Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Will science and religion eventually collide?


ambelamba

Recommended Posts

Fine. Don't use probabilities then. Just concept. During initial states it either could vary to produce other kinds of universees or it could not.

Yes it is vastly more complicated than that.

I am familiar withe emergent systems. There is a really cool game you can play on graph paper that has some interesting effects when played out many generations.

Let's think a little higher level. Here are the characteristics of life. These things have to be met in order for something to be consider alive.

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells:

Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.

In multicellular organisms, specialization increases until some cells do only certain things.

2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization:

Both molecular and cellular organization.

Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones.

Living things organize cells at several levels: 

 

Tissue - a group of cells that perform a common function.

Organ - a group of tissues that perform a common function.

Organ system - a group of organs that perform a common function.

Organism - any complete living thing.

  

3. Living Things Use Energy: 

Living things take in energy and use it for maintenance and growth.

 

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment:

Living things will make changes in response to a stimulus in their environment.

A behavior is a complex set of responses.

 

5. Living Things Grow: 

Cell division - the orderly formation of new cells.

Cell enlargement - the increase in size of a cell. Cells grow to a certain size and then divide.

An organism gets larger as the number of its cells increases.

6. Living Things Reproduce: 

Reproduction is not essential for the survival of individual organisms, but must occur for a species to survive.

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment:

Adaptations are traits giving an organism an advantage in a certain environment.

 

If you change your perspective to be say the size of the moon. Would you consider life on earth to be many organisms or one organism contimplating reproduction by say landing and colonizing mars? Notice that life on earth as a whole fits every point above. Collective life haveing the characteristics of one single life..... Much like our own bodys work.

Edit

Oh my god, I don't have to bring up slime molds, you already did it in that other thread...... Nice!!!!!

Edited by Seeker79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • White Crane Feather

    25

  • Copasetic

    17

  • IamsSon

    15

  • shadowhive

    9

Fine. Don't use probabilities then. Just concept. During initial states it either could vary to produce other kinds of universees or it could not.

Correct, we don't know.

Yes it is vastly more complicated than that.

I am familiar withe emergent systems. There is a really cool game you can play on graph paper that has some interesting effects when played out many generations.

Let's think a little higher level. Here are the characteristics of life. These things have to be met in order for something to be consider alive.

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells:

Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.

In multicellular organisms, specialization increases until some cells do only certain things.

2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization:

Both molecular and cellular organization.

Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones.

Living things organize cells at several levels: 

 

Tissue - a group of cells that perform a common function.

Organ - a group of tissues that perform a common function.

Organ system - a group of organs that perform a common function.

Organism - any complete living thing.

  

3. Living Things Use Energy: 

Living things take in energy and use it for maintenance and growth.

 

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment:

Living things will make changes in response to a stimulus in their environment.

A behavior is a complex set of responses.

 

5. Living Things Grow: 

Cell division - the orderly formation of new cells.

Cell enlargement - the increase in size of a cell. Cells grow to a certain size and then divide.

An organism gets larger as the number of its cells increases.

6. Living Things Reproduce: 

Reproduction is not essential for the survival of individual organisms, but must occur for a species to survive.

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment:

Adaptations are traits giving an organism an advantage in a certain environment.

 

If you change your perspective to be say the size of the moon. Would you consider life on earth to be many organisms or one organism contimplating reproduction by say landing and colonizing mars? Notice that life on earth as a whole fits every point above. Collective life haveing the characteristics of one single life..... Much like our own bodys work.

Edit

Oh my god, I don't have to bring up slime molds, you already did it in that other thread...... Nice!!!!!

I'm not sure what you point is, is it that collectively life on earth is like a single organism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, we don't know.

I'm not sure what you point is, is it that collectively life on earth is like a single organism?

Yeah. But from larger and larger perpectives. Obviously there are lots of organisms. But if you were living in somebodys colon and you were about the size of a bacteria, you would consider that bacteria neighbors, while from my perspective that bacteria is just apart of anothers anatomy. If you were the size of the moon, honestly now, would you look down upon life on earth and see lots of different life forms or just parts of one living system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. But from larger and larger perpectives. Obviously there are lots of organisms. But if you were living in somebodys colon and you were about the size of a bacteria, you would consider that bacteria neighbors, while from my perspective that bacteria is just apart of anothers anatomy. If you were the size of the moon, honestly now, would you look down upon life on earth and see lots of different life forms or just parts of one living system?

I suppose you could think about it that way in a simplistic view. The problem is, when applying the definitions correctly it doesn't work.

For instance, consider those bacteria making up your GI flora. They reproduce, not just replicate, while say a hepatocyte in your liver, replicates and doesn't actually reproduce. It forges its ability to reproduce being part of an organism and not a free living individual.

In fact, if you look back at that step you have using energy (really transforming energy) you find that cells in organisms only have certain "sets" of genes active. This leads to differential protein expression and ultimately means that these cells aren't capable of some of the "necessary" conditions to be considered alive. Only in the context of the whole organism can they be viewed as alive.

Certainly "life viewed from the moon", constitutes a living biosphere-But that biosphere is composed of discrete entities who do not make up "one big organism". I suspect that this analogy is so appealing (much like the "atom as a solar system one") because of that marvelously evolved pattern recognition hardware we're running (the human brain).

