Life as an accident?

[Turtle]

There's a message in that record which I've already been hearing in the past few years. It's a rather dangerous message for society and I've been seeing the effects of it all around me, as well as in the news...

 

ooooo....!!! tell me more. what is _the message? is the record to blame, or has the message come up anew without reference to the deteriorata? who is purveying the message? who is listening to it? how is it being disseminated? enquiring minds want to know. ;)

 

the work being a lampoon of the legended desiderata, i have always found it just that; a humourous lampoon. oddly enough, the desiderata has been befogged with misconceptions & legal wranglings for decades. :confused:

 

 

...

Beyond a wholesome discipline,

be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe

no less than the trees and the stars;

you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you,

no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

...

 

full text: >>Desiderata

history: >>Desiderata

[AnssiH]

Apologies for the first part of the post being off-topic.

 

Sorry about upsetting you all -- Dick

 

Well, it is bit of a balancing act to not upset people in forum debates. You can't see each others and a lot of the meaning is lost. Just being short and blunt can be taken as a sign of arrogance, elitism, and as looking down to the other party. There are many ways to unintentionally create a situation that can be taken as a personal attack, and more often than not, the response is a deliberate counter-attack. Usually that marks the end of all useful communication... :/

 

For example;

And Vox, I have not the slightest idea as to what goes on in your mind!

 

I'm sure you meant it as "your post is not understandable to me", and I'm equally sure Vox took it as you implying he is an idiot.

 

People have said that I seem calm and kind even when the other party seems like they are screaming their lungs out, and I can say I do pay a lot of attention to how I say things in those situations. Just as an example, I consciously avoid writing in second person, and use passive form if I can. It's never "your problem", it's "a problem". Otherwise I'm just risking the whole post being seen as a a personal attack, which would pretty much shut down all real communication. After all, the more upset the other party seems, the more I should try to make them feel comfortable, right? At least in so far that I am at all interested in rational dialogue. The more upset someone is, the less rational thoughts they will have, it's that simple.

 

Oh that reminds me;

YouTube- Co-Host of the "The View" doesn't know if world is round http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkrkaH_V7fE

 

Classic. To explain that, she's gotten so upset about the fundamentals of her world-view (the biblical history of the universe) being questioned, that she doesn't even understands the question anymore. Her mind is on auto-pilot, completely non-responsive to any attempts to rationalize anything. Not that their attempts to rationalize evolution are very rational, nor would I expect those other people to cope much better if their fundamental beliefs came under threat. It's sort of the same thing as your very personality being under attack, isn't it?

 

Anyway, that's not the only problem in the communication of DD's analysis. Like I've said before, these forums are perhaps not the first place where someone comes to really think about something analytically. It's more of an entertainment to many people. Look at this thread, it's mostly just having fun with words isn't it?

 

It is clear most of the counter-arguments to DD's work are not arising from serious attempts to follow the consequences of the definitions given, but from arguments having to do with extraneous assumptions that are taken aboard without proper analysis. Or alternatively from communication failures arising from confusions between epistemological arguments and ontological arguments (see the paragraph following the next).

 

Imagine Einstein trying to first explain relativity in a forum like this? Clearly most readers would not have any desire or any idea how to analyze the given definitions properly, but would certainly see a lot of apparent problems with any english-language explanation of that work. That is why DD feels people are rather trying to find reasons to not take the arguments seriously.

 

When DD makes a comment like "quantum mechanics is more fundamental than field theory", how many people really understand that he is NOT saying ANYTHING about the structure of reality? How many understand the context enough to pick up on the fact that he is referring to epistemological fundamentals? You know, the nature of KNOWLEDGE, as oppose to the actual nature of nature.

 

Well, to be fair, no one has got the obligation to put in the effort to actually analyze the work. (But, I find it interesting that I have not seen anyone commenting on what they think it means that only few steps of algebra stand in between the fundamental equation and the most fundamental equations of modern physics)

 

Another thing is that, it is probably a good idea to avoid saying anything in a manner that people could take as a sign of crack-pottery. Suggesting something counter to the mainstream beliefs is one thing, and suggesting every physicist is plain confused is another. After all, people do place their expectations on familiar patterns, and if something looks like crack-pottery, "it probably is crack-pottery", and that has got nothing to do with whether some work is valid or not.

