Most Interesting Question.

[Mapache]

Are we alone? If so why? If not, where is everybody? - Unfortunately, it is very possible that the answer to this will be forever elusive.

Well, somewhere in the wide universe there might be other intelligent beings. But considering that we will never meet them means that it doesn't really matter for us. Feel free for a fantasy answer.
And if there wasn't any Big Bang doesn't mean that there was a superior being creating the world.
The slow civilization of mankind can be contributed to the lack of communication and density. And there were always many sheeple and very few spirits. The last 300 years were really exciting.

 

[Pirate]

I voted for the origins of the mind. My question is how do the squirting of some chemicals, an electirc shock, and the routing of cellular appendages manifest thought? I find it amazing that entirely mundane physical, electrical, and chemical reactions aggregate into a conciousness.

A specific example; I find it amazing that there is an unstoppable chain reaction that starts with a change in sucrose levels in the cells of my stomach lining starts a reaction that releases synaptic chemicals in nerves that allows an electrical impulse to travel to my brain, and that that electrical impulse is routed through neural pathways (which have been reinforced by previous chain reactions of squirting of chemicals) to produce further impulses. These impulses trigger the same eletronic firings and chemical squirtings that occur when our ears hear the words "i'm hungry" (well actually vibrations in hairs translate into more chemical and electrical signals etc...) and cause us to 'think' the words 'i'm hungry'. They also combine with a signal from my eye (in itself it's own chain reaction beginning with a particular pattern of 'red' photons bounced off an apple hits certain molecules in my retinal cells) they trigger a chain reaction in my arm muscles, yada yada yada, I eat an apple. This is all physical, chemical, and electrical signals that work on their own. At no point does an outside force direct a reaction. Somehow conciouness is contained in a pattern of chemicals and physical connections of brain cells that directs the path of this reaction (i.e. without the signal from the eye to say an apple is in front of me, my arm never gets a signal to pick it up and without previous experience with an apple I don't know that it will help satisfy hunger). That in-between is a concious decision or an act of will, that really is not 'will' at all but a continuous unstoppable and inevitable chemical and physical memory of previous reactions.

Before I digress further, I find it most amazing that without any outside stimuli we still can visualize words or imagine music. These 'thoughts' arise of mundane chemical and electrical reactions. The question is how?!!!

 

[Mark1031]

• Are we alone? If so why? If not, where is everybody? - Unfortunately, it is very possible that the answer to this will be forever elusive.

• 
  
  Yes, quite interesting question and I almost included it. Personal POV we are not alone. but I don't expect to be talking philosophy with a Valcan anytime soon.
  
  
  

  [*] The mother of all why, the TOE? this should answer, why only four forces, why only four visible dimensions, why mass of electron so and so etc. etc.? Unfortunately, far from answering it, we do not even know whether this question is answerable, ?

  
  I'm not much of a physicist but wouldn't this arise out of an answer to question 1?
  
  
  

  [*] What is the nature of consciousness? this is closely related to (3) but a bit more specific. Is intelligence mainly software or mainly hardware or a mix. Specifically, this is the question Penrose so clearly stated in his Emperor's new Mind. This I think should be answered within the next century or so.

  
  I actually think this and the formulation in the poll are answered, at least in broad strokes. The answer is both hardware and software. consciousness/the mind of arise out of (they are) the coordinated activity of specific groups of neurons that have been molded to respond that way through brain development and environmentally imposed plasticity (learning). How this all works at a detailed level is of course of great interest.
  
  
  
  

  Intelligent Design vs. abiogenesis is really an unanswered question. As of now, the only thing going for abiogenesis is Occam's razor. Till you actually create the synthetic process that goes from non-life to life (however you define it) the question is still unanswered.

  
  Well, it may be that we have not created life from nonlife but I'm also quite comfortable with the broad strokes view based on the biochemistry that we do know. It's a little misleading to say that the only thing going for abiogenisis is Occam's Razor. This implies that the data are nearly equally supportive of intelligent design but that abiogenisis wins out by being slightly more parsimonious. We can make all the basic building blocks of life from the prebiotic ingredients, those can be put together to form peptides, RNA, lipid bilayers ie. the higher order chemistries of life. RNA itself can be self replicating. What exactly are the data that would lead one to even put forward or begin investigating the notion of intelligent design?

