Life is the product of physics and chemistry - Sorry

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 688153
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
People say life couldn't likely have formed out of chance because the chance is so small.
Not so.
I'm not sure why no-one ever bothers to articulate this.

Life formed because, on some level, it was energetically favourable for it to do so.

We consist solely of chemical compounds and the energy these possess (both the nuclear energy in the atoms themselves, the chemical potential energy (CPE) in the bonds between the atoms, and in the kinetic energy the molecules have as they're vibrating and moving around).
If you disagree, dissect a living organism, find something else, and tell us about it (before then claiming your rightful Nobel Prize).

Some chemical interactions between compounds will occur spontaneously, that is, they will occur all on their own when the two compounds are next to each other. This occurs because the result of them interacting will result in a product which has a lower chemical potential energy that the sum of the energies of the reactants (the extra energy is released, usually as kinetic energy).
An example would be placing a piece of metallic sodium in water - the metallic sodium has a very high amount of chemical potential energy, and it "wants" to lose some of that, so when it touches water a reaction will spontaneously occur where the sodium goes from a metal (Na) to being sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
This process releases an enormous amount of energy and the reaction is quite violent, but it illustrates the point well that compounds always want to exist in lowest possible energetic state, like how a ball will always roll down a hill if you place it at the top of the hill (it "wants" to lose its gravitational potential energy).
Note that a certain amount of "activation energy" is required for most reactions to occur (this can be imparted from places like sunlight, heating the solution, shaking the solution, electrical current etc.)
Read here for more on activation energy, this post is long enough as it is.

So how does this relate to the formation of life?
Same principle.
If you take many basic compounds containing carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, they will undergo spontaneous or near-spontaneous reactions with each other to reach a state of lower energy (the compounds having been originally made by an energetic process - perhaps the addition of sunlight or a volcano's heat).
And guess what - if these compounds meet each other (yes, by chance, but they're not especially rare and they tend to occur in similar places so it's not impossibly unlikely), they naturally react such that some of the building blocks of life (as we know it) form as the activation energy for these reactions is often low enough that simple natural forces can provide it (such as a lightning strike - how many think life first appeared).
Amino acids can form like this.

From there, these more complex molecules further interact with each other (which occurs better in solution, and guess what again - life is thought to have first appeared in water), and they arrange themselves such that they have lower overall chemical potential energy.
They don't self-replicate because they consciously want to, or because some god-like force is giving them a push - it's because that's how chemistry works.
Crystals grow over time, they add more units to their structure - because it's energetically favourable for them to do so, they release energy as they assume the solid state and pack into a lattice.

Phosphate and deoxyribose release energy when they combine, so if they at some point met under the right conditions to overcome the small amount of activation energy (warm water, kinetic energy imparted from waves, sunlight, perhaps electrical current), they would combine.
DNA.

The processes which occur in our body are largely energetically favourable, and the ones which aren't have energy added to them, so that they may occur, allowing the system overall to still lose chemical potential energy.
We breath in - the oxygen (O2) binds to the heme in hemoglobin, this process releases a small amount of energy, which is why it occurs at all.
The oxygen is then used to oxidize carbohydrates in the mitochondria of our cells, this releases a fair bit of energy, which is then used for physical movement and operation (this is your "energy").
It's created because energy is released from the reaction. Not because God pokes your cells.

Where life becomes sufficiently advanced that it gains a desire to continue living (semi-consciousness?), it can then supplement this basic physics and chemistry with its own actions.

Sorry for bursting your bubble folks, but life, as with everything, is the simple product of physics and chemistry.
That doesn't mean it isn't amazing, I think that the above is so amazing I have long wished to dedicate my life to understanding it more.
Far more incredible and intricate than creationist "theories".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did the atoms/chemicals come from to start the process?
The atoms were formed as a product of nuclear fusion in stars from the two most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.

