Jump to content

WHICH CAME FIRST?


jameswade
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well they both have an array of complexities in reference to the question about which came first!!

Granted, a single cell is extremely complex. But does it contain sufficient complexity so as to be self-aware? A Drosophila fruit fly has approximately 10^8 cells, but does that provide sufficient complexity for it to be self-aware? Does it take on the order of about 10^12 cells to get sufficient complexity?

I'm using the term "self-aware" in a very loose manner so that we don't exclude all life forms except humans. Mice and rats will do just fine in this loose interpretation of the term. (Of course I guilded the lilly a bit, didn't I? Mice and rats have on the order of 10^12 cells. ;) )

 

So what does the paleobiological evidence indicate - that single cell organisms or organisims of 10^12 cells came first?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Which came first?

 

The paradox - both !

 

lol. ^^

 

Time is relevant in regards to perception right? "When" in context to "what came first"; seems to be a perception of consciousness solely then lent to the increment of the measured?

 

So the "first" organism to have this benefit would be likened to conception? ;)

 

Would that metaphorical "conception" have phases so to say if one were to play along even in a fictional sense?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What evidence do we have that a single celled organism is not self aware? The single celled organism may very well be self aware but have no way to communicate that status with humans.

 

Likewise, what evidence do we have that consciousness does not exist without a body?

 

From my beliefs, consciousness and mind came first. As they exist within a smaller unit of energy. On the other hand however, the mind and consciousness also exist in the 5th dimension.

 

So the question becomes, did our universe form from a single point in 1 dimension or did it form from a vast ether rooted in upper dimensions?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question becomes, did our universe form from a single point in 1 dimension or did it form from a vast ether rooted in upper dimensions?

The image I get in my mind when thinking about this is a drop of dew trembling at the tip of a sedge leaf hanging over the edge of a vast, still lake. The drop falls into the water creating the familiar spreading wave train. The wave train is our universe.

A discussion of consciousness has to include a consideration of value , as well. It is value which gives meaning and purpose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not hard to come to some sort of conclusion that the universe seems almost designed to create life. Whilst the 'anthropic principle' fails to take into account that we would not be here to marvel at it if it wasn't......there seems to me to be way too many 'coincidences' that all have to be just right.

 

The tiniest variations in some fundamental constants would lead to a totally different universe. We are all dependant, for example, on a helium atom being just a tiny fraction less massive than the sum of the hydrogen atoms that make it up. This fraction is crucial. Any larger...and stars would burn out before life ever developed. Any smaller, and the radiation created would not be enough to sustain the weight of stellar material and there would be an entire universe of black holes and neutron stars.

 

That is just one of over 100 properties of physics and chemistry ( especially including those of water ) that are extremely finely balanced.

 

Some may argue that it's all very different in other universes....and that this universe is a one in a trillion freak. However, to date there exists not a scrap of evidence that other universes even exist...or that their physical properties would be different if they did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence do we have that a single celled organism is not self aware?

What evidence do we have that there is not a Santa Claus?

 

Likewise, what evidence do we have that consciousness does not exist without a body?

Likewise, what evidence do we have that I cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound?

Come on, Paladius. Citing a lack of evidence that something is not true is just plain sloppy. You should know better (especially if, as you tell us, you have an advanced degree in some scientific discipline).

 

I am not saying the topics in your quotes cannot be true (in fact, it is my belief that awareness is a continuum, just like intelligence, which depends only on whether a feedback loop is present). Rather, I am pointing out that your argument is not-even-wrong pseudoscientific.

 

On your point in the second quote above, we do have analogical evidence to suggest consciousness cannot exist without a body: Software cannot execute without hardware. But you see, me applying this as "evidence" to refute your claim would be just as sloppy. I tend to believe that "consciousness" can exist without a body, but also believe there is a caveat that it must have SOME form of processing platform (because consciousness is clearly a process, not an entity unto itself). Hence, a more interesting question (IMO) would be: "How is consciousness transformed when it is no longer engendered in a human body?"

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twilight - I think that OUR life systems are finely balanced in our part of the universe for US, but I would think that if the density was off, or the star was heavier, or some other of the 1000's of variables were different, then life would be different along those lines. If protons for example needed a heavy binding substance to hold together (as opposed the strong nuclear force which does not "weigh" anything) than I would assume our bones would be more dense and our skin would be shell, and we would be more horizontal and less vertical. Then you could say that the universe was finely tuned for life, again.

 

RMT - we as a species can barley think about what it is like to be another human. We can not even begine to fathom what it may or may not be like to be a cat, or a plant, or a rock. Do you know that an ant is not self aware? How do you know that a tree may feel sad when a chainsaw is ripping though its wood? You don't know that, and to assume that other living things do not have some sense of self awareness is close-minded. Santa Claus is a man made character. A fable from a story first told in Bavaria 100's of yrs ago. That has nothing to do with the consciousness of a true living organism. And besides, there may be a Santa Claus, or may have been one in the past. Stories change over generations and a good natured man giving kids toys in the dark winter may have slowly evolved into a story about a flying fat man. Does not mean that the character did not exist, only that facts were lost through translation.

 

If you believe that consciousness can not exist without a body, then you must believe that consciousness evolves out of mass. That is like saying that electricity can exist without a wire or battery. It simply is not. Even if consciousness is a continuum, than I would assume that the continued factor would move from body to body. An interesting topic, if you think that a male can seed consciouness in sperm, where it is then passed onto female to instill more consciouness, where it is born/hatched and continues to grow its own consciusness. That would explain memories of past lives being memories of people who you are related to. I'm not sure that software not existing without hardware is a logical proof that consciousness does not exist outside body, as a computer not being natural made, may not fit the definition of alive. Although the possibilities and ramifications of computers become self aware is an often explored sci-fi topic.

 

I think consciousness, when no longer part of a human body resides in the 5th dimension, which we as a species are unaware of at the moment. I think we will be enlightened soon .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that consciousness can not exist without a body, then you must believe that consciousness evolves out of mass.

Must I? This is funny especially since you are accusing me of being close-minded. By this statement you are saying I must believe it evolves out of mass. Wouldn't it be more open-minded to ask what I believe instead of telling me what I must believe? No, not JUST mass, but also space and time. Your body is a mixtures of all three. It is comprised of matter, but it exhibits motion (transformational processes). Consciousness requires matter, but that is not sufficient. The matter must perform functions (and in general, must have at least one closed-loop function) before consciousness may manifest.

 

That is like saying that electricity can exist without a wire or battery. It simply is not.

Electricity can exist without a battery AND a wire. We call one such form lightning. Your analogy is seriously flawed if you think a state of matter is in any way equivalent to consciousness. I will say it again: Consciousness is a transform. It is a function. It takes inputs and provides outputs. Functional and physical are different, but related. And without relationships, consciousness cannot arise.

 

Even if consciousness is a continuum, than I would assume that the continued factor would move from body to body.

By continuum, I do not necessarily mean continuous from one body to another. I mean that it is a spectrum phenomenon. There is "high consciousness" (the human, or perhaps something more advanced) and "low consciousness" (the ant).

 

I think consciousness, when no longer part of a human body resides in the 5th dimension, which we as a species are unaware of at the moment. I think we will be enlightened soon .

If we (which includes you) are unaware of this 5th dimension, how did you arrive at the belief that consciousness can "reside" somewhere outside the human body? I am with Twighlight... consciousness is an emergent phenomena. It emerges from the appropriate interplay of functions, which are being executed on physical hardware. Its purpose is to achieve various operational end states in the matter and motion around it. To interact with the universe, if you will.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A discussion of consciousness has to include a consideration of value , as well. It is value which gives meaning and purpose.

Consciousness is another of those 'chicken and egg' type phenomenon. One could suppose that consciousness has some evolutionary benefit - however it has to emerge first in order to be taken advantage of. This aspect of evolution has always left me with some level of doubt about the whole evolutionary process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If consciousness is dependent upon mass, then can I assume that the two are linked and that affects on one can be manifested in the other? Seems to me that if what you are saying is true, than I should be able to exhibit some sort of influence on my body mass via my mind.

 

With a strong mind, leaping over buildings in a single bound would not be beyond the realm of possible.

 

How fast does a thought go? spped of electricity? speed of light? instant?

 

Would your consciousness be altered if you are sick, or gain weight?

 

If mass is required to complete a consciousness, then what is the connection? And how can one influence the body with thought and vice versa. Monks can sit still in snow and raise their body temperature. Mind over matter. Does their bodies have anything different than your body? Is only their consciousness different? Do they have a stronger connection between mind and matter or are they more or less dependant on matter?

 

curious about your thoughts here, RMT and twighlight.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...