1

Topic: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Found here fine video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnVW8_CAuG0

2

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos. > here fine video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnVW8_CAuG0 the Comment was specific to it video: http://forum.goldentime.ru/viewtopic.ph … 9506#p9506 the Response on Nikitin's book "a life Origin. From a fog to a cell" in four (while) parts: https://partizan-1812.livejournal.com/218159.html https://partizan-1812.livejournal.com/219283.html https://partizan-1812.livejournal.com/234521.html https://partizan-1812.livejournal.com/235029.html the Author of a response worked with Oparin: Very long time ago () when I was small (), my scientific  began not somewhere, and in the laboratory which were engaged in an origin of life. Is faster at all in laboratory, and in Laboratory, as to it the creator of the scientific theory of an origin of life (on the Earth) * - academician Oparin managed. https://partizan-1812.livejournal.com/107270.html

3

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos, you wrote: > found here fine video the Most important thing in all it that basically a hypothesis that life known to us, that is life on mother Earth, has been once artificially created by someone quite scientific. Even will scientifically assume that there was no evolution, we generally in "matrix", local which time of existence can be though one million years, though 7526 years from world creation and though even at all it began with writing of this message on rsdn, all prior events and memories and mine and other people the invented. But in that case the question of origin of life is simply transferred from our planet somewhere and once still.

4

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Most important thing in all it that basically a hypothesis that life known to us, that is life on mother Earth, has been once artificially created by someone quite scientific. What proofs to it is? Meanwhile all proofs testify that life appeared a natural way. M> even will scientifically assume that there was no evolution, we generally in "matrix", local which time of existence can be though one million years, though 7526 years from world creation and though even at all it began with writing of this message on rsdn, all prior events and memories and mine and other people the invented. It any more the science, is uninteresting solipsism.

5

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos, you wrote: > found here fine video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnVW8_CAuG0 Sho, again?!

6

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

SC> the Comment was specific to it video: SC> http://forum.goldentime.ru/viewtopic.ph … 9506#p9506 the Commentator included  - attributed to Nikitin the statement that "Boeings evolved naturally", and we all know that they were created by people, g-g-g-g. Actually, Nikitin simply wanted to tell that as the Boeing not  a reading point of aircraft, and the cell is not a reading point of evolution. The cell is an intermediate link, and difficult enough.

7

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, bzig, you wrote: SC>> the Comment was specific to it video: SC>> http://forum.goldentime.ru/viewtopic.ph … 9506#p9506 B> the Commentator included  - attributed to Nikitin the statement that "Boeings evolved naturally", and we all know that they were created by people, g-g-g-g. B> Actually, Nikitin simply wanted to tell that as the Boeing not  a reading point of aircraft, and the cell is not a reading point of evolution. The cell is an intermediate link, and difficult enough. That Mahlo, the author concludes "a live cell could arise only as a result of reasonable ". That generally does not follow in any way from the initial data. The same reactionaries in the Middle Ages stated that only God could create the Sun that it warmed us. And now when the Sun almost to atom disassembled on gravitation and , anybody any more does not attribute to it wonderful properties. Especially same sun billions. Life origin on small screws did not disassemble, here obscurantists and explain it only one reasonable intention. If plane creation in their judgement is possible only at reasonable  it is necessary to recognize that the reason is and at the spiders spinning a web. And even at the frosty weather creating difficult crystalline grids.

8

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos, you wrote: > found here fine video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnVW8_CAuG0 All nonsense of dispute that we cannot distinguish conscious from not conscious, reasonable from not the reasonable! There is no scientific understanding of consciousness, nobody can define consciousness.  is an unresolved problem , nobody can answer a question that there is a consciousness and what requirements for its origin. We got used to trust that for consciousness origin a certain difficult network from biological neurons, so is necessary? But after all as the computer can be collected on different types of elements (the first computers were on the relay, then on radio tubes, then on transistors etc., it is possible at all balls and  to collect) - and consciousness, perhaps, it is feasible on different elements. And it can be not implementable on the basis of a baryon matter - such variant quite we admit. Whether so before to argue life has been created by a conscious being or it was created by the Nature - answer on a question on consciousness. Only then dispute will have though any sense. Perhaps the elementary particles are conscious - why are not present? The dude as though purposely started to tell Z.Y.th about evolution of planes. And after all it happened under the influence of consciousness of the person.

9

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: whether S> So before to argue life has been created by a conscious being or it was created by the Nature - answer on a question on consciousness. Only then dispute will have though any sense. We raise the question differently: whether life has been created by exterior interference and whether there was at it any purpose? S> this dude as though purposely started to tell about evolution of planes. And after all it happened under the influence of consciousness of the person. Nevertheless, evolution laws operate and here.