Edit to note for the "bacteria and you" example; We know though, the bacteria are fundamentally not you however. At a genetic level, at a molecular level, at a population level etc. They are distinct from your anatomy, which is consequence of growth fields during your development which is not consistent with the bacteria's development (the two are independent).

Anyway, granting the analogy--What is your point?

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could think about it that way in a simplistic view. The problem is, when applying the definitions correctly it doesn't work.

For instance, consider those bacteria making up your GI flora. They reproduce, not just replicate, while say a hepatocyte in your liver, replicates and doesn't actually reproduce. It forges its ability to reproduce being part of an organism and not a free living individual.

In fact, if you look back at that step you have using energy (really transforming energy) you find that cells in organisms only have certain "sets" of genes active. This leads to differential protein expression and ultimately means that these cells aren't capable of some of the "necessary" conditions to be considered alive. Only in the context of the whole organism can they be viewed as alive.

Certainly "life viewed from the moon", constitutes a living biosphere-But that biosphere is composed of discrete entities who do not make up "one big organism". I suspect that this analogy is so appealing (much like the "atom as a solar system one") because of that marvelously evolved pattern recognition hardware we're running (the human brain).

Edit to note for the "bacteria and you" example; We know though, the bacteria are fundamentally not you however. At a genetic level, at a molecular level, at a population level etc. They are distinct from your anatomy, which is consequence of growth fields during your development which is not consistent with the bacteria's development (the two are independent).

Anyway, granting the analogy--What is your point?

No point yet copa, only searching for common definition.

I get how the bacteria in your Colin can be viewed as a seperate organism. But at the same time it is necessary for the larger organism's survival. Despite genetic independence it is a symbiotic relationship.

Nothing like the atom is a solor system.,.. You and I know atoms are nothing like a solor system... Except maby to a third grader. But...... I must say the biosphere behaves from greater and greater perspectives very much like an organism all it's own. I can make a case for every single characteristic of life to fit the biosphere as a whole. And when you look at complex organisms. Different organs, functions, even "junk" DNA seem to come from both mutations, some evidence from retro viruses during DNA transfer---- insemination---- colonies of organisms..., your slime molds..... Takeing on different traits and functions and passing them on either through DNA codeing, exposure, or some other means. I can see the same relationships although some on a new more complex level, evolving between societies, meams, economic supply chains, roads that transfer goods between cities, even the Internet with hubs and similar information transfer structured as the human brain. Add in cell phones, postal systems, train systems, shipping routs, flight paths, radio frequencies. Etc etc.

I see veins, nurotransmitters, cells, an imune system, intelligence, potential for reproduction ( potential for colonization of other planets).

It's a mistake to stop with the complexity of life at human beings or what we consider complex organisms. There is indeed complex complex complex organisms in which are emergent systems built upon emergent systems built upon emergent systems x 100. Your preseption of seperation from these things is built upon ego and perspective. Not unlike the slow revelation of a flat earth as Mt. Olympus as it's center to an averge galaxy in a vast galaxay filled universe.

Even large group think ( nazies, riots,) seem to imply group concousneses capabilities of humans.

My point being. If you were a scientist the size of the moon. even with your version of a microscope and DNA analysis, and you came upon earths biosphere. Would you consider it a lifeform or at least a symbiotic colony.... Not unlike your slime molds?

At what point does such a massive system gain conciousness? ---- obviously we have---- Can there be a a conciousness more complex and encompassing as ours, if it is built upon much older and more complex emerging systems?

Does a city have it's own conciousness?

Does a country?

What about the Internet? Will it gain conciousness at some point?

Are we really that special? Why only humans?

Ok..... four glasses if wine Tonight :) I'm done :)I look forward to your shreading :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know the theories on the Noosphere Seeker. If not I think you would like them and funnily enough it was coined by a Jesuit priest/scientist Pierre Chardin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point yet copa, only searching for common definition.

I get how the bacteria in your Colin can be viewed as a seperate organism. But at the same time it is necessary for the larger organism's survival. Despite genetic independence it is a symbiotic relationship.

Nothing like the atom is a solor system.,.. You and I know atoms are nothing like a solor system... Except maby to a third grader. But...... I must say the biosphere behaves from greater and greater perspectives very much like an organism all it's own. I can make a case for every single characteristic of life to fit the biosphere as a whole. And when you look at complex organisms. Different organs, functions, even "junk" DNA seem to come from both mutations, some evidence from retro viruses during DNA transfer---- insemination---- colonies of organisms..., your slime molds..... Takeing on different traits and functions and passing them on either through DNA codeing, exposure, or some other means. I can see the same relationships although some on a new more complex level, evolving between societies, meams, economic supply chains, roads that transfer goods between cities, even the Internet with hubs and similar information transfer structured as the human brain. Add in cell phones, postal systems, train systems, shipping routs, flight paths, radio frequencies. Etc etc.

I see veins, nurotransmitters, cells, an imune system, intelligence, potential for reproduction ( potential for colonization of other planets).

It's a mistake to stop with the complexity of life at human beings or what we consider complex organisms. There is indeed complex complex complex organisms in which are emergent systems built upon emergent systems built upon emergent systems x 100. Your preseption of seperation from these things is built upon ego and perspective. Not unlike the slow revelation of a flat earth as Mt. Olympus as it's center to an averge galaxy in a vast galaxay filled universe.

