Our collective reality and the belief that creates it our not capable of sustaining our planet for much longer so the cause (being our beliefs) must change. So, then, what causes these beliefs? How can we change them for a belief better suited for creation? — Thinking

We don't have a collective reality. We create our personal reality from the beliefs we hold to be true. We each have a personal reality - as is evidenced by the variety of understanding expressed in the comments of threads in this forum. This is the problem! If we all agreed then we could live in harmony!

But then life would have placed all its eggs in the same basket, which would be a problem if we were collectively wrong. :smile:

I want to know a belief that is very empowering that serves to cherish the life and planet here and now. — Thinking

I think this would be monism. Dualism is largely the mode of understanding that has led to the situation we are in today. I think a monist understanding, where everything is self created from information, energy, and matter would be a step toward universal relatedness. If we understood ourselves as being fundamentally related to each other, and to everything else on this planet, then it would be easier to empathize with, and thus respect everything else.

Buddhism is the closest to this mode of thinking. There is only one Buddhist country - Bhutan. They measure Gross national happiness, 75% of the country is nature reserve, and they are the only carbon negative country. There would be a substantial tradeoff of lifestyle however.

In Yogic logic you always create your own reality from the beliefs you hold to be true.

But a belief is not part of the set of 'what is true', :sad: Until you believe it to be! :razz:

So you have picked your beliefs wisely! :up:

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

Language is communication. Without the narrative the video would not have communicated much to me. With the narrative, what was communicated was something profoundly different! But I think what you are getting at is that a relationship entails communication, so it is a language. Which would mean the way we live our lives is a language. Yes I suppose that is true. The way an artist paints in art has long been understood as a language; their style is their language, regardless of their intention, regardless of what they achieve.

Therefore, any science based on drawing a conclusion from a pattern is not reliable — Georgios Bakalis

If this was true then nothing would be reliable, as everything reduces down to a drawing of conclusions from patterns (of information).

It is the logical flaw in your assertion.

** consciousness is a drawing of conclusions from patterns of information ( information integration ). If science is flawed on the basis of doing this then so is consciousness. By extension so is your assertion, as it is a drawing of conclusions from patterns of information.

I am still unclear about what you are saying. Perhaps you are trying to say that information is a distinct thing in its own right and that consciousness is merely an expression of this underlying information. — Gary Enfield

I suppose it is difficult to understand if you are unfamiliar with information and self organization theory. It is not necessary to understand them fully - I certainly don't, but a basic understanding allows one to apply them to topics such as this and derive some understanding that is not possible with more traditional theory. I would encourage anybody to familiarize themselves with these theories as they have filled substantial gaps in my understanding.

Put another way, there is nothing to suggest that physical existence is dependent on such an information base - and if Matter/Energy can exist independently then there is no basic requirement for an information layer to existence. — Gary Enfield

Materials are composed of information and energy. The relationship of information and energy is matter.
E=mc2, energy equals mass, only matter has mass, but matter also contains volume and shape which the mass is distributed over – these are information. There may also be other as yet undiscovered factors that contribute to matter, but whatever they may turn out to be will also be information. Everything is information, and everything is self organizing, so everything is self organizing information! This is the underlying element that materialism does not generally recognize.

I imagine impressions like this is what led people like Planck, and Schrodinger, and others to believe that consciousness is fundamental, and Fritjof Capra to state that "the basic unit of cognition is a disturbance in a state."

Once one starts to think like this then one can start to see a viable evolutionary path from inanimate matter to animate matter via information integration, and preservation, and the emergence that may result in the process.

but i thought you wanted to add a little more to make it clear for everyone. :up: — Adughep

I knew you would understand, and I imagine there is only us two left who are interested. And I think we have reached a rough understanding of how life might have evolved. What is interesting is that a form of mind evolved before what we would consider life. :smile: which is consistent with all abiogenesis theory, and the notion that self organization led to life, but is not the typical understanding.

Thank you for the preservation of information insight. This fills a gap in my understanding. Normally I would say self organization forms a self, but this can not occur without the preservation of information. Fundamentally it is the preserved information that forms a self, thus enabling self organization - the interrelational evolution of a pattern of preserved information. The self being a pattern of preserved information. And it is easy to see how "the self " in psychology is really just a complicated pattern of preserved information.

