Hi Apokrisis, nice try, but your explanation falls a little short for me. Come on, you can do better than that.

The mitochondrion (or ancestral bacterium) lost the need for a lot of its genes as it was now safely tucked inside the host archaeon. — apokrisis

It was now safely tucked inside? Was it? I think you've glossed over a bit there. It is true that the nature of the relationship became symbiotic, but I can assure you it was not through the pleasant exchange of ideas.

A replicating lifeform inside another lifeform will kill it, cold.

It only retained the genes most critical for regulating its highly volatile respiratory activity. — apokrisis

That was a very smart decision. When did it come to this decision? Before or after it killed the host? It simply said, 'You know what, stuff everything except respiration. I'm going to destroy my ability to regulate my own cell division and maintain the health of myself, and I sure hope that I can figure out a way to keep surviving in this new environment, whatever it may be". Is that the reason that it decided to devolve when it had been doing so well?

So the proteins needed to maintain control were kept close at hand. Then the other less time-critical genes could migrate be part of the DNA in the central nucleus. — apokrisis

Could they? How did they come to that arrangement? Enterprise bargaining? The blind mitochondria said to the blind cell, "I don't know what the hell you are or where the hell I am but here comes some genes. Catch."

Thus all can be explained by constraints of metabolic efficiency and genetic evolvability. — apokrisis

I see.

Don't forget to post the Nobel Prize to Australia.

Yeah, I hear you Rich. But if the theory of the expanding universe is so pathetically weak, how has it come to pass as the accepted model. I'm no physicist and if I can look at it and say, hey what about space shrinkage around galaxies or a contracting universe, a gazillion others must have had the same questions.

It's a big deal, as it means we need new theories for everything to do with space, dark matter, dark energy all of it, or at least alternative theories. No wonder they keep invoking new stuff to explain inconsistencies.

But are we sure that there is no other supporting evidence? If not, wow!

We have a law of thermodynamics that says all things will tend toward entropy, and the theory holds well. Then we have this situation where the law is being opposed. It could be described as a stone in the river that the water cannot push along, were it not for the fact that this stone has actually grown in its ability to resist entropy the longer it has been around.

There is no credible way to explain the rise of molecules to the extent needed for life. There is no credible way to explain their amalgamation into cycles, and then from cycles into systems, and then from systems in cells and cell groups and so on.

Each new level that appears, locks in the level beneath it, maximising its efficiency, securing it against the randomness of the environment. If there were a gradient in this direction for life, then a lot could be explained. We could envisage buckets over-flowing into more and more, larger and larger buckets. That is why I think we should be looking for a life force - a physical law that explains the gradient.

The fact is we don't have it. We have directionality, which is like intentionality, especially when the choice is against thermodynamics.

Beyond directional intentionality however, there is another layer, and that is the layer of apparent sentience. And to this point I bring up once more the mitochondria who had its genes stolen.

What fascinates me about the mitochondria I referenced earlier is that the battle occurred in the pitch dark. The chemically formed cell doesn't possess the sentience to know that there is a physical body inside it. The story is that a foreign cell (a mitochondria) invades a eurkaryote. Chemicals go crazy. In the end, rather than killing the mitochondria, the very exact part required for reproduction of the mitochondria is deleted from the mitochondria and appears in the nuclear DNA of the cell. WTF
--Chemistry would have an awfully hard time explaining that based on reactions.

There are many examplars of this type of sentience - What is it? The complex emergent semiotics of the system?

The discovery is associated with Edward Hubble. It appears pretty solidly documented. — Wayfarer

I'm not arguing he saw the red shift Wayfarer. I'm arguing that the red shift does not necessarily imply an expanding universe. Maybe all of the galaxies are shrinking on the spot! Same effect, don't you agree? Maybe there are all contracting away from each other toward the center of the universe - again same effect.

If these can't be proven false, then the entire Big Bang to Heat Death is one theory predicated upon a weaker one.

Yes, under SR time and length are reciprocal. Contraction of length is ignored leading to all sorts of paradoxes. So many, that I simply game up on Relativity. It would be like spinning my wheels in Zeno's. None of it is real. — Rich

If this is the best evidence physics can offer about the expanding universe, red blurs in a telescope and conflicting equations, it seems like the premise and the entire multi-story list of deductions that come from it, is balancing on a single egg shell. - All because of a bit of red out there.

