Frankly, dear, I'm a bit puzzled with your talent for misinterpretation, because -- contrary to what Jeannie seems to maintain -- I said (obviously, "suddenly" is just a figure of speech!)
However, what I'm referring to is the very 1st moment when inherent instincts have turned into a conscious thought!!!

**** Here's the exerpt from my response to Jeannie:





P.S.
You sure was lucky enough to grow up on nature movies... Unfortunately, my parents have ALSO "dragged" me to various museums and "forced" me reading various books on the subject of Evolution...
(LOL growing up, I lead a "miserable" existance!)

I am aware that evolution took millions of years. I am not suggesting that an intelligent living organism 'suddenly' popped into existence. BUT the speculation that a mysterious combination of a multitude of tiny (stupid non-living) "quanta" of "something" fused together and then 'suddenly became alive' or resulted in a quality of intelligence or life, I think is quite illogical and unlikely.

BUT if this did happen, then you are saying that there is indeed a "formula" for intelligence and life in existence in this universe from which we all evolved. (I am inclined to believe otherwise, but this is where we part in our opinions.)

I don't think the system's enormous diversity is evidence in favor of your theory. I believe that enormous diversity can exist in either theory.

Also, if what you say is true, there had to be that breakthrough, the moment when the formula 'came alive." That moment, ever so brief, where it went from meaningless data to intelligence, or non-living something to living something.

The time this took (billions or millions or trillions) of years is irrelevant in the face of infinity. Time is meaningless and relative.

Fast forward this process that happens over and over and over again, and you will have to admit that a formula exists or else everything is alive in some form, from the beginning.

It would only appear 'gradual' to us, for our lives are less than a tiny fraction of this process.

I beg your pardon, but in your post, dated "Sun 12/27/09 07:31 AM", you stated:

Of course, if you consider time as meaningless, then everything is instantaneous (regardless of how many billions of years it takes). From that point of view, everything is just a moment in time! In that case, I could interpret your expression, , as a confirmation of your agreement with the idea that

I realize, my "mysterious combination of factors and conditions" is no better explanation for occurrence of intelligent life. However, ******* you seem to disregard the fact of the Evolution, being a gradual process, could've naturally (coincidentally) -- over the course of millions of years -- arrive to the moment when inherent instincts have transformed into a 1st conscious thought!!! (due to a prolonged process of accumulation of various experiences)... Although, relative to the Eternity, a couple of million/billion or zillion years is, after all, just an instance...

Another point is that only a static/repetative process can be programmed, but such a dynamic process, as the evolution, can hardly be programmed -- unless the program is SELF-CORRECTING/ADJUSTING according to the circumstances...
(a piece of cake, really, for an Infinite Intelligence!)

If there is such a thibg as a Formula (i.e. a program) for Intelligent Life, then the latter would be a much more wide spread phenomena in the cosmos!
(((Otherwise, LOL, you better brace yourself for the arrival of the dreaded Draconians!!!))) {)

When I say that life does not appear "gradually." nor does intelligence I am referring to that single point, that single event where it must have went from a state of "non-life" to "life" and from zero-intelligence to having a quanta of intelligence however you want to describe intelligence.

The observer here, is one who is right there looking at the quantum soup and the process taking place. (Something humans just are not capable of doing.) So this is a subjective observation done with the mind. This is NOT a person observing the process of life on earth evolving.

The things that occurred before that point or how long it took is irrelevant to my point that there had to be that point where that happened because having life and having no life are opposites. Having zero intelligence and having a quanta of intelligence are opposites.

Take paint for example. In one bucket you have pure black paint made from chard animal bones. In another bucket you have the purest white pigment possible. They are opposites. There is not one drop of white in the black bucket or one drop of black in the white bucket.
They will remain pure until someone drops one drop of white into the black paint or one drop of black into the white. That is the point I am talking about.

Now the black paint may still look black and it will take millions of drops to start turning it gray, but it does still have that single quanta of white paint (one drop) in it.

The white bucket has a single drop of black paint and it still looks white, but it is not completely pure anymore. It may take a million drops to even start turning that white paint gray, but there was still that first drop. That first drop happened SUDDENLY.

I don't see why this point I am talking about is so difficult for people to understand. From dead to alive, from no intelligence to a quanta of intelligence however small that amount is, however you describe intelligence. That is the point that MUST happen if everything has NOT already been alive and intelligent from the beginning.

