Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #137]
There's just 'one' consciousness from which billions of 'grounded consciousness' (minds) are derived.

An opinion. Why should we believe your opinion more than others? In any case, science has a much better track record than woo.

[Noose001]

[Replying to brunumb in post #137]
There's just 'one' consciousness from which billions of 'grounded consciousness' (minds) are derived.

An opinion. Why should we believe your opinion more than others? In any case, science has a much better track record than woo.

Because above 'emperical evidence', we still have reason especially for 'things' that are outside 'physical reality'.

[Noose001]

[Replying to brunumb in post #141]

I don't want you to believe my opinion.

But you can convince me that time is a 'thing' that started from zero (T0) in a mindless process, when T0 is Timelessness which means eternity. In eternity, nothing ever starts or ends.

Then tell me about a self replicating peptide some n billion years ago.

I just happen to be convinced with the idea that shift from T0 to T1 is nothing more than a shift to awareness from not being aware by consciousness.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #141]

An opinion. Why would you believe his opinion more than others.

Well, Hawkings did have some considerable street cred well beyond posting messages on internet forums. But theoretical physics has not yet answered the question of origin of the universe, time, etc. There are hypotheses, but no definitive answers yet. In this case, everyone is free to have an opinion but ultimately the problem is more likely to be figured out by real physicists.

The symetry points to a mind rather than anything else.

The arrow of time points to a mind? How so? A human mind may have thought of the concept, but the movement of time is not dependent on any human (or other) mind. Time existed long before minds (at least on this planet) and there is no reason to believe it didn't behave then as it does now as far as direction.

Plants, sponges e.t.c

What is your definition of concsiousness that allows plants, sponges, etc. to possess it? Here is Merriam-Webster's full definition as a starting point:

Full Definition of consciousness
1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

None of these apply to plants or sponges (or rocks, etc.).

Did it ever start?

Who knows. Physics hasn't definitively sorted that out yet.

Name one thing you know that is independent of time for its being.

I don't dispute that everything exists within time, but the rocks in my yard were made long ago and will likely have their fate determined by weather, someone buying the property and deciding to plant grass and moving the rocks, they may one day be crushed into powder by a machine, etc. These things are all time dependent, but I don't see how this relates to your earlier claim that the past and the future don't exist, and only the present exists as some illusion of the mind. But define consciousness first ... you seem to have an unusual definition (as do others on this site who believe that "everything" is conscious).

[Noose001]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #141]

Well, Hawkings did have some considerable street cred well beyond posting messages on internet forums. But theoretical physics has not yet answered the question of origin of the universe, time, etc. There are hypotheses, but no definitive answers yet. In this case, everyone is free to have an opinion but ultimately the problem is more likely to be figured out by real physicists.

If the most fundamental thing about reality is just an opinion then you can't lecture others about reality(abiogenesis).

The arrow of time points to a mind? How so? A human mind may have thought of the concept, but the movement of time is not dependent on any human (or other) mind. Time existed long before minds (at least on this planet) and there is no reason to believe it didn't behave then as it does now as far as direction.

North is north because there's a mind to compare it with south; in the absence of a mind, north and south make no sense at all. And so applies to up and down and all symetry. Heck, even the rates. 0km/ hr is slower than 4km/hr because the mind makes comparison. And so applies to all changes, including changes in present to create a past and move towards the future, which is the directionality of time( arrow of time).

What is your definition of concsiousness that allows plants, sponges, etc. to possess it?

Awareness.
All living things are aware of at least one or more things.

Who knows. Physics hasn't definitively sorted that out yet.

Ever had of a 13.8 billion year old universe? Well, that 13.8b years represents time which started from zero (T0), a big problem for me.

I don't dispute that everything exists within time, but the rocks in my yard were made long ago and will likely have their fate determined by weather, someone buying the property and deciding to plant grass and moving the rocks, they may one day be crushed into powder by a machine, etc.

Made when? If time is not physical and the rocks in your backyard are time dependent then most likely those rocks are an illusion more than a 'reality'.

These things are all time dependent, but I don't see how this relates to your earlier claim that the past and the future don't exist, and only the present exists as some illusion of the mind.

So many papers online on Presentism, you need to read one or more.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #146]

If the most fundamental thing about reality is just an opinion then you can't lecture others about reality(abiogenesis).

Who has made any such claim (the fundamental thing about reality is that it is just an opinion)? And why do you suggest that abiogenesis and reality are the same thing? I'm not lecturing anyone about reality or abiogenesis. You keep bringing up abiogenesis as if it is somehow related to your unusual time concept. But you've yet to explain how these two are connected, or why you randomly toss in the word abiogenesis without any apparent connection to the sentence it appears in.

North is north because there's a mind to compare it with south; in the absence of a mind, north and south make no sense at all. And so applies to up and down and all symetry. Heck, even the rates. 0km/ hr is slower than 4km/hr because the mind makes comparison. And so applies to all changes, including changes in present to create a past and move towards the future, which is the directionality of time( arrow of time).

I'm not arguing that minds don't exist, or thinking, etc., and I understand what the arrow of time is. Neither of those is being challenged.

Awareness.
All living things are aware of at least one or more things.

So you're claiming that plants and sponges have awareness? How is this possible as they don't have brains? What is a plant "aware" of?

Ever had of a 13.8 billion year old universe? Well, that 13.8b years represents time which started from zero (T0), a big problem for me.

Yes ... this is the current best estimate for the age of the universe based on General Relativity, observed expansion rates, the cosmic background radiation, and the so-called "Big Bang" model. But this is a hypothesis that is not definitively proven (there is a singularity at T=0, for one thing). If that hypothesis is a problem for you, what alternative are you offering? Or do you just not believe it could be viable for some reason (incredulity)?

Made when? If time is not physical and the rocks in your backyard are time dependent then most likely those rocks are an illusion more than a 'reality'.

They are most definitely not an illusion. I can pick them up and see that they are indeed real items. When they were made I have no idea ... but it was in the past which also did exist.

So many papers online on Presentism, you need to read one or more.

It is another ontological argument that lies in the philosophy realm:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presentism/

Put me in the camp of viewpoints in the above article that don't think it has any merit.

[Swami]

[Replying to Swami in post #104]

There is a reason that everyone has an innate sense of being more than their body, the feeling of being part of something much greater.

Since I've personally never had such a sense I don't understand why or how this kind of thing comes about. It just seems so obvious that consciousness must be an emergent property of a functioning brain that I cannot see how another description makes any sense until there is some evidence for it.

Can you give an example of something that possesses consciousness (aware of its existence) that does not have a working brain? Or, alternatively, an example of something that does not possess a working brain that does possess consciousness?

I can not say if everything possesses consciousness. This has not been part of my experience. What I can tell you is that everything exists in consciousness. This knowledge comes from experiencing consciousness in its pure form. Mystics and many others today have explained the nature of this consciousness. It boundless and full of bliss. Your sense of self disappears as you begin to feel an interconnectedness with the Universe.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... rience.pdf
"Under certain circumstances, the subjective sense of ones self as an isolated entity can temporarily fade into an experience of unity with other people or ones surroundings, involving the dissolution of boundaries between the sense of self and another. Such transient mental states of decreased self-salience and increased feelings of connectedness are described here as self-transcendent experiences(STEs).

Mystical experiences are a particularly intense variety of STE. Some people report that during mystical experiences the sense of self can fall away entirely, creating a distinction-less sense of unity with ones surroundings (Hood, 2002; James, 1902; Newberg & Aquili, 2000; Stace, 1960)"

The researchers speak of these features as if they are only mental states. In Eastern traditions, these features are real. They exist outside of mind. They reveal the nature of consciousness and all of reality.

[Noose001]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #146]

Ok, let's toss that aside.

Q. At what point can we say the self replicating molecule (peptide/RNA) becomes alive. Is it when they acquire a protective barrier (cell membrane/wall), to protect them from the very environment they have been replicating or before?

[brunumb]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #146]

Ok, let's toss that aside.

Q. At what point can we say the self replicating molecule (peptide/RNA) becomes alive. Is it when they acquire a protective barrier (cell membrane/wall), to protect them from the very environment they have been replicating or before?

What exactly is the definition of a living thing? Surely the progression from molecules to cells is some sort of a continuum so does it really matter when you describe the structure as being alive? What difference does it make?

[Noose001]

What exactly is the definition of a living thing?

Reproduces/multiplies, uses energy, responds to stimuli

The only thing a self replicating peptide misses is response to stimuli

Surely the progression from molecules to cells is some sort of a continuum so does it really matter when you describe the structure as being alive?

yeah but at what point in this progression can we say it is alive, is it when it acquires a 'protective' barrier? because the act of acquiring a proctive barrier is by itself a response to stimuli.

What difference does it make?

Much.