Sic et Non self deconstructs

[_Physics Guy]

Many descriptions of biochemistry bother me because just when they are trying to convey the marvel of it all is when they fail to mention—or even conceal—the most marvelous thing about it. The most marvelous thing to me is that it's all just chemistry.

There is nothing going on in, say, the synthesis of proteins under RNA catalysis that is fundamentally different from what is going on in the burning of hydrogen. Atoms are attracted to each other electrostatically and electrons hop around. It's certainly a lot more complicated but all the participants are still blind, dumb particles and all they do is move under electrical forces.

Even to talk about information in these processes seems a bit anthropomorphic. To talk about "organization", even "self-organization", inevitably makes it all seem rather like what humans do when we organize anything. We proceed top-down, starting with a purpose, forming a plan for organizing things to achieve that purpose, and then bringing one detail after another into line with that plan. Atoms don't have plans.

There is no "life force" guiding biochemistry. It's all still just chemistry. There is no ghost in the cell.

To me this is such a big fact, and one that is so hard to keep in mind, that any good description of the mechanisms of life ought to be repeating it constantly just to make sure that we don't unconsciously slip back into thinking that the end results of how our cells work are somehow determining the movements of atoms. Causality doesn't run that direction.

[_Gadianton]

I'm pretty sure the authors would say a thunderstorm can't be separated from its environment and therefore not a candidate for consciousness.

[_Symmachus]

Insofar as God acts within this universe I figure God does so in the same basic way we ourselves do. Certain patterns represent the character of God.

I suppose God does have more wiggle room than we do. Conceivably God can press Pause on the flow of time and diddle a few things here and there before again pressing Play. Even if not, the ability to set the initial conditions of the universe might well be tantamount to ongoing miraculous intervention anyway. I used to gamemaster table-top RPGs. You can retcon practically anything.

That's gotta be one of the best (if unintended) descriptions of Mormon theology I've ever read.

"Elohim: He Can Retcon Practically Anything."

[_Physics Guy]

Brains can’t be separated from their environments, either, though. At least not while preserving consciousness.

There is presumably a case in brains for the existence of some self-consistent higher-level description that is in some sense effectively separate from the neuronal level. But I’m pretty sure that there’s a meteorological level of description of thunderstorms which is in a similar way separate from the molecular level. So I seriously can’t tell what this ICT theory says about the consciousness of thunderstorms.

Just for information, the term “coarse graining” which is frequently mentioned in the article is from physics. It’s one of the basic concepts of statistical mechanics, which is the theory that tries to relate the molecular level of description to the thermodynamical level. So my difficulty in getting much out of the article isn’t because all it’s concepts are foreign to me. On the contrary I was mostly nodding my head Yes, yes at familiar verbiage and wondering when they were actually going to say something.

[_DrW]

Many descriptions of biochemistry bother me because just when they are trying to convey the marvel of it all is when they fail to mention—or even conceal—the most marvelous thing about it. The most marvelous thing to me is that it's all just chemistry.

There is nothing going on in, say, the synthesis of proteins under RNA catalysis that is fundamentally different from what is going on in the burning of hydrogen. Atoms are attracted to each other electrostatically and electrons hop around. It's certainly a lot more complicated but all the participants are still blind, dumb particles and all they do is move under electrical forces.

Even to talk about information in these processes seems a bit anthropomorphic. To talk about "organization", even "self-organization", inevitably makes it all seem rather like what humans do when we organize anything. We proceed top-down, starting with a purpose, forming a plan for organizing things to achieve that purpose, and then bringing one detail after another into line with that plan. Atoms don't have plans.

There is no "life force" guiding biochemistry. It's all still just chemistry. There is no ghost in the cell.

To me this is such a big fact, and one that is so hard to keep in mind, that any good description of the mechanisms of life ought to be repeating it constantly just to make sure that we don't unconsciously slip back into thinking that the end results of how our cells work are somehow determining the movements of atoms. Causality doesn't run that direction.

