Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by dragonridr


But wait... according to you it does not exist.
Problem is I have been studying it for years and you just heard about it. It does agree with me, or rather I agree with it.

It does not require an external intelligence of course to operate. Our minds and every lifeform works on these principles. It evolves and does evolve naturally. No external intelligence is required in it's operation. You have made this erroneous assumption from the start, like asking me to polnt to the intelligence in the cell, stupid question and only shows you don't have a good grasp on this at all.

The origin of semiosis however is a different story. You don't know what you are talking about, don't pretend to be an expert after just learning it exists and googling it for the first time.

The origin of a semiotic system and the epistemic cut are unsolved. The nature and irriducability of the origin of code demands a conscious agent. You won't find references to God because it is not ID and my argument is not about God but consciousness. Alas another stawman. The origin of semiosis is not often talked about because it defies the materialistic framework and no answers can be found in it. And i am aware of the proposals BTW. But apparently i get all my info from creationists.

Stop pretending like you have a clue. I have explained the basics, you don't understand it. You have tried everything you can to deny what I have been saying, even to the point of denying 60 years of science. You have difficulty interpreting a simple diagram so I am quite certain this is well out of you league.

BTW, I feel completely justified in my appaisal of your performance, you have been rude and codescending, questioning my intelligence. So you get what you give. I am very reasonable and polite to the balanced skeptics. You are not one of those.

Even Wikipedia agrees with me. I never like to refer to wiki, but the significance of this is that anything controversial in wiki is instantly edited away by the gatekeepers of orthodoxy. Meaning even they cannot deny it. It is actually a fair and well rounded article surprisingly.

Biosemiotics is a growing field of semiotics and biology that studies the production and interpretation of signs and codes in the biological realm. Biosemiotics attempts to integrate the findings of biology and semiotics and proposes a paradigmatic shift in the scientific view of life, demonstrating that semiosis (sign process, including meaning and interpretation) is one of its imminent and intrinsic features.

To define biosemiotics as “biology interpreted as sign systems study” is to emphasize not only the close relation between biology as we know it (as a scientific field of inquiry) and semiotics (the study of signs), but primarily the profound change of perspective implied when life is considered not just from the perspectives of molecules and chemistry, but as signs conveyed and interpreted by other living signs in a variety of ways, including by means of molecules. In this sense, biosemiotics takes for granted and respects the complexity of living processes as revealed by the existing fields of biology – from molecular biology to brain science and behavioural studies – however, biosemiotics attempts to bring together separate findings of the various disciplines of biology (including evolutionary biology) into a new and more unified perspective on the central phenomena of the living world, including the generation of function and signification in living systems, from the ribosome to the ecosystem and from the beginnings of life to its ultimate meanings.

Furthermore, by providing new concepts, theories and case studies from biology, biosemiotics attempts to throw new light on some of the unsolved questions within the general study of sign processes (semiotics), such as the question about the origin of signification in the universe.

Note the origin is unsolved. And for good reason.

Traditional biology (and philosophy of biology) has seen such processes as being purely physical and, being influenced by a reductionist and mechanistic tradition, has adopted a very restricted notion of the physical as having to do with only efficient causation. Biosemiotics uses concepts from semiotics (in the sense of C.S. Peirce as the broad logical and scientific study of dynamic sign action in humans as well as elsewhere in nature) to answer questions about the biological emergence of meaning, intentionality and a psychical world.

And the clincher...

These questions are either hard to answer or completely incoherent within a purely mechanist and physicalist framework.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by squiz


Once again semiosis does not require intelligence to occur in the biological world your confusing the different disciplines such as human sciences. Biologists believe that group dynamics leads to semiosis. you however have more then implied it takes intelligence to create semiosis have you forgotten your statement only intelligence can create code. As ive stated before they dont agree with you.

reply to post by dragonridr


Complete ignorant rubbish.

Group dynamics is how it evolves not the cause.

Can't you read? There are no answers for the origin of semiosis. This is not new to me Dragon, I am aware of all the proposals.

"These questions are either hard to answer or completely incoherent within a purely mechanist and physicalist framework."

You simply don't understand what you even just said. This is nothing but hand waving. To state it like it is not a problem is a lie. Stop pretending like you have a clue. You are less than an amatuer in this.

Code requires intelligence, you even said so yourself remember. Language requires intelligence, this is a no brainer.

Glad to see you have come around and admit it exists. I guess you must feel silly arguing that it did not. Now you begin another line of denial and claim it is solved by a misinterpretation of how group dynamics are involved in it. You had never even heard of it before. Get real. You don't know what you are talking about.

The fact is there is no known cause beyond consciousness. This is the central problem at the origin of life and mind. Most biologists don't even recognize it.

If you truly understood it you would realise that it defies materialism, and consciousness is required, in fact it is the very fundamental aspect of mind. Semiosis is not physics and cannot be produced by physics.

You have lost, you now admit it exists, now you must admit that it defies materialism and there is no known cause beyond mind. This is a fact Dragon.

Let me explain the problem as it relates to the origin of life.

Let us start with something like the stereo chemical theory, this proposes that there was some chemical affinity linking the codons to the amino acids in the beggining. The experiments in this however have been independantly verified as a result of selection bias and of course we know it cannot be true becsuse there are organisms that code for different amino acids by use of the same codon, as DragonRidr kindly pointed out.

But let us say that it is true, we have a chemical link between codons and amino acids. Now at some point we have to replace these physical constraints with the formal rules that are the genetic code. The question then becomes where did these formal rules come from? Formal rules are not physical they seem to have come out of nowhere. How?

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.

The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

The semiotic triad is irriducable all three must exist, sign, object and interpretant. It defies reductionism quite clearly. The only way to build the system is by a top down flow of information that must be telelogical.

Semiosis is the fundamental quality of mind, it is how our minds work. We relate to the world by the interpretation of signs. Signs can be anything that we apply meaning to. We accumulate experience through a life time of interpreted meaning of signs through our physical senses, (consciousness) we then use signs to interpret even more signs.

Semiosis requires mind, in fact it is the basis of mind.

Later I will try to explain how it relates to the universe itself.

How it relates to mind. This is a reading from the book "The irreducible Mind". I highly recommend it.

reply to post by squiz


You realy enjoy just bringing in extemporanous information don't you? There is a diffrence between cognitive simiosis and bio semiosis. Aparently in your years of research you confuse the two. Biosemiosis at its most baais says that simple organism will group together creating more complex organisms thus creating semiotic relationship.

reply to post by dragonridr


Give it up. That is how it evolves not how it emerges. New semiotic systems emerge from life itself! Simple organisms are already semiotic! What is wrong with you? Your logic is blind. You are just repeating the same thing. Semiosis is a dynamic process. Yes there is a difference in cognitive semiosis, there are more similarities than differences though. It is not my fault that you can't see the relationship.

It is well known that there is no known mechanism beyond a mind. I know what I am talking about. There are proposals for it sure, similar to what I described above as it relates to the origin of life. There is no working solution.

The solution in a materialistic framework does not exist! What we are talking about is the mystery of life itself! In cases you are not aware IT IS STILL A MYSTERY.

You just can't admit it.

Stop pretending like you have a clue, you are embarassing yourself.

reply to post by squiz


Here comes the hand waving and the denial. I'm sure more of them will follow sooner or later

But why should it matter...

Im curious if In your research you've found that a relationship exists between emergent behavior and biosemiosis? Ive been reading up on the concept of emergence and after learning a little more about semiosis in this thread, to me it seems like the two go hand in hand quite nicely

Originally posted by WASTYT

Im curious if In your research you've found that a relationship exists between emergent behavior and biosemiosis? Ive been reading up on the concept of emergence and after learning a little more about semiosis in this thread, to me it seems like the two go hand in hand quite nicely

Yes, Ive been reading about emergent behavior as well. It's a very fascinating field that seems to apply even to quantum mechanics and the structure of DNA.

There have been some interesting studies on emergent behavior in ant and termite colonies. Brazilian fireflies that blink in concert.

So I definitely think there could be relationship between emergence and semiosis in some way. Although I'm only starting to delve into these two concepts and trying to wrap my head around it all. I'd also be curious about what squiz (or anyone else) thinks on this.

It seems to be all there in front of us. We're seeing intelligence at work on all levels. It's now a matter of stringing it all together to get the overall view of the underlying current of intelligence (and consciousness?) that runs through everything.

Good stuff

reply to post by WASTYT


Good point, yes there definately is a connection with emergence, we see this sort of thing in colony behaviour or the hive mind concept were the group becomes much more intelligent than the individual. And the individual benefits from the collective information of the whole.

