Life

[hampus_dh]

I don´t know about you guys but i´m pretty interested in life, and how and why it even bothers to exist, no matter the life form.

Like every life form, it has a built in code telling it that it must survive, or must reproduce itself in order to sustain.

Why is that? i mean it´s not at the level of humans where you can make a rational explanation as to why you must reproduce, it just does it like it was built into the DNA somehow.

Feel free to answer the questions above or ask new ones as long as they fit the bill called "Life".

 

[MatskiMonk]

Actually, if Humans were properly rational, I would think there would be less reproduction.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Actually, if Humans were properly rational, I would think there would be less reproduction.

That made me laugh, but it is quite true.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Actually, if Humans were properly rational, I would think there would be less reproduction.

That made me laugh, but it is quite true.

Not really, a greater percentage of older people means greater pension issues.

 

[Danoff]

Like every life form, it has a built in code telling it that it must survive, or must reproduce itself in order to sustain.

Imagine for a moment a vast supply of life forms - some of which have built-in codes telling them that they must reproduce, some of which do not. Which ones would you expect to still be alive in a few thousand years?

That's all it is.

 

[Dapper]

I mean it´s not at the level of humans where you can make a rational explanation as to why you must reproduce, it just does it like it was built into the DNA somehow.

I think you give humans way too much credit.

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

I think we will get over the idea of free will and and accept we are a special kind of machine, one with a moral agency which comes from living in social groups.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzaniga-interview
The highlighted part sounds vaguely familiar to me.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Not really, a greater percentage of older people means greater pension issues.

Not sure I follow you?

 

[Danoff]

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

That action can still be pre-determined by thinking that went on days, months, or years prior. It doesn't make us machines.

 

[Dapper]

That action can still be pre-determined by thinking that went on days, months, or years prior. It doesn't make us machines.

You obviously missed the "consciously aware" part.
How can someone think about something for any period of time if they aren't consciously aware? Please support your argument with an expert in neuroscience, or at least something intelligent, also instead of just random rambling.

 

[Danoff]

You obviously missed the "consciously aware" part.

I did not. I'm postulating that you can affect your unconscious decisions by conditioning your mind beforehand. If you give it any thought, it actually has to be true - otherwise you could never influence your own behavior in any situation, and yet we know that we can. Military personnel, for example, can influence their actions/decisions/choices/movements in hostile life-or-death think-fast situations simply by training for months ahead of time.

How can someone think about something for any period of time if they aren't consciously aware?

I don't think you read my post carefully enough.

Please support your argument with an expert in neuroscience, or at least something intelligent, also instead of just random rambling.

I don't need a degree in neuroscience to understand that the conclusion didn't follow the premise.

 

[Dapper]

I'm postulating that you can affect your unconscious decisions by conditioning your mind beforehand. If you give it any thought, it actually has to be true - otherwise you could never influence your own behavior in any situation, and yet we know that we can. Military personnel, for example, can influence their actions/decisions/choices/movements in hostile life-or-death think-fast situations simply by training for months ahead of time.

But this is all conjecture. You have nothing to back up anything you say. This is purely just rambling by some guy on the internet. Not to mention by your reply I'm inclined to think you have no idea what is actually being said.

I don't need a degree in neuroscience to understand that the conclusion didn't follow the premise.

But you do need to understand he, Michael S. Gazzaniga, is smarter in his field than you are and he has empirical evidence that says your random internet ramblings are wrong (a recurrent problem in this forum).

 

[A2K78]

Not sure I follow you?

Japan, a country where their aging population have outnumbered the youth is sucking the very life out of the country economically and culturally, to put it straight the fact that japanese women aren't having many children is destorying their economy and culture all at once.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Japan, a country where their aging population have outnumbered the youth is sucking the very life out of the country economically and culturally, to put it straight the fact that japanese women aren't having many children is destorying their economy and culture all at once.

Interesting, I didn't know that... but, that isn't a particularly big problem when compared to the ever-expanding population of the globe, and the planets ability to sustain it.

 

[Danoff]

But this is all conjecture.

It's really not. More of a hypothesis.

You have nothing to back up anything you say.

Except what I gave you to back up what I said?

This is purely just rambling by some guy on the internet.