Even large group think ( nazies, riots,) seem to imply group concousneses capabilities of humans.

My point being. If you were a scientist the size of the moon. even with your version of a microscope and DNA analysis, and you came upon earths biosphere. Would you consider it a lifeform or at least a symbiotic colony.... Not unlike your slime molds?

At what point does such a massive system gain conciousness? ---- obviously we have---- Can there be a a conciousness more complex and encompassing as ours, if it is built upon much older and more complex emerging systems?

Does a city have it's own conciousness?

Does a country?

What about the Internet? Will it gain conciousness at some point?

Are we really that special? Why only humans?

Ok..... four glasses if wine Tonight :) I'm done :)I look forward to your shreading :)

Sounds like Gaia Hypothesis:

What is the hypothesis of Gaia ? Stated simply, the idea is that we may have discovered a living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our wildest dreams. That being, called Gaia, is the Earth.

More precisely: that about one billion years after it's formation, our planet was occupied by a meta-life form which began an ongoing process of transforming this planet into its own substance. All the life forms of the planet are part of Gaia. In a way analogous to the myriad different cell colonies which make up our organs and bodies, the life forms of earth in their diversity coevolve and contribute interactively to produce and sustain the optimal conditions for the growth and prosperity not of themselves, but of the larger whole, Gaia. That the very makeup of the atmosphere, seas, and terrestrial crust is the result of radical interventions carried out by Gaia through the evolving diversity of living creatures.

Encountering the Earth from space, a witness would know immediately that the planet was alive. The atmosphere would give it away. The atmospheric compositions of our sister planets, venus and mars, are: 95-96% carbon dioxide, 3-4% nitrogen, with traces of oxygen, argon and methane. The earth's atmosphere at present is 79% nitrogen, 21% oxygen with traces of carbon dioxide, methane and argon. The difference is Gaia, which transforms the outer layer of the planet into environments suitable to its further growth. For example, bacteria and photosynthetic algae began some 2.8 billions of years ago extracting the carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, setting the stage for larger and more energetic creatures powered by combustion, including, ultimately, ourselves.

That is how James Lovelock discovered Gaia; from outer space.In the 1960's, during the space race which followed the launching of Sputnik, he was asked by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Nasa to help design experiments to detect life on Mars.The Viking lander gathered and tested some Martian soil for life with no results. Lovelock had predicted as much, by analyzing the atmosphere of Mars: it is in a dead equilibrium. By contrast, the atmosphere of Earth is in a "far from equilib rium" state- meaning that there was some other complex process going on which maintained such an unlikely balance. It occurred to him that if the Viking lander had landed on the frozen waste of antarctica, it might not have found any trace of life on Earth either. But a sure giveaway would be a complete atmospheric analysis... which the Viking lander was not equipped to do. Lovelock's approach was not popular at Nasa because Nasa needed a good reason to land on Mars, and the best was to look for life. Viking found nothing on Mars, but Lovelock had seen the Earth from the perspective of an ET looking for evidence of life. And he began thinking that what he was seeing was not so much a planet adorned with diverse life forms, but a planet transfigured and transformed by a self-evolving and self-regulating living system.By the nature of its activity it seemed to qualify as a living being. He named that being Gaia, after the Greek goddess which drew the living world forth from Chaos.

"The name of the living planet, Gaia, is not a synonym for the biosphere-that part of the Earth where living things are seen normally to exist. Still less is Gaia the same as the biota, which is simply the collection of all individual living organisms. The biota and the biosphere taken together form a part but not all of Gaia. Just as the shell is part of the snail, so the rocks, the air, and the oceans are part of Gaia. Gaia, as we shall see, has continuity with the past back to the origins of life, and in the future as long as life persists. Gaia, as a total planetary being, has properties that are not necesarily discernable by just knowing individual species or populations of organisms living together... Specifically, the Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature,oxidation, state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota."

Even the shifting of the tectonic plates, resulting in the changing shapes of the continents, may result from the massive limestone deposits left in the earth by bioforms eons ago.

"You may find it hard to swallow the notion that anything as large and apparently inanimate as the Earth is alive. Surely, you may say, the Earth is almost wholly rock, and nearly all incandescent with heat. The difficulty can be lessened if you let the image of a giant redwood tree enter your mind.The tree undoubtedly is alive, yet 99% of it is dead.The great tree is an ancient spire of dead wood,made of lignin and cellulose by the ancestors of the thin layer of living cells which constitute its bark. How like the Earth, and more so when we realize that many of the atoms of the rocks far down into the magma were once part of the ancestral life of which we all have come." The root question of Gaia's critics, and a central point in his theory concerns the difference between a planetary environment which might only be the aggregate result of myriad independent life forms coevolving and sharing the same host, and one which is ultimately created by life forms deployed, so to speak, to accomplish the purpose of the larger being. Is the idea of Gaia only a romantic and dramatized description of the terrestrial biosphere and its effects, or is there a planetary being, whose life cycle must be counted in the billions of years, which spawns these evolving life forms to suit the purpose of its being. Do our kidney cells ask each other these sorts of questions? While your white blood cells thrive and reproduce, going about their business,they are indisputably serving the life of the larger body which you use, though whatever consciousness they experience in their realm is certainly far from that which you, the larger being, the whole, experience.

