1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

0

When was life created?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Was life created in the big bang? Was it something that formed later from various chemical compounds? Was it not in the design of the big bang to supply a universe conducive to life? Is life within the essence of intelligence, is intelligence the result of many years of evolution or are they (life/intelligence) both somehow interdependent?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,129 • Replies: 30

No top replies

Re: When was life created?
Hi Rex,

RexRed wrote:

Was life created in the big bang?

Along with the Universe, which began with the Big Bang, the potential for life was created. But life itself, as we know it, is composed of elements which didn't exist until millions of years after the Big Bang. It took at least one generation of stars to construct the heavier elements which compose organic life of the type we are familiar with.

RexRed wrote:

Was it something that formed later from various chemical compounds?

Yes. Stellar evolution leads to heavy elements which then accumulate to form planets and moons, some of which have combinations of elements and conditions which make life as we know it possible.

The reasong I keep saying "life as we know it" is because there could be a myriad of other forms of life based on different compounds or energy forms, which we don't yet know exist. But at the very least, we know of one: The Earth, and its biology, so I'll stick with that as the basis for answers here.

RexRed wrote:

Was it not in the design of the big bang to supply a universe conducive to life?

If naturalism (as a concept) is true, then the Universe itself has within it the capacity to construct life, and awareness. Whether that capacity was put there intentionally, or just *is* there as natural aspect of the Big Bang itself, nobody knows.

RexRed wrote:

Is life within the essence of intelligence, is intelligence the result of many years of evolution or are they (life/intelligence) both somehow interdependent?

Bacteria and Plants are alive, but not intelligent.

Intelligence seems to be a result of Information density. With memory for storage, and billions of high speed neurons for organization, information systems seem to evolve from an ocean of impulses just as organics evolved in the sea. The process of evolution seems buried at the heart of the Universe itself, almost as if the rules themselves were the first seed of life.

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

rosborne979 wrote:

Hi Rex,

RexRed wrote:
Was life created in the big bang?

Along with the Universe, which began with the Big Bang, the potential for life was created. But life itself, as we know it, is composed of elements which didn't exist until millions of years after the Big Bang. It took at least one generation of stars to construct the heavier elements which compose organic life of the type we are familiar with.

RexRed wrote:
Was it something that formed later from various chemical compounds?

Yes. Stellar evolution leads to heavy elements which then accumulate to form planets and moons, some of which have combinations of elements and conditions which make life as we know it possible.

The reasong I keep saying "life as we know it" is because there could be a myriad of other forms of life based on different compounds or energy forms, which we don't yet know exist. But at the very least, we know of one: The Earth, and its biology, so I'll stick with that as the basis for answers here.

RexRed wrote:
Was it not in the design of the big bang to supply a universe conducive to life?

If naturalism (as a concept) is true, then the Universe itself has within it the capacity to construct life, and awareness. Whether that capacity was put there intentionally, or just *is* there as natural aspect of the Big Bang itself, nobody knows.

RexRed wrote:
Is life within the essence of intelligence, is intelligence the result of many years of evolution or are they (life/intelligence) both somehow interdependent?

Bacteria and Plants are alive, but not intelligent.

Intelligence seems to be a result of Information density. With memory for storage, and billions of high speed neurons for organization, information systems seem to evolve from an ocean of impulses just as organics evolved in the sea. The process of evolution seems buried at the heart of the Universe itself, almost as if the rules themselves were the first seed of life.

Rosborne

Thanks! Your answers have always been the best... Someday I would personally like to have a bit more of your observation/education and scientific skills.

I feel that the big bang does not really explain much about the beginnings of life. One would suppose that the purpose of stars is to eventually hold and shape life. Yet the scientists do not tell where the substance (or lack thereof) came from to create the conditions for a big bang in the first place. The chemistry or composition of the substances that produced the "big bang"... did they always exist? Could they not have had life somehow pre-composed in their eventual outcome.

I feel the the scientists are just speaking light into being (just like the Bible) and not considering that light or the lack thereof existed before the big bang. If this is the case then what makes us think that life had to "first evolve" from a big bang or star but to have existed in some shape or form prior to the big bang. The big bang was the conduit to produce the conditions for life. I can only suppose the big bang had life comprised as "intelligence" within. To know the possible outcomes of DNA and the probability of life in such a great expanse. Life seems to be the only true purpose of the physical universe.

