Luc Turpin

I strongly disagree! Don't get it!

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

The art of amplifying a thought to its extreme in order to ridicule or mock it. Now, is that a productive tactic in a good discussion? And just to add a little flair, how about downvoting this post too? It’s possible that nature is more alive and conscious than we initially thought, though not everything possesses life or awareness. In previous posts, I’ve provided numerous examples suggesting that nature is more alive than we once believed. As for consciousness, I’ve presented human experiences that seem perplexing when viewed through a purely brain-based lens, suggesting that there may be aspects of consciousness we don't yet understand—maybe, just maybe, there’s more to it than we think. I share some affinities with de Chardin, though not all of his ideas, particularly the noosphere. I’m also influenced by thinkers like Stapp, Josephson, Capra (expirential), Hameroff, and Penrose—those who believe there’s more to life and consciousness than our current understanding suggests. However, this perspective doesn’t extend to inanimate matter like rocks, air, or solar winds, as pointed out earlier.

The conventional view of reality often leans toward a 'matter-based' perspective, where the universe is seen as a collection of particles and forces interacting in deterministic or probabilistic ways - a machine. However, when life collaborates with matter to express itself, and quantum biology is taken into account, reality begins to appear more life-like than matter-like. This fusion suggests that life may be more fundamental to the fabric of the universe than previously believed. Rather than merely a complex arrangement of particles, it makes reality feel more organic, interconnected, and dynamic - not entirely behaving as a machine. Might life-like principles have played a bigger role in abiogenesis than anticipated?

I did my best, which isn't much, but oh well. It was meant to spark a discussion, but I suppose that won't be happening.

Life Partnering with Matter to Express Life Living organisms interact with and shape matter to create and sustain life. From biomineralization to enzyme catalysis and photosynthesis, life processes directly transform matter into functional biological structures and processes. Biomineralization: Life and Matter Interacting: Weiner, S., & Dove, P. M. (2003). "An Overview of Biomineralization." In: Weiner S, Dove PM, editors. Biomineralization. Academic Press. This work discusses how organisms like corals, mollusks, and bacteria use the surrounding environment to create minerals that provide structural support, demonstrating how life transforms matter into complex biological structures. Enzyme Catalysis and Matter Manipulation: Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2015). Biochemistry. 8th ed., W.H. Freeman and Company. This textbook highlights how enzymes interact with substrates to catalyze reactions, showcasing how life (through proteins) manipulates chemical matter to carry out vital functions such as metabolism and energy transfer. Quantum Coherence in Photosynthesis: *Engel, G. S., et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes." Nature. This study demonstrates how photosynthetic organisms utilize quantum coherence to efficiently transfer energy, showing how life partners with quantum mechanical properties of matter to optimize biological processes. Self-Organization in Biological Systems: Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press. Kauffman explores self-organization in biological systems, where life, through natural processes like chemical evolution, leads to the formation of organized structures and functions, illustrating how life shapes matter to express biological systems. Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself. The Role of Quantum Coherence in Prebiotic Chemistry: *Escher, M., et al. (2017). "The role of quantum coherence in prebiotic chemistry." Nature Communications. This study investigates the potential influence of quantum coherence in molecular assembly, proposing that quantum effects may have facilitated the assembly of complex prebiotic molecules critical for life’s origin. Quantum Tunneling in Biological Processes: *Barton, J. K., & Kohn, D. B. (2016). "Quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research explores the role of quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis and its relevance to early prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that tunneling could have accelerated critical reactions for abiogenesis. Quantum Mechanics and the Formation of RNA-like Molecules: *Gabbay, D., et al. (2013). "The role of quantum mechanics in the formation of RNA-like molecules." BioSystems. This paper discusses how quantum mechanical phenomena, particularly tunneling, could have played a role in the chemical reactions leading to the formation of the first RNA molecules, supporting the RNA World Hypothesis. Quantum Decoherence and Early Chemical Evolution: *Tegmark, M. (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review. Although focused on brain processes, this study touches on the broader implications of quantum interactions in molecular systems, which could have been essential for early chemical evolution leading to life.

Life Alongside Matter: Life and matter might not have a strict cause-and-effect relationship, with life existing alongside and interacting with matter. How could that be? Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter. Information: Life is an information processing mechanism, while matter serves as the information storage and transmission medium. Information, not just physical matter, drives life's processes. Life emerges from the organization of information, with matter providing the structure but information guiding the process.