(Perhaps the big bang was the birth of a living universe.)

I think the universe and everything in it is alive and conscious and intelligent throughout its diversity, with the things having the function of channeling conscious intelligence from a greater source. That source is the living universe.

If this is NOT true, (I'm still leaving room for that possibility) --THEN IN EVERYTHING -- THERE HAS TO BE THAT POINT.

This is as clear and concise as I can state this and I have said it over a few times. I will not repeat it again. If you don't get what I am talking about I can't help you. I am NOT arguing the point. I am simply stating which one I BELIEVE IT IS. It has to be one or the other.

If someone wants to argue that it does not have to be one or the other I would like to see them show logic in that. There is none.

Intelligence and life are not the same thing, nor does all life exhibit intelligence.

I did not state that it was. The two terms definitely have their own meanings and interpretations.

(But of course that would depend on one's definition of life.)

But yes, according to the standard definitions of life, and of intelligence, they are NOT the same thing.

All life does not 'exhibit' intelligence in and of itself,(that we can observe) but what I believe is that it 'channels' intelligence and is used to perform a function for the whole, which is the living intelligent universe.

Hey JB,

Something else to consider here...

What should we call the ability to learn or understand or the ability to deal with new or trying situations, or the skilled use of reason, or the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment????



If you refine the term intelligence, then in order to make sense of the discussion, you need to relabel what it originally meant, don't you believe?

This is meant to help clarify the importance of why an intelligent discussion requires the use of well-established meaning. Or, in the rare case that a definition does not suffice, exactly why it is found lacking should be shown in order to convince another to change it's use.

I fail to find that reason here, and it seems like the terms life, intelligence, and even logic are being used in ways which do not correspond to their known meanings. Reading through this, I cannot make heads nor tails of what you are attempting to say.

You claim that life does not gradually appear. You alse claim that intelligence does not gradually appear. The life claim is a greater problem to solve, yet the intelligence one is not.

You must realize that separate elements are found in all cases of exhibited intelligence. You must then identify exactly what those things are. It seems to me that you have chosen to redefine intelligence in an effort to avoid that problem...

You have not avoided it, you merely complicated it further.

No, actually I need a new term to use for the 'kind' of micro intelligence I am speaking of. The micro beginnings of it. (I have asked for suggestions.)

I had to redefine intelligence at the level I am talking about for lack of a better term. It is more like the seed or the formula for intelligence present in all things, but it is like a thing that receives and distributes simple signals in its exchanges of energy and data. (information to some.)

Hard to describe.

good night...

The 'view' of intelligence at the micro or quantum level looks quite different I believe. It's similar to looking at an elephant from a distance and then looking at the scraping of an elephant's skin close up under a microscope. It would not really resemble an elephant, but it would still be a part of an elephant.

JB:
Naturally, when you see a painted poll, you assume the paint has dried in an instance, because
But let's forget about paint for a moment...
*** If a bucket of water (secured with some net) is left unattended in the woods for a sufficient period of time -- exposed to rain, sunshine, falling leaves and other elements -- you can bet your ... that soon, as a result of various chemical reactions, there would appear some primitive organizms... even without numerous meteorites falling down into the bucket!
As I mentioned previously,


As far as Intellect is conserned, I may only be 99.9% certain of whether the compounded instincts could have evolve into a reasonable thought -- over a period of Millions of years... (But, at the same time, I do not completely dismiss the idea of an "outside" influence!) After all, monkey see -- monkey do...

Okay when I looked at the literal translation of your statement that "Life evolved gradually over a period of MILLIONS of years." I do agree with this statement. But there was still a point where that "life" had to have "appeared suddenly" in order for it to begin to evolve.

Life cannot evolve if it does not exist.

Too add to that:

It has been suggested that what I am talking about is called "the Laws of physics" or "natural processes" but these fall short of a real explanation. We know these chemical reactions happen. That is an observation. It does not explain how or why they happen.