Recent scientific work, such as in the field of complex systems, have begun to give us the impression that this opposition of terms, the larger caused by its constituents, or the costituents created by the larger, may be one of those oppositions which are the constructs of our own minds, and must be dropped if we are to understand the truth, which is neither the one nor the other, but more difficult to comprehend and more fascinating to behold. Perhaps there is awareness appropriate at every level.Perhaps that is a property of life.

And what might be the nature of its evolution, this planetary being called Gaia? Anthropocentrists to the last, we might assume that the production of the human species is a great step upward for Gaia, a sort of rapidly evolving brain tissue. Or that she prepares the earth as a cradle and crucible of consciousness evolving. Other analogies come to mind: are we part of her arsenal of interplanetary spores ?

And what might constitute a life cycle for such a being- might it be as strange as that of the slime mold ? What stage would Gaia be in now? Is our species part of her maturity or an incubation period ? Is Gaia herself somehow part of a larger living being, perhaps on a galactic scale ? If so how do the cells of this larger being remain in communication? Will we eventually be able to experience something of the awareness which Gaia has ?

Lovelock points out that Gaia, being ancient and resourceful enough to have carried out these successive changes of the planet in spite of asteroid collisions and other setbacks, is herself probably not endangered by the relatively momentary depradations of the human species, as it befouls and cripples the bio-dynamics of its environment. Rather,the danger is to the human race, not only from our own actions, but also by Gaia's reaction to them.

He adds the caveat however, that the passage of a bullet is also momentary, but the damage nontheless lethal, and that we are not in a position yet to say whether or not some sudden, human caused imbalance, at a critical juncture, might be catastrophic to Gaia.

Lovelock first exposed his idea in his 1979 book, Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth. The science behind the hypothesis was still sketchy, and it provoked a storm of criticism. It also provoked a lot of research, and the resulting body of information has encouraged Lovelock to publish this second book, a more confident and complete exposition of the Gaia hypothesis.The Ages of Gaia is easily readable for the educated layperson, but includes plenty of scientific depth.

Those of us who consider ourselves to be somehow involved in the birthing of a new age, should discover Gaia as well. The idea of Gaia may facilitate the task of converting destructive human activities to constructive and cooperative behavior. It is an idea which deeply startles us, and in the process, may help us as a species to make the necessary jump to planetary awareness.

http://erg.ucd.ie/arupa/references/gaia.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know the theories on the Noosphere Seeker. If not I think you would like them and funnily enough it was coined by a Jesuit priest/scientist Pierre Chardin.

Thanks slim, I'll look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point yet copa, only searching for common definition.

I get how the bacteria in your Colin can be viewed as a seperate organism. But at the same time it is necessary for the larger organism's survival. Despite genetic independence it is a symbiotic relationship.

Its not that they can "viewed as separate organisms"--They are separate organisms, distinct from you--As in "non-self".

Symbiosis doesn't mean two organisms are the "same". In fact quite the opposite, it requires they be distinct (for a symbiotic relationship to exist, by definition). We use words in science with specific definitions. Particularly in the case of bacteria and our colons, it is a mutualistic relationship. We provide the bacteria with food and an ecological niche to occupy, while they protect our innards from less desirable bugs that may also think to populate that niche as well as helping in some digestive processes.

Nothing like the atom is a solor system.,.. You and I know atoms are nothing like a solor system... Except maby to a third grader. But...... I must say the biosphere behaves from greater and greater perspectives very much like an organism all it's own.

Right....Like I said, its a simple analogy-As is the analogy (maybe even to a third grader to boot) that a biosphere constitutes a 'single living organism'. It doesn't, those things which make it up comprise discrete organisms. Of course, like I said, the analogy can certainly be drawn, buts let's not confuse analogy with reality.

I can make a case for every single characteristic of life to fit the biosphere as a whole. And when you look at complex organisms.

You can by analogy, not by writ. Biospheres don't undergo biological evolution (a requirement of life). Certainly populations of organisms within the biosphere do, but not the biosphere itself. Here again those strident scientific definitions come back to haunt us. The "biosphere" or better an environment is the sum total of biotic and abiotic interactions occurring within-some pertain to biological evolution, some don't.

Transforming energy from one form to another, a requirement of our definition of living organisms, something only some components of an environment do (those biotic interactions again), but certainly not all of it.

Deal with waste, as in the metabolic by products of aerobic and anaerobic respiration. Again, unique to life, not all parts of a biosphere.

Etc. etc.

Different organs, functions, even "junk" DNA seem to come from both mutations, some evidence from retro viruses during DNA transfer---- insemination---- colonies of organisms..., your slime molds..... Takeing on different traits and functions and passing them on either through DNA codeing, exposure, or some other means.

Yes, different organs function.... :huh:

"Junk" DNA isn't junk, that is a popular misnomer that gets repeated time and again (most often through poor science reporting). The purpose of that "junk" is in the regulation of expression of the "non-junk" and a few other tasks (if your interested in we can discuss). Of course mutations strike "junk" (or, let's get more technical: non-coding DNA, NCD henceforth) DNA. Considering that the vast, well over 90%, of the genome is given over to NCD--Statistics demands that NCD receive a greater proportion of those mutations.

This isn't a bad thing though, coding DNA varies little across the taxa of life, because the proteins often are (though not all the time) some essential function to cellular processes. The differences in organism isn't much by way of coding regions, rather by the timing and expression of those regions which leads to differential growth and development.