I am suspicious of theories rejected by the consensus of the scientific community. If you look, there are lots of people that say relativity and quantum mechanics are hoaxes. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the frustration that comes from not understanding the chain of inference that scientists follow on complex issues. It would be helpful if we could get someone on the line who knows the science well. — T Clark

I agree. If we were arguing over the tenth decimal place of some constant then maybe we would have something. But the foundation of the theory of our entire universe? Seems a bit incredulous. And yet, there seems no real answer to my question. I agree, we need the heavy hitters in to answer this properly.


Rich, you're pretty up on your quantum mechanics and physics in general. Where is the flaw in the premise that the universe could be contracting, based on the red shift or anything else?

If this were so, the red shift would be greatest towards the mass that is pulling everything in since acceleration would be greatest there. Smaller red shift in the opposite, and blue shift in the other 4 directions as things parallel to us all get sucked closer to this mass. This tendency is called tidal force: expansion in 2 dimensions and contraction in the other 4, and is a signature of a strong gravitational field. — noAxioms

This is what I am arguing. How does it look now? Again if there was shrinkage of space around the galaxies the blue shift could be compensated for.

I'm outside of American politics, but we may be looking at this similarly. What's your take on the boundary breach idea?

Can you elaborate on that response. You seem to be implying that I have based my assertions on what you said.

Sorry to steal your thunder. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Have you watched any of Varoufaki's stuff? I chose this one at random, I haven't see it, but he tends to repeat his message over and over.

He talks about the loss of control of sovereignty. How the nation was forced to bow to the dictates of the European Union. How the nation, against the explicit mandate from the people were forced to impose harsh economic terms.

The fall of nations in submission to a larger entity. The loss of power of the people in the system. The rise of positive feedback loops in the system that keep the rich, rich. The gutting of the welfare state to streamline the efficiency of the system.

I think we are witnessing the birth of new order, and I think we all know it. We've breached the barrier and control is reigning down us. It is the system now, not the molecules.

I would like to consider the possibility that every human action is the byproduct of selfish motives. — Alec

I think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population.

If we look at the evolution of life from cycles to systems etc, there was a time when each was king. It was top of the heirachical chain, and then it hit some critical threshold and a new level was born.

The molecules that had independently catalysed reactions were now constrained in the cycle and fed the reactants. The speed of their processing was now regulated. A higher order had moved in above it, first to stabilise and then to control. The molecules had breached their boundary and in poured the fire of regulation, and as the higher order developed it refined its control and maximised the potential of the system in a way that suited its own direction, until the next barrier was ready to be breached.

We have a layer above us that has gone from a passive agent of our own construction to a very active, regulatory agent that we increasingly have less control over. The new layer is not merely concerned with the macroeconomics of economic survival, but the microregulation and evaluation of you and I as part of that system.

At least that's the theme I'm running with for now.

Yeah, I think I see where you're going. Compared to say the 50s, where we were in charge, in tight control of our resources, there is a lot more entropy in the system now. The pot is now bubbling away furiously and us molecules are dancing dangerously. The layers above us seem a lot thicker, a lot more intent on controlling now rather than serving. Barrier breach.

Do you agree with a polygamous world? — Anonymys

Are women also polygamous in this world? Fair is fair after all.

The eternal battle between the heart and the mind. Your decisions, I am sure, use logical algorithms although you may have a say in which folders you wish to open to derive that logic. I think though that the entire decision making tree is soaking in emotion.

Biologically speaking, if memory serves, its the thalamus that is the go between between neuro-hormonal feedback from the body and the cerebrum, mixing the two together and creating the conflict between logic and emotion, all for the sole purpose keeping us awake until a few hours before its time to get up for work.

There is no need for the United States to panic. Even if we are drifting away, we'll still look after you guys.

almost permanently at risk of biological pathology — StreetlightX

Hi Streetlight X. Not exactly sure what you mean by that statement.
I think its a good insight. There's a lot of detail, and I was reading quickly so I may have missed the upshot but...

It may represent the signalling of the next barrier breach. If we think of life in the continuum from atoms to molecules blah blah to people, then society is the next manifestation beyond that. It is built by people, just like people are built by cells. This unaccounted for 'negentropy' that defines life flows from bucket to bucket to bucket getting more complex each time and taking a new reading (semiotics or explicate order) each time. Our society may be breaching its boundaries and spilling into the next realm.

Or else its just a modified re-run of feudal England and we'll await the next equivalent of industrialisation.

If there is, and if we were moving toward it, we would be moving away from some galaxies and toward others — T Clark

Hmmm. What I think we've observed is red shifted galaxies relative to us. It could be that those closest to the centre (we need a centre for a big bang or for a new convergence place) are moving faster than us toward the centre, just as those further from the centre are moving slower relative to us. It would make sense as gravity grows stronger - almost like a singularity toward the centre.