The last phrase might be a little confusing "An animated pattern is a process" ? maybe you can say more details about the process. — Adughep

If everything is subject to interrelational evolution ( and I can not see how it can not be ) then so would be the emergent property of action. When inanimate amino acids are combined in a certain pattern an emergent property arises - the property of action / movement. This property then becomes subject to interrelational evolution. The now acting cellular protein, along with its action, must evolve to something self sustaining otherwise it can not survive. The action must evolve to a pattern of action or a series of steps - a process - that is meaningful for its survival. A pattern is information. If information is being preserved, now a pattern of action is the information being preserved. An interacting pattern of information - interacting with other patterns of information, is information processing!

According to Fritjof Capra: " cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". He means this is for all forms of matter - living and non living.

So If we put all these together we get a sketch of how interacting patterns of action must self organize to something self sustaining - if they are successful they create a form of mind! If they are not successful then they do not survive - so there seems to be an evolutionary imperative towards mind in certain Goldilocks situations.

The principle of system wide cooperation from simple action is demonstrated in this video and here.

could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about! — Pop

I don't see how? It may explain the cause of asymmetry giving rise to matter, if confirmed in ten years time or so, but otherwise nothing new.

Other authors may find different ways to sub-divide consciousness, but ultimately an explanation must be found in the basic processes of nature.... and I don't see you focusing-in on what the necessary base-level requirements might be. — Gary Enfield

If information preservation is fundamental, then everything is integrating information. — Pop

Almost everyone accepts evolution as a process of change and increasing complexity, once the first cell existed - but things must be very different before life - without an alternate evolutionary mechanism - just basic chemistry (with lightning or without it). — Gary Enfield

I think it needs to be understood that everything exists in a relation to something else. Indeed everything exists in a relation to a multiplicity of externalities. It is not a static relationship, but an evolving one. So everything exists in a process of interrelational evolution - both the living and nonliving evolve through a process of interrelational evolution. If this is true for everything, then it is also true for the first living cell. This gives me the confidence to state that the first living cell arose through a process of interrelational evolution - simply because no alternative of being exists! — Pop

Everything evolves. Nothing stays still. We are trying to describe how inanimate matter might evolve to animated matter. We have honed in on how information plays the central role. Please read over the thread.

If information preservation is fundamental, then everything is integrating information. This is consistent with the modern definition of consciousness ( information integration ). It occurs through self organization. Self organization is caused by external elements. Self organization creates a self, entirely from elements external to self. The only thing that belongs innately to the self is the information it preserves. The information is stored as a pattern of materials. Simply put, the information is the arrangement or pattern of materials. In the case of living things it is an animated pattern of materials. The animation is itself an emergent pattern. Life is an animated pattern. An animated pattern is a process.

Does this make sense?

However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about! — Gary Enfield

I cant see anything on their website?

You have two recipients of water: one with water + DNA sample, and second recipient with empty water.
If you put them close(but not real contact) and you spin them using centrifugation, so each sample can emit electromagnetic fields . After some time the electromagnetic result can be replicated into the empty container and after DNA analysis of the empty container, they found DNA is present there as well.
So the conclusion is the DNA from the first container got replicated to the empty container without physical contact, only by electromagnetic fields. — Adughep

This would be sensational! But it has been 11 years and nobody has replicated it, and it seems a very simple experiment to replicate, so I don't have much confidence in it. :sad:

I believe that the evolution main purpose is to preserve information, so it can evolve maybe in something better or more complex.It does not matter how you evolve and what caused it(that's why the causes are not stored ), but if you have new information it tries to keep it if it can. — Adughep

I would largely agree with this. It would mean preserving the first bit of information is what life is all about :smile: I wonder what it is? I would guess relationship, since you fundamentally need at least two things to create information, where one thing informs the other, and subsequently everything exists via interrelational evolution. This is also consistent with the view that the minimum requirement for an emergent property is a relationship.

