Has life always existed?

Hi, Regi.

Just for the sake of those who may not be familiar with the origins of this thread, I'll recap. We're exploring the question of whether life had always existed, or whether it arose from non-living processes. In a previous thread, "The Number of the Beast," you made the following claim:

Note, also, there is no way to put together an organism and, "start it up," from the outside, so to speak. Life always comes from life. (This is not a principle of Objectivism, however.)

To which I responded:

Hold on a second here. Does this mean that life has always existed? This statement seems to be in direct opposition to the fact that the early universe was unsuitable for sustaining organisms.

Anyway, now that we're caught up, to address your response:

The apparent opposition assumes the life "process" must always have been confined to its present manifestation. The actual case is an unknown. The largely conjectural "science" of cosmology is on very unstable ground (one reason it keeps changing its assertions) and offers no argument refuting the possibility that life "always existed."

This is true. We don't know whether life has always existed in the carbon-based form with which we are most familiar.

Objectivism does not grant the possibility existence has a beginning. "Existence exists," has no temporal component.

I'm not questioning the fact that the universe has always existed, my appeal to Cosmology notwithstanding. I didn't want to invoke the (nonexistent) Big Bang as an example of when life may not have existed, but instead a past time when the universe when the ambient temperature was some billions of degrees Kelvin (which is a verifiable fact, due to the microwave radiation we see leftover from that time). There's so much heat energy there that even the most basic elements from chemistry could not have formed, so I find it extremely difficult to accept that any kind of self-sustaining, self-generating action could have occurred.

This is a fairly important question to address. By your own statements, the non-living is completely determined by the Laws of Physics. Hence, if there were a time that the living did not yet exist, then living things had to have formed from the same deterministic processes that govern non-living things. But if this is the case, then living things are in fact governed by those same laws, and the notion of volition flies out the window.

I've been having trouble reconciling the notion of volition of a purely physical living thing (per Citizen Rat's objection), and so I appreciate the offer to discuss it.

Sincerely,
Nate T.

Post 1

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:26am

To whom it may concern,

I forgot to name this thread. Is it possible to name it "Has life always existed?"

Thanks,

Nate T.

(Edited by Nate T. on 4/27, 5:14pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:44am

Nate,

I see you have decided to start another thread on this interesting question. I hope we can attract some other Objectivists to the discussion. It is seldom questioned from a purely philosophical point of view.

I emailed admin. about the thread name. In the meantime, you might try editing your original post. It might let you add a title.

It appears there are at least three questions you are interested in addressing:

1. The specific one: has life always existed or did it have a beginning?

2. If life has a beginning, was it "caused" or "brought into existence" by the same deterministic principles that govern inanimate matter?

3. Is life, itself, determined by the same deterministic principles that govern inanimate matter? If not, how can that be?

Obviously, these three questions are related, and somewhat interdependent. I assume you can see the relationships. Of the three, I think the first is the most difficult and most interesting, but, philosophically, it is the least important. However, if the answer turns out to be, "life had no beginning," question #2 becomes irrelevant.

The third question is the most important and I think the easiest to answer. The answer is in the nature of cause itself.

However, I am not going to attempt to answer any of the questions until we can agree on at least one basic concept, what we mean by life.

I would be pleased to entertain any views you have about that question and any other points you might like to make.

Regi

Post 3

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:42am

Hi Regi,

Let's follow up your suggestion to get the basic definitions out of the way. The Objectivism 101 page defines life as "the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action."

To address the "self-sustaining action": I take it that this means that a system is "alive" if it is in some kind of equilibrium, and that it acts to preserve that equilibrium. Equivalently, it is a system which is ordered in such a way that it acts to preserve its own order. I agree with this definition for life.

As for the "self-generating action": I do not agree that life must be self-generating as a matter of definition, even though the vast, vast majority of living things do have the capacity for reproduction. However, there are plenty of organisms (e.g., menopausal women) which no longer have the ability to reproduce, and yet ought to be considered alive. Nevertheless, I'll accept "self-generating" as part of the definition keeping these anomalous cases in mind, since, after all, our debate largely focuses on the self-generating aspect of life.

Do you find this interpretation of the definition to be acceptable?

Nate T.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:21pm

Nate,

I see we still do not have a name for this thread. Too bad.

I do not agree exactly with your interpretation of the definition. (Surprised?)

The Objectivism 101 page defines life as "the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action."

To address the "self-sustaining action": I take it that this means that a system is "alive" if it is in some kind of equilibrium, and that it acts to preserve that equilibrium. Equivalently, it is a system which is ordered in such a way that it acts to preserve its own order.

I have a couple of quibbles here. It is not a "system" that is alive. You may think of an organism is a "system," but if it is only the physical system, it is not alive itself. What is self-sustained is the process which uses the physical aspects of the "system" (organism) to sustain itself. It requires those physical aspects because a process must be a process of something. In that sense, it also maintains the organism as a living entity. As soon as the process ceases, the physical entity is no longer an organism.

You may be thinking of the organism as a "system that supports life," but it isn't. The organism cannot even do that. It is the life process that maintains the organism as an organism which it can use to perform its process. The moment the life process ceases, the organism immediately begins to disintegrate.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "equilibrium." As far as I know there is no particular equilibrium that must be maintained, (except for some particular biological requirements of specific organisms) for the life process to sustain itself. I certainly could be missing something here, so feel free to enlighten me.

As for the "self-generating action": I do not agree that life must be self-generating as a matter of definition, even though the vast, vast majority of living things do have the capacity for reproduction.

Notice, it is not life that is self-generating, but action. It does not refer specifically to reproduction, but would include it as one of the actions the life process generates or initiates, where there is reproduction. The self-generated action applies to all organisms, even those incapable of reproducing. It is a very important part of the definition. It means, all the behavior of an organism that is "living" behavior is initiated by the life process, not the physical characteristics of the organism. Living behavior is all the behavior which ceases the moment the living organism dies.

Let me know if there are any particular questions or disagreements here.

Regi

Post 5

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 2:18pm

Regi wrote:
>1. The specific one: has life always existed or did it have a beginning?

If the Big Bang theory is correct, it appears that life is an marginal unexpected consequence of what was originally merely dead matter. This to me is a preferable theory to ideas like "life has always existed" or "life was planned" by some outside agency.

>2. If life has a beginning, was it "caused" or "brought into existence" by the same deterministic principles that govern inanimate matter?

The hypothesis that it was an unexpected consequence leads logically to the next idea - that the physical universe is not *quite* as strongly deterministic as it appears - though it is undoubtedly deterministic to a point.

(BTW, on this basis, the existence of life itself turns into quite a strong argument against the theory of induction too)

>3. Is life, itself, determined by the same deterministic principles that govern inanimate matter? If not, how can that be?

Undoubtedly we are physical, and we live in a physical world. So as organisms we must be partly determined by it. However, our "life" - in a human sense, our consciousness, as we do not consider a brain-dead body on a life support system is really alive - is, I believe, non-physical. This allows us to partly escape strong determinism. To what extent is still very much an open question, but I would think quite a considerable amount. And this is what I think we mean by the slightly misleading term "free will"

- Daniel

Post 6

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:38pm

Daniel,

Welcome to the "No Name" thread.

If the Big Bang theory is correct, it appears that life is an marginal unexpected consequence of what was originally merely dead matter. This to me is a preferable theory to ideas like "life has always existed" or "life was planned" by some outside agency.

I am not sure the difference between cosmologists and cosmetologists is as great as the cosmologists would like us to believe, and do not have great faith in their theories; however, IF the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH) is correct, there is another way of viewing the question.

According to the BBH, not only did life not exist, but matter as we know it did not exist either; but, something must have existed, because Objectivist flatly (and correctly) reject existence coming ex nihilo.

Though matter as we know it did not exist according to the BBH, it certainly exists now in great quantities. Whatever did exist must have been potentially matter as we now know it. But life also now exist, as well as consciousness, and volition. Whatever did exist must also have been potentially living, conscious and volitional, else there would not now be living, conscious, volitinal beings.

...that the physical universe is not *quite* as strongly deterministic as it appears...

I think the physical aspects of existence must be deterministic, or at least must conform to discoverable laws consistently, or we could never learn anything about it, because its behavior would be unpredictable. But I think there is more to existence than the physical, namely, life, consciousness, and volition.

However, our "life" - in a human sense, our consciousness, as we do not consider a brain-dead body on a life support system is really alive - is, I believe, non-physical.

Yes, although I would not say it in just that way.

... this is what I think we mean by the slightly misleading term "free will"

Yes, again; (and it is very misleading).

Regi

Post 7

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:45pm

Regi,

Since the definition of "life" is clearly very important for our purposes, I want to be absolutely sure that I'm understanding it correctly.

It is not a "system" that is alive. You may think of an organism is a "system," but if it is only the physical system, it is not alive itself. What is self-sustained is the process which uses the physical aspects of the "system" (organism) to sustain itself. It requires those physical aspects because a process must be a process of something. In that sense, it also maintains the organism as a living entity. As soon as the process ceases, the physical entity is no longer an organism.

Okay I think I see what my problem was. I had the right differentia in mind (acts to sustain itself) but my genus was wrong (process, not physical system).

I like this definition better than the one posited, because under this definition, the concepts "alive" and "organism" are derivatives of "life", as opposed to the other way around.

You may be thinking of the organism as a "system that supports life," but it isn't. The organism cannot even do that. It is the life process that maintains the organism as an organism which it can use to perform its process. The moment the life process ceases, the organism immediately begins to disintegrate.

More apt would be "an organism is life supporting a system", so to speak?

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "equilibrium." As far as I know there is no particular equilibrium that must be maintained, (except for some particular biological requirements of specific organisms) for the life process to sustain itself. I certainly could be missing something here, so feel free to enlighten me.

Well, all I was trying to get at here was that a living organism tends to act to preserve itself. The "equilibrium" I posit here would simply be the condition of being a healthy organism, doing what healthy organisms do to stay alive.

Of course, the "organism" itself only acts by virtue of the fact that it is a physical system which is taking part in a life process, which acts to sustain itself. The organism is just along for the ride.

Notice, it is not life that is self-generating, but action. It does not refer specifically to reproduction, but would include it as one of the actions the life process generates or initiates, where there is reproduction. The self-generated action applies to all organisms, even those incapable of reproducing. It is a very important part of the definition. It means, all the behavior of an organism that is "living" behavior is initiated by the life process, not the physical characteristics of the organism. Living behavior is all the behavior which ceases the moment the living organism dies.

So the "self-generating" clause of the definition is really where my above definition was going wrong, since I put the emphasis on the matter which was alive, not the life which animates the matter.

So, life is a process which acts to sustain itself, and as a result also sustains the matter involved in the process. This last is called the "organism", and it is said to be "living" or "alive". Is that more what you had in mind?

Nate T.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:38pm

Regi wrote:
>Welcome to the "No Name" thread.

Nice to be here. It obviously has a beginning, but will it ever end...?....;-)

I agree with much of what you say. Big Bang is only a theory, and has a few good arguments against it. It was basically reverse-engineered from the fact that the universe is expanding, and is in some ways a bit like Creationism. Nonetheless, it seems to attract some ok evidential support as time goes by.

>Though matter as we know it did not exist according to the�BBH, it certainly exists now in great quantities. Whatever did exist must have been potentially matter as we now know it. But life also now exists, as well as consciousness, and volition.�Whatever did exist must also�have been potentially living, conscious and volitional, else there would not now be living, conscious, volitional beings.

Ah yes. The only problem with this idea is that it leads to a very strong form of determinism: because every future event (say, the emergence of life) is embodied in every past event (dead matter), it is therefore ultimately predictable from it. That we cannot predict such intricate events due to our limited human brain power does not matter, any more than not knowing how to read a book changes what is written in it.

To avoid this strong determinism, I would prefer to replace it with the idea that the universe is partly , in Popper's phrase, "open". That is, largely deterministic, with "pockets of propensity" - human consciousness being one.

>I think the physical aspects of existence must be deterministic, or at least must conform to discoverable laws consistently, or we could never learn anything about it, because its behavior would be unpredictable.

I sort of agree here, but I don't have a problem with the universe being unpredictable in places - like in human consciousness, or perhaps at a subatomic level. Aside from the obvious quantum mechanical issues, there is another line to consider. This less well known one was put forward by 19th C American philosopher Charles Pierce, who noticed that it is impossible to be as precise in the physical world as it is in abstract mathematics, which is infinitely precise. This slight "looseness'" may mean the physical world may lack the precision necessary for total determinism, thus allowing a degree of unpredictability. Perhaps from this unpredictability, in the vastness of the universe, in one tiny corner (or perhaps in a couple?) life unexpectedly emerged. And this fact has accidentally contributed to even more unpredictability in the universe!...;-)

>But I think there is more to existence than the physical, namely, life, consciousness, and volition.

Yes, same. Rand put it as conscious being radically "separate from existence" - not a particularly good choice of words, as I think consciousness certainly exists! I think what she meant to say was that it was *non-physical*, as opposed to the *physical* universe.

- Daniel

Post 9

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:46pm

Nate,

So, life is a process which acts to sustain itself, and as a result also sustains the matter involved in the process. This last is called the "organism", and it is said to be "living" or "alive". Is that more what you had in mind?

Yes, that's good enough for our discussion, I think. I know you did not mean it this way, but it is not the "matter" that is sustained, but the integrity of the material or physical organism. Also, the fact that the life process both sustains and initiates it's own action must be included. Otherwise, I think we can go about answering the other questions.

Since I think the most important one is also the easiest, I would like to start with that. It was our third question: Is life, itself, determined by the same deterministic principles that govern inanimate matter? If not, how can that be?

It is easy to answer because I just answered it as part of another post here. It begins:

"The physical aspects of an organism conform to the laws of physics. The life process does not violate any of those laws, but it is not itself subject to them, because the life process is its own cause."

Which is true because the life process both sustains and initiates (generates) its own action.

The rest of the post discusses the nature of causality which is also related to the question, but not necessary here, I think. Have a look if you like.

That's my beginning. I suspect you will have questions or criticisms. If not, we can address another question. I won't be satisfied until we've answered the first.

Regi

Post 10

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 8:17pm

Greetings.

Thank you, Mr. Firehammer, for referring me to this thread. Having reviewed your discussion, I have a few ideas of my own in response, and I shall present them in the rather formal format of a brief article.

On the Nature and Origins of Life

G. Stolyarov II

The unique nature of processes categorized as �life,� their intricate complexity, their capacity for self-sustenance and self-generation, often cause many thinkers to interpret their origins as something distinct from the origins of inanimate matter, which can be said to act �deterministically,� in accordance with clearly identifiable and predictable Laws of Fysics. In many qualities, these immense differences between life and non-life hold, especially with regard to life of the highest echelon, i.e., the life of entities of volitional consciousness. However, does the origin of life itself necessitate a similar distinction?

A position is put forth by such thinkers as Mr. Reginald Firehammer that, due to the evident distinctions between life and non-life, the latter could not have ever been in a state of complete monopoly over the sfere of existence or given rise to the former; the quality of life, along with the qualities of volition and consciousness, would need to have existed, according to Firehammer, for all time eternities back. Given that both I and Mr. Firehammer do not hold time per se to have had a chronological origin (such as, for example, a Big Bang), this would mean that the existent, �life� is an infinity old.

Whether or not Mr. Firehammer�s proposition is valid hinges on a crucial question: �Can life in fact originate from non-life?� To answer this question, it would be enlightening to examine a field properly known as the �study of life� (biology) and then apply the results to the study of existence (metafysics). For the majority of the 19^th and early 20^th century it was held that life and non-life were mutually exclusive

sferes, and no amount of chemical interaction could transform non-life into life; this belief was termed vitalism and was adhered to by the predominant scientific minds of the day. Yet the foundations of vitalism crumbled in 1953, when Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago recreated, in a simple experiment, the atmosferic conditions which would have prevailed on the early Earth. The early atmosfere, made primarily of hydrogen gas, ammonia, methane, and water vapor, was conducive to the spontaneous formation of all twenty known amino acids, the building blocks of proteins and contributors to DNA and RNA genetic codes. Amino acids are organic compounds that were once thought by the vitalists to be impossible to obtain by reaction of non-organic chemicals. According to post-Miller evolution theorists, natural selection acted on these molecules before life itself came to be. Through favorable chemical attractions, the amino acids and miscellaneous substances formed in the early atmosfere became arranged into macromolecules, which later aggregated into protobionts, collections of molecules that possessed the peculiar quality of generating copies of themselves. Some of these early protobionts were molecules of RNA, which, after hundreds of millions of years, became incorporated as a genetic code within the simplest cells of prokaryotic (bacterial) organisms. Hence, over a colossal amount of time, non-life was able to generate life.

These very prokaryotic forebears of higher-order life forms, however, made it difficult for further spontaneous conversion of simple molecules into organic building blocks to occur. Many of them produced oxygen as a byproduct of their metabolism, which altered atmosfere composition and caused it to become an oxidizing atmosfere rather than a reducing one (spontaneous reactions are more likely to occur in a reducing atmosfere). Once life got started, the barriers between it and non-life became more distinct and less prone to transgression, except by modern technology and the minds of those entities who exhibit the highest of the qualities applicable to living beings.

Some 45,000, the Cro-Magnon man, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved another peculiar chemical adaptation, volitional consciousness, brought about by a highly expanded cerebral cortex. Just as the structural reorganization of matter facilitated the processes of life, so might an evolutionary tweaking of human ancestors� genome have brought forth the capacity on the part of these early men to deliberately manipulate the fysical and chemical processes within their own organisms, thus resulting in the directed, autonomous action evident and inherent in humans today. What may be responsible, as the manifestation of this genetic change, is not a single �central region of volitional consciousness,� but rather an integrated sum, just as a machine�s functionality cannot be reduced to one or two gears or levers, but would be impeded if any gear or lever were hampered.

The evolutionary interpretation of life�s origins can escape determinism by claiming the following: While life as a process consists of fysical existents entirely, it implies an integrated sum of wholly material existents that is capable of directing itself to whatever degree pertains to the order of life in question. Hence, it is not necessary to claim that life had existed in perpetuity, because its complexity, as Mr. Firehammer will likely concede, is impossible outside the necessary material components that facilitate it. And, while it is certainly possible that similar chemical processes leading to life�s formation had occurred at some point in time in another star system, this proposition is, for the moment, unwarranted by any positive evidence. Hence, in the context of our knowledge today, the life which began on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago is the sole representation of life accessible.

The evolutionary approach to the question also avoids the dilemma of an intelligent creator of life; if life�s ultimate origins had been spontaneous chemical reactions, we need not be trapped in infinite regress attempting to determine the creator of the creator of the creator and a chain of intelligent super-entities ad infinitum.

I am

G. Stolyarov II

Post 11

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 9:32pm

Mr Stolyarov writes:
>Hence, over a colossal amount of time, non-life was able to generate life.

This certainly appears to be the case, unlikely as it must have seemed at the time!

>The evolutionary interpretation of life�s origins can escape determinism by claiming the following: While life as a process consists of fysical existents entirely, it implies an integrated sum of wholly material existents that is capable of directing itself to whatever degree pertains to the order of life in question.

Do you mean that consciousness, in your view, is the "integrated sum of fyscial existents", and is therefore purely "fysical" too?

- Daniel

Post 12

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 4:28am

Mr. Stolyarov, Daniel,

Thanks for the comments. I thought you would like this question.

I think a longer reply to your post is warranted, but for now, just this comment:

You said: "A position is put forth by such thinkers as Mr. Reginald Firehammer that, due to the evident distinctions between life and non-life, the latter could not have ever been in a state of complete monopoly over the sfere of existence or given rise to the former; the quality of life, along with the qualities of volition and consciousness, would need to have existed, according to Firehammer, for all time eternities back. ... Whether or not Mr. Firehammer�s proposition is valid hinges on a crucial question: 'Can life in fact originate from non-life?'"

I did not actually assert that life has no beginning, only that there is nothing in cosmology that prohibits it from always existing, at least in some form. That, at least, would be consistent with the Objectivist definition of life as a self-sustained and self-generated process. I can see how a process can be started by something else and once started be self-sustaining, but do not see how a process that once wasn't, and, "began somehow," can be self-generating. A process that does not generate or initiate its own action must be started by something else. To me, the notion that life can come from non-life is as self-contradictory as the notion that existence can come from non-existence.

I will be interested in your answer to Mr. Barnes' question about whether you think consciousness is physical or not, since it bears on my question.

Regi

Post 13

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:00am

Daniel,

I think we are actually in agreement with the exception that I regard physical existence, by which I mean that existence we are directly conscious of (i.e. perception) and which is the subject of the physical sciences is absolutely bound, (to avoid the word determined) by the laws of physical causality as defined by Objectivism, not Hume or Kant; but that life, consciousness, and volition, not being themselves, "physical," (though material, in the sense that they exist independent of any particular individual's consciousness or knowledge of them and non-contingently) are not bound by the laws of physics.

The problem of determinism does not arise if cause is viewed as embodied in the nature of existents rather than events, a mistake I think Popper makes. The Objectivist view of cause being behavior determined by the nature of the entities doing the behaving solves the problem. Since the behavior of living entities (organisms) is determined by the life process, which is not subject to the laws of physics, their behavior is the "pockets of propensity" so to speak.

Otherwise, where you have disagreed with me, I think I intended the same thing you mean. For example, my statement that both matter and life had to be potentially existent in the BBT is merely a logical conclusion meaning, if life and matter were not possibilities before the BBT, they would never be possible. I did not mean that the potentiality was predictive of what would be, only that it made what would be possible.

Although, there is the question of how what now is could possibly have been anything else, if it is not contingent. Just something to chew on.

[I'm editing this, because I meant to acknowledge this particular statement of yours: "I think what she meant to say was that it was *non-physical*, as opposed to the *physical* universe." I do not know Rand would have understood that, exactly. She definitely conflated the physical and material (existence), which is the usual view. However, what you have said is what the meaning had to be, if it was to be correct. Very perceptive.]

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 4/28, 5:08am)

Post 14

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:41am

Regi,

Well, as you predicted, I do have a question for you. First of all, I can't see how you justify the following statement in your argument: Since life is a self-sustaining and self-generating process, it is a process which need not act according to the physical causal laws of the material upon which it acts.

I can think of a kind of self-sustaining, self-generating process, a computer virus, which obeys the causal laws (i.e., the task set for it to do by the programmer) scrupulously.

How would you justify this implication, and explain this example I've given? Perhaps the computer virus, having been programmed, is not self-generating, and so does not constitute life? But then what is the essential difference between a computer virus and a real virus, which is a bona fide organism?

Sincerely,
Nate T.

Post 15

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:03am

Nate,

Thanks for the interesting questions.

You said: First of all, I can't see how you justify the following statement in your argument: Since life is a self-sustaining and self-generating process, it is a process which need not act according to the physical causal laws of the material upon which it acts.

Nate, I cannot find any place where I said the above exactly. Not that it matters, because I have said essentially the same elsewhere. I did say, "The life process depends on the physical laws of causality not being violated." in the linked post, but I'm sure that is not what you are referring to.

I did not say the life process is not subject to the laws of causality, but that it is not subject to physical causality. Remember, cause is determined by the nature of the entity or existent doing the acting. Life does not have mass, a pH factor, a temperature, electromagnetic state, or any other physical property or characteristic. Since the nature of life and the nature of the physical aspects of the organism share no qualities or properties their natures are entirely different and the specific causes that determine their behavior are entirely different.

Your virus analogy illustrates this quite well. The behavior of the virus is determined entirely by its own nature, that is, its own program, not the nature of the computer it runs on. The virus requires a computer to run on but can run on any computer (with appropriate operating system), but nothing the virus does can cause the computer hardware to violate any law of physics, but what the virus does is not determined by the hardware or the laws that determine it. The behavior of each is determined by their own nature.

Life, consciousness, and volition all have a specific nature that determines what they must do and what they are capable of doing. For example, the nature of volitional consciousness determines (causes) that all its behavior must be consciously chosen, but what it chooses is not determined.

By the way, these are good questions. I hope the answers are helpful.

Regi

Post 16

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 11:20am

Greetings.

Mr. Barnes asked: "Do you mean that consciousness, in your view, is the "integrated sum of fyscial existents", and is therefore purely "fysical" too?"

I will answer with a resounding, "Yes!" It is an integrated sum that is capable of directing its own functions and manipulating the other fysical components of its environment. But every existent is fysical at least in part, even a concept, to the extent that a concept triggers certain action potentials along certain nervous system pathways in the brain, or triggers the diffusion of chemical neurotransmitters across synapses, thus enabling the concept to be thought of, extrapolated, manipulated, verbalized, and transcribed.

This is why the "mind-body" dichotomy is absolutely flawed; though the nature of mental and fysical processes possesses perhaps a greater degree of distinction than that between moving a limb and moving one's tongue, all of these involve fysical processes and would be impossible absent these processes. Thus, to establish mutually exclusive sferes for "mental" and "fysical" activities is, as Ayn Rand rightly realized, unjustified. Rather, it is proper to state that a variety of fysical processes and their interactions are involved in the fenomenon known as life, and some fysical processes that comprise life are not the same as those that comprise non-life.

Mr. Firehammer subsequently stated: "To me, the notion that life can come from non-life is as self-contradictory as the notion that existence can come from non-existence."

Extrapolating upon what I wrote previously, it is granted that the nature of life is distinct from that of non-life, but a transition can nevertheless be possible between the two states over time. Just as a living entity (a cat) can become a disjoint collection of molecules after death, signifying that life can become non-life, so can, under very specific circumstances (such as a reducing atmosfere), non-life be turned to life. I can conceive of a future age where technology becomes so advanced as to allow scientists to wield atoms with the ease of building blocks and arrange, from the basic elements (nitrogen, fosforus, carbon, etc.) molecules of the human genetic code, thus "engineering" the most complex life form yet in existence, not from "scratch," (as these components do exist, and matter is conserved), but from "non-life" for sure. (The individual thus created would be as fully human as any of us, with all the applicable rights.)

Now, Mr. Firehammer might state that this scenario agrees with his interpretation, as it does involve intelligent "creation" of some sort. Yet, how could this creation be achieved? It was an artificial juxtaposition of elements that would have exhibited a spontaneous attraction to each other under the proper conditions, (i.e. a reducing atmosfere). Given known laws of fysics, and given that some rudimentary components of organic compounds have a chemical/electrical affinity for each other, what prevents them from acting as their inanimate natures dictate to produce an organic compound, which, like DNA or RNA, can engineer copies of itself?

I grant that, given a reducing atmosfere on any planet other than Earth at any time whatsoever, these fenomena could have occurred. Thus, the "potential" for life to come about could have been present in any such environment. But we do not yet know of environments other than our planet in 3.5 billion, BCE (or the controlled "worlds" we technologically engineer) that would compare to the early Earth, thus to state that life always had the chance of forming in some realm of existence or another is not necessarily warranted by the evidence.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 17

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:57pm

Hi Regi,

All right, I think I see where you're going with this. Life is a self-sustained, self-generating action, and life is not necessarily dictated by physical causality. Since the Laws of Physics deal with only physical existents, they are powerless to explain the life process. The only thing that we can conclude is that life has a specific nature (from the Law of Identity) and, of course, what we know from the definition of life as a self-sustained, self-generating process.

However, you mention elsewhere that life cannot violate physical causality.

But if we accept that physical causality is deterministic, it would seem that the only way not to violate the physical laws would be to conform to them exactly.

So I ask, in what sense is life free from physical causality, and yet obeys it concurrently. Can you give me an example?

And yes, your answers are helpful, and I appreciate your supplying them. :)

Nate

Post 18

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 1:51pm

>Mr. Barnes asked: "Do you mean that consciousness, in your view, is the "integrated sum of fyscial existents", and is therefore purely "fysical" too?"

>I will answer with a resounding, "Yes!" It is an integrated sum that is capable of directing its own functions and manipulating the other�fysical components of its environment.

I do not see how this avoids at very least a strong determinism. For example, the integrated sum of the physical elements of a clock still ends up telling you the time predictably. The problem seems to occur when you introduce the idea of "self-directing", which, as far as I can see has little direct relationship to "integrated sums" of physical components.

>But every existent is fysical at least in part...

Hold on, Mr Stolyarov. What do you mean by "fysical *at least in part*"? If everything is purely "fysical" as you resoundingly confirm, what could the other "part" possibly be?

>..even a concept, to the extent that a concept triggers certain action potentials along�certain nervous system pathways in the brain,�or triggers the diffusion of chemical neurotransmitters across synapses, thus enabling the concept to be�thought of, extrapolated, manipulated,�verbalized, and transcribed.

So you would say that concepts are purely physical too?
You seem to again suggest otherwise,when you then say a concept is physical only to an "extent". You also give it *priority* over the physical brain events you describe, which is interesting, if it is the integrated sum of those processes. Or do you mean to say concepts *are* simply a sum or product - albeit an extremely complex one - of certain electrical and chemical activities of the human brain?

- Daniel

Post 19

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 2:52pm