Then, the origin of matter, which may well be what you are ultimately referring to, is still not known for sure.
That's not the topic of this thread though.

Also, there is a massive difference between "we don't know" and higher forces being at work.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
This process releases an enormous amount of energy and the reaction is quite violent, but it illustrates the point well that compounds always want to exist in lowest possible energetic state, like how a ball will always roll down a hill if you place it at the top of the hill (it "wants" to lose its gravitational potential energy).

Yeah, I get it. Like Poobah who is the lowest energetic state in the universe as can be seen in his tennis videos and gifs :D

You talk of life become more advanced. Should it not try to go to a lower energy state, or is that only for compounds ?
Anyway, very interesting first post. Much better than the other thread here nowadays.
 
Who cares where the universe came from? What I'd like to know is how electrical impulses in the brain come together to form thoughts.

The answer would be especially pertinent to this forum, you know, with all the nonsense that goes on.

Electrical impulses create 0 and 1 and form our thoughts.
 
How does neuronal activity form higher level cognition? How does the mind arise from the brain?
Higher-level consciousness is linked to grey matter, especially in the frontal lobe. However we still don't have enough knowledge to fully understand the function of consciousness and how exactly it emerged.
 
Yeah, I get it. Like Poobah who is the lowest energetic state in the universe as can be seen in his tennis videos and gifs :D

You talk of life become more advanced. Should it not try to go to a lower energy state, or is that only for compounds ?
Anyway, very interesting first post. Much better than the other thread here nowadays.
I believe that as life becomes more advanced, it may then take its own course in regard to energy level, as that barrier can be overcome if energy can be added to the system (so fueled by consuming food for example).
But in the first place, before life would have been able to do this, it is known that it formed because it was energetically favourable for it to do so.
 
Bingo! it is the seed of consciousness which suggests that there might be more at play than a random chain of chemical reactions.
It does not suggest that, no. To the contrary, the fact that only higher apes, humans, and possibly marine mammals experience a higher form of consciousness suggests that self-consciousness is an inherent emerging property of the more complex brains that they possess compared to other animals. How exactly self-consciousness emerges is unknown, but the frontal/prefrontal cortex seems to be involved. Also, lower forms of consciousness presumably exist in all organisms that have a brain.
 
Last edited:
Bingo! it is the seed of consciousness which suggests that there might be more at play than a random chain of chemical reactions.
But that's just it, and what I forgot to say in the OP.
It isn't random, the reactions and interactions occur according to certain rules.

Life is favoured by chemistry and thermodynamics.

Consciousness too is the result of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, much of which is so complex that it is truly a marvel to behold.
 
It does not suggest that, no. To the contrary, the fact that only higher apes, humans, and possibly marine mammals experience a higher form of consciousness suggests that self-consciousness is an inherent emerging property of the more complex brains that they possess compared to other animals. How exactly self-consciousness emerges is unknown, but the frontal/prefrontal cortex seems to be involved. Also, lower forms of consciousness presumably exist in all organisms that have a brain.

I'm sorry, but if the understanding of the emergence of higher self-consciousness is unknown and therefore not understood, it does indeed suggest that there is more going on than random chemical reactions.

I don't wish to presuppose anything though I would suggest that consciousness may evolve lockstep with physical evolution (to a very broad extent).

Physical matter we have some understanding of, but cosnsciousness very little. We can't even predict how the common cold mutates and evolves, a lowly virus way down the pecking order of complex organisms. If we can't even understand that, how can we even pretend to understand human consciousness?
 
But that's just it, and what I forgot to say in the OP.
It isn't random, the reactions and interactions occur according to certain rules.

Life is favoured by chemistry and thermodynamics.

Consciousness too is the result of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, much of which is so complex that it is truly a marvel to behold.

Regarding your last sentence, that is a fun conjecture on your part, nothing more.

I suspect consciousness is driving the so-called chemical reactions in the brain, rather than the other way round which is what you appear to behinting at.
 
