Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
buddyjesus
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/10

Loc: Davison, Michigan
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5808797 - 04/19/13 02:24 PM

time for some viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KfOBgrfkp4

this documentary discusses the different models for how life began. I am in the boat for either the hydrothermal vent theory or the tidal pool theory.

I see two possible problems for the primordial soup theory. The first is that when scientists make their own soup, there has been no spontaneous life generated. Science takes time and this may eventually happen. I would consider that absolute evidence for the primordial soup theory. Don't get me wrong, I still consider this the strongest theory we have. the second possible objection is admittedly weak, but we haven't found any primordial soup in nature. Life would have consumed any soup that it came in contact with so I wouldn't expect this argument to hold up well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: origin of life new [Re: Joad]
      #5809000 - 04/19/13 04:18 PM

"The truth is a three edged sword."

(an old Vorlon saying)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: moynihan]
      #5809506 - 04/19/13 08:34 PM

The articulation of truth, unity, goodness, beauty (and possibly also “thing” and “otherness”) as the specific transcendental properties of Being (Existence) is a product of medieval/scholastic philosophy.

However, the concept of Being (existence) having transcendental attributes is taken from Aristotle. "There is a science which investigates being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature." (Metaphysics, Book IV, 1, [1003a, 15]; Aristotle, c. 330 B.C.). Further, the idea that specific attributes of Being could be investigated is also found in Aristotle. In Book X, 1 and 2, of the Metaphysics, he explores the attribute of unity/one(ness).

Aristotle wrote/dictated these words around 1,500 years before medieval/scholastic philosophy and about four hundred years before the advent of that Christian theology which will influence scholastic/medieval philosophy.

Thus, the general concept of transcendental properties of Being cannot be rejected as a theological artifact because the concept of transcendental properties of Being exists long before the theology which impacted medieval/scholastic thought. Similarly, the exploration of specific attributes of Being as Being cannot be rejected as a theological artifact since the exploration of at least one of the aforementioned transcendental attributes (unity/one-ness) precedes the medieval period and the Christian theology.

Further, Avicenna, the Islamic philosopher will develop the concept of transcendental attributes of Being as Being based solely on his understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics and Platonic thought, without any influence from Christian theology. To drive the point home, though Avicenna had Aristotle’s writings in hand, he did not have access to the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Phillip the Chancellor, and other medieval/scholastic metaphysicians.

Again, the concept of Being having transcendental attributes and the exploration of specific attributes cannot be rejected as being artifacts of Christian theology.

What can be debated is whether or not “truth” is a transcendental attribute of Being (existence). To use simpler language, what can be debated is whether “truth” is the equivalent of the mental artifact “fact”, or if “truth” is a quality of existence which has its own extra-mental existence. Aristotle, prior to Christian influence, felt that such attributes could exist extra-mentally. The question is, is truth such a quality? such an attribute?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: origin of life new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5809657 - 04/19/13 09:38 PM

As I said, please read some modern philosophy. Even Heidegger would infinitely complicate your easy use of the word "Being," but after that you have to read some Derrida to see just how logocentric your viewpoint is. And the analytic philosophers would halt things even before you get to the word "Being" to analyze their own version of the uncertainty principle: which is, in effect, that the moment we use language to investigate anything we have already interfered with what we are investigating.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5809675 - 04/19/13 09:48 PM

Quote:


I see two possible problems for the primordial soup theory. The first is that when scientists make their own soup, there has been no spontaneous life generated.




I would be willing to bet that life develops all the time. Under certain conditions cell membrane like structures form and chemistry happens inside them. Since there is no point where one can point and say, "there be life here' it is difficult for us to observe it in nature.

Admittedly, this 'new life' is going to face difficulties as established and evolved life around it will tend to gobble-it-up.

My point is, every time we try and put limits on life we find that life exceeds them..not by a little but by orders of magnitude.

Biologists insists on trying to define life as limited by its environment. What they fail to realize..or even adequately understand, is that biochemistry doesn't 'care' about its environment..as long as there is some energy available and the environment s more or less enduring for some time biochemistry will adapt itself to whatever it needs to adapt itself to.

So in that light it isn't particularly surprising that life is found in acid lakes, boiling sulfur springs and the kardassian household.

Pesse (got noth'n for you here today) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
buddyjesus
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/10

Loc: Davison, Michigan
Re: origin of life new [Re: Pess]
      #5809730 - 04/19/13 10:19 PM

i agree that limits on life are really wide.

Since we are talking about the origin of life, when will the computers/robots eventually get this designation? I see the possibility of them outliving human civilization with a civilization of their own. What if they don't find their origin in the fossil record?

Here is another idea that is a bit mind blowing. Which came first, the information in the nucleic acids or proteins/metabolism? there is much unknown about this theory yet to be discovered.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5809805 - 04/19/13 11:15 PM

There's that old saying -- "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts."

I've noticed that there seem to be just as many truths espoused as there are opinions. And like opinions, truths rarely allow facts to get in the way.

Many will say that there are many truths. But, it seems, there is only one set of facts. I'll gladly give up the truth for some legitimate facts.

Edited by llanitedave (04/19/13 11:20 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5809825 - 04/19/13 11:26 PM

I find this matter of "truth" which Minos raised, very interesting as it relates to how science is done and how it should be done.

"Truth" can be simply a synonym for "fact". When used this way, the word truth means that an investigator has become aware of some objective reality, has understood the essence of that reality (if it is a thing) or the causes of that reality (if it is an event), and can now express that essence and those causes in words. When I taught high school and college philosophy classes this concept of truth within modernity, I referred to this notion of truth as facticity; the exact correspondence between some reality/thing/event and the words used to describe that reality/thing/event. In this modern understanding the description of the thing/reality/event in words is assumed to fully express and capture "the truth".

Like Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry, this notion of truth serves very well in letting people understand and make use of most phenomena.

But when one begins to move away from merely studying matter and motion, then, just as Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry becomes quite limited in describing more esoteric subatomic and cosmological phenomena; a facticity-correspondence notion of truth in this sense becomes very limited. Such a notion of "truth" (i.e. facticity-correspondence) is limited in its ability to explain living phenomena, and does not explain human phenomena well at all.

In order to be aware of and usefully explain living and human phenomena, it becomes necessary to understand truth as a quality, an attribute of being which has an extra-mental existence, dependent to be sure on existence itself. When looked at this way, it becomes clear that attaining truth of important matters is not so much a head-trip (a purely mental-facticity-correspondence thing) but more of an experiential and relational thing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5809837 - 04/19/13 11:31 PM

Quote:

time for some viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KfOBgrfkp4

this documentary discusses the different models for how life began. I am in the boat for either the hydrothermal vent theory or the tidal pool theory.

I see two possible problems for the primordial soup theory. The first is that when scientists make their own soup, there has been no spontaneous life generated. Science takes time and this may eventually happen. I would consider that absolute evidence for the primordial soup theory. Don't get me wrong, I still consider this the strongest theory we have. the second possible objection is admittedly weak, but we haven't found any primordial soup in nature. Life would have consumed any soup that it came in contact with so I wouldn't expect this argument to hold up well.




They aren't mutually exclusive. Chances are, there wasn't a single primordial soup, but a fairly wide diversity of them. Prior to the Earth's oxidizing atmosphere, there was the possibility of organic chemistry in fresh-water rain pools, tidal pools, deep-sea vents, ice-melt, and different variations of all the above. There were hot water vents and cold-water vents. There were ponds with acidic environments and others with alkaline environments. There were clay particles, calcite crystals, and ice crystals that all had/have the ability to catalyze certain organic reactions under the right conditions.

My guess is that the origin of life probably required the products of several of these types of proto-environments to be brought together, and to interact in one or more of the other environments.

That's why I don't expect simple experiments with organics and energy to create anything more than a limited repertoire of protocells. The experiments need a wider variety of included variables.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809842 - 04/19/13 11:36 PM

If I remember correctly, Dave, you are a geologist, which means your very good at chemistry and probably pretty decent at biology.

Let's assume that creating life is just a matter of the correct chemical environment (or environments as your last post stated) and the correct energy inputs. Let's assume that's correct.

Why are we having such a darn hard time figuring out the right combination. What are the geological, chemical, biological (i.e. science) reasons you can think of which makes figuring this out so tough?

Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (04/19/13 11:39 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5809843 - 04/19/13 11:37 PM

Quote:


In order to be aware of and usefully explain living and human phenomena, it becomes necessary to understand truth as a quality, an attribute of being which has an extra-mental existence, dependent to be sure on existence itself. When looked at this way, it becomes clear that attaining truth of important matters is not so much a head-trip (a purely mental-facticity-correspondence thing) but more of an experiential and relational thing.




Not true. In order to explain living and human phenomena, it becomes necessary to discard notions of metaphysical "truth" and to understand the concept of emergence and complexity as phenomena in their own right.

In other words, it's frightfully difficult, but not brought any closer to attainment by adherence to "qualities" that are ultimately contained within the phenomena they seek to describe.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809849 - 04/19/13 11:45 PM

If human phenomena such as love (caring for the other for the other's own sake) is reducible to neurochemistry, then yes, I can see how human phenomena can be explained by a correspondence-facticity understanding of truth. If reality is deterministic such explanations should be possible.

But, I don't think love, nor many other human things are only neuro-chemistry, determined, purely causal in nature. I doubt many people really do. I think, the mere fact we engage in dialogue with one another here is proof that we do not think human action is determined, purely causal, a matter of neurochemistry. And if human things are not these, then there must be something else at work at which only a transcendental notion of truth as an extra-mental reality can get a handle.

Otto

P.S. The "Not True " was cute.

P.P.S. I doubt the causes which led you to write "Not True " could be explained through a purely facticity-correspondence deterministic notion of truth.

Edited by Otto Piechowski (04/19/13 11:51 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5809857 - 04/19/13 11:52 PM

Quote:

If I remember correctly, Dave, you are a geologist, which means your very good at chemistry and probably pretty decent at biology.




It doesn't mean that at all. It means I was good enough to get a passing grade.
If you want "very good", talk to Jarad, or one of several others here.

Quote:


Let's assume that life is just a matter of the correct chemical environment (or environments as your last post stated) and the correct energy inputs. Let's assume that's correct.

Why are we having such a darn hard time figuring out the right combination. What are the geological, chemical, biological (i.e. science) reasons you can think of which makes figuring this out so tough?

Otto



Actually, I think we've made a heck of a lot of progress. As I mentioned earlier, there was probably not a single "primordial soup" involved, but many at once. We're trying to recreate conditions that existed over 4 billion years ago, and most evidence of those conditions has been destroyed. Our experiments so far, even the most famous ones, have been very small-scale.

We're in no hurry. Science (as does the popular press) tends to over-simplify the number of variables present in any experiment so as to be able to pinpoint cause and effect with the highest possible reliability. Once we have a clearly understood set of basic behaviours in our system, we can use those behaviors as inputs at a higher level of abstraction, and create more difficult and more sophisticated experiments. The greater the complexity of the problem, the greater the number and variety of hypotheses and experiments required, the more levels of result hierarchy involved, the greater the level of financial resources required to conduct them, and the greater the timescale of the research.

OOL research is interesting, but it doesn't have, as far as I know, the potential for immediate economic benefit as does, say, nuclear fusion or enhanced petroleum recovery. Consequently, its budget is pretty shoestring compared to a lot of other programs.

Be patient. It's actually come a long way since Stanley Fox. It's still got a long way to go.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809863 - 04/19/13 11:58 PM

"Love" is entirely, and I mean entirely, a very simple matter of neurochemistry. It is one of the easiest phenomena of all to describe.

Simply remember that all we are are DNA schemes to spread DNA. Love, in every manifestation, is simply part of that scheme.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809865 - 04/20/13 12:00 AM

Someday, philosophers will catch up on the last 30 years of ethology, behavioral ecology, primatology, neurology, cybernetics, etc. Then we will have some interesting conversations.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5809867 - 04/20/13 12:00 AM

Quote:

If human phenomena such as love (caring for the other for the other's own sake) is reducible to neurochemistry, then yes, I can see how human phenomena can be explained by a correspondence-facticity understanding of truth. If reality is deterministic such explanations should be possible.

But, I don't think love, nor many other human things are only neuro-chemistry, determined, purely causal in nature. I doubt many people really do. I think, the mere fact we engage in dialogue with one another here is proof that we do not think human action is determined, purely causal, a matter of neurochemistry. And if human things are not these, then there must be something else at work at which only a transcendental notion of truth as an extra-mental reality can get a handle.

Otto

P.S. The "Not True " was cute.

P.P.S. I doubt the causes which led you to write "Not True " could be explained through a purely facticity-correspondence deterministic notion of truth.




You're still dealing with a classical notion of determinism. A system can be fully deterministic, yet chaotic and unpredictable. Determinism doesn't mean one cause and one effect. It means an interacting network of causes and effects working on many layers of both positive and negative feedback.

Interestingly, these networks can be extremely sensitive to the slightest perturbations, yet stable enough to withstand major disruptions.

Are you familiar with the concept of the Attractor in dynamical systems? It's worth some study.

It turned everything I thought I knew about causality on its head. And it's completely deterministic.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: moynihan]
      #5809870 - 04/20/13 12:03 AM

Quote:

Someday, philosophers will catch up on the last 30 years of ethology, behavioral ecology, primatology, neurology, cybernetics, etc. Then we will have some interesting conversations.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins




The corollary to that is that we scientists also need to do some catching up in philosophy, so we can get some perspective and meaning to what it is we're actually doing.

I think our own Joad is as close to that balance as it's possible for many of us to be.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809873 - 04/20/13 12:06 AM

Thank you Dave. I think there the reasons you give contain a great deal of, shall we say, "truth". I especially like what you said about the difficulties presented by our being separated some four billion years from those originating chemical/energy conditions; trying to figure out what they were and replicate them. Also, I found illumiinating your comment about how science tries to simplify what, in the case of life, might be a situation which is not prone to being adequately dealt with in simple ways.


Dave asserts that there are others here, Jarad for example, but others too with expertise in geology, chemistry, biology. I would enjoy hearing your responses to the same question:

What are the scientific reasons we have not yet been able to figure out the right combination of chemical environment(s) and energy input(s) to create life?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5809889 - 04/20/13 12:28 AM

I remember well, Dave, how you explained to me when I was once playing devil's advocate arguing an anti-evolution position and using entropy as an argument against evolution; stating something like if entropy (all things tend to disorder) is correct, how can biological systems marched to greater complexity...I remember so well how you pointed out to me/us that in fact, at the molecular level, it was absolutely necessary to have entropy working so as to create the mutations needed for evolution to occur.

Well, it seems you are making something of the same statement here regarding determinism; that determinism as it really works, is necessary for human things, life things to come about as they come about.

By determinism, I understand to mean a system with outcomes which can not be interrupted by free will.

I doubt anyone who really believed human things were deterministic in this sense, would even bother to engage one another in dialogue here.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5809896 - 04/20/13 12:37 AM

Were I Joad, I'd advise you to reconsider your concept of "Free Will".

But I'm not, so I'll simply ask what you mean by the term.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)


Extra information
2 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 8274

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics