Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

  1. #1

    origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism , they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life. While on the other hand they start reacting with a host , or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host ,they become alive,. The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host , they become alive in a way .....Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that : No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally .Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue. What would that mean to the way that we see the world? First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time ,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it .Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged ,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell. ,but the organism as a whole is alive .Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals .But maybe not. If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question: what is the least that can be considered as life? For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance .At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life. So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life , or else, the sparkle of life .That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions. The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.


    ..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell ,in the form of chemical reactions. Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell ,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that , as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing , then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life ,but this single cell soon would be dead .Despite of that, most scientists accept the single cell theory .The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life .The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
    The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening . Life continues because chemical reactions continue . Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.;

    Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today . That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one. This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy {probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life , but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution. Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated in a way ,some chemical reactions in a small place. After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated .Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated .We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes .This is life .But human is a part of this complicated system which mean s that he sees things in a mirror like way ,because he is in the system .so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way..

    living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening .if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis .As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results .We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism , because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alivee. The complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions , or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today..

    We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are! So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there , but as i told everything depends on who is the observer. We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us. We see things from the opposite side though.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    हम वासी उस देश के &#23
    Posts
    212
    Rep Power
    326

    Re: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    what about RNA world?
    तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।
    उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्वदर्शिनः ॥

    उस ज्ञान को तू तत्वदर्शी ज्ञानियों के पास जाकर समझ, उनको भलीभाँति दण्डवत्* प्रणाम करने से, उनकी सेवा करने से और कपट छोड़कर सरलतापूर्वक प्रश्न करने से वे परमात्म तत्व को भलीभाँति जानने वाले ज्ञानी महात्मा तुझे उस तत्वज्ञान का उपदेश करेंगे. श्रीमद्*भगवद्*गीता-4.34

  3. #3

    Re: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    Everything in nature tends to get the least energy demanding state. For instance, a structurally complex protein under normal conditions will spontaneously fold in the least energetically demanding way. It is obvious that the material that life is composed is not some kind of magic dust that violates the laws of nature, but it has to follow the same rules.
    But how did the chemical reactions of living beings managed to become so sophisticated both structural and functionally? If at the beginning there was nothing and after billions of years there were tons of chemical reactions on earth, why the natural history of these reactions violated the natural tendency and instead of becoming random they became extremely sophisticated and lowered their entropy?
    If you attempt to study in details the physiology of a system in human body, for instance acid-base balance from the kidneys, etc, or even Krebs Cycle, what you get is millions of properties that even a lifetime is not enough for you to learn everything. The most amazing thing however, is that everything is arranged perfectly in a way that even if a single property was different, the whole system would have been in real trouble. Everyone knows things are complex regarding animal (and plant) physiology, but a real study will make you realize that things are much more complex that you have ever even imagined.
    There is a clear violation of the natural laws here because, everything happened despite the tendency of nature to simplify things.
    Is it possible however that we are actually wrong?
    Can these reactions be actually mindless, chaotic and random?
    Although this seems naïve, just remember who is the reference frame for all these.
    YOU!
    Or else a sum of chemical reactions, inside the whole system that is studied.
    The causes observed by the result.
    Think about it!
    Even we were indeed some automaton random chemical reactions, even the fact that these reactions continue to happen makes them successful to our eyes regardless of how this happened. These reactions survived and there was a history behind this.
    This is what we perceive as homeostasis.

    If we consider the whole living system as a unique individual entity, it seems not to have any specific pattern.

    What would happen in a growing number of random chemical reactions after billions of years?
    A) Eventually some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal, allowing forms to be created.
    B) Only the reactions with repeatability that occur in a somewhat cyclical manner would survive in the long term, because they will not lead to a dead end.
    C) The reactions that will survive after billions of years will do it because these specific reactions pose surviving advantages over other.
    From our point of view (perspective) B is perceived as reproduction and C as evolution.

    Human position in the system can explain everything. Both life and fire are chemical reactions but fire is very simple with no functional resemblance with us to perceived as life.

  4. #4

    Re: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    Lets see some more implications and extensions of the presented model

    1) Due to the fact that human is a very complicated system of reactions that all depend from each other, its logical to assume that it is almost impossible to treat compeletely a chronic disease with a single drug. The human body is not a car that we fix the part that is wrong and everything is ok. Instead, its reactions are so complicated, that (unless the illness is caused by a foreign agent e.g. a microbe, or by that lack of a substance that can be replaced), if there is a problem with a reaction this will lead to a chain reaction of problems to other reactions of the body as well. This mechanism is responsible for chronic diseases. The only way to treat compeletely this disease is to put back the initial reaction with the problem the way it was. Every other method will only reduce symptoms, but not cure. Additionally, it may treat a problem and cause the creation of another. A good example for this is the treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol. We are not talking about healing, but for statistically significant improvement. Some studies also shows that there is no decrease in mortality even with the treatment of the risk factors. Another good example are rheumatic diseases. No complete cure exists. Drugs have many side effects in such a way that while one hole is closed, another is opened. Even in major diseases there is a big dissociation between the pathogenetic mechanisms that are discovered and effective treatments. This diference will continue growing if we dont realize that the mechanism that organism works is more complicated.
    2) Another implication of the theory is that because the sum of the chemical reactions is a chain, it means that the cause of a disease maybe come from the organ that has the symptoms, but maybe not. An initial problem causes its irregularity, but depends of the vulnerability of each organ to see in which organ the symptom will be seen, because all the reactions communicate with each other, and when a problem exists its like a volcano and we dont know where will it explode.

  5. #5

    Re: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    Namaste Minaas,

    Life can be taken as an emergent phenomenon that comes out at the next level of complexity though starting from interactions between far simpler building blocks.

    But, now as it happens, and is understood, many times we can "take the so called emergent phenomena" as the building blocks, and can in turn - using these - explain "the so-called building blocks" as emergent phenomena.

    To paraphrase, "Life comes to life". That is, Life itself can be seen as fundamental.

    What is more fundamental? Life, Matter, Logic? Or some other thing?

    Why is it possible, for instance, that we are able to describe the behaviour of Matter (particles, energy, so on) in terms of Logic? Or, vice-versa?

    Finally, what is the language of Life like?
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  6. #6

    Re: origin of life(pushing non anthropocintricism to the limit

    Namaste,

    An interesting thread; without proceeding into a lengthy discussion of
    the three main flavors of the anthropic principle, I did wish to remind
    that entropy is reduced only locally, and never globally.

    While I am very much a supporter of science, and the increase of
    knowledge in all fields generally speaking, there is still to me more likelihood of an
    amoeba comprehending the concept of Minkowski space, than there is
    of perceiving Truth through the intellect alone. As fascinating as I will
    always find subjects like the ones brought up by this thread, I cannot
    forget:

    Verily She, the Bhagavati, Mahamaya, forcibly drawing the minds of even the wise, throws them into delusion.

    JAI MATA DI
    || जय माता की ||

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Personal Doubts
    By soham3 in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 27 November 2009, 12:48 PM
  2. Origin and first use of Lila (leela) (Sanskrit: लीला)
    By Onkara in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 November 2009, 03:19 AM
  3. Origin of Lord Panchamukha Hanuman
    By Arvind Sivaraman in forum Itihasas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03 August 2007, 12:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •