Life and consciousness

For the sake of discussion, let's for a while remove the theory of evolution - and the hand of the divine creator from the equation - and consider the origins puzzle from a slightly different perspective.

I would like to ask you a question: Did consciousness create life - or did life create consciousness?

If you look at it from a really simplistic view, you have to ask two questions:

1. Could life exist without conciousness? (imho, yes)
2. Could conciousness exist without life? (again imho, no)

But of course this thread will be all speculation and opinion. How could something begin from nothing? If it all started with a thought there had to be something behind that thought. I find it hard to imagine there being nothing, so maybe there was no beginning? Maybe 'stuff' has just always been.....

It's a hard question to answer

So what is it then, that drives a bunch of chemicals to be something?

If there isn't anything that makes them 'want' to be something - why do they do it?

Is concsiousness life's way of creating more life?
Is consciousness life's way of making itself more succesful?

Or is life the way consciousness expands itself?
Is life the way conciousness develops more new ways to express itself and experience being?

Does consciousness bring life into being because it can - or did life bring consciousness into being as a tool of survival?

concsiousness created life dude. We think (are concsious) and label things to better adapt to our enviorment and understand so we can survive. One of the things we labeled (gave definition to) is life. Life is always there, its just not called life..it just is what it is.

Before humans existed to catalouge and remember things could anything at all be said to exist.

Basically, if a tree falls down in a forest when theres noone around, does it make a sound?

Consciousness definitely created life.

Without consciousness, life just doesn't exist--and couldn't know itself if it did.

Conscious creativity is true free will.

The scientists might soon be answering this question:

The Self-Aware Universe

[edit on 9/24/2005 by queenannie38]

Really, it depends on your definition of consciousness. As humans we're biased towards thinking about consciousness in terms of thoughts, physical feelings, vision, taste, and whatnot, but there are realistic arguments supporting the idea of plant consciousness and other non-animal awareness.

Are individual cells self-aware? Well, no, because they don't have the physical resources to process the type of complex information associated with consciousness and awareness. Considering that abiogenesis and evolution (I know we're supposed to be ignoring evolution in this thread, but I'm not) tells us that simple cells came before complex lifeforms, the question can be answered simply: life came before consciousness.

However, I'm sure that the argument can also be made that the universe itself has some kind of natural agenda (read: with scientific laws) to perhaps create life or perpetuate itself or something, and someone could probably form a reasonable argument that the collective of laws with which the universe functions can be shown in some ways to employ certain principles of self-motivation, but I won't make that argument because I don't really believe it.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Really, it depends on your definition of consciousness. As humans we're biased towards thinking about consciousness in terms of thoughts, physical feelings, vision, taste, and whatnot, but there are realistic arguments supporting the idea of plant consciousness and other non-animal awareness.

Consciousness, IMO, is the state of being aware of self--not self-oriented, but self-aware. Kind of like intensified spiritual versions of being selfish or having self-esteem.
And, with the awareness of self as a sentient being not truly intended to be limited to the limited perception of material reality, there comes the understanding that it is not our perception which is the root of consciousness--but rather the prison of same. And all things are alive and part of the living system that is our physical reality (of which we only perceive the life that is carbon based and subject to renewal and reintergration through the cycle of life and death).

Therefore, our physical senses might tell us that there is no other 'consciousness' than what we were born experiencing, but once we become truly 'conscious' we realize that the whole universe is conscious, too--after it's own kind of consciousness.

We must realize that our perception of other types of consciousness does not, in way, limit or preclude their actual existence.

Are individual cells self-aware? Well, no, because they don't have the physical resources to process the type of complex information associated with consciousness and awareness. Considering that abiogenesis and evolution (I know we're supposed to be ignoring evolution in this thread, but I'm not) tells us that simple cells came before complex lifeforms, the question can be answered simply: life came before consciousness.

How do we know whether individual cells are self-aware? We are not that 'self.' We can not truly know awareness outside of our own perception. The true evolution, IMO, is that of the mind--the conscious creativity gives rise to the material.

However, I'm sure that the argument can also be made that the universe itself has some kind of natural agenda (read: with scientific laws) to perhaps create life or perpetuate itself or something, and someone could probably form a reasonable argument that the collective of laws with which the universe functions can be shown in some ways to employ certain principles of self-motivation, but I won't make that argument because I don't really believe it.

I think certainly the first and second laws are the true Law of God--and 'birth', 'death', and even 'resurrection' are actually manifestations of what we cannot perceive to actually be the 'doorway' that makes this an open system rather than a closed system.

I don't think it's a matter of being 'self-motivated' as much as it is being 'orderly.'
Order vs. chaos
'Good' vs. 'evil'

Apologies, I've been away from this thread for about a month

It's funny to me that you should bring up 'The Self-Aware Universe'. I'm going into geek mode now but bare with me... I expect some of you at least have seen the tv show Babylon 5 - I always used to like the explanation the character Delenn gave in that, it was something like "we are the universe made manifest" or something along those lines. Like the Universe created life in order to understand itself so in effect we're just part of one big conciousness.

Another question along these lines of thought I like to consider is "what if there are no coincidences?". Wouldn't that be interesting!?!

Originally posted by Nova
Like the Universe created life in order to understand itself so in effect we're just part of one big conciousness.

Another question along these lines of thought I like to consider is "what if there are no coincidences?". Wouldn't that be interesting!?!

I've never seen Babylon 5, but I think that's profound. I also don't think there are any true coincidences.

I think, therefore I am.


That is truly profound, IMO.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Nova
Like the Universe created life in order to understand itself so in effect we're just part of one big conciousness.

Another question along these lines of thought I like to consider is "what if there are no coincidences?". Wouldn't that be interesting!?!

