Theory of Beginning of Life and "God"

[bartock]

[i believe life started as somewhat of a random biological process.]

 

it all is systematic from simple to compleex.all the way from photon to the most comlpex structure i.e. the human brain.the formula of simple to comlpex is ubiquitous

 

humans... of course as mindful, questioning beings, the first of our kind. In essence. No other organism (so far as we know :D) has even dreamt of a God, because they don't have the ability to question.

 

we have simbolic language and thus we can think.with our inner speech we give our selves reasons.we are logical beings. :(

 

So the question is:

Did God create us to believe in Him?

 

Did we create God to believe in something?

 

And why, for heaven's sake, would God create people who have the ability to NOT believe in Him?

 

it has to do with free will. u would want some one to love u out of his own free will not because you wanted him to love u.

i guess it goes like this that if u love some one u explain the rules and dont force the rules on him ,set him free and then if he truly loves u ,he will fallow each and every rule that was agreed upon. :)

[bartock]

:)

I can understand matter and energy. But "the beginning of life" is in the title, and I've been wondering for a long, long time what the scientific definition of life is. I understand that it grows, consumes, and reproduces, but what is it? Which was the first random protein to wake up and help his neighbor protein start a family, hence willful cooperation. It just seems odd, to call myself a "chemical process" when I can use reason and make decisions.

 

What is the mechanism for life, or molecular cooperation, and what is consciousness scientifically? Call me an idiot.

:D i wouldnt call u an idiot!

def. of consciousness: the ability to percieve and react accordingly is defined as consciousness.

ameoba( one cell organism)can precieve acid as harmfull stuff in its environment.

it moves way from this harmfull stuff , lab experiments have proven this.

so an ameoba is conscious in that it percieves and reacts accordingly. :(

[bartock]

Your statement "it just seems odd, to call myself a chemical process when I can use reason and make decisions" I would ask can bacteria make decisions or reason? Is it life? Can a cat reason? Is it life? etc. The view that only things that reason are life is much more limited.

 

As of yet, there is no theory of consciousness, though with new technologies (like MRIs) scientists can study which part of the brain process which information. While memory seems to be "stored" in synapse connections, there is no theory of exactly how the brain works yet.

-Will

there is a theory of consciousness and u can find it in THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE

and it is the best one out there. :)

[Southtown]

there is a theory of consciousness and u can find it in the UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTANCE

and it is the best one out there.

Very cool, thanks. Will definitely look into that. :)

[alexander]

I can understand matter and energy. But "the beginning of life" is in the title, and I've been wondering for a long, long time what the scientific definition of life is. I understand that it grows, consumes, and reproduces, but what is it? Which was the first random protein to wake up and help his neighbor protein start a family, hence willful cooperation. It just seems odd, to call myself a "chemical process" when I can use reason and make decisions.

 

What is the mechanism for life, or molecular cooperation, and what is consciousness scientifically? Call me an idiot.

noone should ever call anyone with a mind that wonders an idiot, for he who does that is an idiot himself... but thats just my opinion

but as to what life is, there's a pretty cool wiki on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Here is another one, this one is on Consciousness, also, very, very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness

 

So the question is:

Did God create us to believe in Him?

 

Did we create God to believe in something?

excellent, excellent question that people have been trying to answer since the scientiffic boom. And this are the main areas of discussion anywhere where atheists meet religios people for a religious discussion. basically religious people beleive the first, atheists beleive the second and I beleive neither yet both, well more then just me, that would be the third, minority on the big scale, but its growing.

 

And why, for heaven's sake, would God create people who have the ability to NOT believe in Him?

aah, another good question, but this one i'll try to answer with perhaps, but first let me just say that my proposed answer requires you to beleive that god exists, that he created everything in accordance with the bible and all that fun stuff.

I was just watching a movie in which an answer to that question, or rather the proposition for it comes from. Maybe God created the race of people to not worship him/her/it, angels were created to always beleive in god and feel his presence, prophets to speak his word, but perhaps people were created to not have to feel his presence, to not have to worship god but to have a choice, to be able to ponder his existance and not beleive in him, yet be able to think what seems right and live independant lives...

I would ask can bacteria make decisions or reason? Is it life?

bacteria is most certainly a living organism, i wouldnt say that they have our ability to reason, but at the same time, they can make a decision of whether or not they are feeding on the right thing, they are in the right environment, they replicate and all that fun stuff, so i think, that yes they can make decisions, probably cant really reason, but are most certainly a life form...

That is a very good point. I didn't think of that. But the next question would be "how does science define the ability to reason?" ...if we were to attempt to answer the previous ones.

As defined by great thinkers of the past, from aristotle to Larkoff, reasoning is the act of using reason to derive a conclusion from certain premises.

As of yet, there is no theory of consciousness, though with new technologies (like MRIs) scientists can study which part of the brain process which information. While memory seems to be "stored" in synapse connections, there is no theory of exactly how the brain works yet.

That was exactly what i said in the "uploading your mind into a computer" thread :) just in other words...

the thing is we know less about us then we think we do, we know how most organs in our body do what they do, but we have no idea how our brain does what it does, so its like knowing how minor parts of the computer operate in general, without knowing what the motherboard does, its very scary how little we know, yet some people fail to admit it...

[TeleMad]

Erasmus: I would ask can bacteria make decisions or reason? Is it life?

 

No, bacteria cannot make decisions or reason. Yes, bacteria are living.

 

alexander: bacteria is most certainly a living organism, i wouldnt say that they have our ability to reason, but at the same time, they can make a decision of whether or not they are feeding on the right thing, they are in the right environment, they replicate and all that fun stuff, so i think, that yes they can make decisions, probably cant really reason,...

 

Bacteria can't make decisions. Not sure what definition of "decision" you are using when you say "they can make a decision ...".

 

alexander: the thing is we know less about us then we think we do, we know how most organs in our body do what they do, but we have no idea how our brain does what it does, ...

 

We have NO IDEA how our brain does what it does? I think there are tons of professionals who would strongly disagree.

 

Did you mean we don't know EVERYTHING about how the brain does what it does?

[Southtown]

noone should ever call anyone with a mind that wonders an idiot, for he who does that is an idiot himself... but thats just my opinion

but as to what life is, there's a pretty cool wiki on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Here is another one, this one is on Consciousness, also, very, very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness

Thanks, I'll check those out.

 

...its very scary how little we know, yet some people fail to admit it...

Ya, amen to that.

[Erasmus00]

No, bacteria cannot make decisions or reason. Yes, bacteria are living.

 

Why do people feel the need to answer rhetorical questions? I was making a point, not literally asking a question.

 

 

We have NO IDEA how our brain does what it does? I think there are tons of professionals who would strongly disagree.

 

Did you mean we don't know EVERYTHING about how the brain does what it does?

 

We actually know very little about the actual processing mechanisms. We literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes. Thats why you read all this speculation about quantum effects, etc, etc. We do have some idea about which parts of the brain process which information, and how memory may be stored.

-Will

[TeleMad]

Erasmus00: Why do people feel the need to answer rhetorical questions?

 

That's a good question; sorry, but I don't know the answer.

 

But for me, it's because I was responding to alexander's post, in which he took your question as one in need of response. Since I didn't go back through the thread to find and read your original post, I followed alexander's lead.

 

 

 

Erasmus00: We actually know very little about the actual processing mechanisms.

 

An unsupported claim. We actually know a lot about actual processing mechanisms in the brain.

 

Erasmus00: We literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes.

 

Wrong. See below.

 

Erasmus00: Thats why you read all this speculation about quantum effects, etc, etc. We do have some idea about which parts of the brain process which information, and how memory may be stored.

 

Yes, we have a pretty good idea about how memory formation occurs, and some about its retrieval, as well as what parts of the brain are involved in parsing and constructing certain streams of information, and how information flows through the brain via synapses and how synapses are modulated by excitatory and inhibitor signals, and how temporal and spatial summation affect the firing of synapses, and how groups of neurons are linked together in parallel, or in divergence, or in convergence, or serially, or in feedback loops, in what are called neuronal pools. Now, since memory formation and retrieval and the functioning of neurons and modulation of synapses are some of the mechanisms behind our thought processes, and we know a good bit about them, then it is false to say that we literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes.

[Biochemist]

I agree with Erasmus. We actually know very little about how thought processing works. We know quite a bit about a laundry list of detailed mechanics, but the overall thought process is still fundamentally mystic.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: I agree with Erasmus.

 

So you disagree with me? Big surprise.

 

Biochemist: We actually know very little about how thought processing works.

 

So you don't think that the functioning of neurons and the modulation of their synapses, and the formation of memory and progressive parsing - that is, processing work - of incoming information by identified regions of the brain, and the retrieval of memory and the construction - that is, processing work - of outgoing information by identified regions of the brain, is behind our thought processes at all?

[Biochemist]

So you don't think that the functioning of neurons and the modulation of their synapses, and the formation of memory and progressive parsing - that is, processing work - of incoming information by identified regions of the brain, and the retrieval of memory and the construction - that is, processing work - of outgoing information by identified regions of the brain, is behind our thought processes at all?

Yes. I think this is not what most people mean when they use the word "thought" in English. The mechanisms you described say nothing about how thoughts are created, become opinions, merge with feelings or grow into incentives. I think that is what most folks mean when they talk about "processing thoughts" as Erasmus offered above.

[TeleMad]

Yes. I think this is not what most people mean when they use the word "thought" in English. The mechanisms you described say nothing about how thoughts are created, become opinions, merge with feelings or grow into incentives. I think that is what most folks mean when they talk about "processing thoughts" as Erasmus offered above.

 

Who cares. The things I mentioned are parts of thought processing. Erasmus said that we LITERALLY know nothing about that. He's wrong. I'm right.

 

As I said...

 

Telemad: Yes, we have a pretty good idea about how memory formation occurs, and some about its retrieval, as well as what parts of the brain are involved in parsing and constructing certain streams of information, and how information flows through the brain via synapses and how synapses are modulated by excitatory and inhibitor signals, and how temporal and spatial summation affect the firing of synapses, and how groups of neurons are linked together in parallel, or in divergence, or in convergence, or serially, or in feedback loops, in what are called neuronal pools. Now, since memory formation and retrieval and the functioning of neurons and modulation of synapses are some of the mechanisms behind our thought processes, and we know a good bit about them, then it is false to say that we literally have no idea about the mechanisms behind our thought processes.

 

If you guys are going to arbitrarily exclude from the act of thought processing those things we know about, in order to specifically leave only those things we don't know about, then your statement/position is disingenuous.

[Boerseun]

In my personal, honest opinion, I'm the result of a long chain of events that leads back to the Big Bang.

 

1) I'm the result of my parents' DNA merging in a process fine-tuned over millions of years.

2) They're the results of the same process.

3) Their parents, the same - all the way back to our tree-climbing ancestors.

4) The tree-climbers can be traced back to the first proto-land animal that came crawling up on land, found it full of tasty morsels, and seeing as there were no competition, they colonized the land to feed on the abundant plant material.

5) And they can be traced back to the very first fish.

6) And they can be traced back to the first animal with a rod in its back which stiffened the bodies and gave rise to the whole chordata

7) ...which can be traced back to the point where plants and animals diverged.

8) ...which can eventually be traced back to blue-green algae

9) ...which can be traced back to the very first molecule able to replicate itself

10) ...to be, in turn, traced back to the atoms in the molecule itself

11) ...which is a direct result of a cloud of stuff (the result of a set of former earlier-generation stars blowing themselves to smithereens) having a gravitational collapse

12) ...and those stars from earlier collapsed clouds

13) ...all the way back to the Big Bang.

 

So - we're the result from a lot of earlier processes, and totally random at that. The fact is - if there was a little frog-like creature in a pond that was the individual that gave rise to humans (eventually) and he died of thirst or some other less palatable reason, there wouldn't have been humans today - there might be some other species that took up this specific niche, asking the same question. They'd have their own conceits and chauvinisms, and imagine their God to be benevolent, and also in their shape or form.

 

And the chain of events leading back to the Big Bang stops right there - at the Big Bang. What happened before it, is outside the realm of current science, although we are inching towards structuring better and better models in explaining it. And seeing as it is outside the realm of science, it is fertile ground for metaphysical explanations.

 

The irony will be if we find out one day that the Big Bang was created in a particle accelerator by scientists smashing atoms together, breaking them apart into their fundamental units, and one of them - for some reason unknown to those scientists, and they'll never know either, seeing as they were blown to bits in the resulting explosion - unfurled its curled-up dimensions, inflated, and created the Universe as we know it. That'll be kinda funny, though.

[TeleMad]

So - we're the result from a lot of earlier processes, and totally random at that.

 

AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! No, not totally random. That's what CREATIONISTS claim!

[emessay]

If Life could be defined as R = "God Reality" and jX = "Human Consciousness" could be defined as "Imaginary Shadows for the Future/ the Past Time of Universe", so G = "God" can be formulated as "Vector" :

 

G = R + jX

[adnaan]

A thought process in the Brain is supposed to...

 

• To have or formulate in the mind.
  To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through.
  To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.
  To judge or regard; look upon: I think it only fair.
  To believe; suppose: always thought he was right.
  To expect; hope: They thought she'd arrive early.
  To intend: They thought they'd take their time.
  To call to mind; remember: I can't think what her name was.
  To visualize; imagine: Think what a scene it will be at the reunion.
  To devise or evolve; invent: thought up a plan to get rich quick.
  To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation: He thought himself into a panic over the impending examination.
  To concentrate one's thoughts on: “Think languor” (Diana Vreeland).

 

I agree with Biochemist and Erasmus, we really don't know how thoughts are created and used. Basically all we know is where chemicals go, and where information is transmitted.