I’m no biology guy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
834
Got a book that just blew my mind. When I read this…… living and non living the energy harvested from the sun I speculate then it determines the type that will result.

Anyone can comment:

0519A5D6-82F0-440D-9AD7-3791CD3DD3A0.jpegFE965FF8-D0A5-41A5-BA09-57C22A23A280.jpeg0519A5D6-82F0-440D-9AD7-3791CD3DD3A0.jpegFE965FF8-D0A5-41A5-BA09-57C22A23A280.jpeg

Edit: I find this interesting especially when considering we are in the womb somewhat malleable genetically flip flop a few bits and you are a squirrel.
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
671
I've long held the belief all things are alive in some way. From a philosophical perspective, there is not much to separate a non-living process (volcano) from the resulting sentience that arose from my non-living building blocks. It's really no surprise that science is finally eliminating ignorance about the striking similarities shared by all matter. Clearly, we are result of the interaction of atoms (simplifying) and a different interaction makes a rock. It may sound silly, but I am closely related to a rock from a physical perspective. Furthermore, we assume that a rock is not alive because it does not exhibit known patterns for life, however, this does not mean there is not a hidden function waiting to be discovered.
 

MrSalts

Joined Apr 2, 2020
2,328
A pretty awkward way to describe simple FORCES (note that a Force is NOT energy), forces hold things in position (electrons snd protons in an atom and hold atoms together to make molecules they have potential energy in some cases (like fuels) but a rock does not have much potential energy unless it is a meta stable construction (too many protons for the number of neutrons at a given atomic mass that could make it radioactive isotope. Seems like the author is struggling to make book with more pages or he is a biologist without a clue.
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
671
A pretty awkward way to describe simple FORCES (note that a Force is NOT energy), forces hold things in position (electrons snd protons in an atom and hold atoms together to make molecules they have potential energy in some cases (like fuels) but a rock does not have much potential energy unless it is a meta stable construction (too many protons for the number of neutrons at a given atomic mass that could make it radioactive isotope. Seems like the author is struggling to make book with more pages or he is a biologist without a clue.
You make a lot of stern judgements outside your field of expertise. How do you sleep at night sir?
 

MrSalts

Joined Apr 2, 2020
2,328
You make a lot of stern judgements outside your field of expertise. How do you sleep at night sir?
Well please tell me what you think my field of expertise is? What degrees do I have? What on the job training do I have? What hobbies do I have?
Please tell me which field of study is required to judge wither a rock is alive by any accepted definition (physics, chemistry, geology, theology, biology, psychology, philosophy, ...).

I sleep quite well.
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
671
Well please tell me what you think my field of expertise is? What degrees do I have? What on the job training do I have? What hobbies do I have?
Please tell me which field of study is required to judge wither a rock is alive by any accepted definition (physics, chemistry, geology, theology, biology, psychology, philosophy, ...).

I sleep quite well.
The topic is biology, so I think the author was pointing out that a system made of components A + B x C result in process X and a system made of components A + C x B results in process Y where process X and Y share inherent similarities of A, B and C. The concept of life becomes ambiguous because at this point the classical definition does not apply because we are talking about biological chemistry.

A rock is a generic term for an aggregate of minerals, many of those minerals are found in us and are necessary for survival. There is undoubtably massive amounts of atomic energy available if the bonds could be broken as well. Cellular structure is the result of extremely precise chemical bonds from genetic coding, the point here is that a rock could be active at a much lower level on the 'sentience scale' as I'll call it because the same physical processes are acting upon it. At some point there had to have been a transition or rather, that is the common assumption.

As for attacking your character, I'm pretty sure you are an electrical engineer, and a fairly intelligent one at that. You also are an instigator sorry to say.
 

