Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

You went from talking about abiogenesis to the big bang. Are you saying that abiogenesis is something coming from nothing...? Well wasn't there a planet? With elements? Wouldn't that be something? Reptiles used eggs long before the chicken evolved, so I would say the egg, according to the fossil record, came first.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

But it is a fact. Abiogenesis happened. What is being investigated is the how it happened. The phenomenon is a fact; life exists, abiogenesis occured. How? Well I guess it was either natural chemical reactions of known elements, or, a celestial invisible being waving a magic wand. But the fact remains, abiogenesis occured. If a rock falls are we to either believe god did it, or, nothing did it? Or perhaps gravity did it?When you say the 2 options are gog did it, or nothing did it, what do you mean by nothing? Do you mean it just popped into existance from nothingness?The proof for abiogenesis is that there was no life on this planet at one point, then there is. This is proof that abiogenesis occured. The only thing in question is the method, or the how. No it's not. The study of abiogenesis requires no faith and nothing is claimed without evidence, that is why no one in science has yet to make any final conclusions; the field is still being studied.Claiming god did it is final. It's a conclusion based on no evidence what so ever. There were no experiments, no peer review, no lab work, no supporting evidence, no NOTHING. It is 100% faith.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

It does the same for all phenomena.The study of gravity does not consider supernatural intervention, the study of proto-planetary formation does not consider supernatual intervention, so why would abiogenesis consider supernatual intervention? Which comments specifically suggested that?Wouldn't the intelligence require an explanation as to how it formed before we even begin to investigated what it made?Wouldn't the 'intelligence' also be considered 'life'? How is it different from life?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Was gravity a fact before or after we figured out how it worked? No, I believe you are confusing the matter.I don't believe anything "created" anything. Nor am I claiming anything as fact other than life didn't exist and then it did. That is abiogenesis, life not existing then existing; the process of abiogenesis occured, now how is another matter.Science is studying the phenomenon, but you can't study a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Life occured, that is the phenomenon. The occurance of life is 'abiogenesis', that is the name of the phenomenon. So we perform science to find out how. Ahhhh, so we get to the root of your misunderstanding. No, it doesn't, Hydro.I suggest you take a look throught this site, the 'spontaneous generation' argument has been covered many times. Abiogenesis does not mean spontaneous generation. In fact, a quick Wiki search will show you the many different fields of abiogenesis and none of them cite Louis Pastuers experiment as evidence.Abiogenesis is the orginization of smaller chemical components that, through time, develop into proto-life, and eventually life.Sponataneous generation is life popping up from inorganic material in one sudden moment. Yes, but you are wrong in your comparison.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Huh? Then what is it 'proof' for? We don't have life, then we have life, what is that proof of?Abiogenesis: "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter."Even IF god did it, he still had to use inanimate matter since that is what there was.Do you have another suggestion as to how life was made? Ok, wait. How did you narrow it down to 'the god of the bible'...?You said an 'intelligence', now your making the leap to a 'god', and more specifically, the god of the christians?This may make sense to you, but it has no evidence so I'll simply not address it.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Changing "create" to "spawn" doesn't change the notion that you are looking for a momentary act of life emerging, this is not the case in the study of abiogenesis. It's a gradual process up the chemical chain. Just as proto-suns aren't fully formed stars, early life may have had stages where we wouldn't define it as life but it was in the process of becoming it having most of the integral parts for it. No, we're talking about a gradual increase of chemical complexity, no one in the abiogenesis camp is claiming life occured sponataniously...well, except for creationist.Using the term 'sponatneous generation' is refering specifically to Pastuer's experiment. The term 'spontaneous' is not used in the modern day study of abiogenesis. No, it does not. You can't pin-point a momentary emergence of life. There is no evidence to support such a claim. Life was gradual. Because there is no 'anti' religious stance in science. There is however a NO intellgent designer stance. Or 'anti' intelligent designer stance. But most scientist are of a religious faith, so there is no 'anti'religion in science.