Indeed, I see them too... — Gus Lamarch

However, I find your historical writing very interesting and look forward to reading it. :smile:

If the only evidential life in the Universe so far is "Humanity", by direct consequence, Man is also the "Ontological Point", that is, the "existential center of awareness of the Universe", since he is the only one evidently aware of its own sapience.

Therefore, Earth is the "center of the conscious experience of the Universe", and the Ontological Point - Humanity. — Gus Lamarch

I can see several logical problems with your statement.

Firstly: Humanity is not the only evidential life in the universe! We are only one of a myriad of life forms on earth. Perhaps you should rephrase this.

Secondly. Humanity is ontologically dependent upon elements of the Earth for its existence ( since it is entirely created from these elements ). The Earth is ontologically dependent upon universal elements for its existence. So fundamentally we are a being of the universe. We are one of the ways that the universe expresses itself, or to put it another way - we are a function of universal self organization.

Thirdly: For your statement that the Earth is the center of the conscious experience of the universe to be meaningful, you would have to define consciousness? You would have to keep in mind that it is a unique property in every individual ( no two are exactly the same ), and that it is an evolving process, thus open ended. If you accept this, then you will see that it is not the same experience for everyone, and so the statement is logically invalid. As it stands it is a singular statement with a myriad of experiential manifestations. It makes no sense to assume self awareness and sapience for all forms of consciousness, as many are contradictory. Where some see God, others see physical causes.

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. This definition fits human consciousness as every conscious moment is a moment of self organization. But this definition does not exclude anything, at all! Every point in the universe is part of a self organizing system, in the sense that the system in some way differentiates itself from the whole, and the whole itself - the universe - is a self organizing system. So in this sense consciousness is ubiquitous, which is contrary to your assertion.

you can even say the main purpose of the evolution is to preserve the exchange of information.If some cell did not evolved into something more complex, it means it could not preserve the old information anymore. — Adughep

Can you elaborate on this a little? I can see how all elements of the system must continue to evolve interrelationaly, in order to preserve the system - is this what you mean? This occurs at all levels of the system - each level plays a role in maintaining the whole. Each level solves its own idiomatic problems, this would include buisness and love, but all levels have only one manner of being as a self organizing system in the process of interellational evolution.

What is interesting about the article is that the system does not fail totally due to folate deficiency, but institutes a workaround by configuring itself differently. And this different configuration is passed on generically. So the information of how the system was effected ( how it changed form ) was preserved, unfortunately not all the story that caused its change of form, is preserved in the form. Still the continuity of information is evident, even though we can not decipher it totally.

This would mean that the original information that created the system would be preserved in the form of elements of the system somehow. The RNA hypothesis seems pretty strong to me. It did not self replicate, according to Stuart Kauffman, but copied its neighbour RNA, whilst at the same time its neighbour RNA copied it! Its easy to see how out of this relationship DNA could evolve as a double helix of RNA.

It strikes me as amusing that most life on earth remains microbial. We don't seem to care for it. — Tom Storm

That is true, mostly we don't seem to care for it, except when we realize that human cells are eukaryotic cells, and that their self organization entirely creates us and ultimately forms every post in this forum, as well as all of life and its creations. You would think as philosophers we might take an interest?

In my opinion the Universe gives priority on interactions (of any kind) that preserve the old information.And to interactions that destroys "the old information", it makes them start back from basics. — Adughep

Yes, I can see why the information would have to be preserved, and at the same time a closed system would have to move in the direction of greater complexity ( due to the entropic principle outlined earlier ). So the information exchanged becomes more and more complex. Is this process enough then to be captured by evolution and progressed from there to something self sustaining? I suppose, if not, then the process wouldn't survive.

I think what is significant is that it is information that is being exchanged ( as energy or form), and so ultimately it is the exchange of information that must become more complex, and self sustaining?

I wonder what would happen if we solved the question of anabiosis and actually managed do create it in a lab. I suspect the debate would hardly change. — Tom Storm

Yes , this is the flip side of the coin, in that ultimately consciousness must decide what consciousness is. :smile: Or to put it another way - self organization must decide what self organization is! And when it does it must do so in a self organizing manner - so cannot change overnight. Changing one's self organization is a big deal in psychology. So integrating new understanding has to seep into consciousness over long periods of time.