On retroviridae (retroviruses), they are more akin to mobile genetic elements-Than say, most other viruses. Interestingly (at least for an evolutionary biologist), much of our genome is given over to retroviral elements transfected to ancestral cell lines once upon a time (and still happening today as well).

I can see the same relationships although some on a new more complex level, evolving between societies, meams, economic supply chains, roads that transfer goods between cities, even the Internet with hubs and similar information transfer structured as the human brain. Add in cell phones, postal systems, train systems, shipping routs, flight paths, radio frequencies. Etc etc.

Not sure I follow you. Those things, sociocultral things that is, "change" over time, but this is not how life changes. The mechanisms and reasons are inherently different. "Cultural" or "technological" evolution is not the same as biological evolution because those things, while again analogy can be drawn, are not living organisms.

I see veins, nurotransmitters, cells, an imune system, intelligence, potential for reproduction ( potential for colonization of other planets).

I see dead people.

It's a mistake to stop with the complexity of life at human beings or what we consider complex organisms. There is indeed complex complex complex organisms in which are emergent systems built upon emergent systems built upon emergent systems x 100. Your preseption of seperation from these things is built upon ego and perspective. Not unlike the slow revelation of a flat earth as Mt. Olympus as it's center to an averge galaxy in a vast galaxay filled universe.

No scientists thinks humans are the "top" of life's complexities. That is built upon a premise of "chains of being"--Which we know to be untrue. All extant life, by nature of descent with modification, will be equidistant to a LUCA.

Even large group think ( nazies, riots,) seem to imply group concousneses capabilities of humans.

No, it doesn't imply the group itself has consciousness. "Group think" is a consequence of the biological evolution of sociability. Simple "programing" rules, that dictate averaged behavior. Rules like "do what others in your group are doing" work well for social animals, because it creates group cohesion, cooperation and ultimately increases the reproductive fitness of the group. Animals without those "simple programing rules" aren't, well aren't social animals.

My point being. If you were a scientist the size of the moon. even with your version of a microscope and DNA analysis, and you came upon earths biosphere. Would you consider it a lifeform or at least a symbiotic colony.... Not unlike your slime molds?

We don't need to pretend I am the size of the moon. The moon, at its diameter is about 2.1 million times my size. I am about 7 million times the size of a bacteria--We very much have a "scientist the size of the moon scenario".

To answer your question, no. When looking at a microbial biosphere through my microscope I don't consider it "all one organism". They are indeed distinct organisms (that principle in itself is very important if you've ever taken something like an antibiotic, or enjoyed a yogurt).

Are there symbiotic relationships? Sure, you bet. Symbiotic relationships, again by definition, are relationships between different and discrete organisms. Some relationships are mutually beneficial (like us and our gut flora), some are commensal (ever been dive-bombed by swallows while mowing the grass? That relationship is beneficial to them, but only neutral to you) and some are parasitic (tape worms, hook worms, plasmodium, etc)

At what point does such a massive system gain conciousness? ---- obviously we have---- Can there be a a conciousness more complex and encompassing as ours, if it is built upon much older and more complex emerging systems?

Does a city have it's own conciousness?

Does a country?

What about the Internet? Will it gain conciousness at some point?

Are we really that special? Why only humans?

Ok..... four glasses if wine Tonight :) I'm done :)I look forward to your shreading :)

Our "type" of consciousness is built upon synaptic connections. You couldn't blow synaptic connects up to a "macro" scale, because governing principles of scale would make the system non-functional. Could there be other "types" of consciousness from other types of emergent interactions? I don't see why not, there isn't any evidence of them, but I don't know why they shouldn't be allowed to exist in some capacity.

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Gaia Hypothesis:

http://erg.ucd.ie/arupa/references/gaia.html

Yes, I am speaking of the Gaia principle. Although there are some parts that I don't agree with.

But im prepared to go much further. And copa and I have been laying the groundwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, there will be no instrument to record/measure the supernatural world. We can measure the effects of the supernatural on the physical-- eg, cold spots with regards to "hauntings" and what have you-- but not the supernatural world directly.

Why? Because science deals with the natural world. The supernatural world isn't the natural world. Any science that attempts to study anything outside the natural world will forever be a pseudo-science.

As for science and religion colliding, in many ways it's already happened. Creation vs. evolution, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that they can "viewed as separate organisms"--They are separate organisms, distinct from you--As in "non-self".

Symbiosis doesn't mean two organisms are the "same". In fact quite the opposite, it requires they be distinct (for a symbiotic relationship to exist, by definition). We use words in science with specific definitions. Particularly in the case of bacteria and our colons, it is a mutualistic relationship. We provide the bacteria with food and an ecological niche to occupy, while they protect our innards from less desirable bugs that may also think to populate that niche as well as helping in some digestive processes.

Right....Like I said, its a simple analogy-As is the analogy (maybe even to a third grader to boot) that a biosphere constitutes a 'single living organism'. It doesn't, those things which make it up comprise discrete organisms. Of course, like I said, the analogy can certainly be drawn, buts let's not confuse analogy with reality.

