Scientific advances in abiogenesis

[exchemist]

Existence and consciousness are not separable. Life without consciousness will not be known and consciousness without life willnot exist.

The axiomatic premise in OP and in general in philosophical naturalism is that consciousness is a product of matter. So, RNA is somehow shown as proof of origin of life and then to consciousness. Even if there is no evidence that matter generates consciousness and subjective experience.

It is taken almost as an axiom. Although, implications of a created consciousness is that we have no power to unravel truth of any proposition, since mechanism has sealed the fate.

This is false. The OP says nothing whatsoever about consciousness, and it is not the subject of this thread.

 

[atanu]

This is false. The OP says nothing whatsoever about consciousness, and it is not the subject of this thread.

Isn't it a natural evolution of a claim that RNA is equal to life, since EVERYTHING EVOLVED, YOU KNOW?

And there is a statemenf OP as below:

Life develops from non-life chemicals first, and then consciousness.

 

[exchemist]

It is natural outcome of a claim that RNA is equal to life, since EVERYTHING EVOLVED, YOU KNOW?

This thread is not about consciousness.

It is about scientific hypotheses concerning the start of life from inorganic chemistry. If you have something to contribute to a discussion of these hypotheses I'm sure we'll all be interested to read it.

If on the other hand you want to advocate a religious belief you hold about life, this is not the thread for that.

 

[sayak83]

It is natural outcome of a claim that RNA is equal to life, since EVERYTHING EVOLVED, YOU KNOW?

Self replicating RNA will be a primitive form of life. You disagree with this?

 

[atanu]

Self replicating RNA will be a primitive form of life. You disagree with this?

From paradigm of materialism, RNA world is a hypotheis, which scientists agree is well supported.

But this is from certain axiomatic base that holds that eventually the evolved complex structures give rise to complex life and consciousness with which we study things that created us. That axiom means that created life and created intelligence cannot with any certainty unravel truth of its own origin, since mecahnism determined the course of knowing in advance.

So, logically TOE contraindicates abiogenesis. Or we accept that we indeed are zombies, our thinking process predetermined from before creation.
...

IMO, this is outcome of an ignorant notion, both theistic and atheistic, where the basic idea was that Lord breathed in life and intelligence in clay dolls and so we became living beings. But we know that the true cannot become untrue and the untrue was never true. So, if our competence for reasoning is true, it is true without beginning.
...

Sorry for the intervention.

 

[sayak83]

From paradigm of materialism, RNA world is a hypotheis, which scientists agree is well supported. But this is from certain axiomatic base that holds that eventually the evolved complex structures give rise to complex life and consciousness with which we study things that created us. That axiom means that created life and created intelligence cannot with any certainty unravel truth of its own origin, since mecahnism determined the course of knowing in advance.

Science of abiogenesis or science in general posits no such axiom regarding consciousness.

 

[atanu]

Science of abiogenesis or science in general posits no such axiom regarding consciousness.

You think so?

Life develops from non-life chemicals first, and then consciousness.

The conclusion is already there.

I do not agree to this conclusion since consciousness is true here and now. So, when you generate life through RNA-DNA the outcome is evolution created us and our consciousness..

PS. I am sorry for the intervention. I edited the post above.

 

[atanu]

This thread is not about consciousness.
It is about scientific hypotheses concerning the start of life from inorganic chemistry. If you have something to contribute to a discussion of these hypotheses I'm sure we'll all be interested to read it.
If on the other hand you want to advocate a religious belief you hold about life, this is not the thread for that.

There is no scientific evidence of abiogenesis. And no way to test the claims too. But suppose abiogenesis did indeed create life. Then how do you explain our arrival/emergence, with our subjective awareness? Is asking such question not okay?

 

[sayak83]

I do not agree since consciousness is true here and now. So, when you generate life through RNA-DNA the outcome is evolution created us and our consciousness..

PS. I am sorry for the intervention. I edited the post above.

Evolutionary processes caused the formation of the brain that can instatiate minds in this universe. But one may disagree regarding whether or not brains are necessary and sufficient for the generation of minds.

 

[sayak83]

From paradigm of materialism, RNA world is a hypotheis, which scientists agree is well supported.

But this is from certain axiomatic base that holds that eventually the evolved complex structures give rise to complex life and consciousness with which we study things that created us. That axiom means that created life and created intelligence cannot with any certainty unravel truth of its own origin, since mecahnism determined the course of knowing in advance.

So, logically TOE contraindicates abiogenesis. Or we accept that we indeed are zombies, our thinking process predetermined from before creation.
...

IMO, this is outcome of an ignorant notion, both theistic and atheistic, where the basic idea was that Lord breathed in life and intelligence in clay dolls and so we became living beings. But we know that the true cannot become untrue and the untrue was never true. So, if our competence for reasoning is true, it is true without beginning.
...

Sorry for the intervention.

Scientific notion of truth is instrumental. True is that which is useful for human purposes. Therefore even if, as you suggest, humans have a deluded system of truth finding, whatever appears to be useful by the (possibly)faulty algorithm of the brain, is true for science. So abiogenesis research is useful for focusing our efforts towards finding exoplanets or moons that are more likely to harbour life, as well as to create useful artificial life forms for bio-engineering needs.

 

[wellwisher]

Science of abiogenesis or science in general posits no such axiom regarding consciousness.

This is true, however, observation indicates that consciousness derives from many forms of life and therefore any good theory of abiogenesis also needs to established a foundation that can bridge this future gap.