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Can you support that statement with evidence?Not human reproduction, life as in 'the origin of it'...how do you know it happens spontaneously without any evidence?That's the point of the field of abiogenesis, to study this emergence. How can you make non-evidenced statements, then accuse people of making non-evidenced claims?As an analogy: does the spectrum from color to color happen spontaneously, or is there a gradual change from one color to the other? Embarrassing to who? Who are you speaking for? Another non-evidenced statement?How is it even an embarrassment? It was an experiment that failed to meet it's predicted outcome, that's science, dude. That's the scientific method at it's best. That's not a source for embarrassment, and I don't think anyone feels that way - except you, for some reason. You show me a dictionary definition?See RAZD's latest thread on this Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II , so you can understand what the field of abiogenesis is doing, currently.I don't mean anything totally different. We're talking about the study of the emergence of life. This, in science, is refered to as the field of abiogenesis. And again, you have absolutely no objective evidence to support that. The current evidence shows that you are wrong, though.There's no logic about it. Evidence is the only thing one can use to make an absolute claim like what you are making. Especially when all the current evidence points away from your "logic."I direct you to RAZD's thread. In science and matters of fact, there is no pre-philosophical position that one needs to hold to to get the right answers; the evidence points to what the evidence points to, period.What "staunch" evolutionist? What does that even mean? That they accept the theory? Are there any "staunch" gravityist?Now you're throwing in words like "evolutionist" in a discussion about abiogenesis? I think your true colors are starting to come out, Hydro.Accepting the theory of evolution does not in anyway mean you accept any of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, nor does it mean that you are an atheist and remove god from the equation. Please clarify what you mean by "evolutionist."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Right, but the actions of living things is not what is being questioned.We are talking about the gradual progression from non-life to life. There is not enough evidence to support your assertion that it was a spontaneous moment. In fact, the current evidence in the different abiogenesis hypothesis show that it was a long process that has no definitive line. The actions of living things is not being questioned. False. In fact, I'll make it easy, show me the evidence... A victory in their small circle. It means nothing to science who is studying the field and making huge advancements. I agree that that's what those words mean. But just like Big Bang doesn't mean an actual "explosion," the genesis in abiogenesis does not mean a single moment of creation.Just study the subject and the different hypothesis, show me evidence of one that states it was a single moment. The only one claiming that it was a single moment is you. Theres no evidence to support your claim, though. You have seen the origin of life?We are not talking about reproduction, we are talking about the origin of life. You can't compare it to the reproduction of living things. I'm saying that you don't know the origin of life was spontaneous because we don't know exactly how life emerged. You are saying that life happened at a single moment - spontaneously. So show me the evidence that you are using to prove that life emerged, NOT reproduces, spontaneously. You are wrong. That you can't see it is not my, or anyone elses, problem. Yes, but the scientific method of peer-review removes the "pre-philosophical" ideologies. That is the reason ID has never made any progress in the field of science. If you are simply talking about indiividual people then who cares?You said evolutionist, which I thought you meant working evolutionary scientist. Who cares what peoples individual opinion about evolution, or the origin of life, are?The only thing that matters is what evidence can be shown, what experiments say and confirm, and if it can stand peer-review. Peoples individual assertions mean nothing.-Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Your attempts are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility. We can currently define what life is and what non-life is, 4 billion years ago, when it was in it's slow, gradual process, it's impossible to know what that fine line was. However, feel free to do the research and see what you come up with... The demonstration you seek is what is currently being studied in the field of abiogenesis. If you have evidence that trumps what they are doing, show it... Actually, all current works in the field of abiogenesis are still hypothesis. I can't show you how the planet was made from matter either, but look down, you're standing on it.Likewise, we can't show you how life arrose through natural process, but look at the fossil record. You'll find no life at a certain point, then you find life...any suggestions how that happened?No matter how you slice it, whether god or natural, life came from none living elements, right? God, if that's the best suggestion you have, still had to use non-living matter, right?So whats your real issue?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

You claimed to be the only one who is attempting to define what life and non-life is.However, since we are not talking about the defining line between life and non-life in 2009, we are talking about the line 4 billion years ago, I ask you, how can you even make an attempt to define a line between what life and non-life was like 4 billion years ago?That is why I said that your attempts to draw a line between life and non-life 4 billion years ago "are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility."I'll ask you again, how can you even make an attempt to draw a line between life and non-life 4 billion years ago when there is very little evidence? The only evidence that exists is that at one point in time there was inorganic matter and nothing we would define as "life", then at a period in time we find that there is "life" as we define it.So, the only conclusion, other than it appeared out of thin air, is that inorganic, chemical reactions naturally formed "life". Or you can say God did it, which is fine if that's your belief, but we would still have to assume God used inorganic material, since that is what we are composed of, and how exactly did he do it? I believe in either case the scientific method is the proper approach for the inquiry. So far there are a few leading abiogenesis hypothesis in science.What do you dispute, and why?I think we can skip the rest since I feel I covered it in the above paragraph. Do you believe God did it is a compelling theory?- If you do, then what objective evidence are you using to support that as a theory?- If you don't, would you agree that the leading, compelling, theories are the hypothesis in the field of Abiogenesis?*Unless you know of another theory/hypothesis? Well it seems you change your mind every time I ask the question. Lets re-trace your steps.First you say: Note: objective scientistThen you say: Note: staunch evolutionistNow it comes down to: So we went from, objective scientist, to evolutionist, to atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion...So which is it?Do you feel the scientist studying and investigating in the field of abiogenesis fit your description?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Hi Filameter, Why do you suggest that we perceive it imperfectly? - Imperfectly as compared to what exactly? And yet you seem to be comparing it to some other way that is better? Or less imperfect?Are you suggesting that there is a perfect way to perceive reality? If so, how do we know when we get there, and can it be possible that we are there already? - If not, why not? Do you mean like a Cartesian Theater? Where the "self" is viewing the outside world and making choices as to how to respond?If you are suggesting that, which would be the Homunculus arguement, it is a fallacy.

quote:

---

The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or some'one') in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie.

---

If you are not implying that, then can you explain what you mean? How exactly are you suggesting that this is done?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

But now I can't follow your logic. If you say there is no perfect way to perceive reality, then there is also no imperfect way, either. The way you perceive it is just that, the way you perceive it.The way we perceive reality is how we evolved to perceive it. It has proven to be perfect for our survival as a species.So this: ...is just explaining our limited evolution based on a comparatively better possibility. But in no way is this a goal for humans to evolve to that in some way betters our perception of reality.Again, the way we perceive reality is perfect, because that is how we evolved to perceive it. First, that is not true (bellow I provide a link to the Color-Phi phenomenon). And I'll ask you to reference something to support your assumption. That certain areas of your brain have not received the information making you conscious of it, is another arguement. But that perceiving reality happens milliseconds after the event, from what I've studied, is not true. But I'll be convinced otherwise if you can provide some evidence to support it.However...lets say it was true.Then wouldn't that just be reality? When you perceive it.Have you seen the movie Spinal Tap? - "This knob goes to 11"..."well, why don't you just make that the highest volume and call it 10?" That's just the point though isn't it? If we did, if that was part of our reality, then our survival would have required it and we would have evolved the ability to do so. Given that we don't go extinct. We don't have wings either. If we required to fly for our survival we'd be in "big trouble." We don't, so we don't have wings.There are lots of conditions that if changed would end the human race. But the point of adaptation is that you adapt to only that which is required of you to adapt to, and nothing more. Since these things are a by-product of us, they are a by-product of biological evolution by way of ingenuity. They are as much a part of us as our eyes, glasses for those who need it and a cain for the blind. These things are not better in and of themselves, they are better for us. Without us these things are worthless. It's Dan Dennetts coined term. It was known as Cartesian materialism.And it addresses this position of yours: From the link:

quote:

---

In its simplest version, Cartesian materialism might predict, for example, that there is a specific place in the brain which would store a coherent representation of everything we are consciously experiencing in a given moment: what we're seeing, what we're hearing, what we're smelling, and indeed, everything that we are consciously aware of. In essence, Cartesian materialism claims that, somewhere in our brain, there is a place (or set of places) where a hypothetical outside observer could 'look in' and essentially 'see' the content of conscious experience moment by moment. In contrast, anything occurring outside of this "privileged neural media" is nonconscious.