Regarding your last sentence, that is a fun conjecture on your part, nothing more.

I suspect consciousness is driving the so-called chemical reactions in the brain, rather than the other way round which is what you appear to behinting at.

Just no.

Try to elecrically stimulate relevant parts of your brain so as to disturb the electrical activity in them, and watch where your consciousness goes.

We know very well that consciousness is a biological phenomenon, and a higher-level feature of the biological processes in the brain, much like digestion is a higher-level feature of the processes in your belly.
 
Last edited:
Just no.

Try to elecrically stimulate relevant parts of your brain so as to disturb the electrical activity in them, and watch where you're consciousness goes.

We know very well that consciousness is a biological phenomenon, and a higher-level feature of the biological processes in the brain, much like digestion is a higher-level feature of the processes in your belly.

Flesh this out with an example please.
 
Regarding your last sentence, that is a fun conjecture on your part, nothing more.

I suspect consciousness is driving the so-called chemical reactions in the brain, rather than the other way round which is what you appear to behinting at.
No, I don't think one is driving the other, I'm saying they're one and the same.

Take a more basic creature, such as an ant.
So far as we know, it does not have consciousness, it is not aware of itself and acts only on instinct.
Its nervous system works by the combination of electrical signals and chemical interactions across its neurons.
The only real difference between the nervous system of an ant and a cat or a chimpanzee or a human is the number of neurons and their arrangement.
The far higher amount of neurons allows humans to perform far more complex tasks or even to be able to recognise their own existence.

Like having more transistors in modern CPUs compared to an old radio.
 
Does all this mean life may be pretty common in the universe ?
That's possible, although it does still require the right conditions, and for the right compounds to be present and available to react.
 
No, I don't think one is driving the other, I'm saying they're one and the same.

Take a more basic creature, such as an ant.
So far as we know, it does not have consciousness, it is not aware of itself and acts only on instinct.
Its nervous system works by the combination of electrical signals and chemical interactions across its neurons.
The only real difference between the nervous system of an ant and a cat or a chimpanzee or a human is the number of neurons and their arrangement.
The far higher amount of neurons allows humans to perform far more complex tasks or even to be able to recognise their own existence.

Like having more transistors in modern CPUs compared to an old radio.

Call me super sceptical of this as this thought form seems to deny free will.

A contra example of your viewpoint would be that I can think/meditate myself into a state of contentment/discontentment and the so-called measure of happy chemicals such as serotonin etc will differ depending on which state I have chosen.
 
Flesh this out with an example please.

Flesh out what exactly with an example?

The part about electrically stimulating the brain? Sure, one such finding is the fact that placing electrodes between the left claustrum and the anterior-dorsal insula will reversibly disrupt consciousness.

If, as you suggested, consciousness was merely some mystical force driving the physical processes in our brains, and not the result of these physical processes, then consciousness shouldn't so predictably be altered and even wiped out by altering the physical processes.

But seriously. Within the relevant sciences this is not even in dispute. The whole body of research in neurobiology tells us that the mind is something arising from the physical processes in our brains.

If you want a concise treatment of these questions, I recommend the second chapter of John Searle's Mind, Language and Society. He tackles the philosophical questions regarding how consciousness arises as a feature of neurobiological processes.
 
Last edited:
Call me super sceptical of this as this thought form seems to deny free will.

A contra example of your viewpoint would be that I can think/meditate myself into a state of contentment/discontentment and the so-called measure of happy chemicals such as serotonin etc will differ depending on which state I have chosen.

Well, that's a somewhat disingenuous form of logic though. You're basically saying that you want free will, therefore you dismiss science.*

As for your meditation example, yes, it's exactly correct. Of course our thoughts lead to changes in our biology. For instance, we all know that thinking intensely about whatever we're most afraid of, will raise our heart-rates. But the thing is, these thoughts, or your meditation, will themselves have neural underpinnings. Physical processes in the brain is what allows you to even form thoughts about meditation in the first place.

And if you think about it, this is just logical necessity: for something to have an effect on the physical processes in our brains, it would itself have to be, in the final instance, a part of physics. Your proposition of some mystical force outside of physics affecting physical processes doesn't compute.


* But, if it's any consolation, I don't think the question of free will is down to whether our minds are biological or not. It's moreover down to whether certain specific neural processes are sufficiently indeterministic or not. Though most of what we know points to "not", many still regard it as an open empirical question (quantum-mechanics and all that jazz).
 
Quoting from chapter one of the 7th edition of Campbell's Biology:

With each step upward in this hierarchy of biological order, novel properties emerge that are not present at the level just below. These emergent properties are due to the arrangement and interactions of parts as complexity increases. For example, a test-tube mixture of chlorophyll and all the other molecules found in a chloroplast cannot perform photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis emerges from the very specific way in which the chlorophyll and other molecules are arranged in an intact chloroplast. To take another example, if a serious head injury disrupts the intricate architecture of a human brain, the mind may cease to function properly even though all of the brain parts are still present. Our thoughts and memories are emergent properties of a complex network of nerve cells. At an even higher level of biological organization—at the ecosystem level—the recycling of nutrients such as carbon depends on a network of diverse organisms interacting with each other and with the soil and air.

Emergent properties are neither supernatural nor unique to life. We can see the importance of arrangement in the distinction between a box of bicycle parts and a working bicycle. And while graphite and diamonds are both pure carbon, they have very different properties based on how their carbon atoms are arranged. But compared to such nonliving examples, the emergent properties of life are particularly challenging to study because of the unrivaled complexity of biological systems.
 
Quoting from chapter one of the 7th edition of Campbell's Biology:

With each step upward in this hierarchy of biological order, novel properties emerge that are not present at the level just below. These emergent properties are due to the arrangement and interactions of parts as complexity increases. For example, a test-tube mixture of chlorophyll and all the other molecules found in a chloroplast cannot perform photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis emerges from the very specific way in which the chlorophyll and other molecules are arranged in an intact chloroplast. To take another example, if a serious head injury disrupts the intricate architecture of a human brain, the mind may cease to function properly even though all of the brain parts are still present. Our thoughts and memories are emergent properties of a complex network of nerve cells. At an even higher level of biological organization—at the ecosystem level—the recycling of nutrients such as carbon depends on a network of diverse organisms interacting with each other and with the soil and air.

Emergent properties are neither supernatural nor unique to life. We can see the importance of arrangement in the distinction between a box of bicycle parts and a working bicycle. And while graphite and diamonds are both pure carbon, they have very different properties based on how their carbon atoms are arranged. But compared to such nonliving examples, the emergent properties of life are particularly challenging to study because of the unrivaled complexity of biological systems.
Lol that's literally my current Biology textbook (later edition though).
 
Well, that's a somewhat disingenuous form of logic though. You're basically saying that you want free will, therefore you dismiss science.*

As for your meditation example, yes, it's exactly correct. Of course our thoughts lead to changes in our biology. For instance, we all know that thinking intensely about whatever we're most afraid of, will raise our heart-rates. But the thing is, these thoughts, or your meditation, will themselves have neural underpinnings. Physical processes in the brain is what allows you to even form thoughts about meditation in the first place.

And if you think about it, this is just logical necessity: for something to have an effect on the physical processes in our brains, it would itself have to be, in the final instance, a part of physics. Your proposition of some mystical force outside of physics affecting physical processes doesn't compute.


* But, if it's any consolation, I don't think the question of free will is down to whether our minds are biological or not. It's moreover down to whether certain specific neural processes are sufficiently indeterministic or not. Though most of what we know points to "not", many still regard it as an open empirical question (quantum-mechanics and all that jazz).