All emerging semiotic systems in the biological world can be traced to learned behaviour the accumulation of neural pathways or being directly genetic. These all emerge from existing semiotic systems. It is unique to life and only life.

If you think about it the gap between regular blind physical interactions an semiosis is vast, there can be no sort of semiosis or half semiosis it is or it isn't. It cannot be built in a stepwise fashion unless there is foresight. The same way we would invent a new code. It is self evidently irreducible.

Some of the people attempting to solve this problem invoke emergence, however the gap, the epistemic cut, is vast. This is no less than the leap from what is material to what in essence is immaterial, as the interactions in the system are not due to physics. This is a mystery. No one has solved this problem. This I think is why there would be resistance to biosemiosis, because it does profoundly change the view of life and open the way for a paradigm shift in biology. This is the same problem with consciousness. There is a enormous gap from physical interactions or computations to qualia. It can also be related to the messurement problem in quantum mechanics. This cuts very deep, way beyond biology.

Semiosis in essence is language the process of translation through code, intuitively we should know that intelligence is an essential ingrediant in language. It makes no sense without it.

There is something missing in the materialistic view of the universe, we do not fit in that view. There is more than just matter and energy. Information is not matter or energy, but information alone is useless without the experience of information or interpretation. The experience of information is what we call consciousness.

This is my personal theory of how semiotics relates to the universe, so you can take it or leave it or just take from it what you will, maybe even add to it or put in a different perspective.

In the materialistic view of the universe all things are the result of only matter/energy. However there is something else that has not yet permiated this view and that is information. As I have said before what physics and especially quantum theory has shown us is what matter itself flows from is intangible mathematical principles and information. "Information is information not matter or energy" as my signature from the founder of cybernetics Norbert Weiner stated. So what does he mean by this? It means what I have been saying all along, that information is carried by matter and energy but is not the medium itself. The information in this post is not the pixels that carry it, the same way as the information in DNA is not the molecules themselves. A sign is made of two entities the physical medium and the non physical thing that it represents.

We need to think about information differently. We have often heard that everything is information but what physicists are referering to is classical Shannon information, the result of the measurable collapse of probabilities. But classical Shannon information does not consider the meaning of a message. For example these two lines contain an equal measure of Shannon information.

smnT sho.ri tnifaoii
This is information.

What is obvious is that one contains meaningful functional information and one does not. Yet both are equal in the mathematical sense of classical Shannon information. The meaningful information is intangible.

What is implied by Norbert Weiners' quote is that information is another aspect of the universe. So now we have two elements Matter/energy and information.

I'd like to drop in this little talk from Jacques Vallee, the missing child of physics. Information. Just to help clarify the view of information and it's place in the universe.



As far as semiosis goes what we have is the sign (matter/energy) and the object (information). The term object in semiosis can be a bit misleading, an object in this sense is not a physical object it is representation of something that can be physical or can be abstract such as a concept. Other terms are used that may be more appropriate but these are the ones I have used so far, so I'll stick with them.

Now up to this point, I don't think many should have trouble accepting this, it is what science has revealed to us.

Yet we still have something missing that is vital for information to exist and that is the interpretant, the information or the meaning does not actually exist until it is interpreted. This is where consciousness comes in. As Max Planck and some of the other pioneers of quantum theory believed, as do I is that consciousness is fundamental to reality. This is a very ancient idea that again has come to the fore. If so, we complete the semiotic triad.

Sign. - matter/energy
Object. - information
Interpretant - consciousness

I submit that these three qualities is what the physical universe is. Although they may very well be simply all manifestations of consciousness, but this is another issue. We do know that these things exist at the very least.

This can solve the problems of mind and body, the origin of life, the quantum enigma and even the dynamic nature of evolution as the emergent and dynamic flow of information. This is why I think biological evolution reflects the flow and evolution of consciousness. This view can also explain why things are not perfect, why there is conflict and struggle and why there are obstacles and challenges to overcome. These things drive us to grow to investigste and solve problems, in a perfect world this cannot happen. It is the universe extrapolating and exploring itself and finding equalibrium and growing.

I believe consciousness and information that matter flows from are not bound by time. Time is an emergent quality of physicality only. Without time nothing can grow and develop, so this is why we are here, to learn, to grow and to find balance.

