But what's the point of evolution, evolutionary speaking of course.

Why are we built that way? I understand why animals have eyes and legs and stuff, but reproduction seems a bit silly, don't you think? A bit wasteful of resources we could have spent elsewhere?

Passing on the genetic code is just something that tends to happen while you're living. — T Clark

So why do animals get the urge to do it so badly? It seems like a lot of work and effort has gone into the process. But for no reason? Not even a scientific one?

Life is not about anything. It's life. Living is what we do and we're doing it. — T Clark

So how does evolution and the passing on of the genes fit into the picture? Why not just be and then be stamped out of existence? Why bother passing on the genetic code?

Are you an Aussie too?

Neither. I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way. I'm here because I like to think, write, and argue. I'm here because I am a competent recreational thinker and I want some competition. I'm here because there are so many bad ideas for me to hone my blade on. That's not intended as a reference to you or Rich. That's it - I'm here to hone the blade. — T Clark

Truth, justice and the American way. Cool, me too, and I'm not even an American! - Aussie. Bring it :)

and the people on this site have nothing — T Clark

Hey, speak for yourself.

The chicken and the egg? It's an interesting way of thinking about it. I hadn't considered the possibility that the network came first and then the code, but it does make a lot of sense.

Sure to simulate the brain would be great. The problem is we still don't really understand it. We thought we almost had it for a while, but it just kept getting more and more complex. The language of the brain is electrochemical, but there are also emergent patterns that we are detecting within this signaling.

Locations for complex phenomena in the brain also appear to be more decentralised or diffuse than we imagined. Even the neuron itself is not as clear cut as we had once thought and their networks are mind boggling.

I thought they were working on neural processors at one stage, but I haven't heard anything about it for almost 10 years or more now.

I think the software part is most critical for figuring out the logic behind complex cognitive or emotional states - we can always build around it once we know what we want.

Are you suggesting that we could bypass the coding by letting an organic neural network configure itself so to speak, and we just learn how to train it or affect its development?

You sound depressed. This is a dangerous website to bring depression to. With the exception of a very few people, philosophy is more likely to tie your feelings up in knots than it is to bring clarity. Most advice you get here will come from other introverted, self-involved people. — T Clark

I disagree with that statement. Philosophy itself might have some dull books on the shelf, but this is a great place to be. We on the Philosophy Forum love to talk about all sorts of stuff. If you're feeling down on yourself all the time, my suggestion might be to look for a lack of alignment between your heart and your mind. Take some time to listen to your heart. Then speak from it and stuff everybody else. It takes a few goes to get right, but once you have it, it will be a strong guide. Be true to that and it won't steer you too far wrong. Happiness, or at least contentment, will follow.

I might put the boundary breach idea of consciousness in a new thread. Or does everyone want to discuss it here? It's getting a bit off topic. -- Actually no, I have a feeling it might be a fairly established idea.

Yes, thank you both. I can see the similarity in concept now that you have pointed it out.

You know it could be argued that 'life' as a disparate entity from chemistry doesn't really exist at all and everything is in an unbroken continuum from atoms to us. Life is simply an explicate order of the complicated processes arising out of organic chemistry.

Life and consciousness itself might be an illusion created by a superfluous energy state in the senses (a boundary breach).

Hi Apokrisis, could you outline the abiogenesis arguments that have influenced you the most in your thinking please.

Hi MadFool, what type of hardware do you think we are lacking that might help the situation? More RAM?

Others of us, including the professional consensus of living biologists, says no. We can go back and forth through the elements of evolutionary theory, but it comes down to that - you do not believe the consensus of scientific opinion. Which is fine, but it doesn't leave us much to talk about. — T Clark

If you only wanted the answers to empirical questions, I think you would not be in the Philosophy Forum. That either leaves one of two options, the first is you want to prove that everyone is wrong and science is right, or you know yourself that something is not quite right. Either way, that's great.

Prove me wrong. Show why my thinking is wrong, and I'll try and do the same back. That's the fun of the Philosophy Forum, and how we acquire a deeper and more fulfilling understanding of our world.

To begin, considering we are talking about evolution in this thread, let me ask you which you think may be the more likely purpose of life? Is life about experiencing, as Rich would suggest, or is it about reproduction so we conserve the species through consecutive generations against a changing environmental backdrop?

A difference of opinion leaves everything to talk about unless one is closed minded.

Thanks for responding to the post and taking the time to find the image. I don't really think these represent the boundary breaches I had in mind although the triangular shape is appropriate.

I would call a boundary breach when a containment field suddenly starts permitting things that didn't happen before. When atoms suddenly start aligning into molecules, molecules into cycles and so on. Atoms, molecules, cycles etc all have their own level of containment that should be self-fulfilling.

Atoms spilt out everywhere until after a while they formed molecules. The atoms are forming molecules all over the place until suddenly they were making cycles. We didn't go from atoms to skyscrapers. We can see sequential steps along the way. Each step would represent a boundary breach of the step before.