We haven't been studying the sky for long enough to observe actual movement of the galaxies relative to each other, but if we did, and it was non-directional, then shrinkage could account for it.

I take your point though that those on our 'left and right' could be moving at the same speed as us and convergence might blue shift them... unless they are also shrinking at a faster rate than the convergence rate (I thought I might need that card).

No, I'm not invoking any new laws or rules. It's still about the red shift. It's the perception, because of the red shift, that that the galaxies are moving away. Think about if for a second.

1. If they are moving away from us they are red shifted.

This also means

2. If we are moving away from them, they are red shifted (its relative [who is really moving?]). If it's us that's moving faster than them it could be because:

A: We could be moving away from them linearly (as we race faster than them toward the centre of the universe)

OR

B: We could both be contracting, which would also open the space between us, causing a red shift.

I am arguing A, and allowing that B might also be happening.

How do they verify that everything is moving away from everything, rather than everything is moving away from us. We haven't gone to the galaxies to observe the shifts. Its all speculation based on a red shift. If we were approaching it, it would be blue shifted, but if it we were moving away from it (as they say it is moving away from us), or contracting away from us it would be red shifted.

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that it's all based on the red shift? It's equally arguable that its contracting. You would observe the same thing, especially if space was contracting around the galaxies.

But my argument allows humans to invent their own meanings if they like - so long as they are intelligent enough to understand the constraints that have formed their nature so far. — apokrisis

That was a good post.

Looking further into entropy and living systems I see there is no net positive gradient toward life afterall. I must have misunderstood what was being suggested. The lowered entropic states (the bonds and concentration gradients) come at a higher entropic cost. The environment is simply flushed through the container to achieve a cause.

You realise of course that trees don't have a nervous system, and people commonly assume that means they don't have a sentience (although the root tip is coming under scrutiny). And the reason they don't have a nervous system is that it would be useless to them. We have it to navigate our world. A tree would see a truck coming at it from a mile away and think "Oh shit, here comes a truck" Then it would hear a chainsaw and think "Oh shit, I'm about to be cut down."

It still has hormones though and uses them for communication.

I always equate emotions with hormones: slower acting, longer lasting. As opposed to those sharp cognitive pulses that arrive in a milisecond and evaporate soon after.

I think that the neural reactions arose from those deeper hormonal emotions. Because they are slow and considered, they tend to be right more times than wrong - at least compared to your cognitive ones that make you go off half-cocked.

I agree that in the heirachy of things emotions should dictate to the cognitive mind and not the other way around. I heard a good expression once, something like the order should be

Body obeys mind obeys heart obeys (god - the spiritual world), - words to that effect.

Have you seen the Vikings on TV? I think they say at one point "Who ever told you life was meant to be about happiness?"

I also think the internet is alive:D — TheMadFool

It''s an interesting comparison. It is an incredibly integrated neural net of sorts. I don't believe it is alive but it forces to wonder about the difference between that and the human (or any other animals) mind v brain.

At least if a given supercomputer fails at AI, they can repurpose it; a failed $250m self-evolving synthetic brain would just end up in a hazmat bin. — Efram

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm sure some downtown restaurants would be interested.

At face value there appears to be some support for the idea of a thermodynamic gradient that favours the direction of life. If the logic of this holds scrutiny then this is quite a big deal. It starts a whole series of cause and effect chains after 'the hump' that tend to run away. The fact that we don't know how all the molecules or membranes in the cell came to be there is an important point, but is weakened by the observation that they could be placed on the gradient. Based solely on thermodynamics, if the arguments presented by Apokrisis hold, it is feasible at least to suggest the molecules formed naturally somewhere at some point.

Of course this all only points in the direction of life, and says Life could be that'a'way. It does not demonstrate 'life'. So, I think a key approach at this point is to find examples of molecular and cellular interactions that do not make sense in terms of cause and effect, while also scrutinising the thermodynamic claims about life a lot closer - If we can find an apparent sentience beyond the chemistry the table is turned once more.

The sentience of the mind is a strong fallback position as Rich has highlighted, but I also think there is plenty of stuff to work with lying around in the world of molecules and cells. It should be noted that the idea of the mind as a holographic field was first proposed by noted Quantum Mechanist David Bohm.

One such example that might constitute evidence of a sentience would be the organelle called mitochondria inside eurkaryotes. This is commonly thought of as the battery of the cell. Theory has it that the mitrochondria, who have their own genetic code (mitochondrial DNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA), invaded our cells, but our cells trapped them in a process known as endosymbiosis.

