How does life emerge from non-life? Why do only certain arbitrary configurations of matter seem to have conscious experience?

>>16740885 (OP)

>>16740885 (OP)
>seem to
Have you asked?

Everyone says "If walls could talk." No one asks "How is wall?"

>>16740885 (OP)
Its just survivors ship. Consciousness is just part of robust planning/seeking for food/mating/threats from predator/etc. A prior list of that includes simple perceptions, sensitivity to light, touch, sound, vibration, etc. Aka plants/simple cell life,

>>16740885 (OP)
Water created life to purify the air so water can cycle and keep itself alive that's all it is. Why do you think theres so many flood stories? Its because water is the source of life

>>16740955
>Aka plants/simple cell life
And those are just organs for water to further cycle

>>16740885 (OP)
>How does life emerge from non-life
How does temperature emerge from non-temperature?

Life is category we made up, there is no sharp edge to it.
Life can emerge from any chemistry that has the potential of near infinite complexity, if supplied with energy.
Carbon is one of 4 elements that can bind its self in a chain: B, S, Si and C. If these B binds too tight and creates a lattice, so it can act as a scafold, nor can it bind sufficient unique heteroatoms. S can't branche sevearly limitng it's potential. Si and C can form near infinite configurations and can bind almost any kind of heteroatom.
Of the two that can make life, one, carbon, is soluable in and there fore can thrive in water, one of the more common things in the universe, The other, Si, could only form life in 96%+ H2SO4 or some cryosolvents. Both are much more rare in the universe.
So the more abundant chemical capable of vastly complex chemistry, when effected by the local negative enropy provided by the sun resulted in an increase in complexity. Beyond a certain point of complexity, where the reaction is selfe sustained, we call it life.
Food for thought, the most common elements in life are: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus. Of these hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, oxygen is the third most common, carbon the fourth, and nitrogen the sixth. Life is made of the most abundant reactive shit out there.

>>16740955
>robust planning/seeking for food/mating/threats from predator/etc
None of these things require the phenomenon of conscious experience.

>>16740948
Please tell me about Numbers.

>>16741027
phenomenon of conscious experience is based upon perception modeling, as in computers and in living beings, you need a memory registers of the sensory data for longer term planning, otherwise, there's no planning.

>>16741018
You make alot of assertions with no proof to back up the bullshit you say.

>life can appear with energy and infinite complexity

Ok so prove it dumbass. Instead people like you pontificate your ideas all the time is whats wrong with science.

End rant

>>16740885 (OP)
all "life" makes choices based on stimuli and ability to move. from simplest forms of sensory input + ability to act on it to humans. humans just have a very complex sensory feedback + decision making setup.
for me life is anything that self replicates, doesn't matter how complex.

>>16740885 (OP)
It doesn't
The whole universe is alive

>>16741115
>ability to move
or to..act, somehow. move is too specific.

>>16741115
So fundamentally inert, non-living matter can end up "making choices"? So you are saying there is teleology in the universe?

>>16740885 (OP)
evolution is fake nigga

>>16740948
My walls talk to me all the time, don't know what you're on about bro.

>>16741121
>inert, non-living matter
I just told you it's alive. you cannot say "so non-living is alive", that's...fucking retarded. I just told you it's isn't non-living, it's living.
you must be confused by the word, "living/alive", since that is arbitrarily defined, and OP's post implicitly questions this arbitrary boundary.
the whole point of the post is "do we move the line or not?" where you keep insisting on keeping the line to previous arbitrary level because...???? dogma?
again, the way I see it, if you can reproduce you are live
>what if you got a vasectomy bro
that's just life with broken reproductive function.

now, as to your "making choices", that's how we got here. anything alive that didn't make choices got wiped, more so...anything that didn't make the right choices, got wiped. there is no choice but to make choices, by anything alive. from random choices to choices that get stimuli in the mix. there's is no going around making choices. not making choices "can be" a choice. not always, but can be.

The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE) aka the largest evolutionary leap in Earth’s history is the real mystery around 500 million years ago is the real mystery. Pond scum arising from some water, minerals, and heat isn't that hard to fathom. GOBE otoh, that shit suggests divine intervention of some sort.

>>16741130
So life is defined by the ability to make choices. Again, all living organisms are fundamentally made of matter that is inert. Matter doesn't make choices, it only moves as it's commanded to by the laws of physics. So how do you make the jump from matter that cannot make choices to matter that can?

>>16741009
How does emergence emerge? How does how how? How how how how how?

>>16740885 (OP)
>How does life emerge from non-life?
its likely the way that it is in your pic. molecules ended up trapped in naturally forming lipid bilayers. this created a safe haven for the molecules where they could freely interact with each other until primitive cellular machinery started to form.

>Why do only certain arbitrary configurations of matter seem to have conscious experience?
what is consciousness? awareness of one's self? its probably an IQ thing. your brain either has the right configuration or it doesnt.

>>16741027

They do, unless you assume a very "hardwired" response to a non-changing (albeit complex) environ or a system which got each and every possibility gamed out (think like a chess computer... guess what energy cost that would have). Best solution is having excess cortical columns doing whatevs... mostly coming up with bullshit and sometimes a very viable strategy. Consciousness is just the result of heavily simulating your own actions from a "third person" perspective until the habit of it becomes so continuous you could not tell the difference even when you currently don't. There it is. The big mystery. XD

>>16740885 (OP)
everything in this universe is alive libtard. love it or leave it.

>>16740885 (OP)
The first cell membrane was likely a soap bubble that trapped polymers

>>16741896
Rocks aren't alive.

>>16741906
Entire ecosystems spawn out of my washing machine every laundry day.

>>16742049
funny enough it probably was an alkaline environment that created life.

Fatty acids can form stable vesicles in slightly alkaline conditions (like ancient oceans). They can grow and divide naturally when more fatty acids are added, mimicking cell reproduction. RNA molecules can be trapped inside these bubbles, suggesting a path toward protocells.

>>16742049
No evidence that Jesus existed btw
>inb4 Ehrman
Mormons go to hell

>>16741906
Wrong. The most likely initial life formed in a chemical reference unlike anything we have encountered. And that this initial life migrated to Earth.

It seems that LUCA appeared a few tens of millions or even a few million years after the earth became habitable, given that it was an organism with an internal metabolism even if we assume that chance can form a living being after a reasonably long period of time it is totally impossible that it appeared by chance in such a short time

>>16742864
A few million years sounds pretty long to me. Also why assume there was only one LUCA? Surely life could've popped up in multiple locations completely independently.

>>16742330
>this initial life migrated to Earth
okay panspermia bro, this still applies whether or not life started on earth

>>16741135
The jobs of the plants and animals changed so they changed.

>>16740885 (OP)
>How does life emerge from non-life?
electronegativity

>>16741115
Fire replicates. It moves, it requires food and oxygen.

>>16740885 (OP)
It doesn't. Evolution theory holds as much water as creationism.
Why can't midwits admit we just don't know?

>>16740885 (OP)
>Why do only certain arbitrary configurations of matter seem to have conscious experience?
>arbitrary configurations
Clearly not arbitrary. You concede this by the act of asking the question.

>>16741009
>>16741234
How do people get fooled into thinking that calling something "emergent" is a scientific explanation? Also how stupid do you need to be compare an abstract statistical property like temperature to direct conscious experience?

>>16741018
Good post. Even if one doesn't take the abiogenesis story at face value this is useful information to consider.

Primordial soup n shiet.

>>16742977

No there is only one and we can trace all living organisms back to it, and it's funny because it's true that if it had appeared by chance then there should be a new one every few million years and species that come from it

>>16744170
>No there is only one
How do we know this?

>>16744170
After a few million years conditions may no longer be favorable to new line of life spawning or if new life do appears it have to contend fire resources with old life that had millions years of evolution to perfect itself, leading to any new contender going extinct before it had chance to establish itself. In essence our universal ancestor achieved monopoly on living market and made sure that no competition can enter it.

>>16741009
How does post emerge from non-post?

>>16744160
>abstract statistical property like temperature
nothing abstract about my CPU temps
>direct conscious experience?
idk, op is talking about life not consciousness

given elements appear in our body and in the soil in the exact percentages that they occur everywhere else in nature at precisely the rates at which those various elements are generated by supernovae and neutron star events
>life just like ours is everywhere
t. realizer that the universe generates life by its nature in exact alignment with how elements are generated by its nature

>>16742977
A few million years or even a hundred million years is nothing compared to the amount of time it would take to randomly assemble a protocell. It would take something like a hundred trillion universes stacked end to end to get the necessary information for a protocell to accumulate.

>>16741135
>that shit suggests divine intervention of some sort.

No it doesn't

>>16744170
This just might be the most retarded thing I read all week.

>>16745449
Who said anything about it being random?
Evolution by natural selection isn't random. If it can occur in stages then there is no need for it all to happen randomly in one go.

>>16745487
It would have to be a biased random walk of accumulating information. It wouldn't all happen in one go, but it couldn't accumulate in stages without any randomness occurring at all. Read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18545

>>16741139
life is defined by what can replicate itself. any arrangement that can replicate itself can be called life. more complex forms can react based on environmental info input, which seemed to help life. selection nudged life into making certain types of choices based on information input. from a random collection of individuals that made random actions, say wiggling around in primordial soup, those that wiggled towards or away from light made it/got destroyed. that's how the universe's laws "hint" what you should do if you want to stick around.
life is everything that remained, that managed to stick around, based on its ability to replicate itself, fundamentally, which was massively supported by making choices when possible.
if you are competing for resources, then making choices gives you an advantage. making choices means having means to react to your environment.
this is pretty simple to understand, don't see anything abstract about it.

>>16745500

Having randomness isn't the same thing as just randomly occurring though.
natural selection relies on randomised mutation but the fitness of those mutations from selection pressure are not random.
Anon said it was randomly assembling a protocell and that's not what would be going on.
The random walk you describe is exactly how it's likely to have happened, but a biased random walk isnt the same as a random walk.

If someone hid something in a very large field so it was impossible to see unless I was directly on top of it and I was tasked with finding it, it would be unlikely I'd find it by genuinely randomly walking around. But if they then call out "warmer" or "colder" based on my proximity to it it would be very surprising if I didn't get there in the end. There's still randomness but the outcomes (tune left, turn right, go back, go straight, stop) are selected for.

>>16741116
If this were true, you’d think we’d have seen something similar to a single celled organism anywhere else in our solar system by now?

>>16745506
Yes, and the paper I provided demonstrates that this biased random walk could not have happened in the amount of time it had to have taken place in.

>>16745539
No it doesn't.
It says that it would likely require bias or "long term memory" for emergence to work in the time frame...which is exactly what selection provides.

Did you even read the paper?