/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12680600
It's complicated. On the one hand, we know that early primordial protozoa were basic proteins that absorbed other proteins via osmosis, and replicated. We know these protozoa arose from purely chemical reactions. We also know that replication began as a purely chemical process, and each stage of replication had an element of randomness associated with it. This is evolution, wherein these random mutations made it easier for these protozoa to replicate.

Where things get fuzzier are the transition periods from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms, from reptile to mammals, etc. We know the transition existed due to genetic similarity across all life. The origin of human consciousness, in this framework, suggests that it's mostly an illusion. This is supported by psychology research. For example, you cannot reason yourself through emotions. You cannot use logic to stop crying nor can you use reason to stop being angry. These are emotional reactions to the environment that we have no control over, and these reactions dominate our behavior.

>>12680600
Magic invisible floating faggot in the sky

>>12680600
The Miller-Urrey experiment. Complex shit form for no reason at all if you give it enough time and electricity.

>>12680614
So then where do logic and reason come from? Your post seems to suggest they're... Not really real?
As you describe them, it almost sounds as though logic and reason are synonymous with hindsight.

>>12680614
None of this makes any sense. There were a lot of lifeforms before protozoa ever appeared, which are cells not proteins. Proteins can't absorb other proteins, that's just basic chemistry. Osmosis requires semipermeable barriers which is why it describes the movement of molecules across phospholipid membranes but what the fuck does that have to do with replicating proteins?

>>12680639
The crazy thing about the Miller experiment is that not only has it been replicated, but subsequent attempts have created way different amino acids.

>>12680600
Two different questions here.
Abiogenesis = how the first lifeforms formed from non-living matter
Hard problem of consciousness = how consciousness is produced from non-conscious matter

You need minerals in your cereal to survive because your body is just lots of biochemical processes that need minerals to keep ticking over.
No one knows how non-conscious components can become conscious. My view is it's not possible and we're conscious for some other reason like unironically the will of God.

>>12680639
Idk, the leap in complexity between the amino acids produced by Miller-Urrey and even the most simple life is absolutely staggering. What a fucking weird thing to happen. Thank you for everything LUCA bro

>>12680614
I had a stroke reading this psuedospeak. jesus christ . . .

>>12680639
The Miller urey experiment doesn't prove abiogenesis. All it proves is that abiotic chemicals could have arisen from inorganic materials on earth billions of years ago.

>>12680765
Good man

>>12680600
Abiogenesis has yet to be proven. The best i can do is tell you that the level of complexity of life you see today which is capable of having "consciousness" is a result of +4 billion years of natural selection.
You then go on to ask about minerals and why they are not alive. I don't mean to insult but where are you from? this is the kind of stuff people learn in secondary school.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbZ2MFAbGrk
You need minerals and other inorganic substances because they are involved in bodily processes

>>12680941
when i said abiotic i meant biotic*.

Is it agreed upon that some sort of genetic encoding is necessary for lifeforms to be consider alive?

God did it.

>>12681077
More precisely, is it a sufficient and a necessary condition for lifeforms?

>>12680632
This but unironically. Learning about molecular biology taught me that fedora fags are full of shit. There's literally no other way to explain so many things in science other than God. Otherwise you just have to accept that "it just happened because it was a coincidence followed by another million perfectly arranged coincidences".

>>12680639
>some gasses and shit

Yeah that proves nothing. How does that lead to formation of RNA and DNA? How does that lead to something as complicated as a single cell organism? It's like saying if you get a tool box and you start zapping it, it will form a factory.

If it were really that simple as >le electricity in water creates life, then pretty much every other planet on earth would have complex life, and since there are planets that are millions of years older than ours, they should have space age technology and have contacted us by now.

>>12681085
>there exists uncomputable or undecidable statements, so axioms are just as good as computable or decidable statements
If only you'd learned logic instead of garbage rhetoric, you would know how full of shit (You) are

>>12681106
You're a retard. The more our knowledge and understanding expands, the more our gaps expand. We learn there are things that we don't know at a faster rate than we learn new things. The more scientific knowledge expands, the more these theories seem to rely on an insane number of coincidences. Like how a universe just spontaneously appears from nothing, because, well it just did ok?

>>12681118
>more rhetoric
Go impress your midwit buddies instead, at this rate you'll end up seething to death. If you decide to wisen up arbitrarily, think of which position is actually more compatible with religion.

>>12681128
Not an argument. You still can't answer OP's question. The fact that humans are sentient and capable of logical thought and asking questions is not the same as having 'emotional reactions'.

>>12681077
Yes, one of the conditions for something to be considered alive is the ability to reproduce, which by itself necessarily requires some sort of genetic encoding.

>>12680600
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGxAB4Weq0U

>>12681077
>>12681181
No, reproduction doesn't need to be genetic.
A cell that could divide to make copies but had no genes/DNA would count as alive.

>>12681269
Do we have an example of that? From what would such a replication algorithm take it's information for the new copy.

>>12681274

There are other types of heritable information. One is structural (think of how crystals grow in layers upon layers, with the shape of the previous layer being replicated in the new layer growing on top), another is compositional (the constituents of a replicating entity are passed on to it's offspring).

Even some forms of inorganic chemistry appear able to transmit information and replicate. Here's some references to recent work (both experimental and theoretical):
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/20/10699.short

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132054/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYIbc6DDFc

>>12681305
A model involving replication of compositional information:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsif.2018.0159

>>12681128
To experience time, you must have mass. To have mass, implies locality.

What has no mass and can be everywhere at once? A spirit.

Hell of a coincidence.

>>12681330
Mind blown

>>12681330
You're too smart, I'm having an explosive projectile aporrhea. This humble student admits defeat.

>>12680600
>How does inorganic matter become conscious?
Billions of years of evolution.

>Why are humans "alive" when we're made of stuff that'd just be stuff if it were arranged differently?
Because it's arranged differently from what isn't alive.

>None of that stuff is alive, but I need it to be alive.
Nothing you are made of is alive. It's how the stuff is arranged together that makes something alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

lifelike cell-like molecular assemblies can form spontaneously in nature

>>12681118
>The more our knowledge and understanding expands, the more our gaps expand.
Good of the gaps is an argument from ignorance and fails as ignorance is removed.

>The more scientific knowledge expands, the more these theories seem to rely on an insane number of coincidences.
Selection bias is not a coincidence.

>Like how a universe just spontaneously appears from nothing
Source?

>>12680746
Reason and logic appear to be little more than mating strategies. A man's ability to reason is akin to a peacocks bright feathers. While we were able to get to the moon, that's just an evolutionary accident. We aren't as smart as you've been misled to believe.

>>12680941
>Posts meme YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Here's a real video.

I personally don't believe in abiogenesis. I'm with Anthony Flew, I think it the creation of life was divinely ordained and serves as evidence for God.

Three major problems.
1) Chicken-or-Egg problem. DNA requires proteins to function and vice versa. Potentially solved through RNA-World but that hypothesis is slowly being shown to be unlikely and untenable.
2) Still waiting for a chemical process that could occur on early Earth that produces the chemical building blocks of life. It's like searching for Santa Clause in the North Pole not finding him yet still having faith.
3) Problem of Chirality. Many possible solutions, but none of them appear likely as of yet.

its just a basic property of the universe. Why is this so weird to people
Put simply, theres no clear border between life and death.
Like the spectrum of light, given enough push some matter begins to organise even more tha before
like it organises to create black holes, that are like the hearts of the galaxies, black holes that enable everything else to happen, like planetary systems, its only logical that this goes on and on
the whole universe is just producing more complex systems
life will eventually produce a new system. A new life form
Or a whole new universe.
It goes on and on and on.
Just systems getting created out of currently available systems.

I believe that nothingness doesnt exists so that just leaves us with infinity, and from that logic its clear that everything about just, creating new systems to give rise to new systems indefinitely.

>>12680600
Alive is not a fundamental property of the physical world, its just an arbitrary categorization we invented, its just a word we use to describe a specific subset of complex chemistry interactions. There is no mystical boundary between life and non life.

>>12680600
You're acting like consciousness is special when we have no reason to think it is.
Consciousness is literally just the middle layer of a brains input-output cycle.
How does ANY creature "know" something is painful? Because it's painful, duh.
Human consciousness is merely akin to a mirror reflecting itself, because predicting future states, including of yourself, is basically what intelligence is.

>>12680600
a mix of fundamental forces and randomness. same way water can occur naturally due to electronegativity other more complex molecules can occur naturally due to all or many of the chemical reaction types given certain conditions that happen to exist on earth.
i'd say catalysis and gibbs free energy have played a very important role in life precursors. catalysts can occur naturally and they can change other molecules while remaining unchanged, maybe multiple catalysts can create the same catalyst and you would have replication?

>>12681674
>Physics? Too complicated and I don't understand it so it must not be true. After all I'm the most intelligent being to ever exist.
>Divine creator? Wow he's just like me! It's simple so it must be right! (Despite not being simple at all and creates FAR more questions than answers )

>>12680829
>My view is it's not possible and we're conscious for some other reason like unironically the will of God.
That would make it possible by definition you fucking nigger
Obviously consciousness is material because material events like drug use, trauma, and exhaustion affect it
God adds nothing to this understanding

>>12681330
Um bros

Everything is conscious. Organic life is just more conscious

>>12681330
>tfw you realize relativity confirms a soul wouldn't be constraint by time or location

>>12681330
Its very interesting that the concept of a spirit having no mass, and not being bound by time, came thousands of years before the theory of relativity. The very best physicists almost all concede the possibility of a great controller.

>>12680600
Nobody knows the answer to this. We don't have a real way to prove that something is concious except ourselves. We have no idea what the difference is between dead matter and live matter

>>12681980
"The more I study science the more I believe in god" - Einstein

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" - Heisenberg

>>12681664
fuck that music, too distracting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>>12682025
I place very little stock in comments like this, because for most of history genius scientists have been brainwashed into religiosity like everyone else. Today scientists are like 50% religious, compared to 97%(?) of the general population. Far more meaningful than any individual’s views.

>>12681771
Kek but you cannot entirely deride people for jumping to extreme conclusions like it. The options right now are 1. a wack theory like the multiverse and that chance alone over long enough time permits these extremely unlikely events, 2. wack garbage like intelligent design, or 3. there exists some constraints that force the physical constants to fall in the extremely narrow, fine tuned range that they are in now and there exists some mechanism that we have somehow missed in the last 70 years of study of abiogenesis that polymerises amino acids far, far faster than just chance statistical processes

>>12680600
Step one, make amino acyds, and nucleobases.
This happens naturaly under certaine conditions, like those on earth when "life" first apeard. This has been proven by the Miller experiments and its replications.
Step two, DNA or RNA. So you have a soup of amino acyds, basic proteins, and nucleobases, nucleic acyds. Here begins chemical evolution. Chemicals can replicate, change conformations of other chemicals etc. Prions are a good current example of chemical evolution. At this point whatever replicates/ spreads fastest will survive at the highest rate. Basic systems formed where nucleyc acyds helped replicate proteins and these proteins helped replicate the nucleic acyds.
Step three these chemicals separate into contained units. Phosphlypids have a hydrophobic side, so it naturaly can adhere to proteins. These basic replicating systems become separate entities surounded by a membrane.
Step four. At this point you can start thinking evolution. Whatever can replicate fastest will be present in larger quantities and replicate even more etc, etc. If it has replication, mutation, and inheritable traits, it can evolve, and if populations can be prevented from swapping RNA or DNA, speciation can happan. From this point to the present, the rest can be explained by a huge variety of evolutionary mechanisms.
Consciousness is a different question, it is probable, that its mor of a mistake than anything. Read Benjamin Libets experiments on rediness potential.

>>12682275
Based HOMM poster

What do you guys think about James Tour? He has that televangelist vibe going on, I think. But at the same time he's an acclaimed synthetic chemist, so he understands something at least. And he seems to be of the opinion that accidental abiogenesis is borderline impossible, or at least his stage persona does. I can't tell if he's just trying to milk money from Christians by saying these things

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

>>12681091
You don't want to contact other civilizations, unless you're sure you can kill them. When Europeans contacted other civilizations, it was always disastrous for those societies. And that's with fellow humans. There will be even less empathy between the two parties if they're a different species. Unless you're 100 percent sure you would be the Europeans, you just want to stay hidden

>>12682275
>3. there exists some constraints that force the physical constants to fall in the extremely narrow, fine tuned range
For the most part i agree with the point you are trying to make, but i would argue the following. There is the fourth possibility that for whatever reason this is the universe that came int existance, or has always existed, and we think it is fine tuned for us, or for its own existance, but realy we are q part of it and a consequence of it. If any other universe would have formed and something capable of thought were to form in it, they too might think it is fine tuned for existance and for them. Maybe the universe can exist in 4 or 5 or x ways, and it just so happened to form like this. There might be constants, and rules, but maybe they arent constant, they cycle through all possible values, and the universe conformes to its ever changing rules. It would always seem like the rules are fine tuned for this particular exitance which one might wrongly assume to be the only possible one.
Either way, god is no answer, it just poses more questions. One last thought: what if there is no answer? What if you can ask, and answer the question why, or whats that made of, forever.
Its turtles all the way down...