So we all have symbiotes inside us! Because these symbiotes have their own mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), this means that they should be free to multiply inside us like a virus. The thing is, the expression, replication and maintenance of mtDNA is :

" Expression, replication, and maintenance of mtDNA require factors encoded by nuclear genes. These include not only the primary machinery involved (eg, transcription and replication components) but also those in signaling pathways that mediate or sense alterations in mitochondrial function in accord with changing cellular needs or environmental conditions. " quote

: our cells stole their machinery and enslaved them.

You're not invoking a sentience I hope T Clark. Talk to you later.

is more able to change genetically in response to environmental changes better. — T Clark

But why bother?

I look forward to talking more tomorrow T Clark, but before I go, if it's just living, why bother with all the meiosis and sex organs and gestation and child raring. Why not just be, and then be gone from existence? Its an awful lot of fuss over nothing.

But a very tough seedlike organism, without a need to evolve into anything else could hunker down in the soil and just count to a billion.

Thanks Wayfarer, I will give it a solid read tomorrow. I tend to agree with you in the main. I have to say though I've been reading up on Apokrisis's dissipative systems and laws of entropy and have taken a knock back several steps. I will have to regroup my thoughts and come at it again.

Wishing to receive is still a condition. — John Days

But its my condition that the other side has no conditions. Even so, it's not really even my condition. It's just nice if it happens.

Interesting. I think I would like to reach that.

It's simple. The chemicals get together and become "dedicated". After that It All Just Happens Naturally. — Rich

There you go, I knew there was a reason. The anti-entropic gradient of dedication.

I don't have too many problems eliminating the mind though. I can eliminate my senses one by one until I am left with empty space and thoughts manifested by humming neurons. Maybe I'm missing something.

Why not just read the book? — apokrisis

Until I read the book though, I have a lot of problems with the theory.

It All Just Happened — Rich

I can see how it all just happened Rich, I can't explain the why with such massive entropic gradients against it, life not only held its own, but flourished, with each new boundary being breached until the creation of the organism.

But even if I could explain how the entropic gradients were overcome, how life managed to breach boundary after boundary, I still can't understand what intrinsic properties must be present in the very essence of matter and energy that allows the whole game to be played this way anyway- to allow new properties to reveal themselves layer after layer after layer.

As to the mind, I don't spend a lot of time on it, but can see how it could be a perplexing and fascinating problem.

Haha, fair enough. I'll put it on my list of books to read. It's a long list though, that's why I thought you might be able to help me out.

Thanks Apokrisis,
I can see why you're drawn to this idea, particularly that the removal of the product that allows the reactants to continue to flow, sustaining the energy gradient. Of course though the reactants would have continued to flow, it just establishes the gradient.

I have some points for you to consider though that I will formulate as questions in the hope you can provide more insight. Perhaps a clearer understanding of the Hadean era sea on my part would help resolve these issues.

So you are halfway to the basic metabolic set-up life. And now proper organic machinery that can "eat" methane is energetically favoured — apokrisis

1. The methane eaters are enzymatic in function. Are they proteinaceous enzymes or simple organic compounds that convert to another compound after eating the methane?

Actual cells only have to internalise this existing chemistry by forming a vesicle - and lipid waste does this spontaneously in water. — apokrisis

2. Where did the phospholipid bilayer (lipid waste) come from and how did it entrap the methane eaters (is it just a hydrocarbon without phosphate)? Were there not methane eaters outside of the vesicle as well?

Would not the vesicle already by formed because of its hydrophobic nature prior to encountering the methane?


3. The pump is a Na+/H+ exchanger? Is it Active or Passive transport? If it's passive, then the driver for the exchanger would be the proton gradient I'm assuming if the vesicle drifted into the vent region? Again proteinaceous in structure? If it's active transport, then what is powering it? ATP?

4. Just to elaborate on the last point the direction of movement of the ions was Hydrogen in, Sodium out?

5. How did the 'pump' get in the vesicle bilayer? Where was it being synthesised in large enough quantity for it to not be a randomly occurring polypeptide? If there was a base RNA, where did the nucleic acid concentration come from? Were there ribosomes involved?

This leads me to my next question:

And now proper organic machinery that can "eat" methane - turn it into the kind of crud that makes cells — apokrisis

-What type of crud? Hydrocarbon chain

Thanks for sharing these ideas with us all Apokrisis, if you're unable to answer the technical questions its no reflection on the theory, only that I personally would like more information.

Hi John Days,
It might be that the idea exists because it is what people wish to receive, rather than are able to give.

What's the evolutionary benefit?