10

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S> we Raise the question differently: whether life has been created by exterior interference That "exterior interference" means? If the nature is conscious is an exterior interference? S> and whether there was at it any purpose? A problem that any purpose terminates not in something reasonable, and obtaining . Take any - the person builds the house, it has a purpose - to feel pleasure of stay in comfort. I.e. all is fastened on .  is a finite link - all remaining is intermediate. You tell - but as, the house purpose is the survival. And is not present - to survive biologically and in a hole it is possible. Besides, if the person tests in the core negative  - life is not becomes necessary to it also it does not see in it sense - fulfills . I.e. your question is reduced here to what: whether the Nature  tests. Unfortunately, it is  and at present enters into the list of unsolved questions  - nobody knows as to create the system, capable to test . S>> This dude as though purposely started to tell about evolution of planes. And after all it happened under the influence of consciousness of the person. S> nevertheless, evolution laws operate and here. And anybody does not argue with it. A question here in what: the conscious being controlled evolution (as in a case with planes - a conscious being - the person) or there was no conscious entity. Here a key question. But to set - it is necessary to make at least determination of consciousness, to comprehend its nature.

11

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> That "exterior interference" means? If the nature is conscious is an exterior interference? The abstract concept cannot be conscious. S>> and whether there was at it any purpose? S> a problem that any purpose terminates not in something reasonable, and obtaining . Who should receive  in a case with life origin?

12

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S> the Abstract concept cannot be conscious. And here the abstract concept? Speech about quite specific nature:  - a mother Earth material world - the main object of learning of natural sciences. Before to declare that the Nature before origin of the person it was not conscious - define a word consciousness and describe as to distinguish conscious objects from not the conscious. . S>> the Problem that any purpose terminates not in something reasonable, and obtaining . S> Who should receive  in a case with life origin? The nature? The elementary particles?

13

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> And here the abstract concept? Speech about quite specific nature: S> S> Priroda - a mother Earth material world - the main object of learning of natural sciences. A principal word selected. And now try to touch the world. S> before to declare that the Nature before origin of the person it was not conscious - define a word consciousness and describe as to distinguish conscious objects from not the conscious. . At first define that was specific is the nature.

14

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S> the Principal word selected. And now try to touch the world. Try to touch not the world. That you touch all are and there is a world part. S>> before to declare that the Nature before origin of the person it was not conscious - define a word consciousness and describe as to distinguish conscious objects from not the conscious. . S> At first define that was specific is the nature. And about what dispute, actually? On the one hand you state that life arose without involvement of consciousness, so? But thus you do not know that such consciousness, cannot distinguish conscious object from not the conscious. So? In what dispute?

15

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Most important thing in all it that basically a hypothesis that life known to us, that is life on mother Earth, has been once artificially created by someone quite scientific. M> even will scientifically assume that there was no evolution, we generally in "matrix", local which time of existence can be though one million years, though 7526 years from world creation and though even at all it began with writing of this message on rsdn, all prior events and memories and mine and other people the invented. How to forge these hypotheses?

16

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Try to touch not the world. That is, the nature is non-material? S> and about what dispute, actually? On the one hand you state that life arose without involvement of consciousness, so? But thus you do not know that such consciousness, cannot distinguish conscious object from not the conscious. So? In what dispute? Human ability to validity playback in thinking; mental activity as validity reflection. https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ogegova/226838 "human" it is possible to replace a word with any another.

17

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S>> Try to touch not the world. S> that is, the nature is non-material? It why? You did not see a part? S> S> human ability to validity playback in thinking; mental activity as validity reflection. S> https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ogegova/226838 S> "human" it is possible to replace a word with any another. The consciousness still managed to be defined to nobody in scientific terms. This purely home determination. Further you should define words "human" (why you speak that it is possible to replace if in determination it is - make the correct determination) to define playback (in what sense, whether plays back a mirror the validity?) and thinking (that the thinking means, whether any calculation by thinking is?) . The second determination - is required to be defined "mental", to define reflection (in what sense besides). Why the mirror is not conscious, if it reflects the validity? The problem of that, than is consciousness, what its frames and in what the sense of existence of the given term, appears an object of research of philosophy of consciousness, psychology, the disciplines studying problems of machine intelligence. Problems of practical reviewing include following questions: as it is possible to define presence of consciousness at people seriously ill or being in a clod; whether there can be an inhuman consciousness and as it is possible to define its presence; during what moment the consciousness of people originates; whether can reach computers of conscious states and so forth from here All is questions on which the science has no answer. Now present how much silly to argue on a consciousness role at life appearance - knows nobody that such consciousness, nobody knows as to define its presence - and we undertake to argue

18

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> It why? You did not see a part? I cannot touch, see the nature, means, it is non-material. S> the consciousness still managed to be defined to nobody in scientific terms. Means, we will use determination from the explanatory dictionary.

