Materialism is Dead

[RJM]

There is more unknown mystery to one single cell of one blade of grass than all the scientific studies in the world can ever come close to really understanding

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's why I like to ask: What's it like to be a tree? I find this simple question fascinating. What's time and space like from its perspective?

Nice till you get water and nutrients. You may have pheromones to attract or dispel other organisms, thorns to keep away the attackers, etc. A tree will grow towards light because that is required for photosynthesis and send its roots deeper to get water and nutrients. Simple.

If wind is blowing, it may say 'yes' to your philosophical insights by moving its branches up and down or 'no' by moving its branches to and fro. If the wind is not blowing and if it does not agree to your philosophical insights, it may keep mum by not moving its branches at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The 'impossible' quantum leap from prokaryote bacterial life to eukaryote multi-celled life is quite literally a once ever in the history of the earth occurrence -- it happened ever just once, and never again since.

I think it happened many a times. But all did not succeed, only a few did. Mutation is a 'hit and miss' process.

"Eukaryotes are organisms whose cells have a nucleus enclosed within a nuclear envelope. They belong to the group of organisms Eukaryota or Eukarya; their name comes from the Greek εὖ (eu, "well" or "good") and κάρυον (karyon, "nut" or "kernel"). The domain Eukaryota makes up one of the three domains of life; bacteria and archaea (both prokaryotes) make up the other two domains."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

 

[RJM]

think it happened many a times. But all did not succeed, only a few did. .

it's not what biologists say.

"There are multiple, independent lines of evidence to support the hypothesis that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic event between an ancient archaean cell and an ancient aerobic bacterium:"
https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/biodiversity/eukaryotes-and-their-origins/#:~:text=Mitochondria and the origin of eukaryotes&text=The leading hypothesis, called the,an ancient, aerobic bacterial cell.

It only happened once in the entire history of life on earth, and never happened again after that. It's one of the great mysteries. A virtually impossible event, but it happened, or there'd be no higher life on earth. It's why the chance of higher life on other worlds is regarded as extremely low, although there may be a reasonable chance of bacterial life.

That's why scientists are looking for a better explanation than endosymbiosis for the origin of eukaryotes, but they haven't found one and most agree that a single one-off endosymbiosis 'quantum leap' event is the best explanation

(edited)

 

[RJM]

As for biological miracles, check out the ATP Synthase:
https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/72

The question is why such an incredible mechanism should evolve at all, against all reasonable odds. Why? Every average cell contains hundreds or thousands of them, and each one performing up to 130 revolutions a second.

There's no need for life. It doesn't benefit the universe in any way. Why go to all the trouble?

The Krebbs cycle electrical energy across the wall of each mitochondria of every living cell, scaled up, is equivalent to a lightning bolt. Every cell contains hundreds of thousands of mitochondria -- up to 600 000

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

 

[Ahanu]

If wind is blowing, it may say 'yes' to your philosophical insights by moving its branches up and down or 'no' by moving its branches to and fro. If the wind is not blowing and if it does not agree to your philosophical insights, it may keep mum by not moving its branches at all.

I am aware of anthropomorphism. The wind cannot "say" yes, Aupmanyav. Wind does not "talk" or perform other human-like actions.

Tree branches "move" on their own every three to four hours without the "help" of the wind. It's too slow for you to notice with your eye, but it has been measured and documented. One theory is that the tree is "pumping" water to its crown.

But what about the "brain" of a tree? It's not the crown or the trunk. It's a tree's roots, which, as stated earlier, has a brain-like structure. It can "talk" through the Wood Wide Web. If you speak to a tree, you might be disappointed that it does not answer your philosophical inquires with words, Aupmanyav, and that it is not conscious. Understanding a tree's language might help us at the very least catch a glimpse of what it would be like to be a tree. I am aware applying words like "consciousness" and "experience" to trees is not quite accurate, but I don't think it is accurate to talk about them descriptively as if they are completely inanimate either. This is just a friendly exercise in exploring an area where our language and understanding is inaccurate. You clearly don't want to participate in this thought experiment or consider it a waste of time since you think it is so simple, eh?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"There are multiple, independent lines of evidence to support the hypothesis that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic event between an ancient archaean cell and an ancient aerobic bacterium:"

This is like saying that at one time Adam was the only human male and Eve was the only human female. Science does not accept this. They ssay there were many Adams and many Eves over a huge period of time. Similarly, it cannot be said that it was just one archaen cell and one ancient aerobic bacterium which were the so-to-say father and mother of all life today. There must have been many evolutionary experiments at many places at various times. Life (humans, animals, vegetation) is the sum of all these evolutionary experiments.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Surely, vegetation is not inanimate. I said, as someone else in another forum aptly described it, it is reactive because of its metabolism. It is like reflex action in humans. That does not require use of brain.

 

[RJM]

... it cannot be said that it was just one archaen cell and one ancient aerobic bacterium which were the so-to-say father and mother of all life today ...

Nope. Science does not agree with you on this one. The astronomically unlikely endosymbiosis between one single archaea and one single bacterium happened only once in the entire history of life on earth. It has never happened again, and from that single new symbiotic cell, all eukaryotes originated, and went on to evolve incredible biological mechanisms like the ATP synthase. Amazing, isn't it?

I'm sure of my ground on this one, Aup

 

[Ahanu]

Surely, vegetation is not inanimate. I said, as someone else in another forum aptly described it, it is reactive because of its metabolism. It is like reflex action in humans. That does not require use of brain.

Reactive is a better word than inanimate, yet all reactive boils down to is one combination of matter in motion mindlessly responding to another combination of matter in motion.

Similarly, as I have said before, we can extend that to human beings as well. Some materialists view human beings as lacking free will and view consciousness as a by-product that provides the illusionary feeling I am an actor in the world around me. They believe consciousness is all really like watching a movie: a collection of still images rapidly following one another to give the appearance of motion, the appearance I feel I really chose to reach for my cup of tea.

 

[RJM]

Science goes to great lengths to postulate how it may have all happened by chance, because science does not ask why, but is concerned with the mechanism -- or possible mechanism -- no matter how improbable.

'Shut up and calculate' is the correct role of science, but it does not entitle anyone to make firm declarations about life and consciousness except to say: "It had to have happened somehow, because here it is."

IMO

 

[RJM]

Why does the positive proton charge exactly balance the electron, and why does the fine structure constant place the hydrogen electron at exactly the right distance from the nucleus to allow chemistry to happen -- more than a mile away, if the nucleus was a golf ball. There's a lot of mystery, and a lot of space for wonder imo ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm sure of my ground on this one, Aup

I still have my doubts about this. I will check. The universe is not that exclusive about things.

Reactive is a better word than inanimate, yet all reactive boils down to is one combination of matter in motion mindlessly responding to another combination of matter in motion.

Yeah, vegs. do it this way. And if you talk of human consciousness, that too basically is this, chemical and electrical reaction.

 

[Ahanu]

Yeah, vegs. do it this way. And if you talk of human consciousness, that too basically is this, chemical and electrical reaction.

No qualitative difference between you and a tree then. Just more and more complex processes.

Now I cannot help but wonder if an advanced alien civilization would consider us to lack consciousness as well, because, from their perspective, what seems like complex processes to us would be simple to them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are differences as also similarities. We need food, they too need food. Both have evolved for continuation of their species. Both are life forms.
In what way Aliens could have a different consciousness than ours? I do not get this.

 

[Ahanu]

In what way Aliens could have a different consciousness than ours? I do not get this.

Sorry, I am a big sci-fi fan. There are many different scenarios. You haven't watched Arrival? The plotline is based around the sudden arrival of alien spaceships on planet Earth that have a mission to unite humanity. In return humans must help them in the future. The world is unaware of this mission, so governments view them suspiciously since they could potentially be hostile. Scientists are sent to investigate. The protagonist is a linguist. As she studies their language her linear perspective of time begins to change into a circular one, because she begins to perceive the future as memories. This idea is based on linguistic relativity, which asserts language affects one's worldview. Those that have dismissed the idea say it could be possible with nonhuman languages. They have totally different properties. Humans write sequentially. For the aliens in the film sequence is unimportant: they can represent concepts in one logogram.

Other sci-fi authors and film makers have imagined alien civilizations capable of manipulating space-time at will. Such is the case in Iain Banks' novels. The most advanced ones are called the Sublimed. The idea is their consciousness is so far above ours that we cannot even comprehend them in any way whatsoever - which implies their consciousness must be entirely different from ours.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I do not mind Sci-fi. Enjoyed Star Trek and various books by Sci-fi writers (Gamow, etc.). But now I am past that age. I still do not get what higher consciousness may be.

 

[RJM]

@Aupmanyav
I think you will find Nick Lane interesting. He is a biochemist. He writes and gives understandable video lectures, for ordinary folks. His book 'The Vital Question' is very important, imo.

I'm sorry I removed a Nick Lane video above, because it didn't really focus enough on the archaea bacterium endosymbiosis event discussed earlier -- it was buried in a lot of other stuff.

However all his writing and video talks are easily available by just googling his name

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Lane

That is the wiki reference, but the Google search page provides more about his books and public talks

Try this one. 1hr

 

[Aupmanyav]

I doubt if Nick Lane can tell me anything new about origin of life. I pursue all report on this subject. Our question is about Eubacterial Adam and Eve. Was it just one or it came about in the way humans evolved (i.e., not ascribing origin to just one pair, but each step putting in some change in DNA)?

 

[RJM]

I doubt if Nick Lane can tell me anything new about origin of life. I pursue all report on this subject. Our question is about Eubacterial Adam and Eve. Was it just one or it came about in the way humans evolved (i.e., not ascribing origin to just one pair, but each step putting in some change in DNA)?

I think perhaps Nick Lane could explain a lot to most people. The jump from prokaryote to eukaryote happened just once, after around 1.5 billion years of prokaryote life -- and in spite of ample opportunity, it has never happened again, with countless zillions of bacteria and archaea swarming everywhere for 2 billion years following the event.

it's not what biologists say.

"There are multiple, independent lines of evidence to support the hypothesis that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic event between an ancient archaean cell and an ancient aerobic bacterium:"
https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/biodiversity/eukaryotes-and-their-origins/#:~:text=Mitochondria and the origin of eukaryotes&text=The leading hypothesis, called the,an ancient, aerobic bacterial cell.

It only happened once in the entire history of life on earth, and never happened again after that. It's one of the great mysteries. A virtually impossible event, but it happened, or there'd be no higher life on earth. It's why the chance of higher life on other worlds is regarded as extremely low, although there may be a reasonable chance of bacterial life.

That's why scientists are looking for a better explanation than endosymbiosis for the origin of eukaryotes, but they haven't found one and most agree that a single one-off endosymbiosis 'quantum leap' event is the best explanation

(edited)

Did you watch this short video, in the above post?

Lane is also at the cutting edge of research of origin of life (abiogenesis), but which is a different subject to the later origin of the eukaryotic cell.

I'm sure if you research 'origin of eukaryotes' you will find confirmation of what I've said above. I'm sorry but it has zero to do with abiogenesis or Adam and Eve -- and it's not about DNA or mutation either, so ...