I would be more inclined to say the universe is a product of life and not the other way around. Life like a seed must be planted and does not grow under improper conditions. Life does not grow where there is no seed. Life was planted in the big bang like a seed... Which this only makes one wonder who sows such a seed? It takes life to procreate or pass on life. So what type of creature would give birth to a "big bang" but another universe?

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?
Hi Rex,

RexRed wrote:

I feel that the big bang does not really explain much about the beginnings of life.

I think it's important to remember that science doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, it only tries to explain how the natural world works. Current scientific models are very successful at predicting and explaining the physics of the Universe way back to only moments after the Big Bang, so that much we are pretty solid on, but all our information stops at the Big Bang, and nothing testible in science goes back before the Big Bang, so science can say nothing about "causes".

To its credit, science does not even try to explain such things, it merely says "we don't know". Science does however proceed from an assumption of Naturalism (the idea that the supernatural does not exist), which sometimes makes people think that science is making a statement about the existence of God, when in fact it is not. Naturalism is just a tool for doing science, and it is an assumption, but it is not considered "absolute" knowledge.

RexRed wrote:

I feel the the scientists are just speaking light into being (just like the Bible) and not considering that light or the lack thereof existed before the big bang.

Unlike the Bible, science makes no claims in this area. It simply doesn't know.

RexRed wrote:

Life like a seed must be planted and does not grow under improper conditions. Life does not grow where there is no seed. Life was planted in the big bang like a seed... Which this only makes one wonder who sows such a seed? It takes life to procreate or pass on life. So what type of creature would give birth to a "big bang" but another universe?

We need to be careful not to limit the Universe to those things which match our own experiences, because we don't know all there is to know, and we haven't seen all there is to see.

For example, before we understood evolution and natural selection, nobody could understand how complex organisms could develop without intelligent guidance. Without some selecting mechanism, pure randomness would have prevented anything from evolving. But after Natural Selection was identified it became clear that there was an actual mechanism, built into nature, which altered the balance of randomness which would otherwise have prevented complexity from evolving.

Likewise, the Universe may have more tricks buried in its inate structure which we do not yet understand, and which may change our view of how life evolves and grows, and what its limits are.

For myself, I find it very satisfying to realize that life is a natural part of a Universe which carries within it the potential to evolve life without any intelligent intervention. This says really good things about the Universe itself, and really gives us an inate connection to it, because we are the Universe in many ways, and we are aware.

Religion tells us so many things which aren't true, and it requires so much blind faith that it feels very insecure to me. But science is telling us things which don't require faith, and which are observable and consistent, and the implication of what it's telling us are as profound as anything ever dreamed of by any religion.

0 Replies

Rosborne
Please forgive me I am rambling... I know when I do this it show my lack of understanding in this subject but I am still curious. Smile

Smile

Comment:
Cannot science at least consider or theorize that the universe had to be created by a similarly physical entity that has the function of creating universes? Science teaches us we humans were not just placed here on the earth by a "God" at some point in time in the past... but then traces the universe back and says implies that it just came out of absolutely nothing... this is the puzzle of science.

The Christians have claimed this about humans that we were "just created" on the planet 6ooo or so years ago. This is preposterous against the scientific evidence that supports evolution. Yet the same science tells us that, there is nothing perceivable before the creation of our universe. This must be meant as a joke on the Christians...

What about the simplest rules in science do they leave off right before the "big bang"? Rules like... "matter is never created or destroyed"? Yet they have all physical matter, all time and space being created at a single point in the past. Does this not seem hypocritical?

I seem to think it is not too much of a stretch to consider that much like the way humans evolved on earth is like how life evolved in the universe. Life/Humans were constrained by the physical limitations of the environment around them.

I see parallels that seem to fit because they are both part of the same physical model. Life evolving in a nebulous cloud for millions of years is really just continued by humans evolving on a physical rock or a universe evolving from a black hole... It is still the physical constraints of the universe that has fostered this phenomenon. It would only come to make sense that whatever fostered this universe was also constrained by the same intelligence that has run throughout. It is the model that seems to never change although the medium is dynamic.

A black hole could be inverted universes solely independent of ours is not that far of a stretch from the theories already in circulation. That big bangs can be happening in black holes is not that far fetched. Can they prove it? Well I would say they do not need to prove it.. that fact that we are here is the proof. If we cannot see before the big bang that just proves the idea that we are within a "super" black hole that does not allow anything to peer beyond it's own inception....