While this appears logical, this is not truly 'logical', so I'm glad you are no longer claiming that it is. I've pretty much lost interest in engaging in this discussion, because you still come across as, to me, as being close-minded, presumptive, and so very attached to your ideas. For any interested readers, however, I'll interject a little monologue:

"Life" is a word. Its a label. To me it conveys the idea that a system of interacting components might have certain qualities, such as reproduction, growth, consumption of energy, etc. Many systems have some of these qualities and yet are not given the label "life". Many find it useful in there exploration of truth to restrict certain labels to certain domains. This does not require that the line between 'life' and 'non-life' be stark and clear in reality. Many who actually take the time to study the subject would agree that the line between life and non-life is not clear. And yet, there are clearly systems which are alive, and systems which are not alive. Anyone who thinks the previous statements are inconsistent simply isn't thinking. The line between "baldness" and "a full head of hair" is not clear - and yet the extremes of those two states are still clearly distinguishable from each other.

As far as "where the line between life and non-life" is crossed - that is a semantic issue. Many have debated the categorization of viruses in the past, as well as pre-biotic self replicating systems.

To understand this, one has to "let go" of the binary approach. Its also helpful to realize that labels themselves do not embody truth, there are simply means by which we manage complexity.

Sorry if I seem to come off that way to you, but I am only "attached to my ideas" until such time I hear from someone with a better or more reasonable (or logical) idea. But I assure you I am not attached to any of my ideas and I am certainly not closed-minded.

Since you felt it necessary to tell me how I "come off" to you, I wonder if you know how and would like to hear how YOU "come off" to me? Probably not.


I would agree that it is not clear only because we as humans, have not agreed on it, or found it, or defined it well enough. How could it be clear. BUT that does not change the 'logic' the fact that the line must, in actuality, exist.



According to what definition of life? If the line is 'not clear' then what is alive and considered not to be alive could be just a matter of someone's opinion.




I explained why this analogy is completely wrong in a previous post so it is meaningless to me.



Semantic issue because humans have not defined and agreed upon what 'life' really is. Therefore while this is still up in the air, my idea that everything is alive still has merit, and it will until humans can find and draw that line and until that line is "clear."



I agree that labels themselves do not embody truth, and I don't believe I said they did, but that only helps my case. I don't know what you mean by "let go" of the binary approach.

JB:

-- AGREED, but with one small qualification:
.. IN A TOTAL VACUUM!!!

P.S. Take a look at the example of the bucket of water -- in the middle of my previous post!... ****

P.P.S. BINARY APPROACH: viewing everything as having ONLY 2 pssibilities, i.e. +/- , Yes/No, Life/non-Life... Existence/Non-existence, etc.


* * * AND YET, the "outside influence cannot absolutely be disregarded!!! (for there's always a Random element!)

That is not really remarkable. Water supports life of all kinds. If you look at it under a very strong microscope it probably already has living things swimming around in it unless it hast been distilled. Hanging in the forest being exposed to sunshine, falling leaves, and other elements to include tiny insects or other tiny life forms I am quite sure it will be teaming with life eventually. But this is at the macro level of human observation. Its not what I am talking about.

When you get to the smallest thing... yes, it becomes binary. There are only two possibilities. Existence or non existence. To be or not to be. On or off. Life or no life. That is the bottom line. The buck stops there in the micro / quantum world.

The human body takes three days to completely die I have heard. (It may even take longer than that.) But we define death within certain boundaries. The heart, the lungs, the brain, etc. But a person can donate an organ and that organ can be kept living long enough to transport it to the other body because it still has life in it. Skin can be kept alive indefinitely, grown artificially, be made to form human body parts by manipulation of the programs (data/information) in the skin. Scientists can convince a piece of skin that it is an ear, and it will grow into an ear. In the future if you need an organ, they may be able to grow one for you that is exactly matched to your body.

I beg your pardon, but I don't understand How your rhetoric about the body parts relates to the topig of our conversation...

But a distilled water is exactly what I'm talking about -- there wouldn't be any other kind of H2O after the planet's cooling down, following the formation from vaious peices, that resulted from the Big Bang...

i.e. a bucket of distilled water, left unattended in the woods for a sufficiently long period of time -- exposed to elements and meteorites falling down into it -- WILL, eventually, become full of various micro-organizms...

P.S. Though, there wouldn't be much good unless somebody kicks the bucket -- spilling the "energised" water all over the planet...
____________________________ ___________________________

So are you suggesting that life comes from meteorites? Are you saying that meteorites contain micro organisms? Or are you saying that a meteorite plus water is the formula for life on earth?

I am not just talking about life on earth you know.

Oviously, I'm talking about the latter -- water + meteorites that might've contain micro organisms!

Oh, okay.