I've never seen Babylon 5, but I think that's profound. I also don't think there are any true coincidences.

I think, therefore I am.


That is truly profound, IMO.

The brain creates consciousness, IMO.

Originally posted by kando
For the sake of discussion, let's for a while remove the theory of evolution - and the hand of the divine creator from the equation - and consider the origins puzzle from a slightly different perspective.

I would like to ask you a question: Did consciousness create life - or did life create consciousness?

If consciousness created life then what created consciousness and vice versa? It's all so crazy right? For me, it's pretty much a no brainer that we were created but by who, by what and for what means and do we really have the power to change? Grant me the serenity to accept the things i cant change OR grant me the power to change the things I do not accept.

If you believe there is a prime creator, do you believe the creator is seperate from it's creation or not?

Neither....


Consciousness is LIFE....

Thought is often mistaken for consciousness, even by the so called experts.

Thought is only the result of the decoding of consciousness, NOT the cause.


There ia a Decoder/Encoder system for Consciousness within the brains systems.

Consciousness does NOT reside in the brain, but separate from it.

This analogy can be traced back further than 5,000 years.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by kando

I would like to ask you a question: Did consciousness create life - or did life create consciousness?

Consciousness is an attributive trait of life. It is another way of saying self-aware, in which all life is self-aware. It is not another way of saying intelligent, in which not all life is intelligent, but some species are capable of intelligence to various degrees.

So what is it then, that drives a bunch of chemicals to be something?

Physics does. The way you worded the question is a seemingly poor attempt to speculate the possibility of a higher intelligent force behind life.

If there isn't anything that makes them 'want' to be something - why do they do it?

Biology does. The way you worded this statement is a seemingly poor attempt to equate evolutionary changes as being something that life strives towards through consciouse innate desire.

Is concsiousness life's way of creating more life?

No, reproduction is.

Is consciousness life's way of making itself more succesful?

No, self-awareness is incapable of intelligent thought in and of itself.

Or is life the way consciousness expands itself?

No, all life is equally self aware of itself as far as I can tell.

Is life the way conciousness develops more new ways to express itself and experience being?

No and you really need to stop implying that self awareness is some how equated to intelligent thought.

Does consciousness bring life into being because it can - or did life bring consciousness into being as a tool of survival?

Neither as consciousness or self awareness is not intelligent in itself.

First there was simple life, then it gradually became more complex and finally evolved brain capable of producing consciousness. So life was first. Even now we can see life without consciousness (for example bacteria without any nervous system), but not cosciousness without life/brain.

reply to post by Maslo

First there was simple life,

What is simple Life, I mean LIFE ???

Well this website revolutionized my way of thinking and life and hopefully it will help you too

We are born into this world with nothing and we can take nothing with us when we die, so what is the use in acquiring a whole load of material possessions in the middle? The only possession we can, and do, take with us at the end of an incarnation is our consciousness. So it follows that the only thing worth acquiring in life is a higher level of consciousness – nothing else matters. Getting an education, holding down a good job, being rich and famous, getting married and having children are not our primary goals; they are just secondary factors that facilitate life on Earth. None of these factors directly contribute to our primary goal – the development of consciousness.

www.esotericscience.org

esotericscience.org...

reply to post by thegreenelement


Well written.... in the Link You gave...

Life is cyclic in nature and involves a lot of repetition, but human beings are generally slow learners. We may incarnate into human form a hundred thousand times yet no two lives will be the same, each will (hopefully) be a slight improvement on the last, drawing on the lessons previously learned. The same applies to all existence; each manifestation is slightly more ordered and less chaotic than the one that preceded it. The ultimate goal of existence is the omniscience, omnipotence and liberation of all monads (beings). As always, there are those who surge ahead, those who go with the flow and those who lag behind. None of these paths is any better or worse than the others, because all paths lead to the same goal and all will eventually achieve that goal.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Maslo

 

First there was simple life,

What is simple Life, I mean LIFE ???

Simple life is simple life, for example bacteria, archeons, Porifera... In the thread context I meant life without nervous system.
Why the capitals?

reply to post by Maslo


There are two accepted meanings or interpretations for LIFE (the reason for capitals is to emphasize, motive entity).

There may even be other interpretations of what LIFE actually is ???

One interpretation of LIFE is a biological form...

The other is the non material entity, which drives or motivates the biological form.

Personally my interpretation is....

The biological form is only bio-robotics, and those forms are driven or motivated by something which is non material, hence something is either said to be living or dead.

I see the biological form as having "LIFE", Not being "LIFE". Instead a biological form has, a life entity that experiences the form and its environment.

But I am only saying this is my personal understanding and may not necessarily be others understanding or even need to be???

The biological form in the case of the human primate, doesn't even know it exists.

Does the hand, foot, or any other part of the biological form know you ???

Or do you know the hand and other components you experience ???

It is not your body that knows it exists, but rather only the "LIFE" entity that knows it exists.


The 2nd accepted theory, denies a LIFE entity, and can only accept the material aspect.

In other words they accept only the experience and Not what is experiencing the body and its environment..

Perhaps this is because those that accept this theory, don't know LIFE or even perhaps they deny LIFE ???

If you accept the latter then can you explain the motive component behind the construction or manifestation of the most simple of biological forms.

This is why I was asking you, so you could give your interpretation of “LIFE”.

I understand, if there is no motivation or driving mechanism, then nothing at all happens.

Something only happens if something causes it to happen.

Without cause, no effect ???

So if I am correct, what then is this something, which applies motivation or the driving aspect in things???

I am Not suggest it has anything to do with any religious subjects…

But something, what ever that may be, has caused these things to happen, or you and I would not be here discussing this ???

So what is this, that motivates or drives things ???