The origin of life on earth

[georgi_zlatev]

Consciousness and substance are mutually connected with.Without consciousness substance is useless.Substance has weight,colour,size but without consciousness these properties are useless.The origin of substance is origin of consciousness.If there is no substance or space there is no need of consciousness.Consciousness is like a shadow to the substance.Consciousness contains information about the substance.

The life on our planet derives fom this interaction between substance and consciousness.If there is planet with similar conditions of living we may suppose that there is life on it.The consciousness influence the substance,I do not know how, but is the reason for the life on earth.Consciousness is like a program which drives substance toward living organism.

[Ophiolite]

Consciousness was absent from the Earth for two or three billion years during which life thrived. How do you account for that?

[swansont]

I see a lot of assertions but not much in the way of support for those assertions.

[Phi for All]

Implied is that all life is conscious. Nobody has ever been able to support that argument effectively. You should start with what you mean by consciousness.

 

Inorganic substances have many qualities that make them useful, even if only to the ecosystem they're part of. I don't think substance and consciousness are mutually connected. You may need substance before you can have consciousness, but the reverse isn't true.

[Ten oz]

I do not see anything about "Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology" in the thread starter.

[georgi_zlatev]

The consciousness is opposite to substance.The consciousness is opposite characterization to substance.The consciousness and substance appeared simultaneously with the Big Bang.

[Phi for All]

The consciousness is opposite to substance.The consciousness is opposite characterization to substance.The consciousness and substance appeared simultaneously with the Big Bang.

 

You're using the word "opposite" in a non-mainstream way that confuses me. I don't know if it's a translation problem, or if you're just putting words together that sound like what's inside your head. Either way, the way you state these declarations, as if you have some kind of strong evidence to back them up, requires some kind of strong evidence to back them up.

[Hendrick Laursen]

I don't get, are we discussing how the biochemical life evolved or how the consciousness appeared. If it's the second then the topic question is really bemusing.