Our “spark of” “life” is something else, entirely. It relies largely on our complete functioning body within a habitable environment. It particularly seems to rely on breathing.
Yet, it is still not some ethereal mystery, as you would wish it to be. Organisms live while they can. When some part breaks down sufficiently, the organism no longer lives. Breathing stops, life stops.
It all depends on how you define “life”. You believe “it is primarily a product of our neurology”. For now, I see your belief as a superstition. I will start another topic to discuss this.
Write4U: Abiogenesis is no mystery at all . If only you would muster the courage to become informed, you might be able you make your arguments with a semblance of logic, your smart enough. You just want to remain ignorant by choice.
Look, I forced myself to watch your video and gave up after 40 minutes of what ifs, what could be's, and all explained in terms of organic chemistry. (I happen to hate the subject.) It's the same deal with religion. I couldn't engage a Christian to question his beliefs without fulfilling the condition of studying the Bible first. When I confronted a Buddhist Abbot about an inconsistency in the Buddha's teaching, it was the same thing. I was told to join the Buddhist class, get to know the dharma before fielding fundamental questions.
I am here to participate in independent and unbiased critical inquiry without pre-conceptions of any kind, without any knowledge that colors perception, and not even from the viewpoint of a human being.
Widdershin: Sree, you appear to be confusing “life” with “consciousness”. I don’t think anyone is saying that “life” is a product of anyone’s neurology.
Can you clarify the distinction between "life" and "consciousness"?
Based on common usages of the words the distinction is pretty obvious and I find it difficult to believe that you don’t already know exactly what I mean. So if you have a point, please make it. I’m not going to play the semantics game with you.
I think I get what you and Tim are intimating. A person can be in a vegetative state but the body is still alive. My definition of “life” is not what the medical doctor means.
Oh, I see your difficulty, now. You believe that each of us is a self-aware soul that lives on eternally. Hence you think life and consciousness are the same thing.
I believe that there is no such thing as a soul. And that life ends at mortal death.
Having lived as long as I have, I would think that by now, I would have come across some convincing evidence that ANYTHING supernatural actually exists. Instead I have confronted throughout most of the days of my life with various assertions that all sorts of supernatural things exist. So many assertions of the supernatural in our lives, yet ZERO convincing evidence. At some point, it is best to assume that all of the assertions of the supernatural are JUST inventions of human imagination.
Life and consciousness are not the same thing. You will not be able to make reasonable sense of our world as long as you believe in the unreality of the supernatural.
Tim: Oh, I see your difficulty, now. You believe that each of us is a self-aware soul that lives on eternally. Hence you think life and consciousness are the same thing.
No, I don't believe in the existence of the soul, which is a spiritual aspect of the person. Through critical inquiry, I have come to realize that the person is an illusion. As such, the soul of an illusion is, logically, also illusory. There is no "each of us", as you put it, in the absolute sense. Each of us, as an individual personality, is an illusion. We invent selves as a matter of convention to facilitate interaction for practical purposes. For example, if a heavy piece of wood needs to be lifted, you hold one end and I the other. Just don't go off believing that you exist after the job is done. Now, that would be superstition.
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.
TimB: “convincing evidence that ANYTHING supernatural actually exists”.
Well, if it were supernatural there wouldn’t be any [natural] evidence of it would there be?
I believe that everything is natural, even those things which are incorrectly labeled as supernatural.
If you look, you will find evidence of what you look for, but you need to know something about it or you won’t recognize it when you find it. If you’re not looking for something and you don’t know anything about what you might stumble upon you won’t recognize it if you do. One way to find something you don’t already know is to recognize that there are things you don’t already know and make inquiries about what others have found. All grains of sand on the beach may look alike to the untrained eye.
Most young people have to be told that it is impossible for them to learn when they are talking. I think it is the same when we are thinking about what we already know.
I think I get what you and Tim are intimating. A person can be in a vegetative state but the body is still alive. My definition of “life” is not what the medical doctor means.
The word "life" is more of a vague concept than a clearly defined thing, even in science and medicine. Doctors have just picked a point, brain death (which itself is really the cessation of measurable brain activity), where there is no more "life". But even that is deeply flawed. There have been times when patients were pronounced brain dead only to later wake up. And time of death on a death certificate has nothing to do with brain death.
The line between life and death is huge. Lungs, muscles, even the heart can continue to work, usually sporadically, after a person is pronounced “dead”. And nobody really knows whether to call viruses “alive” or not. So there is no good, solid definition of “life” which can definitively dictate whether a thing is alive or not, just a vague concept that works well enough for the purposes we need it for.