>>12682504
>>12682403
Samefag

>>12682523
No I posted the one with the cat and the one with the skeletons watering flowers

>>12680614
>You cannot use logic to stop crying

But you can use logic to start crying. Truly, it's complicated.

>>12681714
>life is not unique
the absolute state of physics fags. name one thing in the "physical world" that can self replicate, actively negate entropy, "self" organize, actively go from equilibrium to non equilibrium, is as complicated as the biosphere, etc? i know many of these can happen without life but it's not even close to the scale that it happens with life. in fact life and living systems are so complicated they should have their own separate scientific field ;)

>>12682523
my other post is the one that starts "step one"

>>12682275
> wack theory like the multiverse and that chance alone over long enough time permits these extremely unlikely events,
multiverse is nonsense.
You don't understand just how long hundreds, much less thousands, much less millions, much less billions of years is. And that's just *time*, you're missing that time is just one component of spacetime.
>3. there exists some constraints that force the physical constants to fall in the extremely narrow, fine tuned range that they are in now
If it wasn't we wouldn't exist to observe how it is different. It's literally that simple.

>>12682551
>You don't understand just how long hundreds, much less thousands, much less millions, much less billions of years is. And that's just *time*, you're missing that time is just one component of spacetime.
Man I think you completely fail to understand the complexity of even the simplest biopolymers with self-replicating capabilities. Something like RNA needs to be somewhere between 60 to 100 nucleotides in length which, even if the universe was millions of times older than it is now and continued to support habitable planets, should still not have occured even once if the universe's size was limited to just the observable universe. Left alone, strands of monomers do emerge in experiments, but anything past chains of around 10 haven't formed yet because it becomes increasingly statistically unlikely. Chains of 60 to 100 are just simply statistically impossible, even in timescales of billions of years. I hate the multiverse too but that's mostly out of contrarianism, but fuck if we don't need it to explain what's going on here

>If it wasn't we wouldn't exist to observe how it is different. It's literally that simple.
Kek you can't weasel your way out of fine-tuning just with the anthropic principle. I don't feel like I even have to defend fine-tuning to you and >>12682504 when it pretty much is the consensus the universe is. The cosmological constant is exceedingly small, something like point 200 zeroes followed by a 1 where, if it was just moved one up, common astronomical structures could not have formed. Much more and even particles would have been torn apart

>>12681858
>possible by definition
Consciousness being produced by non-conscious matter would still be impossible. Not the same as being produced in a material vessel by the will of God.
>material events like drug use, trauma, and exhaustion affect it

>1. if material events affect consciousness then consciousness is material
>2. material events like drug use, trauma, and exhaustion affect it
>3. therefore consciousness is material
Problem is assuming drug use etc are material, taking materialism for granted, doesn't work as an argument for materialism.
1. if material events affect consciousness then consciousness is material
2. consciousness is not material
3. therefore material events don't affect consciousness
4. drug use affects consciousness
5. therefore drug use is not a material event

>>12683301
>Kek you can't weasel your way out of fine-tuning just with the anthropic principle
Please elaborate.
If the constants were different, even a little, the universe wouldnt have expanded. As far as i know, the expansion would have started, and then it would have collapsed in on its self. So the fact that the constants in the universe are exactly what they need to be,is because if they werent, the universe would not have formed. That quazi expansion and collapse would repeat until the constants were what was necesseary to expand to this level.

As for the probability of a basic self replicating mechanism forming from scratch, i would very much like to see your numbers. For one, the fact that the smallest replicating strand of nucleotides was around 70 is true now, with these highly evolved replcase enzymes. Just a few bases could, by attracting and forming hydrogen bonds help there antiparalels form bonds. Acting like an enzime (like in the SELEX experiments). The proposition as far as i know is not that DNA just by chance assembled into a self replicating form: There is such a thing as molecular evolution. The basic definition of evolution can be apllied to non living things. All that is needed is that something have a type, something can make more of saied type, and that this process be imperfect.
Imagine an entire ocean, a supe of amino acyds, small proteins and nucleobases, nucleotides. Evolution would work on poplations of molecules, the same as with living organisms.