Yup. Just the insane ramblings of the unwashed. Nothing to compare to someone that has *gasp* a PhD in neuroscience!!!

Here's the problem:

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

^ Neuroscience.

I think we will get over the idea of free will and and accept we are a special kind of machine, one with a moral agency which comes from living in social groups.

^ Not neuroscience.

 

[Dapper]

It's really not. More of a hypothesis.

Either way it is completely unsubstantiated.

Except what I gave you to back up what I said?

That is worthless. Random people typing doesn't refute an experts experimental findings.

 

[Danoff]

That is worthless. Random people typing doesn't refute an experts experimental findings.

They're not experimental findings.

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

^ Neuroscience.

I think we will get over the idea of free will and and accept we are a special kind of machine, one with a moral agency which comes from living in social groups.

^ Not neuroscience.

Feel free to apologize at this point.

 

[Dapper]

They're not experimental findings.

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

Stop doing this to yourself, Danoff!

 

[Danoff]

Stop doing this to yourself, Danoff!

You're not really still failing to understand my point are you? This is just you still trying to save face right? Ok, I'll quote it one last time.

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

^ Neuroscience (and yes, experimental findings)

I think we will get over the idea of free will and and accept we are a special kind of machine, one with a moral agency which comes from living in social groups.

^ Not Neuroscience (and no, not experimental findings).

Ok, now you can feel free to apologize.

 

[Dapper]

^ Not Neuroscience (and no, not experimental findings).

This is great.

I think we will get over the idea of free will and...

This is his (expert) opinion.

...accept we are a special kind of machine, one with a moral agency which comes from living in social groups.

This is what he has found from doing experiments.

Ok, now you can feel free to apologize.

For what? You don't get what he said. A conditioned response is still going to be formulated before you consciously think about it. Even before the idea to condition a response was consciously thought of, it was already in one's brain being thought of.

I did not. I'm postulating that you can affect your unconscious decisions by conditioning your mind beforehand. If you give it any thought, it actually has to be true - otherwise you could never influence your own behavior in any situation, and yet we know that we can. Military personnel, for example, can influence their actions/decisions/choices/movements in hostile life-or-death think-fast situations simply by training for months ahead of time.

Not to mention this makes no sense. Don't you see the highlighted parts don't match? Do you really think "actions/decisions/choices/movements" are unconscious thoughts? Because they aren't.

 

[Grand Prix]

I don´t know about you guys but i´m pretty interested in life, and how and why it even bothers to exist, no matter the life form.

Like every life form, it has a built in code telling it that it must survive, or must reproduce itself in order to sustain.

Why is that? i mean it´s not at the level of humans where you can make a rational explanation as to why you must reproduce, it just does it like it was built into the DNA somehow.

Feel free to answer the questions above or ask new ones as long as they fit the bill called "Life".

Because that is how it exists. It "knows" no other thing than to exist, because that is how it was formed. If it wasn't reproducing matter it wouldn't be reproducing matter.

 

[Sam48]

I don´t know about you guys but i´m pretty interested in life, and how and why it even bothers to exist, no matter the life form.

A question I've always asked myself. Why did anything intelligent have to come into existence, let alone anything living? Why couldn't the big bang have just produced a bunch of vacant stars and planets? I know I'm going to get a massive critique for saying this, but your question is basically the main reason I believe something intelligent created the universe. This then falls into another topic regarding quantum theory, that being, if intelligent life never occurred in our universe, would our universe even exist to begin with? If quantum theory is correct and my observations reveal my reality, who's reality is it when no one's there to watch it? Someone must be watching it.

EDIT: I'm expecting another correction on the second part as well given the fact that I'm not terribly useful in this field.

 

[hampus_dh]

Imagine for a moment a vast supply of life forms - some of which have built-in codes telling them that they must reproduce, some of which do not. Which ones would you expect to still be alive in a few thousand years?

That's all it is.

I guess i forget to think like that in a way. But then the question is why do different life forms have different survival-codes and where do these codes come from?

Is it random instincts?

 

[Danoff]

This is what he has found from doing experiments.

Definitely not supported.

Even before the idea to condition a response was consciously thought of, it was already in one's brain being thought of.

Who are you talking to? None of that applies to this conversation.

Not to mention this makes no sense. Don't you see the highlighted parts don't match? Do you really think "actions/decisions/choices/movements" are unconscious thoughts? Because they aren't.

Your claim, not mine.

For instance, neuroscientific experiments indicate that human decisions for action are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.

You understand what I am saying, you understand where you went wrong, and refuse to back down. This is typical behavior for you and quite irritating. It definitely doesn't foster interest on my part have a discussion with you. If you find my answers are short, it's because you're increasingly not worth the effort.

I guess i forget to think like that in a way. But then the question is why do different life forms have different survival-codes and where do these codes come from?

Is it random instincts?

Anything and everything that leads to survival sticks around (because it leads to survival). Behavior that does not, doesn't live on. It's impressively simple and it allows for a variety of survival mechanisms.

 

[hampus_dh]

Anything and everything that leads to survival sticks around (because it leads to survival). Behavior that does not, doesn't live on. It's impressively simple and it allows for a variety of survival mechanisms.

Yea but it´s like it has it´s own mini-brain because it has a pre-determined way of "thinking" like survival.

_

To touch on the unconscious vs conscious part.
If you were to connect your brain with wires and use a certain program that allows me to look into your brain sort of, and i asked you a question of yes or no i could tell you what your answer would be long before your conscious self answer the question.

This guy with this program knew 6 seconds before what your answer would be before you finally told him your answer.

It´s an hour but it´s very interesting. Especially when they start to manipulate consciousness with the kameras.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Interesting, I didn't know that... but, that isn't a particularly big problem when compared to the ever-expanding population of the globe, and the planets ability to sustain it.

We've managed to feed and hydrate a rapidly growing population quite comfortably for the last century, and there's till room to expand.

However, we've shown to be quite vulnerable and inept in the face of economical and social chaos.

In a socialist society, fewer children means fewer tax payers, which means a greater burden to support the aged.

Fewer children also means a weaker economy which means smaller returns on retirement investments, and a greater financial burden on offspring to support parents.

Personally, I'm confident we can support a still larger population, even with today's technology, let alone the benefits of tomorrow's.

 

[hampus_dh]

You don´t think we will run out of food if we continue at this pace?

 

[TankAss95]

I think it's strange how animals sometimes strive to protect others. Some animals even give their lives to protect another animal.

 

[W3H5]

I can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

42​

 

[MatskiMonk]

I can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

42​

Lol, this always makes me laugh, I've never read or seen "Hitchhikers guide..", but I do support Juan Montoya in Nascar.. so yeah.. GO 42!!!!

 

[homeforsummer]

Not to mention this makes no sense. Don't you see the highlighted parts don't match? Do you really think "actions/decisions/choices/movements" are unconscious thoughts? Because they aren't.

Not strictly true.

Plenty of our actions/decisions/choices/movements can be done unconsciously. It's called instinct. A few examples - putting your hand on a stove and whipping it away before you even feel the heat as your nervous system makes the decision to move your hand before you think about it. Blinking when water or dust gets in your eyes. "Jumping awake" when you have a falling dream.

None of the above - and more - use conscious decision-making. They're all pre-programmed into our psyche as mechanisms to protect us.

However - you can also precondition yourself to act instinctively in times of duress - say, on a battlefield.

The best example I can come up with is bomb disarming. Trained bomb experts practice and practice so much and in such detail not just because it's a job that needs doing, but because when they have their face inches from a device that could vaporise them in a second, the brain is so pumped-full of endorphins that they're utterly incapable of thinking straight and have to rely almost entirely on muscle memory to disarm the bomb. They disarm the thing and then return without even knowing what exactly they did to disarm it - other than subconsciously repeat the actions they'd learned thousands of times in training.

So what Danoff was saying is correct.

A question I've always asked myself. Why did anything intelligent have to come into existence, let alone anything living? Why couldn't the big bang have just produced a bunch of vacant stars and planets?

If we were the only planet in the entire universe and life existed here then you'd have a case for a higher being, but with literally billions of other worlds theoretically capable of supporting life - and potentially intelligent life - the odds are so favourable that it's really not a surprise in the slightest.

I never understand why this concept is so hard to understand - that with billions of permutations of different events over several billion years intelligent life is as good as a statistical inevitability.