We are all chemicals interacting with other chemicals. — Becky

Yes, this is how it is traditionally understood. In the last 10 - 15 years these chemical reactions have been illustrated as molecular interactions in animations, and what is astounding is the level of complexity a chemical reaction can take. The complexity seen begs the question - do these chemicals have mind?

In my opinion, what you want is somehow related to finding the purpose of life.Which is a hard subject and might need another topic open. — Adughep

It is a hard topic, like consciousness, which I used to think was impossible to understand, but I found as I keep on trying I continued to make progress, admittedly at a snails pace, but progress nevertheless, so I can not give up now. The ideas touched upon in this thread, which are still fairly fuzzy in my mind, need to be integrated and elucidated to a simple understanding accessible to all.

That consciousness can be defined as an evolving process of self organization, and that the universe and everything in it belongs to a system that is an evolving process of self organization, hints at an answer as to what it is all about, IMO.

Because of so many energy interactions and no limits, messy energies and particles can always form something new.
"Why" they work like this, for now i dont think there is a logical reason for it.
Is like asking why some "living cells" evolve into dinosaurs or why "living cells" evolve into birds, dogs or humans ? — Adughep

Every why question pertaining to natural phenomena can be answered by self organization ( more or less ). Why does a fish have scales? - self organization. Why does a dinosaur form here and a human there - self organization. Why is the universe just so? - self organization!

What do you think self organization is?

I am not sure what you want to find. You want to know the purpose of life ? — Adughep

I am trying to understand consciousness. I think I have a pretty good understanding in terms of phenomenology psychology, and belief systems, and now am trying to understand how it fits into the big picture / how it creates the big picture.

So then "The relationship of energy and information = another state of higher(or different) energy" .Is not necessary that the result to be a higher energy, it can result in a different energy type (lower or higher).
Is the same principle when using a beam of light, if you amplify it and excite the electrons ( you add information) it becomes laser. — Adughep

Thanks for this, I was not aware. So if we change either the energy or the information, then a different pattern results. It is still matter - as different waves of energy propagating over something material / or a field. And ultimately everything is really just patterns of energy - pattern upon pattern in a space that is a pattern. Patterns of energy interacting with each other and perhaps changing their information in the process - could this be a fundamental information exchange?

If so then it is"discrete patterns of interacting energy exchanging information" that would have to self organize, as this is what happens in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic.

The same principle applies to cells when they evolve into something new, just with other types of energy level — Adughep

Wikipedia ( on self organizing systems ): "The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation."

The other thing that needs to be considered in all this is emergence. How in the relationship of disparate parts something novel can emerge.

** In physics, systems are driven to maximize entropy production. According to Boltzmann, "systems move in the direction of increasing entropy because such states have a greater number of configurations, and the equilibrium state of highest entropy is the state with the greatest number of molecular configurations."

If we can imagine various amino acids trapped in a membrane, where they have to self organize, and there is a predetermined direction of self organization towards greater complexity, then this provides a model of how cellular proteins might have evolved initially. It is a viable explanation and answers how life might have arisen, but when asked why did this occur? physics can only provide another how explanation. It can not answer why! Physics answers how, not why. The why, however, can be answered by saying that this is how the universe has self organized.

My interest is consciousness, and in trying to understand it I arrived at a definition: consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. Of course this begs the question of what is self organization? and as I try to understand it, all I am seeing is consciousness. That consciousness = self organization may be the only way to define them. Of course self organization and consciousness are both an evolving , open ended, processes - they elude definition as they are continually growing, and what they are today will emerge into something different tomorrow, so absolutely cannot be defined in terms of their product ( what they are ). The best that can be done is to define them as an expression of a system - to say that everything is part of a system, and all systems express self organization, where self organization = consciousness. So conclude with panpschism, to the best of my understanding.

Yeah its interesting isn't it. We will now have to evolve to read non verbal communication entirely from facial cues, as the normal body language - the crossing of legs, the fiddling of hands is missing. Its not quite the same, its not nearly as good IMO. :smile:

The human "consciousness" is an ordered organization of "living cells" from the result of multiple stages of evolution of multiple complex cells. — Adughep

:up:

As you said before bacteria also has "consciousness", but you can not compare it to humans. — Adughep

Yes I agree to a large extent. Consciousness is something unique even between individuals - no two can have exactly the same manifestation of consciousness, so when compared between species the differences grow exponentially. But consciousness = self organization, and all living creatures have a system of self organization ( are a self organizing system ).

That might support my idea that the living and complex cells are at base multiple waves of energy or maybe not ? :) — Adughep

I agree with your energy wave idea, and am playing with a similar concept myself. The way I see it is that matter is not fundamental. The relationship of energy and information = matter, from E=mc2. From this view matter is an emergent property that arises from the relationship of energy and information. So there seems to be a fundamental capacity in the universe to integrate energy and information into matter, and the integration of information is the modern definition of consciousness, so this reveals a universal system of self organization that is equivalent to consciousness, which would suggest panpsychism.

Regarding the article. That is how Amino acids are created in the lab. Mineralized water is zapped with electricity, and eventually amino acids form.

He is a genius! I so envy his ability to say so much with so little :smile:

This is an absolute classic Leunig. :smile:

From the legendary Michael Leunig: :smile:

I' m inclined to think that "the order" and the "life cells" you see today are a process of evolution, (the end result ) and are not something that emerge on Earth because we had from start a "friendly", ordered and stable planet. — Adughep

I would agree with @Gary Enfield that alien origin is a long shot, and it just shifts the problem to another planet. I would agree with you that the evolution of the Earth created life, meaning that the early chaos was necessary to create the complex molecules like amino acids, and then subsequently, once a magnetic field developed, and when some stability / order eventuated, complex configurations of these amino acids could self organize due to finding themselves in a situation where they had to.

The trouble with dismissing the emphasis on Amino Acids and Nucleotides is that those chemicals remain part of the only mechanism that is known to work, and as some Amino Acids do form spontaneously, it is hard to imagine that something would 'strive to achieve' other forms through some 3rd evolutionary process. — Gary Enfield

I'm glad that you acknowledge self organization in amino acids. This is the foundation of life - where inanimate matter becomes animated. If we then jump from the beginnings of life to its ultimate achievement - human consciousness, I think you will agree that it arises from self organization, for the purpose of self organization. Also all the layers of the system in between are self organizing, as are their component parts - amino acids self organize to form proteins, the self organization of proteins forms cells, the self organization of cells forms organs, etc., etc. When an organ is transplanted, the donor organ is not reconnected to the nervous system, as that is not currently possible. The organ carries on working regardless - it knows what to do as it is self organizing. Systems like the immune system are entirely self organizing. Components like a white blood cell work independently - untethered to a system of control. The entire system as a whole, as well as all of its component parts are self organizing!

How can self organization occur without consciousness? I don't think it can.

I think it needs to be understood that everything exists in a relation to something else. Indeed everything exists in a relation to a multiplicity of externalities. It is not a static relationship, but an evolving one. So everything exists in a process of interrelational evolution - both the living and nonliving evolve through a process of interrelational evolution. If this is true for everything, then it is also true for the first living cell. This gives me the confidence to state that the first living cell arose through a process of interrelational evolution - simply because no alternative of being exists!

As a number of people have stated, the multifactorial mechanism of a living cell could not have been created in one hit - it requires an evolutionary process.

One way of Answering the OP would be to raise the profile of what is happening at the evolutionary level by showing how interrelational evolution is a form of information integration, cognition and action, and at the same time lowering the profile of human consciousness by drawing correlations between what is happening at the evolutionary level and at the human consciousness level. In the end concluding that self organization in the process of interrelation evolution is a form of consciousness – that is ubiquitous! So concluding with panpsychism.

An idealist panpsychism, that can not become solipsism as it is in a process of interrelational evolution, so absolutely cannot condense down to a singularity as it relies on a relationship with externalities for its existence.

Frankly I am just looking for something potentially viable, rather than philosophical point scoring.
What I dislike are exponents of certain philosophies that deny evidence which counters their preferred view. — Gary Enfield

It is not about point scoring. It is more about the constructivist curse - we can not see that which is outside of our consciousness. To see some things, we need to alter our consciousness - and that can not happen overnight, nor due to another persons opinion, and in some cases it is a total impossibility for reasons of self organization / consciousness.