The same intelligence within life is in the big bang. The big bang inertly sets the parameters to form the resulting universe based upon it's inherent character. To imply that matter was "created" by the big bang and not that the big bang was a set of rules that were applied that deep within a black hole is a world of "space" and is ripe for a big bang or world within a world... That empty "new" space lies in total darkness and void... This physical world passes on an intelligence that codes for life.

That light and gravity made life. Or that life was a result of light and gravity. More that the big bang was a result of light and gravity and even magnetism or dualism not the other way around. That light and gravity are not the products of the big bang but are the qualities passed down from what ever it was that started the big bang in the first place.

To find the beginning of all one must go to the end of all.. One must find the purpose of all to find the reasons for why? It is intelligence... It is what is theorized and supposed that leads to higher learning that reflects the purpose of the physical world to be a carrier for intelligence. Thus it is intelligence that has made all "in the beginning"... If intelligence is the fruit than intelligence is the parent. Creation breeds intelligence thus before creation was intelligence. Intelligence evolved into creation...

I just think the scientist can occasionally lay down their telescopes and charts and make a "guess" based upon the trends and superlatives of fundamental laws and their keen insight. We can use science to see future patterns and the fingerprints and heartbeat of the thing that has impressioned us. We see the energy around us exploding and slowly dieing but we are oblivious to the dark energy, the secrets of life and the new creation of big bangs.

It would seem that no matter what... there would have to be two things present before the big bang anyway... Some sort of matter and some sort of energy... If not physical energy then "intellectual" energy. Hehe oh well I have gone on long enough thx Smile

Smile

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Rosborne
Please forgive me I am rambling... I know when I do this it show my lack of understanding in this subject but I am still curious.

I like your ramblings Rex, you said some things in here that I found quite thoughtful.

RexRed wrote:

Comment:
Cannot science at least consider or theorize that the universe had to be created by a similarly physical entity that has the function of creating universes?

Scientists, being people, can theorize anything they want, but in order for it to be a "scientific" theory, it has to play by the rules of science, and one of those rules is an assumption of Naturalism. Many people don't realize that science is not allowed (by its own rules), to include anything supernatural in any of its theories.

The basic reason for this was to prevent people from proclaiming "magic" as a function of cause and effect. If science allowed magic (anything supernatural) in its theories, then literally everything could be explained by whatever magic someone thought up. Why is the sky blue? A magic elf made it that way. How did the Earth get made? An all powerful demon willed it into existence. How did Humans get here? God created Adam and Eve.

Science avoids this problem by disallowing any reference to the supernatural in an of its theories. And this is why science will never answer the question, "how did the Universe get started", with, "an all powerful intelligence created it". Science simply isn't allowed to respond that way.

RexRed wrote:

Science teaches us we humans were not just placed here on the earth by a "God" at some point in time in the past... but then traces the universe back and says implies that it just came out of absolutely nothing... this is the puzzle of science.

Actually, science doesn't say the Universe came from nothing, it says we don't know what it came from. And I don't mean that to be a flip answer to your question. There's a subtle difference between those two answers, but it's an important difference. Saying "we don't know" is not the same as saying, "it came from nothing".

RexRed wrote:

The Christians have claimed this about humans that we were "just created" on the planet 6ooo or so years ago. This is preposterous against the scientific evidence that supports evolution. Yet the same science tells us that, there is nothing perceivable before the creation of our universe. This must be meant as a joke on the Christians...

Haha, I love this idea Smile

Smile

I never thought of it that way, but I guess if religion didn't recognize the difference between "science doesn't know" and "science says we came from nothing", that it would seem pretty hypocritical. Smile

Smile

RexRed wrote:

What about the simplest rules in science do they leave off right before the "big bang"? Rules like... "matter is never created or destroyed"? Yet they have all physical matter, all time and space being created at a single point in the past. Does this not seem hypocritical?

In order to understand why science fails when dealing with questions outside of the Big Bang, you have to change your concept of what the Big Bang is. You seem to be thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion of matter which occurred *at* some point in time, and *at* some place. it's important to realize that time itself came out of the Big Bang, and so did all of space. We don't even have concepts to describe what happened before the Big Bang because there "before" and "after" don't have any meaning where time doesn't exist.