The claimed that "its all chemistry" has been made several times on this board over the last ten years or so. My view that brain is mind, shared with many others, is a kind of restatement of "its all chemistry".

That said, self-organization of matter does occur, and that which occurs in organic or biochemistry, especially if asymmetric catalysts are involved, can lead to unexpectedly complex and useful structures and behaviors.

Self-organization in inorganic chemistry can lead to unexpectedly beautiful structures as well. Bismuth crystals are an example. Aside of their chemical composition and very general unit cell type, I know of no equations that can predict the form these things will take.



Self-organizing behavior in biology should be no more surprising to a physicist that than bismuth crystals or watching liquid helium super fluid flow up the inside of a glass container, against gravity, and seek its own level, would be to a biologist. Once the biologist understands that the helium has zero viscosity at temperatures near absolute zero, things don't seem so weird. Same with growing and reproducing micelles or RNA polymers.

[_Philo Sofee]

Many descriptions of biochemistry bother me because just when they are trying to convey the marvel of it all is when they fail to mention—or even conceal—the most marvelous thing about it. The most marvelous thing to me is that it's all just chemistry.

There is nothing going on in, say, the synthesis of proteins under RNA catalysis that is fundamentally different from what is going on in the burning of hydrogen. Atoms are attracted to each other electrostatically and electrons hop around. It's certainly a lot more complicated but all the participants are still blind, dumb particles and all they do is move under electrical forces.

Even to talk about information in these processes seems a bit anthropomorphic. To talk about "organization", even "self-organization", inevitably makes it all seem rather like what humans do when we organize anything. We proceed top-down, starting with a purpose, forming a plan for organizing things to achieve that purpose, and then bringing one detail after another into line with that plan. Atoms don't have plans.

There is no "life force" guiding biochemistry. It's all still just chemistry. There is no ghost in the cell.

To me this is such a big fact, and one that is so hard to keep in mind, that any good description of the mechanisms of life ought to be repeating it constantly just to make sure that we don't unconsciously slip back into thinking that the end results of how our cells work are somehow determining the movements of atoms. Causality doesn't run that direction.

If we can take something alive apart by pieces, and reduce it and figure out how it works, and then put it back together but it does not come back alive, would that not indicate a vast and exciting mystery to us?! How you can possibly say its boring when in fact, you are ALIVE to say its boring is astounding to me. No one, I say NO ONE is willing to put their life on the line for reductionism and allow themselves to be taken apart and then put back together and see if science can bring them back to life. In other words, THE most fundamental and seriously EXCITING, THRILLING thing, .......LIFE, (that we ALL love and cling to) is the ultimate mystery, and now it's being said, oh its all just chemistry? Come on man. Seriously, is that all life actually means to you? I am NOT getting religious here.

I am astounded at how little life means to materialists. Oh its just chemistry, its so boring, nothing really to it, and certainly not at all significant. Just more atoms clattering, that's all I am. Come on man, have we as humans really lost the vision and enjoyment and glory of life? I simply cannot fathom being bored with oh just atoms clanging around for no reason. I am reading the Classical Scholar David Fideler in his astoundingly delightful journal "Alexandria," which, unfortunately only had 5 issues, but each one has a whopping 450-500 pages of sound, scholarly, very stimulating and fun to think about articles. Perhaps you can begin to re energize your thinking instead of being just a bunch of boring atoms clanging around on the world doing nothing, going nowhere, meaning little. If science reduces our thinking of ourselves to only smidgin tiny particles with nothing better to do than type on computers how boring it all is, then so much the worse for science. SURELY there is more, vastly more you are closing yourself off from. Sincerely, do yourself a favor and start reading Fideler. ANYTHING by him is really good reading, but the astonishing response of world class scholars in his journal is amazing as well. Look at what they are saying......