 

[Mark1031]

A specific example; I find it amazing that there is an unstoppable chain reaction that starts with a change in sucrose levels in the cells of my stomach lining starts a reaction that releases synaptic chemicals in nerves that allows an electrical impulse to travel to my brain, and that that electrical impulse is routed through neural pathways (which have been reinforced by previous chain reactions of squirting of chemicals) to produce further impulses. These impulses trigger the same eletronic firings and chemical squirtings that occur when our ears hear the words "i'm hungry" (well actually vibrations in hairs translate into more chemical and electrical signals etc...) and cause us to 'think' the words 'i'm hungry'. They also combine with a signal from my eye (in itself it's own chain reaction beginning with a particular pattern of 'red' photons bounced off an apple hits certain molecules in my retinal cells) they trigger a chain reaction in my arm muscles, yada yada yada, I eat an apple. This is all physical, chemical, and electrical signals that work on their own. At no point does an outside force direct a reaction. Somehow conciouness is contained in a pattern of chemicals and physical connections of brain cells that directs the path of this reaction (i.e. without the signal from the eye to say an apple is in front of me, my arm never gets a signal to pick it up and without previous experience with an apple I don't know that it will help satisfy hunger). That in-between is a concious decision or an act of will, that really is not 'will' at all but a continuous unstoppable and inevitable chemical and physical memory of previous reactions.

Nice explaination. Amazing yes but this is the basic answer to the question so it's not that interesting anymore.

 

[Neomega]

Nice explaination. Amazing yes but this is the basic answer to the question so it's not that interesting anymore.

This answer hardly scratches the surface though.

Allthough rarely does your mind say I am hungry, it is more likely to be expressed in biological impulse. More interestingly is how pieces of the brain can be removed, and people's mentality still remain en-tact. Or some rat experiments have moved pavlovian response from one rat to another!

And interaction with other humans is far more complex than the eating of an apple. That is basic instinct. And even instincts are difficult to explain if you get right down to it.

A baby is never afraid of flying, because it doesn't know it is 2000 m in the air.

But a baby chick is afraid of a shadow the shape of a hawk, and instantly takes cover.

 

[Pirate]

Nice explaination. Amazing yes but this is the basic answer to the question so it's not that interesting anymore.

Well, despite the mechanics, out of this symphony of reactions a conciousness arises. And that conciousness is seemingly larger than the sum of its parts. If it's just chemical reactions, how do the bonding of a few million molecules or the motion of a few billion electrons translate into thoughts. That's still a question.

 

[Neomega]

Well, despite the mechanics, out of this symphony of reactions a conciousness arises. And that conciousness is seemingly larger than the sum of its parts. If it's just chemical reactions, how do the bonding of a few million molecules or the motion of a few billion electrons translate into thoughts. That's still a question.

Right, consciousness itself is more than random chemical interactions, it has a form of order.

Of course, perhaps our minds are just bio-machines that classify chaos into ordered perceptions.

 

[Mark1031]

Well of course it is not random but highly ordered. The fact is though if I drill a hole in your head drop a wire in and pass a simple electrical current into one part of your brain you will "feel" one thing and if I pass the same current through another part of your brain you will feel another. It is purely the activity of that group of nerve cells that is the feeling.

 

[Pirate]

Well of course it is not random but highly ordered. The fact is though if I drill a hole in your head drop a wire in and pass a simple electrical current into one part of your brain you will "feel" one thing and if I pass the same current through another part of your brain you will feel another. It is purely the activity of that group of nerve cells that is the feeling.

True. I never said the reactions were random. They are extremely precise, based on the both past reactions and current stimuli. Of course this implies that free will is an illusion, and that doesn't sit well with people. Why should a system that does not rely on will or chance create the illusion of such?

 

[betazed]

Yes, quite interesting question and I almost included it. Personal POV we are not alone. but I don't expect to be talking philosophy with a Valcan anytime soon.

Actually, the question is even more subtle. I was specifically talking about Fermi Paradox. It is just not enough to state that life is rare or physics is impossible for interstellar travel etc. etc. By all reasonable assumptions we should have evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence by now. But we do not! Why? As has been repeatedly shown, although the best of minds have taken a whack at it, we have yet to find a solution to the paradox that does not violate either Occam's razor or principle of mediocrity.

I'm not much of a physicist but wouldn't this arise out of an answer to question 1?

Not really. TOE should answer a lot more that just how the universe began. It should also answer why the universe is as it is and not anything else.

