Origins of Life Question?

Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.

BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED

The COOL EDGE Workshop was the brainchild of American theoretical biologist and expert in the complexity of biological systems and organisms, Stuart Kauffman. “If we do not organize our field we are in danger of drifting into scattered, uncoordinated groups that make little progress,” said Kauffman in an interview with the CERN Bulletin after the first meeting in 2011. “By coordinating our efforts, we believe we can make more rapid strides.”

“We are happy to share our experience with large-scale collaborations with the life scientists participating in the COOL EDGE Workshop 2013,” says Sergio Bertolucci, director for research and computing who opened the meeting on Tuesday. “The CERN model is an example (and a successful one!) of how large international collaborations can actually work. We are happy if we can also be of help to other communities.” See:
CERN, life science and the origins of life

See Also:

The workshop at the CERN meeting focused attention on the metabolism first approach. Both it and the RNA world need exploration. The meeting ended with a proposal to get the research community organized behind a common effort, hopefully benefiting from the experience of CERN in fostering international collaboration.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Origins of Life Question?

  1. PlatoHagel says:

    Hi RBM,Thanks for reference.We’ve been reviewing the response this past weekend to our decision to move two TEDx talks off the TEDx YouTube channel and over here onto the main TED Blog. We’d like to recap here what happened and suggest a way forward.UPDATE: To discuss the talks, view them here See:Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Graham Hancock gave a passionately argued talk in which he described the transformative impact that ayahuasca (containing the drug DMT) had had on him and argued that responsible adult usage of such drugs was a fundamental right. The talk was viewed more than 130,000 times on YouTube.TED’s scientific advisors who viewed the talk expressed to us grave concerns about it. For example, it suggests a world view in which DMT can connect users directly to “seemingly intelligent entities which communicate with us telepathically.” Graham Hancock does state he makes no claim to the reality status of these entities, but he also argues that they can teach and heal us, claims that are well outside orthodox scientific thinking. See:The debate about Graham Hancock’s talkIn respect of consciousness research, one can see where scientists can place themselves, with respect to their own other interests. This, when dealing with the science trades. A venture then, into new paradigms can can seem counter too, when aligning them self with those new paradigmatic views.The future then, is to demonstrate that new paradigmatic views are acceptable and have a science background. New consciousness research, has the stability to the views respective of developing new research into consciousness.There will always be bumps in the road toward acceptance by science culture and society. Future development toward that end, is what is require as skepticism holds all minds that delve deeply, to the benefit for any of us to understand what that might mean as we advance in conceptual breakthroughs.Ultimately in reference to Stuart's reckoning, a end of life journey will be encounter and only then can we can know? That is not my answer, but one gleamed from many who cut short the answer to consciousness research. Stuart, supplies a framework, biased from his research while developing \”theoretical biology.\” The key word here is \”theoretician\” as a conceptual exploration of the subjectivity of his encounter with his biology. IN that sense, the eye is cast toward a world on level most humans would not venture and dare to say exists without Stuart to point the way.Best,

  2. rbmacn says:

    I posted a thread at INTJf titled 'Consciousness; Old Paradigm, New Paradigm that should clarify.The 'James date' came from the Wiki page for *Digital Physics*. I didn't look up the originals.

  3. PlatoHagel says:

    Hi RBM,RBM:the most recent TED/consciousness controversyAre we talking about TED policies here and the rejection of TED Talks. I cannot remember exactly the issue?RBM:If one uses Edwin James papers in '57 as the starting line,I have not seen these papers, could you elaborate.The synthetic path to investigating the world is the logical space occupied by Gell-Mann, the biologist Stuart Kauffman, the computer scientist Christopher G. Langton, and the physicist J. Doyne Farmer, and their colleagues in and around Los Alamos and the Santa Fe Institute. See: A Possible Solution For The Problem Of Time In Quantum Cosmology(added link to Gell-Mann in quote)In a sense, this is a precursor to how Lee Smolin's new book appears on the question of time, and how it started?Actually to me Stuart is a kind of thinker that is trying to approach the world couched from his expertise, and science is looking at his methods in concert with the question of \”Origins of Life.\”I think one has to feel comfortable with themselves as a scientist in terms of \”remaining open\” to other perspectives in life, and not to feel that such perception should be rejected based on one's own biased world view.This flexibility although not a scientist, is what allowed me to continued to look at Campbell in terms of the digital analog and comparative standpoint. Yet, I understand well the perspective he had ventured into in terms of his exploration of consciousness.While Stuart may be talking from his science background, he uses it to challenge his perspective of the world. In that sense over the years regardless of his supposed atheistic platform, I believe he will come to a reckoning of a kind with regard to his realizations. It's just a matter of time. Inductive/deductive realizations will bring him to a point of what is self evident as to his question of what is emergent. In a way, Stuart represents to me the idea of a Cross pollination that is going on in science right now (see above quote) that brings respective sciences together to gather new perspective on the current approaches.It is sort of like breathing new life into methods that have become stagnated are crying for some revolution in order to break free of what has been a parametrized method of thinking. Very Rigid.Best,

  4. rbmacn says:

    BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACREDOne more thinker that limits their thinking.As I recall, from the most recent TED/consciousness controversy, the Copernican revolution only took a few centuries to occur. If one uses Edwin James papers in '57 as the starting line, the paradigm change is mere decades old.Oh well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s