The biggest problem in abiogenesis is the inclusion of the mythology of randomness. This mythology allows one to gloss over the unknowns, and pretend this is a done deal, using a God of Random to bridge the gaps. This is no different that a modified Creationists approach, using a god that is less clever then the Creationists God. Science needs to get rid of the random prosthesis and stick to chemical logic.

For example, DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. RNA can hold more chemically attached water per unit of weight than DNA, but since DNA is much larger, it is more hydrated. Hydration is the chemical attachment of water, therefore DNA and RNA are the most water friendly molecules in the cell. Water pushes organic evolution in ways that minimize the potential in water. This applies to life as well as consciousness.

For example, sodium cations; Na+, which is common to the surface of neurons are kosmotropic, which means they promotes order in water more than water provides for itself. Consciousness has a connection to water getting to the next level of stability.

 

[atanu]

Evolutionary processes caused the formation of the brain that can instatiate minds in this universe. But one may disagree regarding whether or not brains are necessary and sufficient for the generation of minds.

My considered understanding is that meme that brain is THE consciousness or is its source is a dogma that does not help anyone to attain peace.

Scientific notion of truth is instrumental. True is that which is useful for human purposes. Therefore even if, as you suggest, humans have a deluded system of truth finding, whatever appears to be useful by the (possibly)faulty algorithm of the brain, is true for science. So abiogenesis research is useful for focusing our efforts towards finding exoplanets or moons that are more likely to harbour life, as well as to create useful artificial life forms for bio-engineering needs.

Suppose we accept the above definition of truth. Then how can a faulty algorithm help us to achieve the ultimate goal of peace and happiness? And more immediately, why should one propagate a hypothesis as an axiom?

I agree that placing all evidences for examination by all is a good process, provided that a hypothesis is not promoted as an axiom. So, I will withdraw and examine the evidences.

 

[atanu]

This thread is not about consciousness.....

You think so?

Life develops from non-life chemicals first, and then consciousness.

The conclusion is already there.

 

[sayak83]

My considered understanding is that meme that brain is THE consciousness or is its source is a dogma that does not help anyone to attain peace.



Suppose we accept the above definition of truth. Then how can a faulty algorithm help us to achieve the ultimate goal of peace and happiness? And more immediately, why should one propagate a hypothesis as an axiom?

I agree that placing all evidences for examination by all is a good process, provided that a hypothesis is not promoted as an axiom. So, I will withdraw and examine the evidences.

You are assuming truth is required for getting to peace and happiness. A faulty delusive mind-algorithm (if we are such) may instead be geared towards find the delusions that gives it peace and hapiness, while truth might cause immense suffering to that mind as it was not adapted for finding and handling truth.
Unless we identify truth with that which provides maximum peace and happiness and utility regardless of what is "actually" real. Knowing that water quenches thirst is useful for reducing my thirst-suffering even if "in reality" there is no such thing as water or thirst. So water quenches thirst is true.
Enough of philosophy, we can take this up in another thread. These kinds of arguments are rife in the Nyaya-Maddhyamaka debate about reality and truth.

 

[atanu]

You are assuming truth is required for getting to peace and happiness. A faulty delusive mind-algorithm (if we are such) may instead be geared towards find the delusions that gives it peace and hapiness, while truth might cause immense suffering to that mind as it was not adapted for finding and handling truth.
Unless we identify truth with that which provides maximum peace and happiness and utility regardless of what is "actually" real. Knowing that water quenches thirst is useful and reducing my thirst-suffering even if "in reality" there is no such thing as water or thirst. So water quenches thirst is true.

Can't debate that.

 

[sayak83]

Can't debate that.

Enough of philosophy, we can take this up in another thread. These kinds of arguments are rife in the Nyaya-Maddhyamaka debate about reality and truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Existence and consciousness are not separable. Life without consciousness will not be known and consciousness without life willnot exist.

The axiomatic premise in OP and in general in philosophical naturalism is that consciousness is a product of matter. So, RNA is somehow shown as proof of origin of life and then to consciousness. Even if there is no evidence that matter generates consciousness and subjective experience.

It is taken almost as an axiom. Although, implications of a created consciousness is that we have no power to unravel truth of any proposition, since mechanism has sealed the fate.

Evidence not "proof". Though right now there only is evidence for abiogenesis it is not a proven concept yet. There is no absolute proof in the sciences, only evidence for or against a concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

That part I understand, but the OP says DNA is more stable. Might not the DNA be more likely to have gained repeatability first?

Not necessarily, as in the simplist microbes like single stranded ma viruses, which have protein coat on the RNA to stabilize the RNA. These viruses are considered the simplist life forms known, and today are the most deadliest and commonist of disease viruses like Ebola, hemorrhoragic fever, SARS, Rabies, common cold, influenza, hepatitis C, West Nile fever, polio and measles. These viruses have RNA repeatability, and are considered transitional microbes, because some are capable of producing DNA.

 

[shunyadragon]

I’m sorry, but the scientists in the laboratory have intelligence ;

This only proves that it takes intelligence to even begin the steps!

Let’s see how far they get. Even if they create life, it still wouldn’t support abiogenesis: originating from natural causes, ie., by itself.

This is not true. The scientists use naturally occurring non-organic chemicals, and known naturally occurring environments of the early history of the earth and actually in the contemporary earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Existence and consciousness are not separable. Life without consciousness will not be known and consciousness without life will not exist.

This thread is on abiogenesis the evolution of non-life chemicals to simple life forms. Please stay on topic with actual science references and a coherent argument, which is lacking from your posts in the past.

I will start a thread later on the evolution of consciousness and the mind and the relationship to the brain late.