Assume, yes; but don’t claim it as a fact without a clear mechanism for transforming matter into life. Science has explored alternative possibilities in other fields; why not do the same for abiogenesis? Well, I nearly fell off my chair reading this post! It’s the first one, aside from Gee, that doesn’t completely contradict what I’m saying. What’s wrong with combining 'source' and 'place' in the same statement? This happens all the time in discussions about abiogenesis.

My post was intended to be constructive, even acknowledging my partial responsibility. However, your response feels less constructive. Despite its flaws, the conversation we’re having is far more substantive than many others I’ve encountered on this forum, and the number of posts and views seems to reflect that. While you and the other moderators have the authority to shut it down, I believe doing so would be regrettable. Yes, the discussion is messy, but there are valuable insights to be found—such as the exchange between Genady and Exchemist and CharonY on natural principles, or the conversation between Gee and Swansont on forum tactics, to name a few. I’m trying to be helpful, but it seems I’m not succeeding. Isn’t science about forming hypotheses and testing them through falsification? Why should this principle not apply to abiogenesis? Aren’t there competing theories and viewpoints within science? To clarify, I’m not proposing alternative theories. My point is simply that claiming life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is both premature and overly simplistic. I also believe science has become so closely tied to this explanation—and similar ones—that it has somewhat neglected its responsibility to explore all viable possibilities. That is the crux of my argument. When I mentioned quantum biology and the holographic principle, my intention was to highlight that they are significantly different perspectives on the issue, not to advocate for them. Yet, I was asked to defend these ideas. The same applies to information theory, which offers a unique angle on abiogenesis. When I suggested that life might align with matter rather than arise from it, my goal was to present other potential alternatives—not to argue that life exists without matter. Before claiming that I’m contradicting myself based on the previous paragraph, I should clarify that I nearly had to invent a possible link to abiogenesis to include them in the discussion, not that they are actually being taken seriously by science.

Discussions on this forum should centre on questioning ideas, not attacking individuals. Everyone should make an effort to read carefully and fully understand what’s being said—sometimes rereading a post or requiring reviewing previous posts for context—before responding. I, myself, am partly guilty of this as well.

Apologies for the post; I realize I misrepresented natural principles. I’m starting to feel that some of this is becoming futile, both for myself and for those responding to my posts. Being freed from religion while retaining one’s spirituality is truly a state of bliss. Catching someone on technicalities seems to be a common tactic in these forums. I completely agree. After studying consciousness for some time, I’ve come to wonder: does the mind emerge from the brain, or does it flow through it? I’m genuinely sorry to hear about your situation. I truly hope things improve for you as much as they can. Let’s take this conversation offline. There’s no need for harsh language. Life might exists alongside matter, not without it. Matter is essential for life to fully express itself. This conversation has drifted from my original intention, and I take part of the responsibility for that. I’m not trying to suggest an alternative to life itself, but I do believe that the claim that life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is both premature and overly simplistic. Furthermore, I argue that science has become so closely tied to this and similar explanations that it has somewhat overlooked its duty to explore all viable possibilities. Again, we have drifted into the unknown with this conversation and there was no need for it. No, some people in this forum dismiss alternatives to prevailing scientific knowledge by labeling them as 'magic,' even when they are not. It’s a convenient way to avoid engaging in thoughtful conversation.

Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis."

Based on the available evidence, the leading hypothesis is that life originated from matter. However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. While it is not the leading theory, it remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed at this point in time.

I have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact before we could even begin discussing the topic, while another argument suggests that because life didn’t exist at the Big Bang, it must have emerged later in this very particular way and in only this particular way. However, I do agree that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation we have at this time. My main point is this: treating it as a demonstrated fact, without inquiry into other possible areas of inquiry, could limit scientific progress. This is a concern I have, and it’s the only point I’m trying to make at this stage. To me, it feels like the conclusion of abiogenesis is being accepted prematurely, without a clear mechanism in place, and then framed as the only viable explanation. While we can make similar leaps in other areas—like star formation, where we have a strong understanding of the process—this is not yet the case with abiogenesis. Lastly, I do not believe my argument constitutes a strawman. I’m simply asking for a more open approach to exploring and questioning the evidence. Before attempting to explain how something happened, it's essential to first establish that it actually did happen. How about we focus instead on discussing the limitations set forth by abiogenesis on scientific inquiry?

The point I wanted to make is the fact that abiogenesis hasn't been fully demonstrated and is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research. That said, this conversation seems to be veering toward 'gotcha' moments, which isn't the type of discussion I had in mind. I also take some responsibility for not presenting my arguments more convincingly. I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier.