Be sure to check out criticisms of syntropy in this thread.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2014
  6. What life wants: Dead matter has no goals of its own, yet life is constantly striving. That makes it a deep puzzle for physics

     
  7. Life’s restlessness

     
  8. Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

     
  9. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Just the thoughts of a layman:

    Years before knowing who Sheldrake was, I used to picture this first little cell miraculously forming, but being in a likely hostile primordial stew, almost immediately dying; I still can't help but speculate this scenario was very likely true . . . Though, who really knows. It was after finding morphic resonance that I realized a mechanism, which, if true, would allow for such a problem to be solved: one cell forms, dies, but now it's more likely to happen again . . . And this could of course apply to building blocks for the cell, too . . . though this certainly seems to imply intelligence being involved, which I believe there was . . .

    I actually emailed back and forth with Sheldrake about this a few times.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  10. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    How could a cell form in a chemically hostile stew? How could the chemical precursors develop? What explanatory power does morphic resonance provide. Specifically, how would a morphic resonance make that hostile chemical stew not hostile? One more question, can you define what you mean by hostile?
     
  11. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Forget "hostile, chemical stew," as the key phrase. The point is that I find it incredibly likely that the first cell to form likely died quickly . . . Due to any number of environmental reasons.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  12. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Ok. How does morphic resonance allow the first cell to survive destruction?
     
  13. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Well, it doesn't allow it to "survive destruction," but what it does say/(allow) is that once something happens once - in this case a cell forming (though then dying) - it's more likely to happen again . . .
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  14. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Also one could factor in what I was saying in my last post on Michael's thread on the Darwin's Doubt book about the uncanniness of a cell forming with, of all things, the ability to reproduce itself . . . It seems completely reasonable to expect the formation of this ability to take some trial and error . . . A few tries, if you will.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  15. Can the New Science of Evo–Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?

    Went through this last night, and over certain sections today, and it still leaves me confused. It's an nteresting piece, though it's a bit unclear exactly what Talbott is critiquing. He seems to be calling for a resurrection of Agassiz's idea that form arises from Mind, perhaps related to the observer-participancy proposed by Wheeler and extended by Josephson/Yardley.

    He even mentions the word "immaterial", yet later it seems like he's merely talking about aesthetic considerations that don't violate current scientific ideas that exclude Mind from evolution.
     
  16. Hmmm...It might be lack of sleep but I think the following got deleted during the Forumapocalypse:

    Die, selfish gene, die: For decades, the selfish gene metaphor let us view evolution with new clarity. Is it now blinding us?


     
    perandre and Typoz like this.
  17. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    I think it's safe to say that no 1-liner can possibly explain all of evolution.

    ~~ Paul
     
  18. conceptualinertia

    conceptualinertia Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    111
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  19. Thanks for the recs! Also check out Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life? :

    "We have inherited from our forefathers the keen longing for unified, all-embracing knowledge. The very name given to the highest institutions of learning reminds us, that from antiquity and throughout many centuries the universal aspect has been the only one to be given full credit. But the spread, both in width and depth, of the multifarious branches of knowledge during the last hundred odd years has confronted us with a queer dilemma. We feel clearly that we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole; but, on the other hand, it has become next to impossible for a single mind fully to command more than a small specialized portion of it.

    I can see no other escape from this dilemma (lest our true aim be lost for ever) than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them – and at the risking of making fools of ourselves."


    A bit outdated regarding things like quantum biology but still good.
     
  20. No.

    Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated)
    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

    Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories by Casey Luskin
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/top-five-problems-with-current-origin.html

    Life did not Arise Through the Unguided Action of Natural Laws
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/life-did-not-arise-through-unguided.html

    Primer: Summary of Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1510

    Materialism Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/materialism-cannot-explain-origin-of.html

    Survival of the Fakest
    http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014

Share This Page