I can relate to your questions as I also began asking the same questions some time ago. Philosophers I have mentioned to you - Verala, Thompson, Theise, and Capra, are all biologist philosophers who were also confronted with this conundrum at the cellular level, and in the process of trying to understand it had to create new interpretations.

This is the other interesting thing about cellular complexity - that an understanding requires a shift in paradigm. I wonder how you will go. You haven't hinted at any conclusions as yet?

In the non-intellectual realm (pure meditation, for example), there is no conceptualization so this does not become an issue and Absolute Truth is present — synthesis

:up:

The Relative and The Absolute stand opposed to each other as that which we use intellectually (the Relative) and that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute). All things knowable (intellectual) are relative. These things that exist intellectually are constantly changing, exist in time, therefore their relative nature.

The Absolute (e.g., The Dao, God) is unknowable, unchangeable, and exists outside of time. It is something you may sense or feel but never something you can know (intellectually). — synthesis

If all truth is relative, then so is absolute truth. So all truth is relative - end of story?

If it was "a long period of order" as you said, then most likely our evolution will progress much much faster. — Adughep

Dont you think that every process that requires a lot of time to finish(millions years) or has a small chance to even exist is because of the chaos and disorder around it ? — Adughep

The opposite could also be argued - That life existed so long is because of the order / stability of the environment.
I guess it depends on how much disorder we are talking about. The Dinosaurs obviously encountered too much, but other organisms were able to cope.

Hi Adughep, and welcome to the forum.

.As we see now water looks like a good structure to form life cells.
Though in the universe might be elements more stronger and better then water in forming life — Adughep

Yes maybe, I have heard some speculation that the atmosphere of Venus might contain life.

But the process of forming the "life cell" was not ordered at all. In my opinion the process was made using a lot of failed and chaotic results ( the results of thousands, millions or maybe more attempts) — Adughep

Yes again, some of the essential amino acids were apparently formed under high pressure and temperature. What I was getting at is that the complex multilayered structure of life - atoms forming molecules, and molecules forming proteins, proteins forming cells, etc requires an ordered state. Such constructions cannot form in chaotic environments, because of their delicacy and complexity. So the first thing necessary for life is order and stability ( long period of order ). In a sense what life evolves out of is this order.

To compare the start of forming the "life cell" as the start when the Earth planet was born is also not so correct — Adughep

If i had to estimate the chances of forming a single "life cell" is something similar with "Rutherford's experiment" — Adughep

I think its just a matter of time before we find life elsewhere. Obviously it requires just the right conditions, but there are so many opportunities in the universe. Perhaps even on Mars we may find some remnants, who knows?

If you have a very small chance to form a "life cell", then the process can not be ordered.And i think this is true with every process that transforms or creates something new, very small chances = high disorder. — Adughep

That is the thing, we don't know what the odds are. Even of the 8 planets of the solar system there are three known locations of liquid water; Earth, underground lakes on mars, and under ice lakes on Europa ( moon of Jupiter). If only we could drill in those locations. We just have to wait and see.

However, returning to your point, I am absolutely sure that no matter how long you left them, if you put all the elements that make up a living being in a container, they would probably never make a living entity. — Gary Enfield

One day soon, Sutherland says, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.”

The one thing that is certain is that the contents of the container will self organize - either to an equilibrium state ( solid / steady state ) or in the case of life, a far from equilibrium state ( an evolving process ).

I said that evolution was only possible when the mechanism got going - and the only known mechanism ever, is the living cell. — Gary Enfield

The universe is evolving, and as a consequence so are all of its component parts, not just the living parts. Even a rock evolves from magma, to rock, to minerals dissolved by water, a solution of mineralized water gets zapped by Stanley Miller to form amino acids, and then a cell shows us how certain amino acids can be combined to form animate matter as cellular proteins. Eventually elements of the rock may evolve to become a neuron, and contribute to a comment in this thread. :smile:

To limit evolution to animate matter suggests a predisposition to a dualistic understanding where life is something separate to the rest of the universe, rather then a monistic understanding of how elements of the universe evolve to life.