I actually think this and the formulation in the poll are answered, at least in broad strokes. The answer is both hardware and software. consciousness/the mind of arise out of (they are) the coordinated activity of specific groups of neurons that have been molded to respond that way through brain development and environmentally imposed plasticity (learning). How this all works at a detailed level is of course of great interest.

While this is a reasonable pov (and I tend to instinctively believe it) , no one has really proven that a strong AI pov is false. Specifically, a lot of scientists at the forefront of research (Steven Pinker for example) believe in strong AI. If it is true, then a silicon based computer simulating the human brain should show the same consciousness. If it does then what?

Well, it may be that we have not created life from nonlife but I'm also quite comfortable with the broad strokes view based on the biochemistry that we do know. It's a little misleading to say that the only thing going for abiogenisis is Occam's Razor. This implies that the data are nearly equally supportive of intelligent design but that abiogenisis wins out by being slightly more parsimonious. We can make all the basic building blocks of life from the prebiotic ingredients, those can be put together to form peptides, RNA, lipid bilayers ie. the higher order chemistries of life. RNA itself can be self replicating. What exactly are the data that would lead one to even put forward or begin investigating the notion of intelligent design?

Maybe, I was being a bit glib. I should have also added (as you correctly pointed out) that ID is not really a testable hypothesis. So it is not really a scientific theory.

I am certain this is one area where you know far more than I do, so correct me if I am way off mark.

It is one thing to synthesize the basic ingredients of life in the laboratory. It is quite another to show that it happened in the environs of early earth. Also, it is one thing to create all the separate molecules required for life, but yet another to put them together to form a cell. IIRC, the simplest possible cell requires about 500 odd proteins. That is a huge amount of proteins. How do you come about this amount of complexity and put it all together. { An evolutionary approach does not really help, because the cell is your primary reproductive block. You could not have evolution (at least the way we know it) to get to this complexity. So there ought to be some other explanation. }

Without answering all these how can you say that abiogenesis is much more well established (granted it has the benfit of testability) than ID?

 

[Neomega]

Well of course it is not random but highly ordered. The fact is though if I drill a hole in your head drop a wire in and pass a simple electrical current into one part of your brain you will "feel" one thing and if I pass the same current through another part of your brain you will feel another. It is purely the activity of that group of nerve cells that is the feeling.

ordered to the individual. If you do the same thing on another person, the results more than likely will be very different.

And some parts of the brain have been mapped to some basic, but vague functions, such as the forward lobes have been labeled as the area where "social skills" are mainly stored.

You claim it is ordered, but really, the brain functions off of the entire body, and controls the entire body through hormone excretions. The liver just doesn't pump byle naturally, it needs instruction first, from the brain. The brain is full of hormone receptors, but when does it decide it has had enough, and it is going ot pump some regulators?

And once this is answered, try explaining adrenaline. Adrenaline requires no bio-impulses. It requires pattern recognition. If you can explain bio-mechanically the self-preservation instinct.... please enlighten me.

And once adrenaline is explained, how about empathy, one of the most puzzling of brain responses.

 

[Mark1031]

Actually, the question is even more subtle. I was specifically talking about Fermi Paradox. It is just not enough to state that life is rare or physics is impossible for interstellar travel etc. etc. By all reasonable assumptions we should have evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence by now. But we do not! Why? As has been repeatedly shown, although the best of minds have taken a whack at it, we have yet to find a solution to the paradox that does not violate either Occam's razor or principle of mediocrity.

I saw Sagan's show on PBS ages ago where he gave his estimates: stars with planets (.1), planets that could support life (.1) etc. at the end was planets with intelligent life that survive nukes (10^-12) or something such number. Hope he's not right . I hadn't thought about this issue for a long time but it's more interesting than I first thought. So probably there are no nearby planets with intelligent life but how strong would signals have to be at very great distance for us to detect them. That is, how many light years away could we detect our planet's radio signals with current tech.

If it is true, then a silicon based computer simulating the human brain should show the same consciousness. If it does then what?

What, you've never seen the terminator series .

It is one thing to synthesize the basic ingredients of life in the laboratory. It is quite another to show that it happened in the environs of early earth. Also, it is one thing to create all the separate molecules required for life, but yet another to put them together to form a cell. IIRC, the simplest possible cell requires about 500 odd proteins. That is a huge amount of proteins. How do you come about this amount of complexity and put it all together. { An evolutionary approach does not really help, because the cell is your primary reproductive block. You could not have evolution (at least the way we know it) to get to this complexity. So there ought to be some other explanation. }

Without answering all these how can you say that abiogenesis is much more well established (granted it has the benfit of testability) than ID?

Well as a scientist I routinely discount ID as a possibility, call it part of my religion if you like. You are right; putting together the building blocks is the problem. It’s easy to get lipid bilayers to form protocells and it’s easy to get self-replicating nucleic acids that could be sequestered in these cells. The big question I see is how did the system of getting nucleic acids to produce proteins arise, once you have that everything else takes off. Currently in all life this is done by a complex called the ribosome that is composed of like 30 separate proteins as well as a handful of RNAs. I do not think this could arise spontaneously through chemical evolution. I assume there must have been a much simpler primordial system of doing this but I don’t know what the current ideas on this are.

 

[betazed]

Currently in all life this is done by a complex called the ribosome that is composed of like 30 separate proteins as well as a handful of RNAs.

yeah, I am reading up on this these days (plodding thru Fat Albert). Unfortunately, my progress is slow. This is by far more complicated than physics.

 

[Mark1031]

Of course this implies that free will is an illusion, and that doesn't sit well with people. Why should a system that does not rely on will or chance create the illusion of such?

It may not sit well with people but it is very likely the case. Standard "why" answer: the system evolved because it helped some of our ancestors survive: the illusion is just an added benifit.

 

[Neomega]

It may not sit well with people but it is very likely the case. Standard "why" answer: the system evolved because it helped some of our ancestors survive: the illusion is just an added benifit.

Free will is not an illusion. Going against your instincts has to be proof of this.

A soldier who hops on a grenade executes free will. As do most forms of suicide. But there are also a lot of other, well thought out processes, like quitting smoking, deciding not to have sex with someone, eating salad instead of beef.

there is really very little to explain this break from genetic programming, and indeed, it seems to be rooted more in the ability to know history, and to have the conception of being able to die. Memetics.

In fact, I think, humans must be the only animals who know death is inevitable. This is a far greater understanding of life and consciousness than any other animal.

 

[betazed]

Free will is not an illusion. Going against your instincts has to be proof of this.

A soldier who hops on a grenade executes free will. As do most forms of suicide. But there are also a lot of other, well thought out processes, like quitting smoking, deciding not to have sex with someone, eating salad instead of beef.

there is really very little to explain this break from genetic programming, and indeed, it seems to be rooted more in the ability to know history, and to have the conception of being able to die. Memetics.

I think you are on shaky ground if you want to show suicide as a proof of free will. Other animals like bees, ants etc. regularly commit suicide, where the tendency to suicide is completely genetically programmed.

 

[Neomega]

I think you are on shaky ground if you want to show suicide as a proof of free will. Other animals like bees, ants etc. regularly commit suicide, where the tendency to suicide is completely genetically programmed.

But they have no perception of their mortality.

Bees, ants etc have no idea they are going to die. People who commit suicide do.

 

[betazed]

But they have no perception of their mortality.

And, you are saying we have a better perception of mortality than animals?

Example: A male zebra charging a lioness to protect its family members knows that the lioness is a dangerous predator. If the family members were not there it would have ran. So it knows that it is in mortal danger and that it may die. So it is aware of its mortality.

How is our awareness of mortality any better? { in fact, I can argue that it is actually worse, because it is all clouded by relegion etc. }

 

[Mark1031]

Free will is not an illusion. Going against your instincts has to be proof of this.

A soldier who hops on a grenade executes free will. As do most forms of suicide. But there are also a lot of other, well thought out processes, like quitting smoking, deciding not to have sex with someone, eating salad instead of beef.

there is really very little to explain this break from genetic programming, and indeed, it seems to be rooted more in the ability to know history, and to have the conception of being able to die. Memetics.

I disagree. What your example shows is that the brain has a value system. It processes the environmental stimuli and chooses an action. All animals have this. The soldier who jumps on the grenade is jumping on that grenade because his brain has been molded through years of interaction with other brains leaving him to place a high degree of value on concepts such as valor, bravery, sacrifice for one's colleagues. At the moment of the decision the brain is merely causing this course of action based on how the different choices are valued. It's the same brain system that causes a mouse to choose to eat a chocolate chip over a piece of mouse chow.

 

[King Alexander]

True, animals don't "know" that they're going to die, but, IMHO, through their survival instincts "feel" it - when an animal is seriously wounded, maybe it knows that it's not going to make it. Correct me, if I'm wrong.