RexRed wrote:

The same intelligence within life is in the big bang. The big bang inertly sets the parameters to form the resulting universe based upon it's inherent character.

Yes. I like it Smile

Smile

RexRed wrote:

If intelligence is the fruit than intelligence is the parent. Creation breeds intelligence thus before creation was intelligence. Intelligence evolved into creation...

Perhaps true, but what is that intelligence? Is it something like us, or is it something so profound that its mere presence is enough to grow Universes?

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

RexRed wrote:

Was it not in the design of the big bang to supply a universe conducive to life?

No, but rather in life, the design to form in a manner conducive to existing in the universe Wink

Wink

RexRed wrote:

I feel that the big bang does not really explain much about the beginnings of life.

That's not surprising. The big bang is astronomy, beginnings of life is on the borderline between chemistry and biology. The two theories have nothing to do with one another. Since the two events were billions of years apart there is only an indirect link between them.

Quote:

Yet the scientists do not tell where the substance (or lack thereof) came from to create the conditions for a big bang in the first place.

No offence intended here but the science involved in that is WAY above both of our heads. The big bang wasn't just an explosion but rather the very nature of time and space being altered. It involves the kind of cutting edge mathematics and physics to work out that only people like steven hawking are cut out to understand. Scientists don't even know what happened at the moment of the big bang, let alone before. With our current knowledge of science the earliest we've been able to figure out is what happened after the first 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second. Anything before that we haven't been able to figure out yet.

(incidentally that is the exact number. I'm not just making up a number with lots of impressive zeroes.)

Quote:

The chemistry or composition of the substances that produced the "big bang"... did they always exist? Could they not have had life somehow pre-composed in their eventual outcome.

There are theories and people are trying to work it out but as I said before, the big bang was an alteration to the nature of time and space. We don't know enough about what time and space were like before that to make our science work at understanding what went on then.

Quote:

I feel the the scientists are just speaking light into being (just like the Bible) and not considering that light or the lack thereof existed before the big bang.

You imply that they don't care about what happened before the big bang, which is simply not true. Any scientist who could figure that out would probably get a nobel prize. They are trying to figure that out.

You've got to realise that the bible pretends to have all the answers. Science does not. Science found evidence of the big bang (yes, there's lots) and has figured out as much of the circumstances as it can. But it is like a detective looking at a crime scene trying to figure out what happened. Science pieces together the clues and puts them out to the courtroom/jury (i.e. the scientific community) but all it can do is follow the evidence.

However arguing that because they don't know what caused the big bang it therefore didn't happen (and I'm not saying you're doing that... I'm just bringing up this point) is like saying because the detective doesn't know who the murderer is that the murder never happened, even when the detective has the dead body in the morgue.

Quote:

Life seems to be the only true purpose of the physical universe.

You think that because you're a life form. If you were a sentient lump of slime-mould on the far side of mars you'd probably think slime-mould was the purpose of the universe.

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

theantibuddha wrote:

No, but rather in life, the design to form in a manner conducive to existing in the universe

Welcome to A2K AntiBuddha Smile

Smile

Do you think that science can derive any information related to the Universe from the fact that the Universe evolved creatures which are alive and which have awareness?

In other words, if the Universe is entirely natural, and I think it is, then can we infer any deeper aspect to it by recognizing that life and awareness evolve out of it naturally?

0 Replies

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#earliest]

HMMM, had a problem posting this, its a nasa site I found on google. It summarizes the chemistry well. Im particularly a fan of the Murchison meteorite as its contents compared to the original Miller experiment

0 Replies

Rosborne

I might tend to believe that yes, before time and space (the big bang) a mere thought/electrical impulse like (let there be light) could have been powerful enough to create a universe. The changing of a season... Like an electrical impulse it activated the fundamental processes.

Where there are no physical laws "intelligence" (I use that word loosely) rules. I think of the movie the butterfly effect where a simple act in the right place and time can bring about a world change. Before the big bang there was still time... Just because this universe did not have time does not mean that time is not in other parallel universes or that time is above our heads so to speak but still existent.

We, pre big bang, being in a vacuum do not have time because we are in a void with variable boundaries. The big bang did not create space but it occupied it. It is the black hole that we are in that created the expanse and the big bang that created the ether/fabric to fill it.