>>12683323
>in a material vessel by the will of God
How does god do it?
Did god have any say in how the universe was created? You are basing the existance of a god on the fact that the universe can only exist in one way. But then did god decide it could work only one way, or did he do it in the one way it was possible. If 1, why, if 2, what does god add?
In general, what does god add to the picture? A hypothesis, with no evidence other than the precieved low probabylity of existance of something we know to exist (the universe). A hypothesis, which would answer whre this universe came from, but would raise the question, what is god, where is god, what made god, and the probability of god is even lower than that of the universe and there is less evidence of god then the universe because literaly everything is evidence of the later.

>>12680614
>early primordial protozoa were basic proteins that absorbed other proteins via osmosis

>>12680600
A U T O C A T A L Y T I C
S E T S

>>12681685
But what is even a universe, why does it exist AHHHHHHHHHH I can't even really verbalize my existential crisis questions

>>12682313
I like your post

It is interesting how all there is to 'life' is reproducing and multiplying and we are just a product of this 'life' entity that slowly evolved to become more efficient and adaptable... idk how to word my thoughts exactly
I would even dare to consider viruses to be life to be honest

>>12682313

Why does this process not occur on the computer simulations?

>>12681085
LOTR's creation story is the most plausible.

>>12681106
Idiots like you believe humans have no power to see through sheets of steel.

You just follow "OMFG I LUV SCIENCE" but have no first hand curiosity of your own.

>>12680600
>Can someone explain this in a "for dummies" style?
The right chemical conditions existed to create the first life. A self-replicating protein.
>How does inorganic matter become conscious? Why are humans "alive" when we're made of stuff that'd just be stuff if it were arranged differently?
You need to read the Revolutionary Phenotype. It literally explains this.

>>12683849
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
If you mean why dont programes evolve, the issue is time scales and mutation rates. DNA copies quite shittily, and when it was just chemical evolution, copying was even less precise. Programes have low mutation rates. Eventualy, if humanity continues to exist long enough along with the internet or some variation there of, i think there will be quazi species of autocatalytic programes. Evolving, raveling, "living" in the informational network. I'm learning programing this semester, maybe ill try to write something a bit more suited to this purpose. Something that spreads and mutates more.
As for evolutionary simulations, there are plenty and they work quite well.

>>12683422
>You are basing the existance of a god on the fact that the universe can only exist in one way.
I'm not the other anon. The anthropic principle is retarded though. It assumes we exist and says the universe must be a certain way to allow that, but our existence isn't guaranteed so it doesn't tell us why there's not a different universe in which we can't exist instead.
>what does god add?
A different approach to the problem.
Materialism with the implication of a godless reality is one hypothesis. It doesn't seem compatible with consciousness. Maybe it is and we'll eventually work out how, maybe materialism's wrong and we need to look at other hypotheses eg idealisms where consciousness is fundamental and which imply God's existence.
Materialism can't even start solving the hard problem of consciousness because consciousness can't be described as material. But there's no similar problem with idealism, our scientific theories about material literally are already material described as ideas.
>but would raise the question, what is god, where is god,
Yeah, there's already lots of work that goes beyond mere existence and into other properties of God, but raising more questions isn't a reason to reject or avoid a hypothesis anyway. Wouldn't refuse to consider the existence of atoms because someone might ask what they're made of.

>>12681085
>we don't understand something so duuuuuh must've been caused by something we don't understand
Maybe thats the reason humanity sometimes stands at a halt? Deism is a poison. Ever heard of the dark ages?

>>12680614
This is all false. Primordial "protozoa" aren't a thing and there's nothing impossible or fuzzy about single cell-multicellular life transition and reptillian(!)-mammalian transition.

t. actual biologist too fucking lazy to explain this
>>12680639
This guy has the right idea although Oparin's experiment was wrong with the contents of the primitive atmosphere. Abiogenesis becomes far more credible the more you realize how much time billions of years is and the erratic conditions of our solar system and planet throughout those times.

>>12684261
>Ever heard of the dark ages?
Not a thing. Scientific progress didn't stop in the Middle Ages

>>12680600
>How does inorganic matter become conscious?
God did it. Now drop $20 in the collection basket on the way out.

>>12681085
>There's literally no other way to explain so many things in science other than God.

How do you explain god?

>>12681091
>they should have space age technology and have contacted us by now.
But why would they contact us right now, instead of millions of years before we became conscious of ourselves or earth. Maybe they passed through here on the way out to another system, but had no reason to stop in the middle of fucking nowhere for a chat with some hairless apes.

>>12680614
>For example, you cannot reason yourself through emotions. You cannot use logic to stop crying nor can you use reason to stop being angry. These are emotional reactions to the environment that we have no control over, and these reactions dominate our behavior.
Complete bullshit. Only those lacking self awareness and who dont practice introspection suffer from such disorder. You should really go see a therapist.

>>12684261
>Deism is a poison. Ever heard of the dark ages?
Retard alert. Deism came about BECAUSE of the dark ages, it didn't cause the dark ages, it ended them.

>>12683952
>ay will find ze woo-man, and i weel fuck her
>zee bee gets zee 'oney

>>12680600
this video is comfy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1xnYFCZ9Yg

>>12680600
Simple thing stays simple forever, except mother nature is constantly mutating things for fun. Some times simple things become just a little bit more complex via this mutation. Some times this particular complexity really helps the simple thing. Simple thing is now a little less simple.

Add 4 billion years. Consciousness

>>12681980
That's a leap in logic, all it confirms is there's some metaphysical element to consciousness. You can't just leap to "God did it, and specifically the Christian one." Nor is this all indicative of a controller.

It's all about complexity. Do insects have souls? I don't believe so. Do mammals have souls? I believe so yes. Do humans have souls of a higher order? I believe so, yes. Is a soul that's even more complex, of an even higher order than a human a god? I believe so too, yes. But following this line, gods cannot predate humanity. We know this historically, they don't Humans come first, then they great gods, which are a higher order of complexity due to the multitude of souls and time and tiny variations that give birth to these god souls to begin with.

Why is the metaphysical significance of consciousness reliant on the existence of some cosmic clock maker? Hasn't that been deboonked centuries ago?

>>12681085
>There's literally no other way to explain so many things in science other than God.
>The being created to explain everything explains everything
wow, my mind isblown

it really is obvious how 'god' is just something that's hardwired into human brains, since the beginning of times people have been coming up with some variation of some divine entity to cope with what they can't explain, it's probably just the best way evolution has come up with to allow us not to kill ourselves because we are ultimately pointless

what's interesting is that it's not exclusive to us humans, superstition has been observed in pigeons too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#'Superstition_in_the_pigeon'_experiment

>>12684092
>it doesn't tell us why there's not a different universe in which we can't exist instead
No, but it does tell us that THAT there exists the universe where we exist. So we have at least one data point. Its hard to extrapolate further from just one point of data, so we dont know weather this is the only way it can be, or if there are multiple and we live in the one that allows for our existance, or there were multiple subsequent iterations and we exist in the one that allowes for us. The universe isnt fine tuned for us, the same way mikorhiza arent fine tuned for trees. They evolved in that context, if they evolved in a different context, they wouldnt be fine tuned for tree roots, they would be fine tuned for whatever different context they evolved in. The universe seems fine tuned for us, because we evolved/ ended up existing in this one. A different species from a possible different universe might also think the universe is fine tuned for them.
As for your second answer, i know mentioning fallacies is kind of reddit, so apologies, but this kind of sounds like a god of the gaps situation. The hard problem of consciousness is a preplexing one, and we might find the answer in something totaly unexpected or novel. Quantum mechanics is already poking holes in the nice comfy, intuitive and wrong notion of discreet particles in a void. My problem with the god argument is that at the very least, cause and efect seem to be a thing. There are rules of what is and isnt posible. Even if there is a god, there is still the question of what is he, and why and how. God doesent answer how the world works, it just puts another layer of questions between us and the way the world works.
Your third point, you are right. At this point we are in the territory of theology in whith i am as far from being an expert as posible. I do wonder though, what kind of god are we talking about, and what makes you think that of all posible theories this is a worth while one?

>>12680600
We dont know shit about It.

>>12680600
flow of energy

>>12685377
also life is simply self organizing structure.
metall has it
wood has it
what you do not understand is the difference in respiration
but then this board should be renamed into /uni/ not /sci/
i hate you so much i can not even tell it. disgusting pseuds