 

Okay, sorry about so much off-topic commentary. But then, not much of this thread has been on topic anyway I guess I feel compelled to comment on the OP too though;

 

I've always thought of the idea that life is an accident as a curious idea until now. To me know as an unopposed invasion, it makes perfect sense. By this I mean everything falling into place for life to be created and evolve (A miracle but not artificially induced - instead one that just fell into place when the right conditions arose). Panspermia is no longer in favour but what if the fact that life can survive under the most adverse conditions, means that it is always waiting in the wings, to spring into action? What if Hoyle and Wikramsinghe were right about comets seeding life? (The only question then becomes 'How did it get up there in the first place?' Could it be lightweight, single celled organisms are less held back by gravity, if disturbed by catastrophes like asteroid strikes? Multi-celled organisms wiped out by collision/ changed conditions).

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is that it is not at all clear, what constitutes a living thing. That's pretty relevant, if you want to understand what is meant by "life waiting in the wings, ready to spring into action". Human definitions are pretty fuzzy, and borderline "systems" can be found (at what level does a living thing break down into two dead things, and what constitutes a single organism instead of a symbiosis, and so on).

 

Vaguely speaking, by a living thing, we mean a sufficiently complex pattern/system of specific sort. The questions about life actually quickly start to also concern questions about how does "something" come to generate a world model & definitions for patterns, so to become able to call something "a living thing".

 

Nevertheless, as long as reality is indeed being categorized into semantical ideas like "living things" and "dead things", and as long as we stay away from questions regarding the nature of conscious experience, the question is more about the possibilities in finding those kinds of patterns that are taken as "living things". That is as much a question about possibilities in HOW to interpret some patterns, as much a question about the patterns themselves. It is very much like Searle's Wordstar in a wall. "...the molecules in wall might be interpreted as implementing the Wordstar program (an early word processing program) because “there is some pattern in the molecule movements which is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar”"

 

Whether or not such interpretation would remain valid for any extended periods of time, there is something to think about regarding the possibilities open to us in the interpretation of entirely unknown information (who's to say you have to see molecules?). "There are many ways to see patterns", so to speak. I believe that is the issue DD homed on in his post.

 

And on that note;

 

Dick, you replied to a query of mine saying that no, you don't think the universe is a finite collection, but your knowledge of it is. Isn't that like being inside Plato's cave? And yet you seemed to be implying on grounds of Ramsey considerations that this allows you to say life was an inevitable occurrance...;)

 

That is because he did not refer to "life" as something that "ontologically is", but as something that we can point our finger at and say "that is what I'd call a living thing".

 

I suppose almost everyone assumed DD was talking about specific patterns that might or might not arise in the actual nature. Not about being able to interpret some patterns in some ways.

 

And yes, including the questions about consciousness would make this much more tricky subject!

 

-Anssi

[Harpz]

I think life is inevitable, without it there would be nothing to prove that the universe exists....If it does!!

 

The proteins that are the building blocks of life are though to be scattered throughout our solar system and probably the whole universe. These proteins soon develop into obvious form of life when given the right conditions. It has now got to be considered that lifes origin is not on earth but that it developed on earth from what started out there.

 

I think that chemical reactions that happen in space have made advanced molecules.

[Rade]

My dictionary defines accident in general as:

 

1. a happening that is not expected, foreseen, or intended.

2. an unfortunate occurrence or mishap...

3. a chance happening

4. an attribute that is not essential

 

I have defined life in another thread as..a process of self generated action mediated by nucleic acids. This definition deals with all marginal examples such as the virus.

 

Using this definition, life has attributes defined as being an accident. When it first appeared on the earth it was not an expectation, for this would require that prior life was present. I also fail to see how life could be an attribute that is essential to the survival of the earth, it is not essential that planets have life.

