any help?

i am reading this book: the way life works (by mahlon hoagland & bert dodson) and i find i therefore really can not accept an old idea that living thing is from non living thing, because it mentions ‘message’ (hope my translation is correct! this term is also the topic of chapter 3). so now i am always thinking that our universe must be a living thing. if we look it a bit more serious then as a very initial start, can anyone cite some examples to show the similarities between a living thing and a non living thing? i was never very good at any science subject so i even don’t know how to begin to think about this. my ultimate hope is i can see message at non living things, from maybe a different angle and explanation system with our present science but of course it is also a science view.

the above is the totally same idea with this one: like everything else in universe human being is non living thing.

p.s. it is no problem to tell me i am stupid! i need response!

one way i imagine (using a pre-modern science brain) is to analyse (see) the things message does into (as) the changing process (phenomenon) of physics and chemistry, then try to find the part and similar phenomenon of them in the universe but not happening in a living thing.

hi pandunppp! topics like this confuse me, i must admit, so i have not responded to this post but will now because your quote:

was to cute for me to pass up.

let me know if i got this right. the book you are reading, which i haven’t read, is that the universe was able to develop from non-living matter. you can’t accept this argument if this is true, you seem to be saying, then perhaps us humans are also non-living. this is a flaw in your logic; the original argument is not that non-living matter has created a non-living universe, but that non-living matter can potentially create life.

you question seems to be:

and i would reply that the similarity between living and non-living thing is that they are both created. whether the universe did arise from ‘dead’ matter or not is not as important as expelling how that matter came into existence.

hope that helps!

thanks for helping to explain the problem i meet. it doesn’t appear in that book just a popular and old idea i associate with.

it helps, thanks! falling down in the science ocean you(me of course!) sometimes can see nothing to guide the direction. all the sea water around you looks the same and nothing else you can see, like coast or something.


and i would reply that the similarity between living and non-living thing is that they are both created. whether the universe did arise from ‘dead’ matter or not is not as important as expelling how that matter came into existence.

The theory is that is wasnt even a void, it was just nothing, which is hard to imagine. The concept that mass and energy are interchangeable, in other words they are part of the same phenomenon: and both are affected by gravity. Gravity is attracted to everything else and is acting in effect as a negative force. So if all the were put together - the result would be zero(neutral).

But in contemplation if the perception of matter in-itself is non living: a rock is perhap’s gain sensation but has no mind faculty’s to comprehend.

The interesting point is we start from a none conscious point, but have now became experiencing people, its how did we get from “dead” matter to existence. There is a theory and it’s been tested, this is that life(or the fundimentals characterist’s) do have ground’s in thunder; meaning mainly methane/ammonia and small amounts of other chemicals when hit with a spark of a thunder-bolt- they creat simple “amnio acids”, which are the origins life(the building block towards simple bacteria).
So in a way we do existant “dead” matter that got a big load of energy.

I find that quite bewildering.
anyweres for making me think about that, its puzzling

that’s a really interesting concept Umm that i haven’t seen extended to the very origins of the universe. it makes me appreciate consciousness even more :slight_smile:

I can’t find the post or topic, or even remember the name of who wrote this originally, but to paraphrase them:

“Taken on it’s own a single atom from the eye can’t see; yet these atoms working together give us sight”. And likewise the atoms that make a living body and a dead body are the same, for a period of time after death. So what is the magic ingredient that creates what we would call life? Hence the need for the concept of the ‘Soul’. The Universe works differently at different levels of complexity in size on both the miniscule and the massive, as the rules seem to change. So if we look at a beating heart and then a dead heart if we examine them microscopically they would appear to be made from the same substances. Yet one is considered living the other dead, how does the properties change between the two examinations. Or if both are made from the same matter how come one is dead and the other living, as the same matter is used in the construction of both hearts? Is it fair to say that matter is dead? Personally I believe that all matter is living, though it’s not always conscious.

i can agress with you, Pax, if the concept is limited to the ancient greek terminology which really only indicates a life force. to have consciouness means we are alive, we die, that extra ‘zap’ that Ummm was talking about fades away. but one of the first things i learned in high school science was the power of electrons; they never die, just change. which leads me to agree with your next point:

i guess the question, for this thread, is how did consciousness arise? how was it developed? does it grow with time – i.e. the cavemen might have limited consciouness, the middle ages might have had more, and today we might have the most, but 100 years from will there be humans with a higher degree of consciouness?

for me, that is what is most interesting about humans. maybe we have just been given a zap, no different from any other matter, but we have sure done a hell of a lot more with that zap than anything else. that we are having this conversation now speaks to this on so many different levels.

the annoying question of why keeps popping up for me, and i don’t really have any answer. thoughts?

trix wrote

How do we possibly even start to compehend “the birth of consciouness”.

Quite simply, it has taken a long time.
There in a sence there is a force, or more like “energy” stored within stone;
everything we sense externally is energy(that’s why we have no idea what dark matter is). In the brain is alot of energy in comparision with the rest of the organ’s, so the mind is some sort of sponge or battery been charged by the external environment. Perhap’s im going too far on the “energy” path, or perhap’s bacterial manipulation is the earliest life known and the right line’s to think down. A very fundimental self awareness–could of provoked a move from body to nuclei of a large celled creater–but more than likely it didnt. It is likely to have went from the smallest most unnoticable change in behaviour, continued over and over, eventually perhap’s a change in environment was externally predicted; indicated with a evolving exterior. Or a simple like and dislike priorly anticipated.


We’ll we do come fundimentally from “dead” matter, with a huge biz of energy zapped through it. After thing’s just went extremely slow, so slow that we could’nt add it all up. Anyone else any idea’s?

this is actually a little funny. now i think my question has basically been ‘solved’ by your great science. probability collects every necessary element together, including a self feedback system, energy supply, energy consumption, etc, etc.

i am wrong. this book mentions it in chapter 7: evolution.

i think this is a question about how we actually define life and soul. i ever thought soul were message(gene) for a while but now i know it is not. (). another thing is what is or can be a body.

Living organism: Biotic component
Non living factor: Abiotic component

Biotic factor is living organism in environment…animals, and saprophytism.
Abiotic factor is pH, Humidity, Temperature, Topography, and Light Intensity.