|
|
|
LOGOS
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2004 : 08:55:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please don't answer the question, but consider the following a hypothesis:
What does life do?
-Or-
What is the function of life?
Chaloobi said:
[[Very obviously the only objective function of the individual organism is to successfully reproduce into the next generation. Said another way, every organism endeavors to pass it's heredity, via DNA, to the next generation into individuals capable of doing the same.
Considering that the only thing organisms seem to do is pass their genetic code from generation to generation, the first metaphyscial question that comes to mind is: What is significant about this information that all of life is organized around it's preservation through time?]]
I think you are making a lot of presumptions here. To say that "Very obviously the only objective function of the individual organism is to successfully reproduce into the next generation" is to suggest that an individuals life, in and of itself, is meaningless in any sense. If that were true, then an individuals progeny would be 'worthless' as well. I think the real point to make is that successful lives exist (as a species) as well as persist (as a species).
[[The place to look for an answer is in the gibberish. Why? Because the DNA that codes for the 'vehicle' organisms is different within and more so between species and is designed to change over time in response to the changing environment. There is no reliable consistancy at any given time nor over any length of time. From here, the questions to ask are: Is there any block of information in the 'gibberish' portion of the genetic code that is common in every individual of a species? Is there a block that never mutates from generation to generation? Is there a block that is common to every organism of every species?
Why aks these questions? Because it gets to the point of 'why.' Why is this information being carried through time by life?]]
I think this 'why' presumes a "meaning" or "purpose" external to ourselves. I think such a presumption is anthropomorphic bias, or anthropic principle bias.
[[Is there information contained in the code that MEANS something beyond coding for the vehicle organism and random gibberish? That's the key. Is there, hold your breath, a MESSAGE? How compelling would that be? Consider it: A common block of code found in every individual of every species that never mutates. Some would call it the Signature of God. I wonder if anyone's looked for something like this.]]
There is NO reasoning involved in the above paragraph in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
|
LOGOS |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 10:53:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If we cannot understand it, then it is equivalent to noise. Because DNA already has "meaning," using it for some other message would be confusing. Contrast this with heiroglyphics, for example, which obviously had some meaning, but we didn't know what it was until the Rosetta Stone was found.
What if all the other criteria are met? It's immutable. It serves no apparent function. It's found in the genetic code of every organism we examine. Could you call it random noise then?
Thanks for the links btw - I'll check them out. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 10:58:50 [Permalink]
|
What does life do?
Life's goal is to live. Therefore the ultimate goal of life is immortality. Evolutions ultimate goal is to achieve immortality. With the limited time it has had to work with the best method for achieving it's goal (as far as we know) has been to evolve forms of life which are capable of reproducing (necessitating DNA). While I currently do not think the ultimate goal is achievable (current evidence points to our universe as having a finite existence), it's a nice goal none the less. Don't get me wrong. "Life" in general and it's methodology of "Evolution" do not have a consciousness. It's not aware of itself or it's goal. The universe has no purpose, however it has created (at least in one case) creatures that do. Intelligent life I think is an inevitable occurrence given enough time. Intelligent life accelerates what Nature is capable of. We are now in control of our own evolution (which of course is a natural occurrence). Therefore anything we achieve is "natural". Artificial Hearts are natural. Food additives are natural, AI will be natural. Anything we achieve will be the result of natural occurrences. Our Next goal is AI and...working nanotechnology of the form Drexler describes (provided we do not destroy ourselves in the process). Both of which will lead to much, much longer life spans.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 11:08:59 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
What if all the other criteria are met? It's immutable. It serves no apparent function. It's found in the genetic code of every organism we examine. Could you call it random noise then?
Sigh. As I've already said, it would be a signal that there is something we don't know about DNA. Until the "noise" is decoded, however, it is impossible to conclude that it is a message of any sort, or anything else for that matter. The facts would be that there is a section of supposedly non-coding DNA which exists unmodified in all life on Earth, period. Anything more than that, such as assigning purpose or meaning to it, would be useless speculation until such a time as we are able to decrypt it or otherwise figure out what it is for.
If one exists, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 11:26:20 [Permalink]
|
LOGOS - it looks like your formatting is all messed up.
quote:
I think you are making a lot of presumptions here. To say that "Very obviously the only objective function of the individual organism is to successfully reproduce into the next generation" is to suggest that an individuals life, in and of itself, is meaningless in any sense. If that were true, then an individuals progeny would be 'worthless' as well. I think the real point to make is that successful lives exist (as a species) as well as persist (as a species).
I am definitely suggesting that every individual's life is essentially meaningless. And yes your progeny will live meaningless lives too. In this context, you and your progeny are just a 'vehicle' used to escort your genetic material through time. What you do and the things that happen to you during your life, are absolutely meaningless as long as you successfully breed. That's why you can say the chickens raised in a factory farm are successful organisms. Though they live short lives in absolute misery for the sole purpose of being eaten, they are virtually guaranteed to continue breeding successfully, generation upon generation. What their lives are like is meaningless.
quote:
I think this 'why' presumes a "meaning" or "purpose" external to ourselves. I think such a presumption is anthropomorphic bias, or anthropic principle bias.