I think of black holes like leaves on a tree. Blossoms of nature, new growth, the trunk of the tree rooted and grounded in intelligence or "soil". The root system is plugged into the mind of pure thought and perfect wisdom. This wisdom (soil) transcends all time.

I think for science to take (our) time back to a point and say this was the "beginning" of "time" is travesty...

To look at the natural world and see the way trees give fruit each new fruit is part of a "season" of time but there are many seasons of time. The cosmos blooms and renews like a giant tree of time. It sits on the banks of the river and drinks in the fluid of perfect life and basks in the sunshine of paradise.

The "cosmos" (outside of our universe), it grows black holes that have big bangs within and these are small worlds of time. This is not science but it satisfies the idea of the universe better than what science seems to be doing for me. Although, I believe science... but is does not reach far enough and I do not have eons of time to wait to see the whole picture. Science is so adverse to possibly recognize ethereal principles of thought. When science itself is ethereal in nature.

All scientific discoveries were once in the realm of speculation before they became discovered. So the truth is considered ethereal before it is discovered or proven by science.

With this model of a tree the possibility can be seen of two black holes sprouting from a limb and being like Siamese twins and having two big bangs occur and having time/fabric skewed within a finite space... It is an interesting model to say the least. A model of the cosmos built on the nature evolving from it...

I hope this all does not sound really dumb hehe Smile

Smile

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#earliest]

HMMM, had a problem posting this, its a nasa site I found on google. It summarizes the chemistry well. Im particularly a fan of the Murchison meteorite as its contents compared to the original Miller experiment

I am rambling again...

very nice link farmerman.

I like the way they break life down chemically and get into the basic mechanics on the site. They focus on what is known scientifically about life in it's most rudimentary form. It reminds me of how science says all matter is made up of atoms. Well then they say there are electrons and neutrons. But it is still the physical world they rely on to boil all matters down into one basic simple form or representation. I choose to think there are energies/elements created in the big bang science cannot even detect. If this is so then we are only perceiving part of the whole picture. The part that we do not see may be much more vast than the part that we do see. So speculation outside of the box is a natural progression for science in my opinion.

Another note, I find it interesting that life developed fertilization as a means to procreate. It would stand to reason that if a substance cannot renew itself by consuming the resources around itself and somehow create copies of itself... well it simply would not survive. So how many various forms of life evolved before fertilization became possible? This being only one step in the evolutionary path of pure complexity. Smile

Smile

thx again for the link

0 Replies

the possibilities of the step beyond autocatalysis and macromolecules is as big a leap for many scientists as is the pre-Big Bang universe.
As for the
trialballoons" in autocatalysis and life, Ive often wondered whether , in the right conditions we would all be made of Silica or Sulfur ,Phosphorus, or even Selenium (since all of these are p-chem structural equivalents of carbon) or other combinations of core elements, rather than carbon.

did you see th statement that nasa feels that life was inevitable ( in a rich nutrient "soup" that this planet provided in the first few minutes after the BB as atoms differentiated themselves)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

the possibilities of the step beyond autocatalysis and macromolecules is as big a leap for many scientists as is the pre-Big Bang universe.
As for the
trialballoons" in autocatalysis and life, Ive often wondered whether , in the right conditions we would all be made of Silica or Sulfur ,Phosphorus, or even Selenium (since all of these are p-chem structural equivalents of carbon) or other combinations of core elements, rather than carbon.

did you see th statement that nasa feels that life was inevitable ( in a rich nutrient "soup" that this planet provided in the first few minutes after the BB as atoms differentiated themselves)

The silica idea is interesting. When you consider our minds store information in binary much like the computers because of the silica/silicon/DNA content in our brains. We have a slave section in the conscious mind that makes cumulative decisions based upon experience and intellect. The thought is... the physical computer chip is a small facsimile of how the actual brain functions... using silicon and carbon to store different states of information. That we create intelligence because we are intelligence.

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

rosborne979 wrote:

Welcome to A2K AntiBuddha

Thankyou. Glad to be here.

Quote:

In other words, if the Universe is entirely natural, and I think it is, then can we infer any deeper aspect to it by recognizing that life and awareness evolve out of it naturally?

Oh man that's a really tough question. Not that I haven't thought about it before, I have at great length but you're touching not only advanced physics and biology but also religion and the very meaning of life itself. I hope you're not expecting a simple answer here.