I don't present this as fact, it is just my personal philosophy. I think many have fallen into the materialistic trap of viewing the world and all it's wonders as something mediocre, when there is nothing mundane about it at all. Live and relish in the mystery I say, you may just find it will enrich your life.

Originally posted by WASTYT
reply to post by squiz

 

Here comes the hand waving and the denial. I'm sure more of them will follow sooner or later

I am sure, but people have to realise this is very real. I think I got closer to illucidating the problem in the origin of life example with the switch between physical constraints, chemistry --to-- symbol based control and recognition, interpretation and function.

Think about it, there is no inbetween ground. It is irridecubale even at it's most minimal level. I don't understand why people can' t see it. They get so upset and defensive but fail to see the issue. A problem so profound and very very real.

I will have one more crack, this time just explaining the problem as simple as I can.

What we have is symbolic control, Code - that controls the physical matter without breaking any physical laws.

A leap from mechanistic determination to the intangible formal controls (rules), symbols, recognition, interpretation and function.

Make a little stop sign put it on the floor, now role a ball towards the stop sign, what ever in the world is going to make that ball obey that stop sign?

Say we put a block in the balls path, this represents the physical constraint, the chemical reaction. We roll the ball it hits the block in front of the stop sign and the ball stops. Great!

Now what the transition represents is taking the block away and letting symbols, rules, recognition and interpretation take over! Imagine that!

This as simple as it can be explained I think, It is exactly the problem that I am talking about. It is real.

You can see why this is unsolved. It is so profound, so incomprehensible to form any rational approach. It is in fact a cybernetic problem. I really don't see how people don't understand. It is right there in your face.

No theory of abiogenesis even touches this. None. Yet this is very heart of the problem.

Not to mention the large quantities of specified functional information, plans and instruction for thousands of molecular machines in a intetwinded network of information with layers and layers of code running simutaneously. All speculation up to there but we even fail at the very spark of life in such a profound way.

Sorry WASTYT that wasn't all for you, just having one more go.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs

 

In your best opinion can you describe the most probable events that caused DNA to be formed and utilized?

My opinion is that DNA came from RNA and was originally very simple in comparison to today. As genetic mutations began happening and altering various organisms, it became more and more complex along with the various lifeforms. I believe one of the bigger steps in the evolution of DNA happened during the emergence of multi-cellular life, a process that in itself took around a billion years.

This is why I dislike the appeal to DNA complexity arguments. They essentially try to argue that DNA was designed in its current form, which does not make any logical sense.

edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

No noone was arguing it was created in its current form. And I asked you how DNA formed and was originally created, you gave me one very general sentence regarding my question and then the rest is what happened after. "My opinion is that DNA came from RNA and was originally very simple in comparison to today"... Obviously im going to want to know how you think RNA formed and was utilized. if you dont mind. This argument is about the origins of the code.

side question; Do you think animals are intelligent?

If our argument boils down to; The laws of physics created RNA, the laws of physics created DNA, the laws of physics created organisms, the laws of physics evolved those organisms etc. The laws of physics created humans. (biology and chemistry just being advanced forms of physics, for biology and chemistry were created and allowed by the laws of physics, biology and chemistry and extended aspects of physics), How will you respond if I say, what you call intelligence does not exist. Only the laws of physics exist. Everything humans do is because the laws of physics allow them to, and because humans are creations of the laws of physics.

I asked if you think animals are intelligent because I think in our discussion they would be considered so. Like a dog or dolphin, they can follow commands, they can learn, they are aware, they have emotions, they can be smart. But those intelligent animals are not able to conceive or create something like DNA running an intricately complex organism. How can stupidity (universe) achieve something so incredible such as trillions of complex living organisms programmed by subtle evolution friendly codes, inventing consciousness and the brain, and (all organism body parts and mechanics, skeletal, circulatory, nervous, visual etc.) intelligence. Yet what you may refer to as intelligent ( a dog for example) can never even come close to thinking of creating what nature has created. In fact probably 90% of all "intelligent" humans could have thought to create DNA and the human body.

Something else I wanted to ask. In a post to me you mentioned 'random' (maybe it was dragonrider) and the fact that it may disprove intelligence in/of the universe. Is intelligence capable of being random? Is intelligence capable of being non intelligent? Is non intelligence capable of being intelligent? Would it be intelligent for an intelligence to design a system that utilizes randomness (in confines and parameters/laws of course) to achieve 'events' or a goal?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
No noone was arguing it was created in its current form.