The whole point of the exercise is a speculation on a direction to look for meaning or purpose to anything at all. Without proof of meaning, IMO the universe and everything in it is nothing more than a nihilist void.
I think this is a good place to look based on this logic: Objectively, the only function of an organism is to pass it's heredity into the next generation. The heredity material, DNA, is essentially just coded information. There is a lot of 'extra' stuff in the DNA that doesn't appear to code for the organism itself. Perhaps this is a good place to look for 'other' information. If other information is found and it is consistently present in the DNA of all organisms, protected from mutation, then it may be that carrying THIS information into the future is connected to or is THE key to the reason for the existance of all life as we know it.
quote:
[[Is there information contained in the code that MEANS something beyond coding for the vehicle organism and random gibberish? That's the key. Is there, hold your breath, a MESSAGE? How compelling would that be? Consider it: A common block of code found in every individual of every species that never mutates. Some would call it the Signature of God. I wonder if anyone's looked for something like this.]]
There is NO reasoning involved in the above paragraph in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
I dunno LOGOS, it looks like a pretty reasonable paragraph to me. It's a little less formal wording than I use elsewhere, but it's not gibberish. There are ideas being conveyed and IMO they are understandable and well reasoned. . . . . Oh well, suit yourself. 
[/quote] |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/27/2004 18:51:38 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 11:31:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
What if all the other criteria are met? It's immutable. It serves no apparent function. It's found in the genetic code of every organism we examine. Could you call it random noise then?
Sigh. As I've already said, it would be a signal that there is something we don't know about DNA. Until the "noise" is decoded, however, it is impossible to conclude that it is a message of any sort, or anything else for that matter. The facts would be that there is a section of supposedly non-coding DNA which exists unmodified in all life on Earth, period. Anything more than that, such as assigning purpose or meaning to it, would be useless speculation until such a time as we are able to decrypt it or otherwise figure out what it is for.
If one exists, of course.
Dave, this whole thread is useless speculation for crying out loud! The point is it wouldn't be noise. It would signal something at the very least incredibly interesting about life. A message? Maybe. Doubtful at this point. But NOT noise.  And quit doing the 'sigh, as I've already said....' I hate that. You've actually managed to convey the feeling of condescention through text.  It inhibits communication. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 11:51:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
What does life do?
Life's goal is to live. Therefore the ultimate goal of life is immortality. Evolutions ultimate goal is to achieve immortality. With the limited time it has had to work with the best method for achieving it's goal (as far as we know) has been to evolve forms of life which are capable of reproducing (necessitating DNA). While I currently do not think the ultimate goal is achievable (current evidence points to our universe as having a finite existence), it's a nice goal none the less. Don't get me wrong. "Life" in general and it's methodology of "Evolution" do not have a consciousness. It's not aware of itself or it's goal. The universe has no purpose, however it has created (at least in one case) creatures that do. Intelligent life I think is an inevitable occurrence given enough time. Intelligent life accelerates what Nature is capable of. We are now in control of our own evolution (which of course is a natural occurrence). Therefore anything we achieve is "natural". Artificial Hearts are natural. Food additives are natural, AI will be natural. Anything we achieve will be the result of natural occurrences. Our Next goal is AI and...working nanotechnology of the form Drexler describes (provided we do not destroy ourselves in the process). Both of which will lead to much, much longer life spans.
If you define the opposite of natural as 'super-natural' I totally agree with you. Eveyrthing human beings do is completely within the bounds of nature.
As far as immortality is concerned, I completely disagree that evolution's goal is to achieve this. Indeed, immortality is NOT a very good survival characteristic!
As I've said above, the only function of the process of evolution - if you can describe it as having a function - appears to be to facilitate the survival of life over time in a changing environment. Evolution works faster with organisms that have quick generational turnover rates, as they can adapt, via natural selection, to changes in the environment quickly. But organisms with fast generational turnover, and which are immortal, would quickly overwhelm the carrying capacity of their environment, causing their population to crash. Which would negate their immortality!
The same would eventually happen with any organism, regardless of generational turnover period, unless it was able to greatly slow or stop it's reproductive rate. And if reproduction stops, then evolution stops as well. This means the species no longer has any way of adapting to changes in it's environment, which will eventually lead to it's extinction. Which, again, negates the immortality! |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 12:22:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Further, here is Nanoarchaeum equitans, which has the "smallest microbial genome sequenced to date." It's got less than half a million base pairs, and it's estimated that 95% of those code for proteins, meaning there's probably only 25,000 base pairs to examine.
25'000 base-pairs seems not many enough. While you can type 5000(?) achii characters on a standard page, there is the decoding information to consider. There must be a "universal" key with which to decode any kind of message. Symbols doesn't cut it, just like DaveW mentions. Without a rosetta stone any symbol-encoded written message will be impossible to decode.
The alternative is graphic representation.
An image with 2 bits (4 shades) 2-dimentional, 1003x1007(*) pixel will require one million base-pairs. Plus start- and stop-sequence, but that will only require a percent of message space. The dimentions of the image will have to be in prime numbers.
The message could be like the one sent out by the SETI-program.
* I didn't bother to check if those were prime numbers, but you get the idea. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 21:17:01 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Dave, this whole thread is useless speculation for crying out loud!
Ah, okay. I'll do my best to ignore it after this, then. I thought we might be able to discuss relevant things here which really might be true or researchable.quote:
The point is it wouldn't be noise. It would signal something at the very least incredibly interesting about life. A message? Maybe. Doubtful at this point. But NOT noise.
That's pretty much what I said.quote:
And quit doing the 'sigh, as I've already said....' I hate that. You've actually managed to convey the feeling of condescention through text. It inhibits communication.
Okay, so you feel it's okay to do something that I hate (asking questions I've already answered), but it's not okay for me to do something you hate. Rather than answer them again with a sigh, I'll simply remain silent. Will that facilitate communication? Sarcasm aside, asking me to stop replying as I did is an attempt to inhibit my communication of my exasperation to you.
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
25'000 base-pairs seems not many enough.
25,000 base pairs is 50,000 bits, or more than seven of the average typewritten pages. Using 10 bits per number, this would allow 29 repetitions of the first 172 primes, a clear and unmistakable "this is no accident" indicator, especially if it's found in all single- and multi-cellular life.
Yes, if you want more than just that sort of "hiya!" message, much more space would be required. There are ways to do it, but we would have found it by now if such had been done, as the only way to get important information across is to repeat the more-basic info lots of times, to ensure its reception.
You (a hypothetical encoder of a message) can't encode in a vacuum if you expect to have your message read. Each new conceptual symbol needs to have lots of context, until you get to the point that you can teach the concept of "this symbol indicates that I'm introducing a new concept denoted by a new symbol." That's a heck of an abstraction, and will take a lot of "code" to get across, but it's a vital step on the road to getting the truly complex ideas conveyed. Complex ideas like "My name is XUIIUH@*&@HIWH@T@DDM!, I live near Arcturus, and I created you. When you're smart enough to decode this, please send the following signal at thus-and-such a frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum back to me, and I'll come pick you up in a jiffy. Thanks."
The tremendous number of bits that such a message would require would likely be larger than the entire Nanoarchaeum genome, meaning it couldn't be present in all organisms, a major failing of a medium such as living DNA for communicating a complex message.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 06:45:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, so you feel it's okay to do something that I hate (asking questions I've already answered), but it's not okay for me to do something you hate. Rather than answer them again with a sigh, I'll simply remain silent. Will that facilitate communication? Sarcasm aside, asking me to stop replying as I did is an attempt to inhibit my communication of my exasperation to you.
Sigh.... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
LOGOS
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 10:37:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
LOGOS - it looks like your formatting is all messed up.
quote:
I think you are making a lot of presumptions here. To say that "Very obviously the only objective function of the individual organism is to successfully reproduce into the next generation" is to suggest that an individuals life, in and of itself, is meaningless in any sense. If that were true, then an individuals progeny would be 'worthless' as well. I think the real point to make is that successful lives exist (as a species) as well as persist (as a species).
quote:
I am definitely suggesting that every individual's life is essentially meaningless. And yes your progeny will live meaningless lives too. In this context, you and your progeny are just a 'vehicle' used to escort your genetic material through time. What you do and the things that happen to you during your life, are absolutely meaningless as long as you successfully breed.
That's illogical. You're saying that breeding has value, but the individual and the individuals progeny are not valuable. Whence comes the breeding's value?
quote:
That's why you can say the chickens raised in a factory farm are successful organisms. Though they live short lives in absolute misery for the sole purpose of being eaten, they are virtually guaranteed to continue breeding successfully, generation upon generation. What their lives are like is meaningless.
The chicken's life gains meaning when we eat them. My fried chicken have value.
quote:
I think this 'why' presumes a "meaning" or "purpose" external to ourselves. I think such a presumption is anthropomorphic bias, or anthropic principle bias.
The whole point of the exercise is a speculation on a direction to look for meaning or purpose to anything at all. Without proof of meaning, IMO the universe and everything in it is nothing more than a nihilist void.
I think this is a good place to look based on this logic: Objectively, the only function of an organism is to pass it's heredity into the next generation.
As I said before, I think that this is anthropomorphic bias. It seems that you're saying that life's continuance has value, but life itself does not. Biology doesn't “care” if we continue or not.
quote:
The heredity material, DNA, is essentially just coded information. There is a lot of 'extra' stuff in the DNA that doesn't appear to code for the organism itself. Perhaps this is a good place to look for 'other' information.
Why? Why should this be anything more than just genetic hitchhikers in the Richard Dawkins sense? I think the idea of ‘hidden secret information from god' is just plain foolish. Don't you think that if god wished you to know something at some appointed place and time, that ‘he' couldn't just d |
LOGOS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