 

As discussed by DD, life may not be a chance event. Whether or not life is an unfortunate happening is open to debate. But, neither of these need apply for life to be defined as being an accident.

[Vox]

 

I have defined life in another thread as..a process of self generated action mediated by nucleic acids. This definition deals with all marginal examples such as the virus.

 

My personal definition for life is : "Potential for directional conscious events"

 

For example apple seed has that potential to become event called apple tree.. it is just a potential in seed as long other substance´s are introduced to trigger the actual event with event directions..growing tree, direction, producing apples, direction. sustain life potential, direction , produce seeds within apples..When apple is cut off from the tree it start to decompose due it do not contain life potential anymore but seed contains and carries that life´s potential.

Apple tree is also conscious concernig other events or material within it`s event..roots search softer soil cracks to penatrate deeper and water. Conscious concerning light rays..

It is interesting to see that apple tree is written as separate even it is combined event, otherwise it would not exist nature as such..but personally I think that is how human mind/comprehension works, it separates combined events to seemingly separate things..I´ll assume we like to give names to "things", which actually do not exist as separate things but rather than events

 

We could also say that if apple tree apples then Earth peoples ;)

[TheBigDog]

My personal definition for life is : "Potential for directional conscious events"

Ants and termites build impressive colonies of amazing engineering, but that is all they know how to do; that is what they do. Life to me is the same way. Life happens where it can how it can. Call it by chance, or call it a natural law.

 

On earth everywhere we have looked for life we have found it. Wherever the chemistry of life can exist we find it. And in places where we did not expect to find it we find it. I would postulate that the rise of life is a fundamental physical law. Life is self adapting, self propagating chemical engineering.

 

Bill

[Rade]

My personal definition for life is : "Potential for directional conscious events"

I have a problem, for if true, your definition means that non-life does not have a potential for conscious events. I would not agree with this.

 

I will argue that the hydrogen atom must be defined as being alive using your definition of life.

 

If, as you say the tree roots are conscious of the soil (and this is one criterion that makes them alive), in the same way, the electron (e-) and the proton (p+) within the hydrogen atom are aware or conscious of each other via the EM force. Not only that, but a single H atom is also conscious of other H atoms outside it, and will unite to form a H2 molecule of hydrogen gas. Hydrogen atom is also alive because it has great amount of potential energy that can be released when two protons fuse together at high energy, such as occurs in the sun. We can then say, sun is also alive, given that it meets your definition of life. Finally, hydrogen atom has direction because it is stable, the proton is one of the most stable existent in the universe, it never undergoes beta decay--thus the direction of the proton is to keep being a proton.

 

Now, if all atoms are alive, then entire universe is alive, and it makes no sense to ask what is not alive and no need for a definition--just point at anything and say--life.

 

I like better this modification of your definition:

 

Life is potential for directional events

 

The events are self-generated actions of things (fundamentally cells) and the direction comes from information (in the form of DNA and RNA). Thus, life is energy and matter bounded within cells directed by specific information found within molecules (DNA, RNA).

Thus, for me, the direction of life comes from information and not a sequence of becoming (a seed) and a going away (seed transforms into tree). The seed transforms into nothing without the information within the seed. Understanding of cybernetic theory is thus critical to understanding how information directs self generated action of energy and matter.

 

==

 

Your comment about how humans place name label on things that are combination of events--thus the apple tree. It can be no other way. Suppose we continue label of things in either direction from apple tree, and what we see is always combination of events that occur within "things", to a limit of the fundamental thing-event at each end:

 

universe

galaxy

solar system

earth

continent

biome

forest

apple tree

apple

apple cell

cell nucleus

DNA

ATCG base pairs

hydrogen atom

proton

electron & quarks

 

So, we reach an end point in each direction from the apple tree. The thing = event (electron and quarks at one end, universe at the other). Thus, all experiences we call events derive from a few fundamental single things that are single events. So it makes sense to me that we would place a name thing label on groups of events that derive their existence from fundamental thing-event.

 

I will agree that the universe may be the effect of a more fundamental thing cause. Anyway, it does not matter, because all things we give names to, such as apple, are composed of fundamental things that are events in of themselves.

[Vox]

I have a problem, for if true, your definition means that non-life does not have a potential for conscious events. I would not agree with this.

 

I will argue that the hydrogen atom must be defined as being alive using your definition of life.

 

If, as you say the tree roots are conscious of the soil (and this is one criterion that makes them alive), in the same way, the electron (e-) and the proton (p+) within the hydrogen atom are aware or conscious of each other via the EM force. Not only that, but a single H atom is also conscious of other H atoms outside it, and will unite to form a H2 molecule of hydrogen gas. Hydrogen atom is also alive because it has great amount of potential energy that can be released when two protons fuse together at high energy, such as occurs in the sun. We can then say, sun is also alive, given that it meets your definition of life. Finally, hydrogen atom has direction because it is stable, the proton is one of the most stable existent in the universe, it never undergoes beta decay--thus the direction of the proton is to keep being a proton.

 

Now, if all atoms are alive, then entire universe is alive, and it makes no sense to ask what is not alive and no need for a definition--just point at anything and say--life.

 

 

To exlude "pure material" was the reason why I included the conscious to the sentence. I consider that having a consiousness is to make "free decisions"..not just reacting according to the laws of Nature. To be able to observe environment and react with some kind of logic or decision making..Newest research concerning plants "intelligence" indicates that in roots there is some kind of "system" in tip of the root which resembles how neurons work, root searches consciously soft soil areas and changes direction accordingly. If the tip is cut off root will grow straight without being able to select "freely/consciously" directions anymore." there is also studies of plants signalling to each other by chemicals and increasing chemicals, tannins, in leaves if animal population is eating up it´s leaf´s to certain level. These increased tannin levels are poisonous to leaf eating animals and that way tree is able to defend itself..So we might not notice all the consciousness in the nature due it is so subtle..

[Rade]

To exclude "pure material" was the reason why I included the conscious to the sentence. I consider that having a consiousness is to make "free decisions"..not just reacting according to the laws of Nature. To be able to observe environment and react with some kind of logic or decision making..Newest research concerning plants "intelligence" indicates that in roots there is some kind of "system" in tip of the root which resembles how neurons work, root searches consciously soft soil areas and changes direction accordingly.

Vox, plant roots do not make logical decision to react to their environment--there is no "system" in tip of roots that "resembles" how neurons work. Plant growth and movement responds to hormones--please see this link:Plant hormone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Your attempt to exclude pure material by including conscious does not match your definition of conscious. Also, I disagree that conscious means there must be ability to make "free decisions". A simple form of conscious is to react to sensations without any decision--the example of putting hand on hot stove top. No decision is made before hand moves. Some simple forms of life have this type of conscious behavior--reaction to sensation.

 

You do not need the word conscious in your definition of life, it adds nothing and only can confuse because it then requires another word to be defined prior to definition of live. Please tell, what do you not like about this definition, as long as you define that "directional" means to me mediated by "information" contained in DNA and/or RNA, and that "events" of life are limited to self generated actions that occur within a place, the inner most boundary of which contains genetic information.

 

Life is potential for directional events

 

See then that this definition allows for virus to be alive, even though it is not the typical "cell". The virus has structure functionally similar to a cell--that is, the genetic material of the virus is has an inner most boundary called a protein coat. A protein coat is functionally similar to a cell membrane because it serves as an inner most boundary to what it contains (genetic material). Other than virus, all forms of life exist only within cells--called the Cell Theory of biology.

[modest]

All nature is but art unknown to thee—all chance direction, which thou canst not see

Is nature actually “an art” or is it convincing others one knows “the real art” the actual art here? (The act of preaching comes to mind!) We perhaps cannot see “all chance” direction; but perhaps we can think about the possibilities. By the way, that is the central issue of all my posts.

 

I know it is.

