Life from non-life?

S

shichimenshyo

Caught in the machine
Registered Senior Member
So, I was thinking about the creation of life and how some would argue that life can not be created from non-life. It got me thinking, if all of us and everything in the universe as we know it right now is built up from the same basic building blocks, atoms and subatomic particles then how can life not come from non-life? It would seem that random combinations of these basic building blocks would eventually yield some type of living thing.


Please explain this concept further if you can.

I would like to know more about it.
 
Last edited:
This universe is cyclic and so are all the concepts in it are cyclic as well. The universe creates itself, the past creates the future, the future creates the past.

existence of chaos only serves a function for existence of singularity

branes_max.gif
 
shichimenshyo said:
It got me thinking, if all of us and everything in the universe as we know it right now is built up from the same basic building blocks, atoms and subatomic particles then how can life not come from non-life?
Click to expand...
if life (meaning the consciousness) is eternal (much like you advocate subatomic particles are eternal) then it can be more easily understood how life comes from life
 
shichimenshyo said:
how can life not come from non-life? It would seem that random combinations of these basic building blocks would eventually yield some type of living thing.
Click to expand...
The question is really about the conflict between the word 'random' and the complexity of arrangement.

Even the most primitive life forms (that have a genetic code and can replicate themselves) are incredibly complicated arrangements of atomic particles.

That this could simply appear by random chance is thought by some (including myself) to be impossible.

Labs have artificially created amino acids by random chance under controlled conditions...but this is far from creating anything that could be called 'life'.
 
lightgigantic said:
if life (meaning the consciousness) is eternal (much like you advocate subatomic particles are eternal) then it can be more easily understood how life comes from life
Click to expand...

But subatomic particles are not a measure of conciousness, and our concious resides within our brain, which is comprised of the same basic building blocks as everything else. If energy itself is not life, and atoms themselves are not life, but we are made up of these things, why cant they make life?
 
shichimenshyo said:
But subatomic particles are not a measure of conciousness,
Click to expand...
certainly

and our concious resides within our brain, which is comprised of the same basic building blocks as everything else.
Click to expand...
illumination also resides within a light bulb
there are more issues to illumination than the material make-up of the light bulb (namely, that of a live current)
 
Carcano said:
The question is really about the conflict between the word 'random' and the complexity of arrangement.

Even the most primitive life forms (that have a genetic code and can replicate themselves) are incredibly complicated arrangements of atomic particles.

That this could simply appear by random chance is thought by some (including myself) to be impossible.

Labs have artificially created amino acids by random chance under controlled conditions...but this is far from creating anything that could be called 'life'.
Click to expand...

The universe is much larger than any lab, if just a small lab can randomly create amino acids through random chance, then why couldnt vastly more complex things be created by chance in a vastly more complex "lab"?
 
carcano said:
The question is really about the conflict between the word 'random' and the complexity of arrangement.
Click to expand...
A serious and difficult question for hundreds of years. A major advance in understanding it was made by Charles Darwin in the late 1800s.

Since then, what had been a mystery has become a technical question of historical fact and event, and an area of research and investigation.
 
shichimenshyo said:
Care to explain this a little further?
Click to expand...

the dynamic of a lightbulb's illumination is electricity
without it there is no question of any lightbulb lighting up anything

similarly the dynamic of the brain's function is consciousness
without it there is no question of any brain doing anything
(IOW there is no materially reduced formula on how consciousness can be re-invested into a brain, once it has left a conscious state)
 
lightgigantic said:
the dynamic of a lightbulb's illumination is electricity
without it there is no question of any lightbulb lighting up anything

similarly the dynamic of the brain's function is consciousness
without it there is no question of any brain doing anything
(IOW there is no materially reduced formula on how consciousness can be re-invested into a brain, once it has left a conscious state)
Click to expand...

But concious thought is a result of energy being fired through the synaptic gaps in the brain. So our concious is essentially made up of the same things as a light bulb just in a drastically different number and arrangment.
 
shichimenshyo said:
But concious thought is a result of energy being fired through the synaptic gaps in the brain. So our concious is essentially made up of the same things as a light bulb just in a drastically different number and arrangment.
Click to expand...
the difference is that we can not fire up a brain like we can fire up a lightbulb.

IOW a brain can not be demonstrated to be switched on or off.
Once a brain is switched off, there is no standard way to switch it on.
 
lightgigantic said:
the difference is that we can not fire up a brain like we can fire up a lightbulb.

IOW a brain can not be demonstrated to be switched on or off.
Once a brain is switched off, there is no standard way to switch it on.
Click to expand...

Not that we know of yet. A brain is far more complex then a lightbulb, but if we agree that they are both composed of the same materials is it not possible that we just havent found the right switch yet?
 
Last edited:
shichimenshyo said:
Not that we know of yet.
Click to expand...
exactly

A brain is far more complex then a lightbulb, but if we agree that they are both composed of the same materials is it not possible that we just havent found the right switch yet?
Click to expand...
the issue is that an analysis of a lightbulb will not enable the engineering of its functionality in the absence of electricity

similarly an analysis of the brain will not enable the engineering of it's functionality in the absence of consciousness.

IOW the premise for your understanding .....
It got me thinking, if all of us and everything in the universe as we know it right now is built up from the same basic building blocks, atoms and subatomic particles then how can life not come from non-life?
Click to expand...

..... is completely theoretical since there is no " basic building block" model for consciousness, even though there may exists a basic building block model for brains, lightbulbs and electricity.
 
So the fundamental difference is that you dont believe conciousness is a result of the function of the brain?

Just to clarify...what about those living things that dont have a brain?



no " basic building block" model for consciousness
Click to expand...

Really? How do you know that ?
 
shichimenshyo said:
The universe is much larger than any lab, if just a small lab can randomly create amino acids through random chance, then why couldnt vastly more complex things be created by chance in a vastly more complex "lab"?
Click to expand...
This planet is not the whole universe...unless youre one of those who believes that earth was 'seeded' at some point in its history from outer space.
 
Carcano said:
That this could simply appear by random chance is thought by some (including myself) to be impossible.
Click to expand...

I would think the incredible size of the universe makes the random chance concept all the more plausible.
 
shichimenshyo said:
So the fundamental difference is that you dont believe conciousness is a result of the function of the brain?
Click to expand...
in the same way that illumination is not an exclusive function of a lightbulb (a lightbulb without electricity cannot illuminate anything)

Just to clarify...what about those living things that dont have a brain?
Click to expand...

sorry I don't understand your question
What particular living things are you talking about?



Really? How do you know that ?
Click to expand...
you have peer reviewed evidence to the contrary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top