You can by analogy, not by writ. Biospheres don't undergo biological evolution (a requirement of life). Certainly populations of organisms within the biosphere do, but not the biosphere itself. Here again those strident scientific definitions come back to haunt us. The "biosphere" or better an environment is the sum total of biotic and abiotic interactions occurring within-some pertain to biological evolution, some don't.

Transforming energy from one form to another, a requirement of our definition of living organisms, something only some components of an environment do (those biotic interactions again), but certainly not all of it.

Deal with waste, as in the metabolic by products of aerobic and anaerobic respiration. Again, unique to life, not all parts of a biosphere.

Etc. etc.

Yes, different organs function.... :huh:

"Junk" DNA isn't junk, that is a popular misnomer that gets repeated time and again (most often through poor science reporting). The purpose of that "junk" is in the regulation of expression of the "non-junk" and a few other tasks (if your interested in we can discuss). Of course mutations strike "junk" (or, let's get more technical: non-coding DNA, NCD henceforth) DNA. Considering that the vast, well over 90%, of the genome is given over to NCD--Statistics demands that NCD receive a greater proportion of those mutations.

This isn't a bad thing though, coding DNA varies little across the taxa of life, because the proteins often are (though not all the time) some essential function to cellular processes. The differences in organism isn't much by way of coding regions, rather by the timing and expression of those regions which leads to differential growth and development.

On retroviridae (retroviruses), they are more akin to mobile genetic elements-Than say, most other viruses. Interestingly (at least for an evolutionary biologist), much of our genome is given over to retroviral elements transfected to ancestral cell lines once upon a time (and still happening today as well).

Not sure I follow you. Those things, sociocultral things that is, "change" over time, but this is not how life changes. The mechanisms and reasons are inherently different. "Cultural" or "technological" evolution is not the same as biological evolution because those things, while again analogy can be drawn, are not living organisms.

I see dead people.

No scientists thinks humans are the "top" of life's complexities. That is built upon a premise of "chains of being"--Which we know to be untrue. All extant life, by nature of descent with modification, will be equidistant to a LUCA.

No, it doesn't imply the group itself has consciousness. "Group think" is a consequence of the biological evolution of sociability. Simple "programing" rules, that dictate averaged behavior. Rules like "do what others in your group are doing" work well for social animals, because it creates group cohesion, cooperation and ultimately increases the reproductive fitness of the group. Animals without those "simple programing rules" aren't, well aren't social animals.

We don't need to pretend I am the size of the moon. The moon, at its diameter is about 2.1 million times my size. I am about 7 million times the size of a bacteria--We very much have a "scientist the size of the moon scenario".

To answer your question, no. When looking at a microbial biosphere through my microscope I don't consider it "all one organism". They are indeed distinct organisms (that principle in itself is very important if you've ever taken something like an antibiotic, or enjoyed a yogurt).

Are there symbiotic relationships? Sure, you bet. Symbiotic relationships, again by definition, are relationships between different and discrete organisms. Some relationships are mutually beneficial (like us and our gut flora), some are commensal (ever been dive-bombed by swallows while mowing the grass? That relationship is beneficial to them, but only neutral to you) and some are parasitic (tape worms, hook worms, plasmodium, etc)

Our "type" of consciousness is built upon synaptic connections. You couldn't blow synaptic connects up to a "macro" scale, because governing principles of scale would make the system non-functional. Could there be other "types" of consciousness from other types of emergent interactions? I don't see why not, there isn't any evidence of them, but I don't know why they shouldn't be allowed to exist in some capacity.

Nicely done.

I put junk DNA in quotes because I was aware it's not....."junk"

now. You are makeing my original points copa from pages ago. I'm not going to argue the finer points of science with you. I'm aware that I'm at a disadvantage. Nor do I have any feelings that it's wrong...., we would pretty much agree.

What my point way earlyer was that scientific methodology is incapable of giving us big picture understanding. Can't you see how mired your scientific mind is in the little parts and definitions. ( necessary of course to build upon, but there is a danger here ) You can see how a colony of slime molds can act like a complex organism even argue it as a potential candidate for the change from microbial life to complex life ( on another thread), but you will not aply the same principle in an upward induction direction.

I am aware when you stick to fine tuned definitions that the biosphere is made up of lots of seperate organisms, but the ghost is not in the details, it's in the relationships. It's not an analogy to look at a road as a blood vesel for city. They serve nearly identical functions. Yes yes yes I know it's not realllllly a blood vessel, but I'm looking at the relationship not what it's actually made up of. It's that strict definition thing again. Life, as we have established, is most likely an emergent system. Again, it's a mistake to think that other emergent systems cannot be considered "living" just because we have this rather biased view that life requires DNA. Now I'm not saying every emergent system should be considered for life, but it must be examined in it's greater context from the perspective ( moon perspective) I keep talking about. Examining emirgent systems and how they interact with each other to form new emergent systems and looking for the potential for conciousness on greater and greater scales.

I was actually surprised you left the potential for other kinds of conciousness on the table. Nice. How do you supose we would recognize it if we saw it other than haveing a conversation in a human language? What if it's life cycle is 30 million years?

Also at what point do you think would human networking/communication and integration with technology cross the line of us being "seperate organisms" to being a single one? as view by an outside moon sized observer. Would it be something like the Borg? The matrix? Where is that line? If we figure out how to download our conciousnesses into computers and collectivly use all of our experiences.. Would that not be a collective conciousness melding into one?

I think I saw something on the discovery channel about this where matchiato is predicting human integration with technology as we aproach the computing "singularity"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nicely done.

I put junk DNA in quotes because I was aware it's not....."junk"

Got ya. Clarification for anyone unawares then.

What my point way earlyer was that scientific methodology is incapable of giving us big picture understanding. Can't you see how mired your scientific mind is in the little parts and definitions. ( necessary of course to build upon, but there is a danger here ) You can see how a colony of slime molds can act like a complex organism even argue it as a potential candidate for the change from microbial life to complex life ( on another thread), but you will not aply the same principle in an upward induction direction.

This sounds to me like the argument against reductionism. Reductionism in science has its place, a useful place. I don't know any scientists who believe in "strict" reductionism. In fact, I'd be very surprised if you could find any modern scientist who took such a view.

Reductionism is necessary for understanding system fundamentals, it's worked well for science for the last few hundred years because we were at such a basic level of knowledge that to understand higher order systems, the details of those systems had to first be worked out. Most science is integrative however, whether were talking about physics or biology, and more approaches than just "reductionism" are used.

That "argument" (like the "nature v. nurture" one) is really a false dichotomy. It seems its popular to pit "them" against each other in the public domain, but again (anecdotal then) I've yet to meet the scientists who commits this sin (and I know a lot of scientists!).

I am aware when you stick to fine tuned definitions that the biosphere is made up of lots of seperate organisms, but the ghost is not in the details, it's in the relationships. It's not an analogy to look at a road as a blood vesel for city. They serve nearly identical functions. Yes yes yes I know it's not realllllly a blood vessel, but I'm looking at the relationship not what it's actually made up of. It's that strict definition thing again. Life, as we have established, is most likely an emergent system. Again, it's a mistake to think that other emergent systems cannot be considered "living" just because we have this rather biased view that life requires DNA. Now I'm not saying every emergent system should be considered for life, but it must be examined in it's greater context from the perspective ( moon perspective) I keep talking about. Examining emirgent systems and how they interact with each other to form new emergent systems and looking for the potential for conciousness on greater and greater scales.

The specificity of definitions in science isn't a nod toward reductionism, but rather because it makes discourse, disclosure and superstruction transmissible via language. Without specificity, something I go into the lab and do wouldn't necessarily be applicable to say a scientist in China working on similar studies. Science is only powerful for a few reasons, one of those reasons (at least indirectly) is that it's knowledge is accumulable.

I was actually surprised you left the potential for other kinds of conciousness on the table. Nice. How do you supose we would recognize it if we saw it other than haveing a conversation in a human language? What if it's life cycle is 30 million years?

Why? The absence of evidence for something does not preclude that something existing. I don't know how we would recognize it, I think it would rather depend on how that consciousness was manifest. Certainly, something existing across time and space far removed from our perspective may simply be impossible for us to recognize.

Also at what point do you think would human networking/communication and integration with technology cross the line of us being "seperate organisms" to being a single one? as view by an outside moon sized observer. Would it be something like the Borg? The matrix? Where is that line? If we figure out how to download our conciousnesses into computers and collectivly use all of our experiences.. Would that not be a collective conciousness melding into one?

I think I saw something on the discovery channel about this where matchiato is predicting human integration with technology as we aproach the computing "singularity"

I don't know. From a biological standpoint, I am very skeptical that this kind of "integration" is or ever will be possible. If consciousness is a strong emergent property of synaptic connections, then I have doubts that it will lend itself to transfer of substrata.

I don't discount the possibility (indeed I think it is likely one day) that we will be able to mirror an inclusive set of synaptic connections, such as say my brain, through technological abiotic feats--But the moment of "conception" is marred by experience, in this case the experience which leads to two diverging sets because of the now two unique substrata of "my" consciousness. The feedback of the environment ensures the forging of new synaptic states, experienced in one system but not the other. Two "me's" then, though who was "originally me" I suppose would rather be the perspective of the new consciousnesses.

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, there will be no instrument to record/measure the supernatural world. We can measure the effects of the supernatural on the physical-- eg, cold spots with regards to "hauntings" and what have you-- but not the supernatural world directly.

Why? Because science deals with the natural world. The supernatural world isn't the natural world. Any science that attempts to study anything outside the natural world will forever be a pseudo-science.

As for science and religion colliding, in many ways it's already happened. Creation vs. evolution, etc...

Creation vs evolution is not religion colliding with science it's one religion colliding with another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creation vs evolution is not religion colliding with science it's one religion colliding with another one.

Repeating the mantra that evolutionary biology is "religion" because it conflicts with your fundamentalist beliefs, makes it no more religion than is physics or geology (though I suspect, those parts of those disciplines that conflict with your beliefs are "religions" too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess biology, chemistry, other studies arnt so reductionist oriented by themselves escpecially chemistry but they are still built upon particle physics. We are still trying to fully explaine nature be looking at the tinyest parts. The coveted theory of everything is centered around this.

Now I guess I'll wrap it up.

We have established.

1) there is no such thing as nothing..... Something has been around for ever.

2) this something can change. And has at least one time and is now this universe that is continuing to change

3) in at least this universe this concept of emerging systems can and has led to a complex system with conciousness and creative intelligence. With the potential for many mire.

forever is not going to end. In an ever changing infinate existance emergent systems have prooving to have the abiity to create concious life.

