I think what he meant is that it gains in complexity, which includes becoming the blueprint for developing biological brains that can become sentient.

In a very real sense we are DNA perceiving itself to exist.

Or at least we're the biological robots that DNA has become the blueprint for. The DNA itself is just a molecule, but it's the molecule that contains the blueprint for the entire human body, including the brain.

Pretty far out actually.

It sounds like Sci-Fi.

I am picking the definitions that support my argument and ignoring the ones that do not . . . so there

define: Knowledge

-Relevant information that one is able to recall from memory; The product of assumption; Recognition of cause and effect

-Organized body of information

-An integrated collection of facts and relationships which, when exercised, produces competent performance.

By these definitions DNA is knowledge, so is the information a computer houses. Now where I would argue against a computer is that it took a conscious being to use sensory information to create a computer.

But the computer certainly uses knowledge without senses once said knowledge is planted there, it exercises processes based on information which is organized with relationships that can be used to produce, and perform tasks based on this information.

IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion)

To anthropomorphize knowledge is silly. At the very least knowledge is something that all conscious beings make use of to function.

An elephant matriarch will remember a watering hole for her entire life and lead the heard back to that same spot irregardless of time since last visit.

THAT is knowledge. By no means is knowledge restricted to humanity.

RNA video explaining how changes in protein sequences can lead to more information which produces performance . . . which fits my last definition of knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

I think knowledge transcends sentience.

Just chiming in to agree with Billy's view.

This is also a view that I'm totally comfortable with on a personal level.

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I'm simply saying that it's at least one way to view the idea, and it works for me.

Billy,

I like your posted definitions of knowledge. particularly "--Organized body of information."

I agree that knowledge is not confined to humans or even sentient creatures, but certainly it is only used by conscious living creatures.

I don't think computers recognize "knowledge" as such, but that they process information and follow instructions and programs.

I think knowledge requires a conscious creature that thinks to use it, and consciousness to organize it.

That includes DNA if you are going to call it knowledge, as and organized body of information.

This, for me, implies that some conscious mind organized it. I don't think things get organized on accident or at random.

So Billy if you are calling DNA "knowledge," then perhaps you have found your proof of "god" or a higher intelligence that must have organized this information into it's present status of being "knowledge."

JB

This is a quite interesting thought Glory Jean.

It can also be quite complex to think about, or explain ideas about.

For example, there are two major schools of thought.

First School

Things don't become organized by random chance; therefore there must be a consciousness actively baby-sitting the process.

Second School

Thing do become organized by random chance, however, this is only because the universe is being guided by laws of phyics that weren't necessarily random chance.

In other words, it's like dots are placed on dice (that's the laws of physics) and then the dice are tossed (that's apparent random chance), when the number comes up (that's apparent organization).

But where did the organization actually occur?

During the roll? (the tossing of the dice)

Of before the roll? (the laws of physics)

I'm not sure which I believe.

I think both philosophies have merit and either one could be true.

It may even be some combination of both. Once consciousness arises it can certianly contribute to the 'baby-sitting' aspect of the organization of things. But prior to consciousness, it may have been entirely just the laws of physics driving things (seemingly randomly, but not truly random). Just like tossing dice that already have prearranged dots.

Precisely how the dots will come up is random, but no matter which combination of dots come up, they will ultimately represent some form of 'oganization'.

I have to go against the grain here.

I define knowledge simply as "certainty".

It does not have to relate to anything, nor does it have to be part of any greater whole, nor does it have to be agreed upon, nor does it have to be perceived. It only needs to be certain.

"I AM" is knowledge.

Yes, knowledge may be part of a greater organized system of information - e.g. "the knee bone is connected to the leg bone". But that is not what makes it knowledge.

"I like candy" is knowledge to a five year old.

But "The sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse" is simply nonsense to that same five year old.

This simply illustrates that knowledge is subjective in it's essense and although it may be objective, that objectivity is not a requirement.

The only requirement for knowledge is certainty, and that is the only difference between "knowledge" and "information".

I don't know why you left out the obvious third school:

It is the consciousness that creates the organization by assigning relationships between, and significances to, objects.

Without consciousness to assign the relationships and significances, there is no organization.

"Organization" is in the mind of the observer.

Because um dum.