I don't think life is at all unusual, the definition is quite a broad one and basically covers things which replicate themselves and grow. Almost any kind of ongoing process can be seen as life. Think for a moment how broad the category is. Life includes, from bacteria to us including everything in between, not to mention that arguments could be made for fire, computer viruses, thoughts (memetics), stars all being alive.

Plus who says that this is the only universe. What if every possible set of laws and physics existed somewhere out there? (not necessarily reachable from our universe). Any creatures such as us would look around and be amazed that life could exist in that universe, when it's simply a matter of statistics that it had to exist somewhere and naturally that's the place where life forms will wonder about it.

No, I don't think life is special.

BUT... awareness? That thought literally keeps me awake at night because I can not come up with a single explanation for human awareness. (or rather my own since I have absolutely no way of determining whether anyone else has this).

If it were simply the laws of physics and nothing else then my body would be a collection of chemical reactions which would act according to the laws of physics. From the outside there would be no way of spotting any difference. However the laws of physics do not (and can not at present level of scientific development) why the thing that is me actually experiences these things.

Apologies if this is not at all clear, the english language lacks the vocabulary to describe these concepts. But simply put rather than my brain acting as a series of chemical reactions I actually feel and experience things. Why?

Not only that, but because I can actually talk about this that means there is some connection not only from my brain to this "conciousness" (in whatever form it takes) but also from my conciousness back to my brain.

I have to leave science behind here for a moment since this is out of the reach of the science we have now. I can come up with four hypothetical explanations, each of which has disturbing ramifications.

1. A certain configuration of molecules, energy, quantum particles, superstrings, WHATEVER... something physical generates conciousness. This means that we could build machines to be concious and perhaps manipulate this consciousness using technology. Also it raises the perplexing question of why our brains evolved this particular combination and what survival benefit conciousness offers to us.

2. Every possible combination of molecules has its own sentience. For example my little finger has a conciousness of its own. That air molecule over there has a conciousness. Also the combination of my little finger and that air molecule over there has its own conciousness. Of course since that conciousness doesn't include a brain it couldn't think or experience human emotions, but rather it would have whatever experiences fingers and air provide. The conciousness that is experiencing "me" currently happens to be the one collected from the molecules that make up my brain.

This raises the disturbing possibility that everything around me is experiencing reality, but not so many pesky moral issues since pain is an aspect of the brain, something that air molecules (for example) would not share. Also since molecules are continually being replaced in our brain that would mean my current conciousness isn't the one that was here when I was born. Since the memory is part of the brain and not the conciousness I wouldn't even know.

Also the question is how the conciousness feeds back into the brain, and if everything does it then how these various conciousnesses affect the world around us. A strange possibility is that quantum "randomness" is actually these awarenesses chosing possible jumps, etc. in order to feed back into the universe.

3. This reality isn't what it appears to be. We're actually based in some universe that generates our consciousness and this "universe" is just some kind of shared hallucination or "computer program"... the reasons this is disturbing is obvious.

4. Some external power artificially imposed this consciousness upon us deliberately picking human brains for some reason. This would be the religious explanation (or possibly 3 if you're talking buddhism or scientology).

...

Okay, very few people have been able to understand what I just attempted to explain. Most people give me blank looks. If you think you understand but have a question I'm happy to answer. If you don't understand I can attempt to rephrase. If you have suggestions or explanations I'd love to hear them. Either way I'd like to find someone who gets what I'm talking about and discuss it with them.

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

theantibuddha wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Welcome to A2K AntiBuddha

Thankyou. Glad to be here.

Quote:
In other words, if the Universe is entirely natural, and I think it is, then can we infer any deeper aspect to it by recognizing that life and awareness evolve out of it naturally?

Oh man that's a really tough question. Not that I haven't thought about it before, I have at great length but you're touching not only advanced physics and biology but also religion and the very meaning of life itself. I hope you're not expecting a simple answer here.

I don't think life is at all unusual, the definition is quite a broad one and basically covers things which replicate themselves and grow. Almost any kind of ongoing process can be seen as life. Think for a moment how broad the category is. Life includes, from bacteria to us including everything in between, not to mention that arguments could be made for fire, computer viruses, thoughts (memetics), stars all being alive.