Unfortunately by the 9th post on this subject the original viewpoint has been taken out of context and one ends up surrounding the discussion with unintentional ad hominems. Please read post 14 carefully and 18/19, which you took umbrage with and later agreed with to some extent i.e. the point being we do have control of our biology and thus chemistry, to some extent. The real point of that discussion was however to suggest that there was something else at play rather than just random chemical reactions which was the insinuation of OP. The OP even states that the life formed due it being 'energetically favourable', which begs the question what created/allowed that set of circumstances to occur?

I think you are being playfully confrontational to suggest that adding the joker card of 'consciousness/free will' into the debate means that one is automatically dismissing science. However it is certainly a thorn in the side of the scientists/biochemists who are pretending to have all the answers - which they most certainly don't.
 
Unfortunately by the 9th post on this subject the original viewpoint has been taken out of context and one ends up surrounding the discussion with unintentional ad hominems.
Yes, we've been discussing consciousness which is slightly off topic from the OP, but I don't see anything wrong with that. We're basically still debating the natural world versus the supernatural, just on a different stage.

Are you suggesting I'm arguing with ad hominems? I don't think so, but you mean I'm being insensitive, then I apologize.

Please read post 14 carefully and 18/19, which you took umbrage with and later agreed with to some extent i.e. the point being we do have control of our biology and thus chemistry, to some extent.
Well, I took your posts to mean that you're suggesting that consciousness suggests that something larger than mere natural laws is at play. After all, you suggested that you think consciousness is a separate force that drives the neural activity in our brains. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

The real point of that discussion was however to suggest that there was something else at play rather than just random chemical reactions which was the insinuation of OP. The OP even states that the life formed due it being 'energetically favourable', which begs the question what created/allowed that set of circumstances to occur?

Yes, the OP is discussing how life could possibly emerge in the first place due to random physical/chemical processes that are made possible by the physical laws. But I don't see why we need to invoke divinity or something mysterious in this.

I think you are being playfully confrontational to suggest that adding the joker card of 'consciousness/free will' into the debate means that one is automatically dismissing science. However it is certainly a thorn in the side of the scientists/biochemists who are pretending to have all the answers - which they most certainly don't.

No. What I meant is that it sounded very much like you were saying: "I'm skeptical of your arguments as they threaten my belief in free will", which wouldn't be a logical stance.

Consciousness and volition are as far as I'm concerned empirical scientific questions. That we don't know the full puzzle of everything doesn't warrant leaps of inference to extraordinary claims.
 
Yes, we've been discussing consciousness which is slightly off topic from the OP, but I don't see anything wrong with that. We're basically still debating the natural world versus the supernatural, just on a different stage.

Are you suggesting I'm arguing with ad hominems? I don't think so, but you mean I'm being insensitive, then I apologize.

<<No, I am suggesting ad hominems are introduced unintentionally as we become off topic from the original point where another poster interjects.>>

Well, I took your posts to mean that you're suggesting that consciousness suggests that something larger than mere natural laws is at play. After all, you suggested that you think consciousness is a separate force that drives the neural activity in our brains. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

I have to be careful here as I am discussing this with clever guys like you and FSM who study this stuff. Clearly, as per the meditation example, I do think consciousness is driving neural activity. In other examples I am not so sure.


Yes, the OP is discussing how life could possibly emerge in the first place due to random physical/chemical processes that are made possible by the physical laws. But I don't see why we need to invoke divinity or something mysterious in this.

Because there is more to it than just chemistry.

No. What I meant is that it sounded very much like you were saying: "I'm skeptical of your arguments as they threaten my belief in free will", which wouldn't be a logical stance.

No I am only suggesting free will as a counter argument.

Consciousness and volition are as far as I'm concerned empirical scientific questions. That we don't know the full puzzle of everything doesn't warrant leaps of inference to extraordinary claims.