There's another source for a thread topic.

What constitutes 'organization' and is the physical world really 'out there'?

Or is it just an organization of the observer?

I give up. This philosophy stuff is way over my head.

I used to be a scientist.

Um becoming an alchemist.

And someday owl be dead.

That's enough problems for one lifetime.

No truer words have ever been spoken.

The universal mind (which you don't believe exists) is the organizing body that takes chaos and creates "order" in the universal body.

On a more personal note, your mind is what is required to make sense of the chaos of the vibrations you (the observer) is bombarded with from every direction.

If it were not for the mind, there would be no order, only chaos.

JB


Bushido

You've been missed! Welcome back!

I've missed chatting in here as well, i'm in Maryland right now, meeting the new "family". will be going back to Louisiana next week to tie up my affairs and such, not sure how long it will take, then I'll be a "yankee" I guess. The folks here seem to think I have an "accent" I'll be back online more when I get back to my computer, I'm using a laptop right now, first time I have used one, takes some getting used to.

Nah. Just an empirisist at heart.


Yes, Jeannie's borg-style pantheism would definitely support "orgnaization of the observer"

As far as what constitutes organization...

It just seems more pragmatic to me to start with the known "I" and go from there as opposed to trying to find and understand an "other" to use as a starting point.

Did you watch the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg ( please do so its very fascinating )
I disagree with the notion that it requires consciousness to organize things or even to make use of knowledge, yes to recognize the process abstractly requires consciousness, but to make use of the process for advancing the organism . . . no.
There is nothing random about natural selection. The dice are the mutations, the guided process is the natural selection. To gain knowledge useful or not is taking millions of proteins and enforcing different ones because of different environmental factors that have nothing to do with the output of the protein only for activating it . . . but alas, if said proteins are beneficial toward survival in any regard what so ever it will start to build . . . and build without any guided consciousness. Life is a tricky thing to define, we give a thing this label when it gains certain processes which when are combined we term life, but many things such as RNA are not themselves living but have almost every process involved . . . so close . . . yet not . . . . yet it evolves and grows, and reproduces and makes use of NRG

Quite marvelous.

Ever took time to understand the snowflake? Or chemistry Or crystalline structures?(which is just phase transitions meets chemistry)? Most modern physicist's agree that the forces of nature, gravity, the strong (nuclear) force, the weak( radioactive)force and electromagnetism are just crystallization's of a single force that split off due to the original phase transition of space fields after the cooling of the big bang . . . ahh I love it.

many many processes in nature seem intelligent, but instead its a stacking process that is inevitable if you shake up the pieces enough (nature, or due to getting stuck at a certain phase or orientation after being cooled or heated rapidly.)

I admit its possible a creator arranged the pieces to fit . . . but I also admit that each and everyone of the various theories I presented in this thread
http://mingle2.com/topic/show/177763?page=3
are just as likely if not more likely given Occums razor, and if infinity exists within nature.

__________________


SHARP!

It's not that I specifically disbelieve in the universal mind. It's that it don't see any need to include it in my theory when a much simpler postulate explains things quite well for me.

Bushidobillyclub said:

When you use the phrase "to make use of" above, what is the subject? What is it that is doing the using?

As best I can follow your reasoning through this thread, you seem to be saying that DNA is using DNA to further the advancement of DNA. Or something along those lines.

The video uses the term "life" over and over again, so I assume that is pertinent to your logic. Also, the term "consiousness" is part of your argument, so I assume that is also important to your viewpoint.

So there are some things I need to understand about "life" and "consciousness" in order to understand your viewpoint. If you can answer these questions, I will be able to understand where you're coming from much better:
1) What exactly is "life"?
2) What exactly is "consciousness"
3) Can "life" exist independent of "consciousness"?
4) Can "consciousness" exist independent of "life"?
5) Is "free will" or "self-determinism" a requirement for or a part of "consciousness"?

I would have to beg to differ with you on that one.

What is natural selection but an adaptation to, and survival in, a particular environment?

Well, if the enviroments are random, then the natural selections are random.

So from my point of view natural selection is a completely random process (from a cosmic point of view).

Sure, it appears to be driven by the particular environmental situation, but that situation itself was random.

So overall, (in the big picture), it's still a random process cosmically speaking.