>>12682403

I think this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixyZ7DkSjA

>>12680600
emergent property of simple reactions
the reason Conway's Game of Life (he died from covid btw) was so latched-onto by the field is the fact that it demonstrated emergent properties so clearly: extremely simple and small rules lead to complex behavior.
If you haven't, I recommend really learning the basics of the game of life, letting it sink in, and then connecting the simple rules to every emergent phenomenon from those rules, with literally no other guide.
At the end of the day, life, thought, consciousness, is all emergent properties from simple reactions that build more complex emergent phenomenon that build more complex phenomenon.
When you study enough cell biology, everything is distilled down to chemical reactions of the same types and orders, just built into circuits of sorts. All processes, although we describe them as "sentient driven" (aka, DNA replication and cell division, neurons firing, blood cells circulating, heart pumping), when you really dig down, its just small reactions happening naturally and automatically.
The funny thing is, life isn't a distinct boundary vs. abiotic chemical reactions. It's a gradient, which is why its so obvious that it comes from abiogenesis. Viruses are indistinguishable from, say, the general machinery inside your cells, and I replicate that daily with things like PCR, and you wouldn't call that life, since it literally is just me mixing a bunch of random shit in a tube. And a cell is just one step up, including a replication phase. There is no hard boundary of life to abiotic reactions.

>>12684261
Deism is a poison. Ever heard of the dark ages?
Dude, deism came with the enlightenment, deists were critical of religion, look what Thomas Paine or Voltaire said about religion
Also reminder the smartest people on the planet were deists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

>>12685755
But the Game of life was designed by an inteligent being, it didnt appear slowly by the passing time

>>12686443
These properties existed before their discovery. Conway simply designed Game of Life to expose them.

Conway didn't program any of the game's behavior, he chose a few simple rules and let the properties emerge by themselves.

this is probably the best place to ask.
what happens after i die?
>eternal oblivion(or timeless oblivion)
>quantum immortality/resurrection/bolzamanian reincarnation etc

is there any secular hope for an afterlife?

>>12684610
Ah yes the stoic using his rationality to get angry over a comment. truly ab uno disce omnes.

>>12686697
>>quantum immortality/resurrection/bolzamanian reincarnation etc
Dont work on macro scale only subatomic so
eternal oblivion it is.

>>12686602
So it does not explain the origin of this "properties" or who/what set the rules

>>12680600
>How does inorganic matter become conscious?
what is consciousness?

>>12685189
>we are ultimately pointless
Only midwits think this though. Retards and geniuses alike define their own life's purpose and meaning.

>>12687310
>Retards and geniuses alike define their own life's purpose and meaning.
I mean, sure, but that doesn't change that we are useless in the grand scheme of things

>>12687494
What even is the grand scheme and why should it matter?

>>12687495
whatever we do is at best only relevant in our planet which is only a very small portion of the universe, not that it matters to me anyway but I can see how it might make some people feel like their life is useless

>>12687521
That's patently false though, there's all kinda of shit we could do, just because it's beyond out immediate scope is neither here nor there. Moreover, how is universal relevance even something that matters?
>Oh no my existence is nullified because a galaxy fifty superclusters away doesn't know about me.
As I said, pure midwit mediopathy

>>12687521
For instance we can colonise our galaxy ridiculously quickly by letting its own rotation carry us around and only ever setting out for the nearest planet/system. If every colonised planet has the capacity to colonise the nearest planet, with the way the galaxy's constantly spinning that's an exponential rate of growth that if I can remember correctly, can be achieved in something like a few thousand years.

>>12680600

Jfc threads like these are definitive proof sci is the worst board. Was there even a single citation brought up in this thread.

Anyway OP this might be an interesting read for you https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370405/

There's an enormous gap in complexity between life and its starting materials which we aren't even close to fully explaining but you can begin to crudely see some pathways as to how molecules gain more complexity in the research. Fatty acids can form lipids and lipids into globs that are basically cell membranes in water by natural mechanisms. They can capture organic material and have different reaction conditions from the outside which may facilitate protein synthesis.

>>12680600
Ayy lmaos pooped in our primordial ocean

>>12685241
>The universe seems fine tuned for us, because we evolved/ ended up existing in this one. A different species from a possible different universe might also think the universe is fine tuned for them.
It's more that any universe that allows complex life or even basic chemistry is fine tuned/very unlikely compared to universes where nothing happens forever. Values of physical constants (c, G, e, h...) have to fall within a finite region out of infinite (as far as we know) possible ranges. If G was smaller or negative down to -infinity everything flies apart and there's never anything more complex than helium, or if it was bigger up to +infinity there's never anything but black holes.
>what kind of god are we talking about, and what makes you think that of all posible theories this is a worth while one?
For me it's deism. Not very different to simulationism. God's like an eternal first-cause mind that everything else depends on, he doesn't throw lightning bolts, answer prayers or send you to hell.
As for why, I think idealism is more defensible than materialism (minds definitely exist, everything else is questionable) so reality is fundamentally minds and ideas, and by cosmological arguments a necessarily existing first cause entity is a better explanation for the existence of anything than an infinite regress of cause and effect.
So I think there's a necessarily existing first cause mind. Makes me a deist.