Plus who says that this is the only universe. What if every possible set of laws and physics existed somewhere out there? (not necessarily reachable from our universe). Any creatures such as us would look around and be amazed that life could exist in that universe, when it's simply a matter of statistics that it had to exist somewhere and naturally that's the place where life forms will wonder about it.

No, I don't think life is special.

BUT... awareness? That thought literally keeps me awake at night because I can not come up with a single explanation for human awareness. (or rather my own since I have absolutely no way of determining whether anyone else has this).

If it were simply the laws of physics and nothing else then my body would be a collection of chemical reactions which would act according to the laws of physics. From the outside there would be no way of spotting any difference. However the laws of physics do not (and can not at present level of scientific development) why the thing that is me actually experiences these things.

Apologies if this is not at all clear, the english language lacks the vocabulary to describe these concepts. But simply put rather than my brain acting as a series of chemical reactions I actually feel and experience things. Why?

Not only that, but because I can actually talk about this that means there is some connection not only from my brain to this "conciousness" (in whatever form it takes) but also from my conciousness back to my brain.

I have to leave science behind here for a moment since this is out of the reach of the science we have now. I can come up with four hypothetical explanations, each of which has disturbing ramifications.

1. A certain configuration of molecules, energy, quantum particles, superstrings, WHATEVER... something physical generates conciousness. This means that we could build machines to be concious and perhaps manipulate this consciousness using technology. Also it raises the perplexing question of why our brains evolved this particular combination and what survival benefit conciousness offers to us.

2. Every possible combination of molecules has its own sentience. For example my little finger has a conciousness of its own. That air molecule over there has a conciousness. Also the combination of my little finger and that air molecule over there has its own conciousness. Of course since that conciousness doesn't include a brain it couldn't think or experience human emotions, but rather it would have whatever experiences fingers and air provide. The conciousness that is experiencing "me" currently happens to be the one collected from the molecules that make up my brain.

This raises the disturbing possibility that everything around me is experiencing reality, but not so many pesky moral issues since pain is an aspect of the brain, something that air molecules (for example) would not share. Also since molecules are continually being replaced in our brain that would mean my current conciousness isn't the one that was here when I was born. Since the memory is part of the brain and not the conciousness I wouldn't even know.

Also the question is how the conciousness feeds back into the brain, and if everything does it then how these various conciousnesses affect the world around us. A strange possibility is that quantum "randomness" is actually these awarenesses chosing possible jumps, etc. in order to feed back into the universe.

3. This reality isn't what it appears to be. We're actually based in some universe that generates our consciousness and this "universe" is just some kind of shared hallucination or "computer program"... the reasons this is disturbing is obvious.

4. Some external power artificially imposed this consciousness upon us deliberately picking human brains for some reason. This would be the religious explanation (or possibly 3 if you're talking buddhism or scientology).

...

Okay, very few people have been able to understand what I just attempted to explain. Most people give me blank looks. If you think you understand but have a question I'm happy to answer. If you don't understand I can attempt to rephrase. If you have suggestions or explanations I'd love to hear them. Either way I'd like to find someone who gets what I'm talking about and discuss it with them.

Hello theantibuddha

welcome

I might say I have never quite thought of it in the way you have... It is very interesting to say the least.

Considering that a similar mechanism that makes a connection and sends an electrical impulse to your brain and you receive a thought, that impulse could connect and say, let there be light.

It is not only voice that speaks, the message/syntax and that the lines are laid. A voice that relays and communication across the vast expanse. There is the self dialogue and then there is contact.

There is a tree of knowledge... That tree plants its seed and replicates itself till there is an orchard, tended by the keeper of the field. This is consciousness to me.

I will reread your post and reply again on it.

0 Replies

This reply is directed at points made in several replies so feel free to remark at will.

Again I am babbling on so this may not make any sense to anyone Smile

Smile

Comment:
There is intelligence in nature though no single "element" of nature by itself can "think". Nature can be set at states but nature needs life and intelligence to "comprehend" itself. Nature itself seems void of cognition. Nature needs to be refined and shaped into complex forms until it's imperfections are purged and suddenly a human being emerges from a wild savage beast.

Yet just a human being does not guarantee that this human is "aware". Animals are more aware than humans are about many things. Humans are more aware than animals too. It is the difference that we call civilization. But what is civilization? Learning to get along with each other? Well, pack animals do that all the time. Herds of animals live peacefully in close proximity of each other but we do not refer to them as civilized, maybe tame. Spiders kill their mates... Baby snakes bite their mothers...

What do we learn from this? That humans need to "focus" on a goal. This goal is a concept of survival for all life. It is lofty to want to leave behind more than we take. This may be the only redeeming characteristic of human beings. Their seemingly unlimited capacity to empathetically express themselves. This ability seems to encapsulate the very core of what knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, awareness, consciousness... is aimed at.

The universe in itself is an expression of some greater force of nature. So we can conclude that consciousness is the ability to be the most effectively expressive within the parameters and envelope of your own existence. Intelligence is subjective to the place and address of it's correspondents. One sound can trigger a stampede. To think that one word or sound could have triggered the big bang is only the tip of the iceberg when you consider there are quite probably other big bangs too. So it comes to the place where we become so insignificant in the immensity of the heavens, I am still sitting here typing on my keyboard and realty is still unbelievably going on.

The galaxies and stars were obviously spewn out of some kind of universe maker. Our time is relevant to not only the age of our universe but to the age of the thing that made our universe. This is simple math and logic. Either the universe came out of nothing and timelessness and void or it was the result of something that makes universes. Universes do not just appear like manna from heaven... there needs to be something that grows it or plants it. These actions (seems/appears/looks/becomes/grows) describe how things "naturally" occur.

It would seem logical that inside the time fabric of a universe that there would be other time fabrics also outside of the one that we can (theoretically) measurably observe. This would correspond with the way nature replicates itself. It would only go to show that the big bang is the way the universe replicates itself and brings renewal and life to the cosmos.

It is the model that is the puzzle. Can we accurately compare the big bang with reproduction? When we see that this is the only way that things survive? In all forms of logic even into the abstract there still needs to be something to have started the big bang off in the first place. Well we cannot call this stuff matter but the big bang was supposed to have created all time and matter.

Well the only answer to the problem is that there has to be "other" matter in other forms and something making them. So we know we have entire physical universe systems being produced by these cataclysmic big bangs so then we must also speculate that matter is also arranged into another equally complex form which produces these big bangs.

When we get to the big bang and the scientists forget science... the rigidity of a triangle and Fibonacci numerology. One would surmise that the thing that made the big bang would be twice the size, (bigger or smaller, or something like that) than the big bang. Are we really supposed to believe that the entire universe came out of something spontaneously becoming/being?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

There is intelligence in nature though no single "element" of nature by itself can "think".

At one level, human beings can think, and we are an "element" of nature. But then again, a human being is a collection of cells and atoms which don't think for themselves. I'm not even sure what it is about a human which is doing the thinking. It's almost like self awareness is a Universe unto itself. Where does perception end and physics begin.

RexRed wrote:

Are we really supposed to believe that the entire universe came out of something spontaneously becoming/being?

Why not? Virtual particles appear out of nothing all the time. We can even measure the force of it; the Casimir Effect.

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

theantibuddha wrote:

Also it raises the perplexing question of why our brains evolved this particular combination and what survival benefit conciousness offers to us.

Conciousness might just be a side effect of something else which was being selected for, like language. Not everything that evolves is selected for. Some things are just "hangers on" to associated processes.

Wouldn't it be a great joke if our much valued "conciousness" was just a byproduct of the cognition required to support a conceptual language? And all nature really ever selected for was the ability to say "watch out for that leopard"? Smile

Smile

0 Replies

Re: When was life created?

rosborne979 wrote:

Conciousness might just be a side effect of something else which was being selected for, like language. Not everything that evolves is selected for. Some things are just "hangers on" to associated processes.

True. Particularly seeing as we have no idea whatsoever what could cause consciousness, it could be an accidental consequence of bladder control Wink

Wink

Quote:

Wouldn't it be a great joke if our much valued "conciousness" was just a byproduct of the cognition required to support a conceptual language? And all nature really ever selected for was the ability to say "watch out for that leopard"?

Very Happy

The universe is indeed a funny place. If any kind of divinity exists they must have an awesome sense of humour. I also suspect that they smoke weed.

0 Replies

A radial light inside of a reflective box reflects infinity...

0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish

can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway

Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas

Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus

Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus

In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98

Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple

Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Forums
» When was life created?

1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 03:09:09

▲ ▼