In my understanding what comes to life is an element of the universe, not something separate to it. Specifically what comes to life is an ordered pocket of the universe. Life could not arise in chaotic pockets, therefore life is caused by orderly pockets where water is liquid. In such situations atoms can self organize to form molecules, molecules can self organize to form amino acids, amino acids can self organize to form cellular proteins, cellular proteins can self organize to form cells, cells can self organize to form organs, and organs can self organize to form bodies. At each of these layers the interrelational evolution of the micro elements gives rise to a synergistic macro element that is an emergent property. This is roughly the complexity theory perspective. In this understanding, life arises out of, and depends on the order external to the system.

I have always said that I believe in Evolution once the mechanism got going,. — Gary Enfield

To say that evolution acts only on animate matter implies evolution has an ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate matter. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, this makes no sense to me. It makes better sense to state evolution acts on emergence, and emergent properties - consistent with the science of complex systems, whilst self organization creates them.

You broadly asked for a mechanism that might create life. Theories of abiogenesis from the perspectives of biology, chemistry, geophysics, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology all agree that self organization led to life - along an evolutionary path. Again to impress on you that self organization, via evolution, led to life, I state that no living creature, including humanity, can perform an action that is outside the purpose of self organization!

Even God would have to be a self created / self organized god!

" there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell"

That is not so. A living cell is self organizing, but so is any random group of elements within a membrane. That they self organize is a mechanism - an omnipresent mechanism acting on everything in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic. So I think this is where you should start your enquiry.

A living cell may be a highly evolved version of a random group of elements within a cell - I'm not saying I can prove this, but this is one of the possibilities. If the right elements found themselves trapped in a cell and had to self organize, life may well emerge - in the right situation, at the right time.

The elements required are a self replicating molecule ( RNA ), and metabolism ( mitochondria and a membrane that allows nutrients in and entropy out ) . If such a combination of elements found themselves self organizing, from the word go they would be in competition with other similar configurations of elements, so evolution and natural selection would drive better ordered states. As I've previously mentioned there is no upper limit to self organization - it seems to be an open ended process that currently culminates in human consciousness. The process I'm describing is deterministic with a slight element of randomness.

It is difficult to see how this might occur from the materialist perspective of matter in motion. I have come to understand that the relationship of information and energy = matter. So, at the fundamental level, what is combining and recombining is information and energy. From this perspective there is an element of mind at play from the outset. The matter that results is an integration of energy and information, which is near enough to the modern definition of consciousness in IIT theory ( integrated information ). From this monistic ( panpsychic ) perspective the complexity we see at the cellular level is easier to accept, and may in time be possible to understand.

The argument about biological information is however that organic life retains memory in a sense that inorganic matter does not. — Wayfarer

There is no solution to the OP from a dualist perspective. Not even a hint of a solution. There is a possible solution from a monist perspective. It will not work for everyone of course.

The word "evolution" has a very specific meaning in biology — T Clark

Obviously I'm not using it to refer specifically to biology! I'm saying everything evolves.

No inanimate matter has evolved in that sense, by definition. If it had, it would be alive. — T Clark

You seem to overlook that you are made entirely of inanimate matter - that has evolved to life.

It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

We derive the information of the evolution of the universe from its present state. So the information of the 14 billion years or so of universal evolution is contained in its present state.

I'm not sure what this means, but the claim that natural selection acts on non-living matter is not supported by any science I've ever heard of. That's my non-dogmatic way of saying it's not true. — T Clark

Are you arguing that inanimate matte dose not evolve? If so what is your argument? Describe one instance of inanimate matter that has not evolved.

As Aristotle found, there's not matter without form, and thus without information. — Olivier5

:up: That is correct. It is not really a material universe as the relationship of information and energy is matter. It is really an information and energy in a relationship universe.

The significance of this is that something has to bring the whole lot together because it is only as a whole, that life has viability - and therefore some mechanism/process needs to bring all the separate elements together in one place. But what could drive that circumstance other than chance? — Gary Enfield

Evolution is well established from observation of evolving organic systems like Covid19, so the proposition in the OP "without evolution" is not an option.

Evolution has been extensively described and documented in detail, in countless studies. It is not theory but fact. The greatest surprise is how quickly it occurs. The evolution of human consciousness is surely something everybody can immediately relate to.

It is easy to forget that everything is evolving, not just living things but the entire universe is in motion and evolving, and emerging, and natural selection acts on everything, not just animate matter, but all matter - it culls non viable form.

This is the mind that you are looking for - that drives better ordered states.

The universe is a self organizing system, and as a consequence, all of its component parts are also self organizing - in an interrelational manner, and according to the constraints and possibilities presented by the situation things find themselves in.

Pockets of the universe that are not chaotic, are ordered ( self organized ). There is no upper limit to this ordering. In goldilocks pockets of order where liquid water is present such as the earth, the self ordering continues seemingly without possibility of end.

Self organization is the driver of evolution, and natural selection determines what survives - this is the omnipresent dynamic everything finds itself in, and I think it is enough to describe how inanimate matter becomes animate. To impress that this is the process we should focus on, I assert that human consciousness is entirely a process of self organization - it is not possible for a human being to do anything outside the purpose of self organization. At the other extreme we need simply to place a boundary around random elements, and the elements within the boundary must self organize - this leads to a notion of how a cell might form.

All that is left is the simple task of describing all the steps in between! :sad:

True. That's because Materialism is a commonsense view of reality. Information & Energy are invisible and intangible until embodied in some material form — Gnomon

Yes, I knew you would understand it, so didn't bother to spell it out.

"Mass" literally means "coming together" of causation & form. In his theory of Relativity, Einstein also asserted that all things (physical objects) are relative. The real world is an interconnected network of relationships. Yet, both the connections (links) and the communications are forms of the fundamental universal (spiritual) power of Enformation. — Gnomon

Yes, I have always agreed with Enformation, with energy, information and matter being in a relationship, but couldn't quite articulate the relationship at the most fundamental level. Fundamentally nothing exists on its own, something can only exist relative to something else - hence the relationship of energy and information = matter. Its the only way it fits together, and it is consistent with interrelational evolution, which is consistent with the best understandings - Einstein, Darwin, etc ( even Glattfelder concludes with structural realism and its relational understanding ).

Normally matter is understood as information + matter/energy, but this is too messy for my liking. Logically it sits most fundamentally as the relationship of energy and information = matter The fundamental elements are energy, information, and relationship - permutations of these create matter, and all that exists is just endless permutations of the relationship of information and energy as matter - growing in complexity unto human consciousness!

I think this is consistent with your Enformation understanding.

Spiritualism, in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. — Gnomon

My philosophy is most closely aligned with idealism, so, for me, attributing extra information to sense mediated perception is just a normal part of constructivist cognition. Spiritualism suggests an immaterial element, whereas I see a monist universe full of materials - no room left for the immaterial. :smile: But I understand what you mean.

In my architecture, to my chagrin, I never had total control over the final outcome. But it usually worked-out OK. :grin: — Gnomon

:up: Same here.

In my view, matter is merely the container for information. — Gnomon

In mine, matter is the container of information and energy - in a relationship. Materialists believe matter to be fundamental, I do not.

So, my worldview is compatible with Plato & Spinoza, while yours is amenable to Aristotle's. Yet, I don't base my philosophy on ancient authorities, but on modern reasoning. :smile: — Gnomon

I was referring to your physical universe statement, not Spinoza specifically. I also prefer modern reasoning.

So, I sometimes refer to the Enformer as "Spinoza's God", which is usually taken to be the physical universe (Nature) itself. — Gnomon

We are creating models that fit observation, so there will be different ways to do it. I do get what you are saying, but I personally tend to think in terms of interrelational evolution creating emergence, where the main thrust is determined with a slight random element creating variation.

The artist never creates exactly what they set out to create. I imagine you, as an architect , would be able to relate to this. There is always the X factor - which is the difference of what one sets out to create, and what one actually creates. Where dose the X come from, or go to? I have no idea, but I feel there is an X factor to all intentional activity. Would you agree?