19

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S>> It why? You did not see a part? S> I cannot touch, see the nature, means, it is non-material. You can. That you can feel and see all is there is a nature. Except the nature you can feel or see nothing. S>> the consciousness still managed to be defined to nobody in scientific terms. S> means, we will use determination from the explanatory dictionary. You would not use what home determination - the question on the consciousness device is an open question of a science. Nobody knows as to recreate consciousness, whether there can be a consciousness out of the person how to distinguish conscious object from not the conscious. On it discussion is deprived any sense until  does not construct the theory about consciousness. While there is even no hypothesis how to create artificial consciousness. There is no hypothetical circuit which would need to be collected (let for billions dollars) and to check up consciousness presence. Moreover - even there is no understanding as this presence to define! According to the inference of the physicist with a world name of Penrose for understanding of consciousness the new science is required.

20

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> you Can. That you can feel and see all is there is a nature. I can feel a stone, a tree, water in the river, sand... And here the nature I can not. S> except the nature you can feel or see nothing. The nature is that is not created by the person. So I can. S> you would not use what home determination - the question on the consciousness device is an open question of a science. Speech not about the consciousness device, and about consciousness. What is it? I made the determination, and you are not present. Means, we will use mine.

21

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S> I can feel a stone, a tree, water in the river, sand... And here the nature I can not. Feeling a stone, a tree, water in the river, sand - you feel the nature. S>> except the nature you can feel or see nothing. S> the nature is that is not created by the person. So I can. It who to you told? And the person - unless not a nature part? The ant hill - not the nature as it is created by ants can also? Than products of the person differ from products of an ant? Is not present, the nature includes also products of natural organisms. The person - a nature part. Here the correct determination:  - a mother Earth material world, in effect - the main object of learning of natural sciences. And your determination erratic: In a life a word "nature" is often used in value a native habitat (everything that is not created by the person). From here. S>> you would not use what home determination - the question on the consciousness device is an open question of a science. S> Speech not about the consciousness device, and about consciousness. What is it? I made the determination, and you are not present. Means, we will use mine. Under your determination approaches - a mirror. It reflects the validity. The nature means is conscious, after all the water smooth surface possesses the same property, as a mirror. ... Or define that means "to reflect the validity".

22

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Feeling a stone, a tree, water in the river, sand - you feel the nature. No. I feel a stone, water and sand. And the nature is an abstraction at you in a head. S> it who to you told? And the person - unless not a nature part? The ant hill - not the nature as it is created by ants can also? Than products of the person differ from products of an ant? In determination it is told only about the person, about ants it is told nothing. S> is not present, the nature includes also products of natural organisms. The person - a nature part. S> here the correct determination: S> S> Priroda - a mother Earth material world, in effect - the main object of learning of natural sciences. All right, let will be so. Only it is not clear how to be with astronomy... S> Under your determination approaches - a mirror. In all determination you saw only a word "reflection"... S> Or define that means "to reflect the validity". It means that the person in a head has a world around model and when he analyzes any events, it works with this model.

23

Re: dear shmj, to discussion about life origin

Hello, Socrat, you wrote: S> Is not present. I feel a stone, water and sand. And the nature is an abstraction at you in a head. I speak not about abstraction and about quite specific nature, its elements. The elementary particle can be conscious. Or the group of the elementary particles can be conscious. Or star congestions can be conscious. But without knowing that such consciousness, without knowing how to distinguish a conscious element from not conscious - to argue on it there is no sense. S>> it who to you told? And the person - unless not a nature part? The ant hill - not the nature as it is created by ants can also? Than products of the person differ from products of an ant? S> in determination it is told only about the person, about ants it is told nothing. In determination of the nature from Wiki about the person anything is not present. I used it. S>> or define that means "to reflect the validity". S> It means that the person in a head has a world around model and when he analyzes any events, it works with this model. If you attribute consciousness only to the person - then unambiguously, proceeding from determination, the consciousness did not participate, since the person yet was not We say that as the computer can be made on different elements, and the consciousness, is possible (precisely we do not know, since nobody knows that such consciousness) - can be created not only on the basis of brain neurons. Here that researchers Blue Brain write: If the consciousness appears as a result of critical mass of interactions - then, it can be possible. But we really do not understand that there is a consciousness, therefore it is difficult to speak about it. Here a simple question to you: you consider that the science already solved a question of consciousness and knows as to distinguish conscious object from not having consciousness? Really so think? So go deep in  and understand that this question is not solved, the strong AI is not created, the device of consciousness and its nature are not known. Up to that there is a heap of marginal theories. I understand that to you hunting . But without understanding that there is a consciousness -  is not possible! Simply there is no subject for dispute. At first describe that is necessary, that from unconscious to make conscious, what minimum necessary requirements. And that according to some belief of consciousness does not exist at all, there is no clear boundary between conscious object and not having consciousness. That the consciousness is an illusion, it does not exist at all. So if it does not exist - that on what we argue?