MrSalts

Joined Apr 2, 2020
2,328
As for attacking your character, I'm pretty sure you are an electrical engineer, and a fairly intelligent one at that.
Nope. No electrical engineering degree (or any engineering degree) but I've read some books on the topic.
You also are an instigator sorry to say.
What do I instigate (initiate)? Do I get you to think more clearly?

undoubtably massive amounts of atomic energy available if the bonds could be broken as well.
There is a lot of energy in every bond, unfortunately, your view is quite elementary ( pun intended). The elementary part of your view is: if you view rocks as a potential raw material for energy generation, they have to become something else - much like burning oil, or trees that become carbon dioxide and water vapor (mostly). The number and type of bonds and the final atom pairs of the bonds formed have less emergy than the number of bonds, type of bond and atom pairs in the fuel. So, you can't just claim there is a huge amount of energy if the bonds could be broken, you have to finish the Born-Haber cycle to tell us what those atoms will bond to and even what physical form the resulting molecule has (there can be huge amounts of energy just in the crystallization process).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born–Haber_cycle
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
671
Nope. No electrical engineering degree (or any engineering degree) but I've read some books on the topic.

What do I instigate (initiate)? Do I get you to think more clearly?


There is a lot of energy in every bond, unfortunately, your view is quite elementary ( pun intended). The elementary part of your view is: if you view rocks as a potential raw material for energy generation, they have to become something else - much like burning oil, or trees that become carbon dioxide and water vapor (mostly). The number and type of bonds and the final atom pairs of the bonds formed have less emergy than the number of bonds, type of bond and atom pairs in the fuel. So, you can't just claim there is a huge amount of energy if the bonds could be broken, you have to finish the Born-Haber cycle to tell us what those atoms will bond to and even what physical form the resulting molecule has (there can be huge amounts of energy just in the crystallization process).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born–Haber_cycle
I don't see how any of this is relevant. To put it another way, a rock and any abiotic material for that matter naturally forms chemical precursors for our bodies to maintain homeostasis which ultimately gives rise to sentience. A plant is able to take these basic materials and with light form complex molecules. We then as mammals extend those complexities to the current forms. There exists a chronology of events traceable far into the past. It all comes back to where did life originate, or perhaps more importantly: how. The author doesn't include supporting evidence, but I think he is on the right track for groundwork to be laid.

I am operating on significant conjecture myself so there is that to deal with on my part.
 

MrSalts

Joined Apr 2, 2020
2,328
I don't see how any of this is relevant. To put it another way, a rock and any abiotic material for that matter naturally forms chemical precursors for our bodies to maintain homeostasis which ultimately gives rise to sentience. A plant is able to take these basic materials and with light form complex molecules. We then as mammals extend those complexities to the current forms. There exists a chronology of events traceable far into the past. It all comes back to where did life originate, or perhaps more importantly: how. The author doesn't include supporting evidence, but I think he is on the right track for groundwork to be laid.

I am operating on significant conjecture myself so there is that to deal with on my part.
Look up some of the definitions of what constitutes "living". A red blood cell is not living. It is questionable whether a virus a living thing - depending on the definition used. A rock - definitely not living by any of the definitions. A mineral that was once in a rock and brought into a living thing as a nutrient? Thst is not living any more than the carbon dioxide that you exhale. I'm just now sure where you are going with this conversation about molecules, and atoms and ions being living things or borderline living things or what, exactly you are trying to express. If you want to call an atom that once was or will be part of a living creature, "living" or "pre living" or "shudda been alive" or "cudda lived", go ahead.
 

Suncalc

Joined Mar 23, 2021
11
I don't know from exactly what text you are quoting, however the highlighted passages seem to be rather specious without any physics, biology, or chemical foundation. Perhaps this information is found elsewhere in the text? A better initial exploration of the topic can actually be found in a published article from 1973.

In March 1973, Isaac Asimov (who had a Masters and PhD in chemistry and was a professor of biochemistry at Boston University) published an article titled "Down From the Amoeba" in which he explored in detail the very question of how simple something can be and the basic requirements to be considered alive. This was part of a three part series titled "About Microorganisms" ("Through the Microglass", "Down From the Amoeba", and "The Cinderella Compound"). Although not the the final word on the matter by any means, it does address some fundamental concepts not being considered in this thread.