But they are, because they are appealing to the complexity of DNA as it is NOW and using it to suggest an intelligent designer is necessary because it has a code. They aren't talking about RNA or DNA in the ancient past. They are just assuming the "code" was always there, but we don't have ancient DNA samples, so we don't know.

And I asked you how DNA formed and was originally created, you gave me one very general sentence regarding my question and then the rest is what happened after. "My opinion is that DNA came from RNA and was originally very simple in comparison to today"... Obviously im going to want to know how you think RNA formed and was utilized. if you dont mind. This argument is about the origins of the code.

You asked for my opinion, not my scientific analysis, so I kept it simple. Obviously if DNA formed FROM RNA, that would be its origin, just like a dog evolving from a wolf ancestor would be considered the origin of that particular species. IMO, RNA formed from amino acids and other materials mixing together in the right conditions. Over time it evolved into DNA. I personally believe that abiogenesis and RNA world hypotheses are both the closest we have to answering that question, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I also believe that panspermia / comet impact events are big parts of RNA/DNA evolution as well.

For the origin of code: What is the "code" of DNA? It is groups of pairs of atoms. Origin of code is a misnomer. The code is physical. Why wouldn't the "code" two billion years ago be comprised of various pairs of atoms, only much less of them in a much simpler molecule? It makes sense considering lifeforms were much simpler back then. They wouldn't need a complex blueprint for a single cell, you just need mechanism for it to replicate itself. Why does this physical "code" need a special type of non physical origin?

The laws of physics created RNA, the laws of physics created DNA, the laws of physics created organisms, the laws of physics evolved those organisms etc. The laws of physics created humans. (biology and chemistry just being advanced forms of physics, for biology and chemistry were created and allowed by the laws of physics, biology and chemistry and extended aspects of physics), How will you respond if I say, what you call intelligence does not exist. Only the laws of physics exist. Everything humans do is because the laws of physics allow them to, and because humans are creations of the laws of physics.

The problem with that type of thinking is that laws are not conscious entities. The laws themselves didn't create anything, they merely allowed for it to happen via other events. Yes, all humans, and all objects in the universe must obey the laws of physics. There is no choice in the matter. I see what you're getting at, though, it's still a big mystery.

Like a dog or dolphin, they can follow commands, they can learn, they are aware, they have emotions, they can be smart. But those intelligent animals are not able to conceive or create something like DNA running an intricately complex organism. How can stupidity (universe) achieve something so incredible such as trillions of complex living organisms programmed by subtle evolution friendly codes, inventing consciousness and the brain, and (all organism body parts and mechanics, skeletal, circulatory, nervous, visual etc.) intelligence. Yet what you may refer to as intelligent ( a dog for example) can never even come close to thinking of creating what nature has created. In fact probably 90% of all "intelligent" humans could have thought to create DNA and the human body.

I'd argue that humans cannot yet create DNA or anything like it, therefor an intelligence capable of such a feat would far surpass our own. It's all relative. To humans, it might seem complex, but to a creator race it would probably be easy to them. It's not 'stupidity', it's universal forces and matter/energy acting upon one another. How exactly consciousness arises is a tough goose to cook, but that alone isn't reason enough to assume creation, IMO. We might not have an explanation right now other than a hypothesis about shrooms, but 50 years down the road, we might. It's really cool to ponder about, however.

This is why I enjoy conversing with you much moreso than Squiz and the others. The conversation actually progresses and is enjoyable to read & philosophize about. I appreciate the details of your post and the lack of insults, denial and fallacies. It is quite refreshing.

Something else I wanted to ask. In a post to me you mentioned 'random' (maybe it was dragonrider) and the fact that it may disprove intelligence in/of the universe. Is intelligence capable of being random? Is intelligence capable of being non intelligent? Is non intelligence capable of being intelligent? Would it be intelligent for an intelligence to design a system that utilizes randomness (in confines and parameters/laws of course) to achieve 'events' or a goal?

Those are some pretty loaded questions there. I'm not a big fan of the word random. Nothing is random. Everything has a cause. It's all cause and effect. It's not just willy nilly lucky chucky that a star is born or goes supernova. There are very precise reasons behind it.

Originally posted by Barcs

But they are, because they are appealing to the complexity of DNA as it is NOW and using it to suggest an intelligent designer is necessary because it has a code. They aren't talking about RNA or DNA in the ancient past. They are just assuming the "code" was always there, but we don't have ancient DNA samples, so we don't know.

hm, well I can only speak for myself when I say I wasnt. One moment RNA didnt exist, the next moment it did and its existence coincided with the existence of something else that could utilize that sequence of RNA, and then that 'something else' adopted RNA into its sytstem..or something like that? Did organisms or cells exist before RNA? How did those early moments of biology evolve into complexity? Does it revolve around RNA and DNA? Or could organisms exist without RNA and DNA? Was RNA/DNA determined/destined to exist on earth (meaning it was a physical/chemical reaction of certainty that given the conditions on earth, RNA/DNA would be forced to form?

You asked for my opinion, not my scientific analysis, so I kept it simple. Obviously if DNA formed FROM RNA, that would be its origin, just like a dog evolving from a wolf ancestor would be considered the origin of that particular species. IMO, RNA formed from amino acids and other materials mixing together in the right conditions. Over time it evolved into DNA. I personally believe that abiogenesis and RNA world hypotheses are both the closest we have to answering that question, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I also believe that panspermia / comet impact events are big parts of RNA/DNA evolution as well.

Ok, is this kinda like a chicken and the egg thing? What came first the organism or RNA/DNA? Because did there not need to be an organism that journeyed around the environment with the help of its RNA/DNA, and didnt the RNA/DNA need the organism to journey around the environment? Or did the physical processes and laws of the universe, cradle both the RNA and the primal organism in its womb and then bring them together, again by law, into a completely operating primal organism. Am I a fool for thinking there is something 'intriguing' about the seeming fact that energy/matter in space in time went from being dumb, complex,legos orienting in a design by each bit of matters physical circumstances; arriving at stars and planets, and on these planets, it is possible for these bumbling blind and dumb lego pieces to be forced to fit into an order that in some time utilizes 'relatively' complex patterns of information/symbols/language/code to represent construction design and blueprints and mechanics and then carry out these instructions to create intelligent and sophisticated products in progress. In short, is there a black and white line down the middle of whats life and what isnt, whats intelligent and whats not? Like is there an exact moment when life is life, or when RNA is RNA for the first time, or when RNA represents more then the exact physical attributes it possesses at face value?

For the origin of code: What is the "code" of DNA? It is groups of pairs of atoms. Origin of code is a misnomer. The code is physical. Why wouldn't the "code" two billion years ago be comprised of various pairs of atoms, only much less of them in a much simpler molecule? It makes sense considering lifeforms were much simpler back then. They wouldn't need a complex blueprint for a single cell, you just need mechanism for it to replicate itself. Why does this physical "code" need a special type of non physical origin?

So what would be an example of the most earliest simplest DNA or RNA? And when it first came into existence what was it used for and by what? And what used it, did not choose to use it? So I admit I dont know much about DNA, but I know its represented by 4 symbols and there is probably a lot more too it. So would the most earliest simplest DNA or RNA, have instead of millions of patterns of those 4 symbols, would it have just 4 symbols once? or just 1 symbol? (I know the 'symbols' or letters represent physical molecule, amino acid right?) So say it has one symbol, one amino acid. What would that represent in those early interactions with the 'users' of the primal RNA? You mentioned replication, so would the most simplest RNA strands just have 1 letter, and the one letter 'means' replicate. And the meaning is purely physical, it is just an interaction of chemicals which chemically react, and happen to produce the chemical reaction of replication?

Originally posted by Barcs

I'd argue that humans cannot yet create DNA or anything like it, therefor an intelligence capable of such a feat would far surpass our own. It's all relative. To humans, it might seem complex, but to a creator race it would probably be easy to them. It's not 'stupidity', it's universal forces and matter/energy acting upon one another. How exactly consciousness arises is a tough goose to cook, but that alone isn't reason enough to assume creation, IMO. We might not have an explanation right now other than a hypothesis about shrooms, but 50 years down the road, we might. It's really cool to ponder about, however.

Yea the thing is cant you imagine the laws of physics, the existence of subatomic quantom mechanics as being the fundamental material of the universe, all the types of atoms that can stabley exist and all the things they can create while interacting with one another, the fact that stars and planets can form, the fact that on planets life can form, and you know first hand how great life is, its all weve ever known, all the things humans have ever, felt thought and achieved. This is all possible in and of this universe. Cant we imagine a less intelligently designed universe? Cant there be potentially gagillions of stupider universes, smaller, slower, less atoms, worse quality, less dimensions, no way more then simple life could exist, etc. for something that just exists natural with no intervention, one material. I would assume a mass of material (the universe) that 'just exists' would never do anything other then exist, as an eternal pavement or puddle. That is not the case.

This is why I enjoy conversing with you much moreso than Squiz and the others. The conversation actually progresses and is enjoyable to read & philosophize about. I appreciate the details of your post and the lack of insults, denial and fallacies. It is quite refreshing.

Thanks, like wise to you and the others. However I am a fan of squiz, his intellect and passion and pursuit. I have been reading this thread for a while and I think "insults,denials and fallacies" are a very small percentage of his contributions and arguments. The ideal situation would be for the insults and aggravation and emotions to be halted, and for all parties to show no fear or hesitation answering the opposing arguers arguments and questions honestly. But I dont know. I wish we could all know the truth, how can we best strive for that?

The problem with that type of thinking is that laws are not conscious entities. The laws themselves didn't create anything, they merely allowed for it to happen via other events. Yes, all humans, and all objects in the universe must obey the laws of physics. There is no choice in the matter. I see what you're getting at, though, it's still a big mystery.

You will never hear me claim the laws of physics are conscious entities. However you may hear me arguing in favor of the potential an intelligent conscious entity designed this universe. The conclusion of which would be that the laws of physics were decided, chosen, or designed by an intelligent entity, therefore being the work of an intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs
IMO, RNA formed from amino acids and other materials mixing together in the right conditions. Over time it evolved into DNA.

We could talk about this and the experimental data? What are the right conditions? The right conditions could not be water. Forming polymers requires dehydration synthesis apparently.

As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored." In other words, water breaks down protein chains into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

This is from the top five problems link I posted, worth taking a look.
That is just the start of the problems. Evolving to protein synthesis? Not even close, we could talk about that?

Origin of code is a misnomer. The code is physical.

After all your vocal objections you still apparently don't understand the issue. The code is not physical, it is a set of formal rules and controls.

A misnomer? Come on, now you know that is just hand waving. No, it is the most critical thing in explaining the origin of life. Where intangible rules, symbols, information, recognition and interpretation take contol of the matter without breaking any laws of physics! Really you can't see this? The RNA world certainly does not address it. A code does not operate through the laws of physics. To deny it is to deny it is a code. Complexity? Even at the barest minium this problem persists.

I'm not a big fan of the word random. Nothing is random. Everything has a cause.

An RNA or DNA sequence is not determined by chemistry. What is the cause of the arrangement if not random? There is only chance and necessity. Necessity being laws, are ruled out because there are no laws determining the sequenctial arrangement.

reply to post by squiz


Ok you know little of earths prebiotic era do you? Lets go into it do you know that when earth first formed the sun only put out about 70 percent of the energy it does now. Suns increase energy output the older they get. What does this mean to earth it means once it cooled it was very much like titan. A frozen world where liquid water though still largely saturated with hydrogen molecules would only be a liquid near thermal vents. You could have ran this stuff in your car. As for simiosis not occurring naturally biologist disagree early life forms were so basic DNA wasnt even included yet that came later.At first chemistry had to help them reproduce. I do have a question if you admit semiosis evolves like science believes why do you insist on making huge leaps straight to needed intelligence. Ill tell you what prove to me intelligence was needed when simiosis first started since obviously it was basic because you yourself admit it evolves. So early on what was it like we know it started with a 2 codon code did it originally start with 1 maybe and life had to add another as it evolved what happened?

Originally posted by squiz

I don't present this as fact, it is just my personal philosophy. I think many have fallen into the materialistic trap of viewing the world and all it's wonders as something mediocre, when there is nothing mundane about it at all. Live and relish in the mystery I say, you may just find it will enrich your life.

I wonder if you realise what a difference this makes? This perhaps, hasn't seemed as obvious throughout the thread as it could have been. It has seemed you were trying to impose your own facts of existence which all must submit to. It makes for a very different debate when put it this way. I disagree with much you say, but still find it a valuable thing and important that people look outside of the accepted norms, so to speak. It could have those who disagree with you, far more understanding of your position.