From this conclusion we can actually formulate an anti-entropic equation of sorts:

That any system cannot be truly closed or balanced, but will always generate a net force greater than the sum of its parts (or less than the sum of its parts). Over time when the net sum is positive it will cause boundary breaches where before there was restraint. This will create a sudden surge in the system.

When the net sum is negative, the system will collapse.

Life is a series of positive net sum boundary breaches that can be traced from the quanta to the society we create. As society grows, what will the next boundary breach be into? And from what breach did the quanta arise?

I like these implicate and explicate order definitions. I can use these.
It's good they disagree. Let's go get 'em. :)

Hello, hello, the holographic model.

That sounds like a good thing. Why hasn't it been embraced and become an area of research? Or has it?

Do you know if there's any that point to life? Some constant you need to keep invoking in QM say, so the equations hold?

Did the equations hold?

You know what I think would make life so much easier for people on both sides? To invoke a new force called the life force and give it some Greek letter.

You could then reference it in equations and because it is in a nutshell, science could seriously begin to hunt for it, just like they have for the other forces.

I looked at the unifying equation they have so far, and it is only a serious of pointers to other equations. Throw the life force letter into the mix too.

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right?

I'm assuming that the lack of response is because I have, at first attempt to convince you, met with overwhelming success. Perhaps even stated the obvious.

Therefore I will make the next creative step in this conceptual model.

For simplicity's sake, let's say that on the inner edge of every boundary, little creative entities are scurrying around eroding its integrity.

Using this model of boundary breaching entities on the inner surface of every boundary layer, we can consider our own universe as a series of cascading boundary breaches, be it the Big Bang or the rise of the quanta (or quantum field) that created the world and its living entities. Each time the boundary is being breached from within by forces within that boundary.

The implications for this type of thinking might be that if the Big Bang was a boundary breach, it would mean a pre-existing universe was breached and we would expect to find an entanglement of both universes inside this one.

Of course there is nothing to suggest that boundary breaches can't go the other way as well, but much of nature seems bottom up.

Hi Ddarko, you sound like a thorough thinker. You will probably like this site a lot. My advice is to jump into a thread and don't worry if your logic doesn't hold from all sides. In fact I find the best way to find the faults or strengths in your thinking is to challenge other people's ideas. They have a fantastic habit of surprising you with their response.

To paraphrase the Matrix "You don't know somebody until you fight them." Although in this case it would be your ideas you are fighting.

You forgot about time Rich. That's the key to the solution. Enough time to work through every conceivable combination. Of course that fact that it has, from the quanta up, the intrinsic property to be manipulated in this way is a topic for another discussion.

Do you understand what we're saying T Clark?

It was a thousand monkey typing of typewriters that inevitably created Shakespeare. The successful combinations of atoms, molecules, cycles, systems, cells, tissues, organs and organisms was fated given enough time. There is no need to invoke composers of symphonies to account for the music. But don't you feel that maybe, you're not getting the whole picture T Clark?

How is what matters and what I want to know. — T Clark

It sounds like you already know. Atoms self-organised into molecules, molecules self-organised into cycles, cycles self-organised into systems, complex systems self-organised into cells and cell groups. Cell groups self-organised into tissues, tissues self-organised into organs, organs self-organised into organisms. Whalla, here we both are.

Life is a symphony.

If you want to limit your understanding to what you can measure then your findings will suit you completely.

For example, we may ask "Why did the train start moving?" It was because the wheels turned on the track. They turned on the track because the pistons drove them. The pistons drove them because of steam pressure from the furnace boiling the water. The fire in the furnace was caused by burning wood. Problem solved. That explains how the train started to move, but not why. It started to move because someone released the breaks and pushed the throttle forward. Intentionality is not needed for how, but it is needed for why. If you don't ask why then current theories will fill you with understanding.

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other. In what way is that not a scientific question? — T Clark

That's where I disagree.

How do you know it's not? Why wouldn't it be? Why would you expect that a common phenomenon of nature such as life would have to have an exotic explanation? — T Clark

Again forest for the trees. By skipping over intentionality or directional design and simply observing what you can measure, you miss the whole show.

I have read discussions of self-organizing minerals and speculation that these could have a role in the transition from non-living to living. Those speculations seem plausible. — T Clark

Yes, it's a good point. Its a bit like a forest for the trees way of thinking though. For me the question is why are they doing that? Why are atoms forming molecules forming cycles and systems?

Hi Apokrisis, what are the primary reasons given in support of abiogenesis in Nick Lane's books? Can you give a quick overview? Thanks.

Anyway Rich, I might jump off this thread and catch up with you on another.

"If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you are going." — Rich

Hi Rich,
I like this quote. If we are a memory field though, changing direction may be a harder then it appears.

When Buddha refined the definition of Karma from being a result of rituals to being a consequence of actions, was this akin to saying there is no god (rituals), its all physics (irreducible fact)? How did the people react to that?

The Buddha adapted the concept but modified it — Wayfarer

Hi Wayfarer,
How is Karma conceptualised in Buddhism? Is it thought of as an energy field or an omnipotent hand or something like that ?