 

In fact, and perhaps not coincidentally, the poem Turtle quoted and the poem I quoted above both make the same conclusion, the former: "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should." and the latter: "And spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite, One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right." I think both show a fair resemblance to ''the central issue of your posts'—that whatever is, is so because it logically must be so.

 

I'm not fond of it as a philosophical outlook on life (which says nothing of its logical validity). I rather prefer the National Lampoon's parody of the poem—that we are a fluke of the universe and have no right to be here. I mean... if you're not surprised when you wake up in the morning finding the earth, the galaxy, the universe, and yourself have survived the night—well then, you're just not living right :(

 

~modest

[Vox]

Vox, plant roots do not make logical decision to react to their environment--there is no "system" in tip of roots that "resembles" how neurons work. Plant growth and movement responds to hormones--please see this link:Plant hormone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Your attempt to exclude pure material by including conscious does not match your definition of conscious. Also, I disagree that conscious means there must be ability to make "free decisions". A simple form of conscious is to react to sensations without any decision--the example of putting hand on hot stove top. No decision is made before hand moves. Some simple forms of life have this type of conscious behavior--reaction to sensation.

 

 

This hormone signalling is not what I am referring to. On tip of the roots there is separate system indipendent from hormones. I just watched document concerning this topic and it is rather new information. like I mentioned it is separate phenomenon from root just growing downwards. Tip of the root is actively responding and reacting to soil hardness diffrencies to find soft soil part to penetrate deeper. I can not memorize all the details from that document to explain more but I can look if I could locate that in the Internet.

 

Like I mentioned consciousness as definition is a bit tricky due simple conscious structures can be very subtle in nature..from my perspective human has not "fully understood " natures "conscious systems"

 

I can in this point of discussion agree your shorten version of my definition but I also try to convince you why consiousness should be included to the sentence.. but I am not doing perfect job regarding that, am I ? :(

[Vox]

Vox, plant roots do not make logical decision to react to their environment--there is no "system" in tip of roots that "resembles" how neurons work. Plant growth and movement responds to hormones--please see this link:Plant hormone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

Here is one article concerning the topic I mentioned

 

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/pdf/NeuroPlantTZ-Biologia.pdf

 

And here is more information in more entertaining form

 

YouTube- The.Private.Life.Of.Plants.Pt1 Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8W8uiOEhuQ&feature=related

[Qfwfq]

is the record to blame, or has the message come up anew without reference to the deteriorata? who is purveying the message? who is listening to it? how is it being disseminated?

I don't want to get into political disputes here, I'm only mentioning social matters, so I won't discuss who I assume is disseminating the message, certainly with no intent of humour or parody (also with no reference to Deteriorata nor Desiderata).

 

The general message we plebeans have been hearing is: you have no rights, you're already lucky enough to be alive at all, so just watch your step, shut up and don't complain. Those who step on your face have simply been more lucky and, if they can get away with it, they're entitled to it.

 

the work being a lampoon of the legended desiderata, i have always found it just that; a humourous lampoon.

Lampoon's intent might have been humorous back then, but look at some of the comments on YouTube today. Words of wisdom! :doh: I've done my best to hope that was meant about Desiderata and not about Deteriorata, but it's a tough stretch of the imagination...

 

oddly enough, the desiderata has been befogged with misconceptions & legal wranglings for decades.

Interesting. I'm one of those who had always seen Desiderata purported as being an old manuscript, found in some old church in Baltimore; I never saw the original text and I wasn't even sure whether they meant Baile an Tí Mhóir. Some folks also tend to think of the title as being the author's cherishing address of the fine young lady he was writing for. Urban legends, I guess.

[Rade]

Here is one article concerning the topic I mentionedhttp://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/pdf/NeuroPlantTZ-Biologia.pdf

Vox, thanks for this very interesting paper (btw, there are many, many more on the internet by the paper authors), I was not aware of this type of research in the plant sciences. Of course, this interpretation that plants have "neurons", "synapses", "intelligence", "brain-like behavior", "consciousness", etc. is all highly dependent of how these words are DEFINED. No one disagrees that plant cells can communicate with each other (via hormones)--but--this does not lead all biologists to conclude that plants have a "brain composed of neurons" that serves as a central area where past information of chemical communication (memory) is STORED and can be RECALLED. Having said this, I do find the topic to be very interesting mostly because it is outside-the-box type thinking.

 

See here for some reviews of the research you cite on plant consciousness and intelligence--you will see that not all plant biologists agree with the conclusions reached by the authors you cite--in fact, the first review is very negative (this is why science is so powerful, all knowledge is uncertain):

 

http://pico.sssup.it/files/allegati/2007_2330.pdf

 

Plant Intelligence: an Alternative Point of View -- FIRN 93 (4): 345 -- Annals of Botany

Plant intelligence: why, why not or where? [Plant Signal Behav. 2009] - PubMed result

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

 

==

Also, my problem with your use of "conscious" relates to your definition of the term.

 

I define "conscious" as a faculty that can perceive that which exists. So, it is not enough to say a plant cell can communicate with another plant cell, or that a plant root tip cell is aware of water in its environment. For me, to be conscious, plants must contain a faculty (composed of tissue) where perception activity can be localized (where storage AND recall of past information is such that the past can impact future actions). Where in the apple tree do we find such a faculty that can perceive that which exists outside of it ?--clearly it is NOT in the root tips.

 

Of course, evolutionary theory would predict that plants may use similar or same chemicals to communicate in a non-conscious way as higher animals use those same chemicals in a conscious way. This, imo, is the importance of the paper above you cite.

 

To say "brain" controlled behavior, is similar to "brain-like" behavior, is like to saying the view of the violin player in the mirror is similar to the violin player whose image is taken to the mirror by photons of light. As there is no violin in the mirror, there is no faculty of "brain" consciousness in the plant.

[Turtle]

I don't want to get into political disputes here, I'm only mentioning social matters, so I won't discuss who I assume is disseminating the message, certainly with no intent of humour or parody (also with no reference to Deteriorata nor Desiderata).

 

The general message we plebeans have been hearing is: you have no rights, you're already lucky enough to be alive at all, so just watch your step, shut up and don't complain. Those who step on your face have simply been more lucky and, if they can get away with it, they're entitled to it.

 

aint it the simple truth. i think the citizens of uruk made the exact same complaints word-for-word. what we need is a hairy man.

 

Lampoon's intent might have been humorous back then, but look at some of the comments on YouTube today. Words of wisdom! :doh: I've done my best to hope that was meant about Desiderata and not about Deteriorata, but it's a tough stretch of the imagination...

...

Interesting. I'm one of those who had always seen Desiderata purported as being an old manuscript, found in some old church in Baltimore; I never saw the original text and I wasn't even sure whether they meant Baile an Tí Mhóir. Some folks also tend to think of the title as being the author's cherishing address of the fine young lady he was writing for. Urban legends, I guess.

 

i'm a bit confused by the wording in that first paragraph, but i always found the desiderata a hope conveying article. for me the humor in the lampoon is largley come from knowing the original it is meant to twist. i suppose perhaps that's considred trivia, or maybe just an indication of our ages. :doh: :hihi: makes for an easy out-of-context application of the deteriorata that comes off as just plain mean fo shizzle. oh snap! anyways, i grant you right off that i require a translation of "Baile an Tí Mhóir". i've had little success in the past with online translators and your regional dialects (if that's what this is. :shrug:). :) i hadn't heard the l'amore di interessi angle before; i think i first saw the poem in an issue of whole earth catalog.

 

in closing, i'll take a more direct political stab into some of our social politics on this side of the pond, what with we all being accidentally by nature socio-political creatures and all - and me specifically one accidental socio-polital peep who is all too fond of the prod for his own good - and suggest your general message rather sums up, and would serve well as a slogan for, our conservative/republican/teaparty folk of these days. they aren't trying to rid us of the evils of our political systems, they just want to be the ones doing them. well, ... i do run on. ;)

 

so seque to the original question, and we all having settled that an accident is as an accident does, i'm curious to hear from paige what prompted the change in his view to include the possibility of life as an accident. you know...curious is as curious does. :eek:

[Qfwfq]

i'm a bit confused by the wording in that first paragraph, but i always found the desiderata a hope conveying article.

Sorry for any confusion, "words of wisdom" is in one of the comments on Deteriorata that seemed to be meant literally, my hope that it was indirectly meant about Desiderata is somewhat rarefied.

 

for me the humor in the lampoon is largley come from knowing the original it is meant to twist. i suppose perhaps that's considred trivia, or maybe just an indication of our ages. :hihi: :shrug: makes for an easy out-of-context application of the deteriorata that comes off as just plain mean fo shizzle. oh snap!

:doh:

Even though a few details are clearly not meant seriously, it is quite prone to be taken literally.

 

i require a translation of "Baile an Tí Mhóir".

Which language did you try on Google's list? The dialect of San Pietro in Cariano, or that of Piove di Sacco? Well, my stomping grounds have varied across Veneto over the decades and I've even read a couple of things by Ruzzante, alias Angelo Beolco, in the Venetic of the 15 hundreds but, no, that's not the right area.

 

The translation is Town of the Big House but, oddly enough, this isn't the official Irish Gaelic name of the town (which is Dún na Séad meaning Fort of the Jewels, in reference to the O'Driscoll castle); despite this, the other phrase is what the anglicized name of the town was contracted from.

 

BTW does anybody here know where Hollywood is?

 

your general message rather sums up, and would serve well as a slogan for, our conservative/republican/teaparty folk of these days

I still haven't figured out these new teabaggers, I was kinda thinking more along the lines of the neo's but we're close enough it seems. ;)

 

so seque to the original question, and we all having settled that an accident is as an accident does, i'm curious to hear from paige what prompted the change in his view to include the possibility of life as an accident. you know...curious is as curious does. :eek:

Jungle Law. That's where the Deteriorata certainly comes into the picture.

 

No doubt that Justice, Rights and Law are figments of our minds that came of us being a social species. Down through the past millenia we have built up and constructed them because they have aided us in the Jungle Law against other living species. Cooperation is a good thing and it's the capability of verbal communication that our species developped, along with that of manipulation, that brought us where we are.

 

That's why, over the past handful of centuries, we transited from wars between tribes or clans through wars between increasingly large nations and now we strive to avoid war between an Asian block and the rest (with Putin piping occasionally up again). This comes along with global strategy and plenty of proxy wars, so even to avoid the bigger war they're resorting to propaganda, which sometimes includes all these kinky ideas that dismantle those on which modern civilization was built.

 

That's why it is dangerous to go along with the idea, based on Jungle Law and the random way in which life began and evolved, that we should have no laws and rights at all except for those of people who have the resources to uphold and enforce them. Heck, Charlemagne's scheme of vassalage, for keeping Europe united against its enemies, didn't work all that well; whenever the Saracens were less of a threat it was back to feuds battling each other and the Holy Roman Emperor being trampled as much as Ban Ki Moon.

 

So I think that the best way for our species to keep faring better in the global jungle (which includes the environment) is to all be increasingly aware that we are one of the most social of all species and that this is a significant part of how we came to dominate the planet. Yes, we are a fluke of the universe, but this is no reason to destroy what we have all conquered together.

[Vox]

..Of course, evolutionary theory would predict that plants may use similar or same chemicals to communicate in a non-conscious way as higher animals use those same chemicals in a conscious way. This, imo, is the importance of the paper above you cite.

 

I fully acknowledge the challenge using the word consciousness due it is very much "earmarked" to be symbol for human consciousness..but from my perspective we should use some word/symbol tor reflect that life contains awareness/ consiousness in some form or another.. we could try to use "lower grade words" than awareness/consciousness to define animals and plants events.. but it need to be acknowledged with some word/symbol and should be in the sentence itself. Being stubborn...yes