---

The homunculus is hypothetical. What it means is that if this place exists where the information is stored then hypothetically a homunculous could watch it like a theater - hence the term Cartesian theater.However the problem with that is as follows:

quote:

---

One argument against Cartesian materialism is that most neuroscientists have discounted the idea of a single brain area where all information "comes together". Instead, information seemed to be stored and processed in a variety of disparate neural structures. For example, once information from the eyes reaches the visual cortex, it is analyzed by a variety of overlapping feature maps, each detecting a particular aspect, but a central location where this information is merged back together to re-represent it has not been found.

---

And the major problem is experimental - the Color-Phi phenomenon. And this experiment also disproves your assumption that we perceive reality milliseconds after the event (unless you can provide evidence to support that).

quote:

---

Another argument against Cartesian materialism is inspired by the results of several scientific experiments in the fields of psychology and neuroscience. In experiments that demonstrate the Color Phi phenomenon and the metacontrast effect, two stimuli are rapidly flashed on a screen, one after the other. Amazingly, the second stimulus can, in some cases, actually affect the perception of the first stimulus. In other experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet, two electrical stimulations are delivered, one after another, to a conscious subject. Under some conditions, subjects report having felt the second stimulation before they felt the first stimulation.

​

These experiments call into question the idea that brain states are directly translatable into the contents of Consciousness. How can the second stimuli be 'projected backwards in time', such that it can affect the perception of things that occurred before the second stimulus was even administered?

---

And finally Dan Dennetts conclusion of the arguement:

quote:

---

Dennett's argument has the following basic structure:

• 1. If Cartesian materialism were true and there really was a special brain area (or areas) that stored the contents of conscious experience, then it should be possible to ascertain exactly when something enters conscious experience.
• 2. It is impossible, even in theory, to ever precisely determine when something enters conscious experience.
• 3. Therefore, Cartesian materialism is false.

---

I think you may be hoping for something that just doesn't exist.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Yes. But I would also add that there is a difference between how all species perceive reality. Within the individual species it varies as well. To "obtain knowledge" about certain aspects of reality, yes.But the reason we perceive reality is for the purpose of survival. Since we have survived as a species for millions of years then it follows that the way we perceive reality is perfect for that purpose. Because if it was incomplete or inaccurate then as a species, we would not have survived. The way we perceive reality is complete and accurate to serve the purpose it evolved for.And it's because of the way that we perceive reality that we are able to be aware of so much about our environment. Our highly intelligent brains exist because of our sensory functions and their ability to perceive reality so well.Can it be better? Well that depends. Better for what? First, I'm not saying that we perceive reality perfectly compared to (X). I'm saying we perceive it perfectly for the purpose of survival. There is no perfect way to perceive reality and there is no imperfect way, either. You either survive as a species the way you perceive reality, or you don't. Imperfections are removed during evolvement.That's why I asked you, imperfect as compared to what?- Oni

There is a delay, yes. But not in perception, the delay is between the event and you becoming conscious of it.Your senses begin to perceive it instantaniously, the moment it happens. There is no time delay in reality, there is just a time delay in us becoming conscious of reality.There is such a thing as non-conscious perception. You are talking about conscious awareness of changes in reality.If I put my hand on a table, even though I may not know it's a table for a short millisec, my senses still began to perceive it the moment I touched it.There is a difference between perceiving something and consciously perceiving something.Also, the Color Phi Phenomenon presents a problem for your assertion.

quote:

---

The existence of the color phi phenomenon poses an interesting philosophical problem. When asked to describe their experience, subjects report seeing the abrupt color change before the second dot is actually presented.

​

However, logically, it is impossible for a subject to actually experience the color change before the second dot has been presented — how could the dot change color before the second dot is shown and the subject finds out what the color of the second dot is going to be?

---

So how would you explain it? How could the subjects report seeing the change before the color is actually shown?- Oni

I knew I would get nailed on the use of the word "perfect," I just didn't know how else to express it.I agree with the way you re-wrote it - adequate seems like the better word. Exactly. And for other species, like say bats, other sensory functions have developed that aid them in their environment, adequately. How unnecessary would it be for a bat to develop the vision we use? Likewise, how necessary would it be for us to perceive reality the way bats do?I think the point Filameter is failing to see is that senses evolve to suit the environment, not to suit individual desires.- OniEdited by onifre, : grammer