Unintentionally you reveal the arrogance of the scientific community in general, in that if science can't explain something you suggest any other explanation as being an extraordinary claim... Scientists in general struggle to contemplate anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions. For all the great things scientists do, they are held back by this orthodoxy.

PLEASE CLICK ON YOUR POST AS I TRIED TO ANSWER YOU PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unintentionally you reveal the arrogance of the scientific community in general, in that if science can't explain something you suggest any other explanation as being an extraordinary claim... Scientists in general struggle to contemplate anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions. For all the great things scientists do, they are held back by this orthodoxy.

Supernatural notions are indeed extraordinary claims—and for the most part in fact even oxymorons.

Now you are just making a vague blanket statement that doesn't say much at all.

Science works by replacing "preconceived notions" when presented with empirical evidence.

If you want to pinpoint me or science as a whole as unwarrantedly dismissing something, you'll have to be a lot more specific, and give coherent reasons for for why any dismissal is unwarranted.

***

Didn't see the rest of your answers at first:

I don't get your point about ad hominem just because we are drifting in another direction than the OP. You'd have to be more specific.

As for the meditation example: the conscious processes at work here are themselves neural activity, so in that sense, it's just neural activity causing different types of neural activity.

More to it than chemistry? Well, yes, physics. There's not more to it than physics (that would in fact be an oxymoron). This is another example of extraordinary claims, and I urge you to present evidence for why there would be more at play than physics, or even how anything could be said to exist at all that isn't reducible to physics in one way or another.

As for free will, if you are suggesting free will as an argument, you'd have to present evidence for it existence first of all. And if it were to exist, how wold it be anything other than processes of physics?
 
Last edited:
Supernatural notions are indeed extraordinary claims—and for the most part in fact even oxymorons.

Now you are just making a vague blanket statement that doesn't say much at all.

Science works by replacing "preconceived notions" when presented with empirical evidence.

If you want to pinpoint me or science as a whole as unwarrantedly dismissing something, you'll have to be a lot more specific, and give coherent reasons for for why any dismissal is unwarranted.

There you scientists go again... Don't you see the arrogance of refusing to contemplate anything that has not been empirically proven?

The difference between my line and yours is that I remain open to things which I don't have the answer to.

And so should you, after all you haven't empirically proved that God doesn't give exist!

(I hope you saw the full response to your last post, rather than just the concluding paragraph, which is a gentle jibe at the scientific community at large.)

And that's before we take the whole concept of 'empirical proof' to task, which is based more often or not on probabilities rather than absolute certainties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The atoms were formed as a product of nuclear fusion in stars from the two most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.

Then, the origin of matter, which may well be what you are ultimately referring to, is still not known for sure.
That's not the topic of this thread though.

Also, there is a massive difference between "we don't know" and higher forces being at work.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes. The origin of matter........
 
There you scientists go again... Don't you see the arrogance of refusing to contemplate anything that has not been empirically proven?

I don't deny anything that isn't yet empirically proven. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to prefer an unsupported belief over something that is supported. I think it's wrong to make leaping inferences not based on rationality in discussions like these. That's something completely different.

As for different scientific theories, of course i'm open for things that aren't yet proven.

What's more is that a lot of claims are simply logically incoherent, and when that's the case, I don't see any reason to hold it as a respectable theory.


The difference between my line and yours is that I remain open to things which I don't have the answer to.

No. I'm open to realistic and rational theories. For instance, I don't have the answer to the exact mechanisms involved in how certain psychiatric medications work in the brain, and I'm open to a lot of different possibilities here. However, the notion of it having something to do with pink fairies is not something that I'm willing to entertain.

And so should you, after all you haven't empirically proved that God doesn't give exist!

This is a poor argument.

You can't disprove my theory that there is a teapot orbiting the sun in this very moment, so small that it can't be viewed by our telescopes.

Just because some postulate by definition can't be falsified, it doesn't mean that it's a rational theory with any good reason to be believed in.