>>12688113
Based

from my 0 knowledge of biology i think i can confidently tell you that no thing is truly "alive". all "living" things are just incredibly complex machines made of protein and fluid, powered by physics and chemistry. We think of "living" things as alive simply because they are so complex. so naturally, there is no clear border between something dead and something alive, since a bunch of dead things together is still technically a dead thing

>>12685083
Said metaphysical process of consciousness may itself be tied to a larger order that can be called "god", but not a god of the typical stale, fedora or fundie understanding of what god even is. Outdated and retarded understanding of what god even is as a concept and idea have held this whole area of discussion back far too long.

>>12685189
nihilism is gay as fuck and so are you, failure to cope with the mystery of existence and pretending its unknowable says more about you than it does about reality.

>>12680765

How difficult is it to do?

>>12687521
the 21st century will see humanity become a permanent space conquering species, cosmological purpose is bigger than your daily bullshit

>>12680614

>You cannot use logic to stop crying nor can you use reason to stop being angry

Autistic people can unironically do this.

>These are emotional reactions to the environment that we have no control over, and these reactions dominate our behavior.

I'd like you to imagine a scenario where a writer or storyteller brings themselves to tears with their own story.

>>12687049
>So it does not explain the origin of this "properties"
It does, it shows that the properties are emergent, the origin is the proper environment from which they can emerge, i.e. specific lowl-level conditions

>who/what set the rules
nobody sets the rules, just like nobody decided that a circle's circumference is 3.14 times the length of its diameter. Conway found that in a specific environment given specific conditions (in this case cellular automata), complex behavior emerges without the need for intelligent design

>>12681269
viruses arent considered living things

>>12688113
Imagine an infinite spectrum of different universes each with their own unique rules and physical constants.
Over billions of years, most of them have yielded nothing particular because their set of rules didnt allow for more complexity to emerge (like the examples you stated).
One universe, or a few of them, have reached a point where very complex structures have formed.
Rules and constants have a value that's just enough to allow for more complexity.
Some of the structures you find are gas balls surrounded by rocks.
Sometimes, some of these rocks hold the perfect conditions for even more complexity to emerge.
An intelligent lifeform understands the immense requirements for all this to happen and wonders how, by chance, this is what happened to the world they're able to observe.
The lifeform asks itself:
>How could this happen? Such complexity requires very specific conditions!
>The universe I live in is therefore very unlikely to have appeared on its own!
>This is because the world I live in is the only one to exist because it's the only one I can observe.
>I cannot fathom how MY observable universe has the perfect properties and all, it must be space daddy!!!

Let go of that survivorship bias nonsense. The only way for intelligent life to ask itself such questions is to appear in these universes that have these perfectly fine tuned values and rules.

>>12682447
Leftoids will be the death of humanity. When Mass Effect came out, people were divided over Ashley Williams because she disliked aliens and thought she was racist.

Like nigga what, they're a different species and we're supposed to treat them the same? That was one of my first red pills as a late teen and a forewarning of where the video game industry (and later Hollywood) was heading.

>>12688813
What am I supposed to be doing then? I'd rather not waste my time and energy thinking about how I came to be, it just doesn't matter to me ultimately, sure I waste my time reading these threads tho but still I don't think I can actually contribute to the discovery of the truth so I'll just go on with my life and do whatever I please

>>12681664
That video is dated and the proposed mechanisms for life to arise shown in this video have never been replicated in lab.

>>12689036
fellow intelligent lifeform, do not fall for this evil meme. the anthropic principle is bunk. you're getting tripped up by your own consciousness, the observer effect is not real.

the fact that one is alive implies that the necessary conditions for one's life are met, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not surviving involved good luck. you're being trolled by conditional probability.

>>12689079
Tali ended up stealing top secret technology of such that if the Commander wasn't such a hero he would have been executed.

Imagine how the balance of power could have shifted with the whole migrant fleet adopting that stealth technology & some creative writing to go with it.

>>12690022
I would spend thirty hours busting nuts up Hanoi Jane's ass.

>>12680600
This should answer any question you might have

https://youtu.be/we0vBoQfSjQ