But yes, I agree with you that it's not so random when viewed up closer relative to the specific environment where a particular evolution is taking place.

You could indeed then say that this particular instance of natural selection is being driven by that environment.

But then again, if you view the entire ecosystem as a whole, rather than looking at individual creatures evolving within it, then that ecosystem is kind of self-developing based on its own make up. However, its own make-up was a random toss of the dice.

I'm trying to back off, and look at the entire cosmos as a whole.

But in terms of zooming in on specific ecosystems, I'm in agreement with you that they are bound (and therefore driven) by their own make up.

I can give you my personal answers to these questions but they will not agree with the scientific answers.

They also will probably not be the same as Billy's.

"Life" is the manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness is a unit of awareness. Life cannot exist independent of consciousness. Consciousness can and does exist independent of life and communicates and manifests with vibration and frequency. The will and determination of consciousness is to exist.

All living things have the will to exist and a degree of self determination to do so.

All Will is free.

You guys really make me work in these discussions, a good biology course would do you much better, but I will try to condense this understanding, and perhaps I will cheat and provide some links.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm

science says life is >>>>>>>>>>>
"Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli,
and have a metabolism. This list of characteristics was made by scientists after carefully considering
what would be included, and excluded, by these characteristics. Using this list, viruses are not
defined as living organisms. There are no viruses that are classified as bacteria. There are viruses
that infect bacteria, just as there are other viruses that infect human cells. Incidentally, prions,
which cause mad cow disease, are also considered non-living under this definition."

DNA is not alive. Not in and of itself. RNA is not alive, not in and of itself. DNA and RNA have no consciousness, there for if one considers them to house knowledge, then one would then have to accept that knowledge does not requires consciousness.

This gives a great example of a system that can evolve make use of sophisticated processes, can attack and take advantage of living organism reproductive centers to proliferate and multiple. Viruses make use of Billions of years of knowledge to do what they do, yet they do not live. MUAHAHAHAHAH (sorry listening to evil spooky music)



It is not easy to wrap your mind around the concept of non conscious assembly of complex machinery, this is why people feel the need for intelligent design.

The video I posted showed how simple nucleic acids can become more complex through convection and making use of lipids to trap needed molecules, the video also shows how that totally by chance a molecule will enter the pseudo "cell" lipid container and stay there, but once the molecule is inside and extends stability it then enhanced the pseudo cells survival rate, like any structure add stability and it will last longer, lasting longer allows for a greater chance to add more complexity and to split into more pseudo cells which starts the process of evolution totally without the need for direction, consciousness, intelligence, or even being totally random, becuase gaining advantage equals survival is not random.

DNA is knowledge, but what put that knowledge there is the process of abiogenesis. What makes use of that knowledge is proteins and enzymes.



Do hurricanes move randomly, does the temperature of the earth fluctuate randomly?

Does the wind blow in random patterns? Does rain fall on random parts of the earth?

There is structure to all of these things, they may be vastly complex, but NOT random.

Is it random how crystals form?


1) Life ^^^ see above.

2) consciousness =The state of being conscious or aware; awareness ; Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.

3) By the above definition of consciousness, yes

4) No, I think that to build up to consciousness would require for something to meet all of the facets that make something living that are detailed above.

5) I don't think anyone can answer this for you, it has yet to be settled if we have free will.

Quite the contrary, I feel the exact opposite. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of a conscious assembly of complex machinery. The “magic formula” hypothesis of consciousness makes no sense at all to me.

That is, with (magic_formula – 1) atoms, there is no consciousness. But if you add just one more atom of a specific type, then “poof” - all of a sudden “consciousness” magically comes into being.

That is what I can’t wrap my wits around.

But in any case, I was not asking those questions to find out what the scientific community thinks. I was asking to find out what your personal opinion is. And from your answers I assume that your opinion is 100% in agreement with the sources you’ve referenced.

For me, this is the heart of our differing views.

I was not asking for an answer for me. I was asking for an answer for you. And your answer says to me that you think free will is dependent upon someone else’s decision, which in itself is contrary to the concept of free will.

But the materialist philosophy is anathema to free will in the first place, so I understand your reluctance to admit its existence.

In any case, my purpose with all the questions was to understand your viewpoint and with your help, I have accomplished that to my satisfaction. Thank you.