(I hope you saw the full response to your last post, rather than just the concluding paragraph, which is a gentle jibe at the scientific community at large.)

And that's before we take the whole concept of 'empirical proof' to task, which is based more often or not on probabilities rather than absolute certainties.

Yes, scientific verification is always about various degrees of probability, and nothing ever reaches absolute certainty in the strong sense. However, a lot of theories are so thoroughly backed that they are as good as certain, yes.

I did eventually respond to the rest of your post btw.
 
But who created chemistry and physics , that is the real question .

What's north of the north pole?

Who's greater than sureshs?

Just because we can form the question, it doesn't mean that it makes sense:D

No, seriously, the thing is that before the big bang, time presumably didn't exist, and so the notion of "creating" something doesn't quite make sense anymore.
However, the laws surrounding "quantum nothingness" allow that something may spontaneously come into existence from nothing, without causation as we know it. Physicist Lawrence Krauss does a good job of explaining these theories if you're interested.

Humans? Just our way of understanding what's going on out there.

So if we weren't here, the sun wouldn't rise?;)
 
Humans are too pretentious with their will to understand and explain everything, just my 2 cents and i'll leave the thread now
akula.gif
 
Look what I've done - not even an opinion, just a question triggered it.

Humans are too pretentious with their will to understand and explain everything, just my 2 cents and i'll leave the thread now
akula.gif

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."
 
I'm sorry, but if the understanding of the emergence of higher self-consciousness is unknown and therefore not understood, it does indeed suggest that there is more going on than random chemical reactions.

I don't wish to presuppose anything though I would suggest that consciousness may evolve lockstep with physical evolution (to a very broad extent).

Physical matter we have some understanding of, but cosnsciousness very little. We can't even predict how the common cold mutates and evolves, a lowly virus way down the pecking order of complex organisms. If we can't even understand that, how can we even pretend to understand human consciousness?
Depends on what you mean by "more than random chemical reactions".
 
Regarding your last sentence, that is a fun conjecture on your part, nothing more.

I suspect consciousness is driving the so-called chemical reactions in the brain, rather than the other way round which is what you appear to behinting at.
Not sure why you say "so-called" chemical reactions. In any case, electrochemical would probably be the better term.

It is most likely true, to an extent, that consciousness drives the electrochemical reactions in the brains. And yet, consciousness emerges from those very reactions, which points out to the possibility of bidirectional causality. Or to the fact, as another poster suggested, that brain processes and consciousness are two facets of the very same "thing".
 
Last edited:
Call me super sceptical of this as this thought form seems to deny free will.

A contra example of your viewpoint would be that I can think/meditate myself into a state of contentment/discontentment and the so-called measure of happy chemicals such as serotonin etc will differ depending on which state I have chosen.
You'd still have to proove that choosing to meditate at that time for that reason was made through free will (I'm not saying it's not, but it's still unsure, and to what extent).
 
Last edited:
Not sure you say "so-called" chemical reactions. In any case, electrochemical would probably be the better term.

It is most likely true, to an extent, that consciousness drives the electrochemical reactions in the brains. And yet, consciousness emerges from those very reactions, which points out to the possibility of bidirectional causality.

I can accept that there may indeed be a symbiotic relationship at play here.
 
You'd still have to proove that your choosing to meditate at that time for that reason was made through free will (I'm not saying it's not, but it's still unsure, and to what extent).

And this is where we reach stalemate as you would have to prove the contrary.
 
Yeah life is just some chemical reactions, happened here in alkaline hydrothermal ocean vents or something similar in Mars and got transported here on comets. Couple of recent popular books on the subject - A new history of life and The greatest question. Why is it so difficult to study? Life has been here for 3.5 billion years but we have been around for only 100,000 years and only recently graduated from thinking that there is a big old man in the sky watching us. We need more time to grow in knowledge. It is surprising we know so much already.
 
Back
Top