There is no “each of us”, as you put it, in the absolute sense. Each of us, as an individual personality, is an illusion. We invent selves as a matter of convention to facilitate interaction for practical purposes.
This needs some clarification. If there is no "each of us" then who is the "we" who invents selves? I'm truly trying to understand what you're saying here. So instead of telling me what "is not", tell me what you're saying "is", please.
Well, if it were supernatural there wouldn’t be any [natural] evidence of it would there be?
That logic is very problematic. Why can there be no natural evidence? Can you never see a ghost? Can God not touch his own creation? If it has an effect on the natural world then there would be natural evidence. If there can be no natural evidence then it would have to be completely separated from the natural world, unable to affect the natural world to such an extent as to be completely undetectable. If it's completely undetectable then there is no evidence whatsoever, natural or otherwise. Believing in such a completely undetectable thing is called "imagining". With no evidence of its existence ever its properties would have to be completely made up. The chances of such a thing existing, given that its properties come entirely from the human imagination, is statistically zero. So essentially your argument that there can be no evidence for the supernatural is an argument that the supernatural is completely imaginary.
It makes sense to me, that “consciousness”, so far, requires a living organism, in which to emerge. (Perhaps, some day, a machine can gain consciousness, Idk.) Organisms live and die. Certain organisms attain consciousness, e.g., some humans. But life does not equate to consciousness. One cannot be conscious without being alive. But one can be alive, and not be conscious.
Life is not the same thing as consciousness, Sree.
An interesting quote. However I would point out that you don’t have to feel pain to be alive, nor is “suffering” necessarily a requirement of consciousness. If an AI is capable of decision making independent of programming I would argue that it is conscious. Anything it is capable of “learning” without code dictating that it learn would represent a consciousness, especially if it were able to apply that learning, again independent of instructions telling it to do so, in decision making. Any “thought” it had which wasn’t dictated by code, either purposely or accidentally, would be a conscious thought.
And it’s certainly possible that such a machine could and almost certainly will exist some day. The only thing remotely special about our consciousness is that we don’t understand the universe well enough to replicate an actual brain yet. When we can both understand how the brain works and manipulate construction at the molecular level, which we are close to now if we aren’t already doing it (research a few years ago about constructing drugs at the molecular level) we should be capable of producing a mind which isn’t too far removed from our own. Early attempts will be little like us, getting closer, perhaps even surpassing our own brains eventually as more is learned. Then you simply construct the brain and start making it “learn”. No coding required.
This is the conventional way of seeing it. I see differently. There is neither life nor death. Apoptosis and necrosis are two processes we observe in the ever-changing flow of phenomena.
Certain organisms attain consciousness, e.g., some humans. But life does not equate to consciousness. One cannot be conscious without being alive. But one can be alive, and not be conscious.
What is consciousness? Is a plant conscious when it reacts to light and water? Is water conscious when it reacts to heat, cold and gravity? Are you conscious when nothing I say seems to sink in?
What is consciousness? I have answered that many times in these Forum discussions. But you continue to ask. Perhaps you were not conscious of my answers.
As far as your ramblings not “sinking in”, e.g., when you say “There is neither life nor death. Apoptosis and necrosis are two processes we observe in the ever-changing flow of phenomena.” This doesn’t sink in because it is gobbledy gook.
Apoptosis is cell death, yet in the sentence prior you say that there is no death. Necrosis is the decay of organic material that was previously living, yet you say that there is no life. How the f___ do you figure that “There is neither life nor death.”??? Did that just randomly pop into your head, and you thought “That sounds cool. I want to sound cool, so I will say that.”? How VERY non conventional of you to believe that there is no such thing as life or death. You are a real maverick of free thought.
re: Your other questions:
I don’t see how a plant’s orientation to light and reaction to water, would constitute consciousness. That is just respondent behavior. Consciousness is much more sophisticated operant behaviors, and I think requires an organism that has social and verbal behaviors in order to emerge.
<i>2) Non-organisms</i> are not capable of consciousness. Water is not an organism.
Tim: Apoptosis is cell death, yet in the sentence prior you say that there is no death. Necrosis is the decay of organic material that was previously living, yet you say that there is no life.
Cell death is how medical science sees it in order to differentiate one condition (of the cell) from another. It's all a matter of perception. I told you that I view things differently in a way that is gobbledy gook to you. I am speaking from my paradigm and you are trying to get what I am saying from your paradigm. I am using the English language to convey my views, and you are deciphering the same linguistic code into gobbledy gook. That's ok. I am looking for the 100th monkey. If I keep zapping, the way our astrophysicists are beaming signals into space looking for intelligent life forms, one of you guys may just tumble out of your paradigm and bring about the transformation of all mankind.