I would suggest this as a starting point for further exploration of the subject topic.
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
671
Look up some of the definitions of what constitutes "living". A red blood cell is not living. It is questionable whether a virus a living thing - depending on the definition used. A rock - definitely not living by any of the definitions. A mineral that was once in a rock and brought into a living thing as a nutrient? Thst is not living any more than the carbon dioxide that you exhale. I'm just now sure where you are going with this conversation about molecules, and atoms and ions being living things or borderline living things or what, exactly you are trying to express. If you want to call an atom that once was or will be part of a living creature, "living" or "pre living" or "shudda been alive" or "cudda lived", go ahead.
I was somewhat supporting the author's points by virtue of my own conclusions. You made the statement he may be "a biologist without a clue" based on reading a single page of a published work. That is what I take issue with.

The point of the topic I believe boils down to the two mainstream theories of how life came to be: Either it was a transition from non-living to living at some time or life is expressed as a gradient from most basic to most complex. However you look at it, it is the chemical interactions that are of interest, not so much deciding what's meets a broad definition because again, the same physical processes are acting on all matter.

The argument can be likened to The Chicken and the Egg. The irony is both are made of the same stuff and both are paradoxically required for the genesis of the other.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
27,372
The argument can be likened to The Chicken and the Egg. The irony is both are made of the same stuff and both are paradoxically required for the genesis of the other.
Personally, I favor the notion that something-that-was-not-quite-a-chicken laid an egg that had the final mutation needed to hatch into a chicken.
 

LowQCab

Joined Nov 6, 2012
2,498
Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, are not, and can never be, "Self-Animating".

There is an additional factor that can be generically called "Cause",
there are probably more than ten or fifteen or more different names for this "Cause".

This "Cause" does NOT consist of Matter, Energy, Space, or Time,
as they are normally described,
but organizes and animates Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.

Some people don't like this situation and "poo-poo" it,
while others whole-heartedly embrace it.
The People who embrace this relationship demonstrably do better in Life,
and are generally happier overall.

It takes quite a few years to wrap your head around the nature of this concept,
( because it is not a "Physical" "Thing" ),
but I find it extremely valuable in understanding all Life.

Then there is this thing that people tend to confuse with a "Brain",
which is a "Mind", which is most definitely not a "Brain".
It is a special form of energy, which is also created by "Cause".

In order to create a "Game",
a part of "Cause" makes the assumption that it is not the same as
the main body of "Cause" that it is actually an inseparable part of,
this creates supposed "individuality", which, in fact,
only exists as a "concept", to facilitate creating a "Game".

The ability to participate in a "Game" is vital, literally.
When it is believed, or calculated, that there is a "No-Game" condition,
what will be manifested is the "apparency" of "Death".

In reality, the supposedly "individual" piece of "Cause" .........

( that's toting-around, and putting on display,
it's own custom-created "Mind", ( special "personal" Energy Field ),
and presenting it as a supposed "Individual-Personality" to facilitate playing a "Game" ),

............ can't actually "Die", but only "Feign-Death" by "Hiding",
( You can't interact with "Me" because I'm not really here ).

This "Hiding", is actually still playing a Game.
It's just basically "pretending" to be a "Victim".
It usually gets quite boring,
so before long,
the "Individual" "comes-out-of-hiding" and starts a new "Game".
.
.
.
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
5,726
Breaking news! There is a continuum of complexity ranging from elementary particles to sentient mammals.

In other news, the earth orbits the sun.
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
834
Apparently no one stopped the book from print nor did they pull it from the curriculum in mainstream schools.

Of course I live in Utah so, a lot of hype here on many different levels lol

kv
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,112
Apparently no one stopped the book from print nor did they pull it from the curriculum in mainstream schools.

Of course I live in Utah so, a lot of hype here on many different levels lol

kv
I won't get specific because it's political but if you listen closely you'll hear a buzz about certain vogue elements of quasi "biological" contemporary philosophy being fed into the public education machine and this isn't even worth mention compared to more serious transgressions. So, "not surprising" is my response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top