Evolving life constantly seeks it's survival. At some point in infinite existance some form of life is bound to pretty much conquer nature insuring indefinate survival.. In fact if it is at all possible in infinity it's a certainty. This form of life would have evolved from the universe or possibly many universes by reproduction methods then contact with other life to form greater and greater networks of minds and resources. At some point varying levels of living networks becomes indistinguishable from one entity especially viewed from higher snd higher perspectives.

Now one can argue that our universe or multiverse, if there is such a thing, is not cyclical because of a lak of observational evidence, and at the present time I find it hard to beleive that this big bang has only happened once and will never happen again.,,,,, in all of eternity.

Now imagine the universe evolving infinatly as it changes. The combination of everything, one big conciousness or emergent system ..... There is nothing to stop eternal evolution.

A being apart and aware of everything haveing evolved an eternity ago,

Sounds like a great dpirit to me.6))) crapp I'm falling asleep. Tomorrow, i'll finish up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists always stay away from the realm of supernatural. I guess it's bit of a matter of politics. So far, science can't verify religion at all. But that's for now. what if our descendants discover a way to scientifically observe and verify the realm of supernatural, just like we simulate things with supercomputers?

Well, science is the systematic study of the natural world, so by its very definition, it's not going to concern itself with the supernatural or paranormal. Science does not stay away from the realm of supernatural. It's simply not a discipline that is made to study that aspect. If, however, science can find a way to somehow observe the supernatural (using the term of loosely here), then the 'supernatural' will become part of the natural world - as such, calling it supernatural or paranormal will be kind of an oxymoron.

Edited by Blood_Sacrifice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, science is the systematic study of the natural world, so by its very definition, it's not going to concern itself with the supernatural or paranormal. Science does not stay away from the realm of supernatural. It's simply not a discipline that is made to study that aspect. If, however, science can find a way to somehow observe the supernatural (using the term of loosely here), then the 'supernatural' will become part of the natural world - as such, calling it supernatural or paranormal will be kind of an oxymoron.

Is psychology and neurology not the the study of the inner world? Surely empiricism is a for of scientific method, it may not be experimental as such but it is observational and that makes in science in my opinion.

The physical world is relative and subjective, it is different for everyone even though there is commonality.

The mental or psychic world is also relative because it is based on our personality, knowledge and experiences.

Beyond that is the astral world, which is a confusing mix of subjective and objective realities and further again are extreley veiled objective worlds that we cannot appreciate with our limited perceptions.

Now if there is experiments or empirical studies to be done then they can focus on the mental and psychic but this will yield limited success. To prove it we need to look firther into the abyss and scientists seem to afraid to do this along with the reli-gious. If you look into the abyss with a dark heart you will get a dark reflection but if you look with a pure heart you could get something really positive. There are countless experiments that could be set up to prove the existence of other dimensions of consciousness but currently we cannot get anyone to even agree on the most simplest issues so doing and and doing it so it yields significant results is not gonna be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already have. Take a look at Quantum Physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already have. Take a look at Quantum Physics.

Yeah, quantum phsyicists have had to confront the underlying nature prior to most other scientists. Still a way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way i see it, religion has always tried to stamp out science, so far science is winning.

as far as the question will science ever prove god, it may prove a single something that kick started this universe but there are a lot of theories that have evidence to support that we are not the only universe. with our limited human minds we cannot comprehend the vastness of existence as we do not know it, is this god? no because god is humanities greatest celebrity, the idea of god has been twisted and humanised into this creator.

i still fail to understand the difference between myth and religion other than numbers. if a billion people worldwide jumped off a cliff would you!? im guessing for far too many people the answer to this would be along the lines of "yes, if thats what jesus wants"

...i promised myself when i signed up id stay away from this part of the forum

Edited by The Metal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask me God is a sceintist....look how the universe is in percise order. i refuse to believe a big bang happen and everything was just put into order its not 'scientific'. the universe is like clock work, just like the earth seasons. the design of it is complicated for it to just come to be.

I think religion & science are one in the same. even the wise men that followed the star to Jesus birth. the bible itself is full of science...thats just my opinion. my question is where did science start? did it really started from man or did it start from God? if we are made in his likeness then God is the creator of it and God sceince is beyond ours. He's in the heavens his ways our higher than ours. Math & Science is in the bible..just my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask me God is a sceintist....look how the universe is in percise order. i refuse to believe a big bang happen and everything was just put into order its not 'scientific'. the universe is like clock work, just like the earth seasons. the design of it is complicated for it to just come to be.

I think religion & science are one in the same. even the wise men that followed the star to Jesus birth. the bible itself is full of science...thats just my opinion. my question is where did science start? did it really started from man or did it start from God? if we are made in his likeness then God is the creator of it and God sceince is beyond ours. He's in the heavens his ways our higher than ours. Math & Science is in the bible..just my opinion

God is no more a scientist than he is a priest or prophet. He is clearly an artist if anything but equally a she as much as a he in my opinion.

There is a fair amount of cross over between maths and religion particularly in the OT. Have you see Pi, heard of Gematria, etc? An artist needs to have an understand of the intuitive and logical mind combined and nature works in a similar way.

The very first act of creation must have been one of imagination by the source of ultimate mind. It then manifested into two opposing forces that would break down further to cause conflict and eventually progress and return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.