Sorry to go off on ya man, I know you know vastly more than I ever will, in some areas, but to have such dismal feeling about life, the singular most myserious and EXCITING and fundamentally MOST BEAUTIFUL THING IN THE UNIVERSE there is, is just sad. I mean, without it, you can't have sex, eat good food, see the wonderful sunsets, enjoy clouds, hold hands with a loved one, listen to good music, (let alone play it yourself), take a hike up a 13,000 foot tall mountain and have the vista take your breath away, smell the delicious scent of a field of flowers, enjoy waving your hand in the wind sticking it out a car window while driving at 70 mph, cook a good steak and have a game of cards with some beer with buddies, and take all their money because they can't play Poker as well as you can, hear the sound of a thunderous waterfall like Niagara, read a fantastic book series by Robert Jordan, play ball with a favorite dog, sit quietly and be in stunned awe at the glorious beauty of the clear night time sky, counting how many meteorite trails you see while talking about why the constellations arose in ancient civilizations, with the girl or woman of your choosing, breath in cool crisp air on a fall day when its only 30 degrees, work for a year on a mathematical proof and get it wrong 20 times, pull your hair out, invent new swear words, only to have an indescribable feeling when you FINALLY do solve it, (nothing like that in the world), feel the thrill of catching your first fish in a river you are right smack dab in the middle of feeling the water flow by you, feel the absolutely most amazing thrill when you hunt and get your first elk, and then the intense joy, the tingling all over your body when you actually taste what real and good natural and good meat tastes like after you cook it yourself, buy some nice clothes, shake someone's hand, look them in the eye and truly feel good about helping them save their own drowning child they couldn't do without your help because you were there, hike for over 11 miles in a very hot desert without water because somehow you forgot the canteen, only to have, at last, the absolutely most delicious ice cold crystal clear water you have ever had drink it down and quench your thirst......... I mean how many tens of thousands of these boring chemical reactions and mere banging of atoms together shall I list? Life is ***SACRED*** and we are it. Quit worrying about what religions says about whether there should be spirits in something or other. Experience the sacred and live every day.

[_Gadianton]

Brains can’t be separated from their environments, either, though. At least not while preserving consciousness.

According to the paper, the conscious part of the brain can be separated not just from the outside world, but from other parts of the brain not participating in consciousness. By separated, they don't mean physically separated, they mean what constitutes the system that is conscious, and what constitutes the environment. "Dark" parts of the brain are considered environment in their theory even though they are physically connected to the conscious parts.

[_Gadianton]

why would it make a difference if God pre-loaded all the variables favoring life and the world as we know it within the big bang?

To say God loved Abraham just means he loved a certain maze of chemical reactions.

[_DrW]

Brains can’t be separated from their environments, either, though. At least not while preserving consciousness.

According to the paper, the conscious part of the brain can be separated not just from the outside world, but from other parts of the brain not participating in consciousness. By separated, they don't mean physically separated, they mean what constitutes the system that is conscious, and what constitutes the environment. "Dark" parts of the brain are considered environment in their theory even though they are physically connected to the conscious parts.

This idea is backed by findings during open skull brain surgery. (There are a number of surgical procedures on the brain that can be done without opening the skull - pinealectomy can be done through the roof of the mouth, for example.)

As mentioned upthread, there is a relatively small group of brain cells, the manipulation of which can be used as a fully functional and fast acting on/off switch for consciousness in humans. I'll see if I can find and post the reference tomorrow.

[_DrW]

As mentioned upthread, there is a relatively small group of brain cells, the manipulation of which can be used as a fully functional and fast acting on/off switch for consciousness in humans. I'll see if I can find and post the reference tomorrow.

Below is the link to an expanded version of an earlier report describing an "on/off switch" for consciousness. This short piece is well worth reading.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

(The original report made no mention of previous surgery to remove a part of the patient's hippocampus, as was described in this version.)

“Ultimately, if we know how consciousness is created and which parts of the brain are involved then we can understand who has it and who doesn’t,” says Koch. “Do robots have it? Do fetuses? Does a cat or dog or worm? This study is incredibly intriguing but it is one brick in a large edifice of consciousness that we’re trying to build.”

^It from Bit?