Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin

[Wilikon]

[...]
The 101 version of his big idea is this: Under the right conditions, a random group of atoms will self-organize, unbidden, to more effectively use energy. Over time and with just the right amount of, say, sunlight, a cluster of atoms could come remarkably close to what we call life. In fact, here’s a thought: Some things we consider inanimate actually may already be “alive.” It all depends on how we define life, something England’s work might prompt us to reconsider. “People think of the origin of life as being a rare process,” says Vijay Pande, a Stanford chemistry professor. “Jeremy’s proposal makes life a consequence of physical laws, not something random.”

England’s idea may sound strange, even incredible, but it’s drawn the attention of an impressive posse of high-level academics. After all, while Darwinism may explain evolution and the complex world we live in today, it doesn’t account for the onset of intelligent beings. England’s insistence on probing for the step that preceded all of our current assumptions about life is what makes him stand out, says Carl Franck, a Cornell physics professor, who’s been following England’s work closely. “Every 30 years or so we experience these gigantic steps forward,” Franck says. “We’re due for one. And this might be it.”

[...]
England didn’t begin with number-crunching, though. During his postdoc research on embryonic development, he kept coming back to the question: What qualifies something as alive or not? He later superimposed an analytical rigor to that question, publishing an equation in 2013 about how much energy is required for self-replication to take place. For England, that investigation was only the beginning. “I couldn’t stop thinking about it,” he says, his normally deep voice rising until eventually cracking. “It was so frustrating.” Over the next year, he worked on a second paper, which is under peer review now. This one took his past findings and used them to explain theoretically how, under certain physical circumstances, life could emerge from nonlife.

In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. England doesn’t dispute this reasoning, but he argues that it’s too vague. For instance, he says, blue whales and phytoplankton thrive in the same environmental conditions — the ocean — but they do so by vastly different means. That’s because that while they’re both made of the same basic building blocks, strings of DNA are arranged differently in each organism.

Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?

These are pretty things to ponder. Unfortunately, England’s work hasn’t yet provided any answers, leaving the professor in a kind of speculative state as he doggedly tries to put numbers to it all. “He hasn’t put enough cards on the table yet,” Franck says. “He’ll need to make more testable predictions.” So it remains to be seen where England will land in the end. Other scientists have made similar claims about energy dissipation in the context of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, but none has found a definitive means for applying this science to the origin of life.



http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217?utm_source=HF1&utm_medium=pp&utm_campaign=pp

[1714827516]

1714827516

[1714827516]

1714827516

[1714827516]

1714827516

[1714827516]

1714827516

[1714827516]

1714827516

[Tusk]

GREAT FIND! wow such a refreshing perspective that the bacteria in my gut tell me is pointing a way out of the cul de sac we have been lost in. I think the universe is Alive! everything is as much a product of its environment and the environment is the sum of the parts. Through cycles of energy/entropy, oxidation/reduction  electricity/magnetism ...etc all the parts are connected in a cosmic dance. Consciousness is an evolutionary frontier with a cycle of free will and empathy.   

[Wilikon]

GREAT FIND! wow such a refreshing perspective that the bacteria in my gut tell me is pointing a way out of the cul de sac we have been lost in. I think the universe is Alive! everything is as much a product of its environment and the environment is the sum of the parts. Through cycles of energy/entropy, oxidation/reduction  electricity/magnetism ...etc all the parts are connected in a cosmic dance. Consciousness is an evolutionary frontier with a cycle of free will and empathy.   

Everything is one. We are on our way to find out. Hopefully.

[BitMos]

IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of  .

[Wilikon]

IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of  .

You should read the whole article. He does too.

[Spendulus]

....
Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?
.....

And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. 

Smart Beer!

And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people.

Smart Tomatos!

And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet.  Obviously this is the work of...

Smart Trees!

[TheButterZone]

A tomato will decompose because no animal nearby wants to eat it at its peak, until it is fully consumed by all lesser organisms so that it is no longer unattractive/visible to people.

[Wilikon]

....
Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?
.....

And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. 

Smart Beer!

And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people.

Smart Tomatos!

And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet.  Obviously this is the work of...

Smart Trees!

A judge said monkeys have human rights earlier this week...

Should crystal glasses be a protected group under opera singer's tortures, a billion years from now?

[Tusk]

....
Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism?
.....

And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. 

Smart Beer!

And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people.

Smart Tomatos!

And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet.  Obviously this is the work of...

Smart Trees!

I would like to point out that that the tomato only becomes antagonistic to the parts of the ecosystem that do not reciprocate, it rewards those that do. The fruit is nourishment to those who help disseminate its seed, in the roots of the plant, mycorrhizae is responsible for providing minerals in exchange for nutrients in a symbiotic relationship. This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. The most successful strategy is not survival of the fittest by individual domination but rather co-operation through mutualistic dynamics.

[ObscureBean]

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).

[TECSHARE]

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).

Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.

[ObscureBean]

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).

Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is.
Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness.

[TECSHARE]

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).

Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is.
Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness.

No one said anything about good deeds. I used the words symbiotic exchange. Either way you define it, it is not that complicated.  If you treat some one shitty enough times, they will themselves start going around and being shitty too in order to pass that negativity on to some one else. If you treat people well, they start treating other people well too because they have positivity to share. If it makes some ones life better or easier some how in addition to your own, it is a success, end of story. The acting party need not be aware of every ripple of causation that follows to contribute to the overall positive state of humanity, thus relieving some negative pressure that some other asshole created by being selfish as a result causing it to balance out.

Think of it like an aquifer. Some people just drink from it and use the water lowering the levels. If there weren't people processing the water to add water back into that aquifer, then everyone would go thirsty. Everyone who uses the water can try to conserve and use less, and some people can continue to just take more, but there is a limit to how much people can take before everything just breaks down, and eventually the takers will have nothing left to take along with the givers. Human happiness is a finite thing that is quantifiable and can be taken and given to people just like any other commodity. If you don't believe this to be true, just take a look at the entire marketing industry. It is designed to create malcontent in order to influence you to buy a product in order to relieve that negative tension.

As far as your last two sentences, I don't know what it is that I said that some how communicates to you that I think the world is fine the way it is. I made no such conclusions or implications either way regarding that, this statement is completely of your creation. Your last statement is just complete nonsense and is untrue. I am talking about doing things that are positive for yourself as well as others, I didn't say anyone had to be completely innocent or saintly. Good actions don't erase bad actions or vice-versa. A mass murderer can wake up one day and realize the error of their ways and start doing things that are positive for everyone, it doesn't make them a saint, it just makes them aware of how their actions effect others and willing to do something about it.

[ObscureBean]

This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness.

But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life).

Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce.

It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is.
Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness.

No one said anything about good deeds. I used the words symbiotic exchange. Either way you define it, it is not that complicated.  If you treat some one shitty enough times, they will themselves start going around and being shitty too in order to pass that negativity on to some one else. If you treat people well, they start treating other people well too because they have positivity to share. If it makes some ones life better or easier some how in addition to your own, it is a success, end of story. The acting party need not be aware of every ripple of causation that follows to contribute to the overall positive state of humanity, thus relieving some negative pressure that some other asshole created by being selfish as a result causing it to balance out.

Think of it like an aquifer. Some people just drink from it and use the water lowering the levels. If there weren't people processing the water to add water back into that aquifer, then everyone would go thirsty. Everyone who uses the water can try to conserve and use less, and some people can continue to just take more, but there is a limit to how much people can take before everything just breaks down, and eventually the takers will have nothing left to take along with the givers. Human happiness is a finite thing that is quantifiable and can be taken and given to people just like any other commodity. If you don't believe this to be true, just take a look at the entire marketing industry. It is designed to create malcontent in order to influence you to buy a product in order to relieve that negative tension.

As far as your last two sentences, I don't know what it is that I said that some how communicates to you that I think the world is fine the way it is. I made no such conclusions or implications either way regarding that, this statement is completely of your creation. Your last statement is just complete nonsense and is untrue. I am talking about doing things that are positive for yourself as well as others, I didn't say anyone had to be completely innocent or saintly. Good actions don't erase bad actions or vice-versa. A mass murderer can wake up one day and realize the error of their ways and start doing things that are positive for everyone, it doesn't make them a saint, it just makes them aware of how their actions effect others and willing to do something about it.

I'm sorry but I do not have the patience nor energy to elaborate further. Suffice it to say that my response addresses every single challenge you brought up in your comment. And as for your last comment well everything you talk about can still be resolved from my previous comment. However if you honestly think I am wrong then I most probably am.

[Wilikon]

And what if we could all one-up Jeremy England here withing this thread?

 

[cryptodevil]

In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment.

Wut?

Natural selection isn't intentional, it is the end result of erroneous gene mutation on replication!

Well-adapted organisms do not evolve 'in order to . . .' anything, they evolve as a by-product of gene mutation on replication resulting in the offspring of the organism possessing a slightly different characteristic which *may* or may not, prove to work in its favour in terms of surviving long enough to create more offspring with the same genetic change, only a number of those will have offspring which, while they carry the same genes, could end up mutating further or in a different way as well as the mutation they received from their parent organism which, also, may serve to better allow them to survive long enough to procreate.

If the mutations better serve the organism in the environment it is in, then it will have a better chance of out-surviving the organisms which don't carry the mutations.

There is no 'intent'.

<edit>
Ahh I see now in the original article why he is intentionally misrepresenting evolution

For his part, England believes science can give us explanations and predictions, but it can never tell us what we should do with that information. That’s where, he says, the religious teachings come in. Indeed, the man who’s one-upping Darwin has spent the past 10 years painstakingly combing through the Torah, interpreting it word by word much the way he ponders the meaning of life.

 

[Wilikon]

In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment.

Wut?

Natural selection isn't intentional, it is the end result of erroneous gene mutation on replication!

Well-adapted organisms do not evolve 'in order to . . .' anything, they evolve as a by-product of gene mutation on replication resulting in the offspring of the organism possessing a slightly different characteristic which *may* or may not, prove to work in its favour in terms of surviving long enough to create more offspring with the same genetic change, only a number of those will have offspring which, while they carry the same genes, could end up mutating further or in a different way as well as the mutation they received from their parent organism which, also, may serve to better allow them to survive long enough to procreate.

If the mutations better serve the organism in the environment it is in, then it will have a better chance of out-surviving the organisms which don't carry the mutations.

There is no 'intent'.

 

I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right?

[cryptodevil]

I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right?

Well the author intentionally misrepresented evolution, so he used his intelligence to design a falsehood and try and pass it off as a fact.

So there's *an* intelligent design example.

Evolution isn't.

[Wilikon]

I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right?

Well the author intentionally misrepresented evolution, so he used his intelligence to design a falsehood and try and pass it off as a fact.

So there's *an* intelligent design example.

Evolution isn't.

Is Evolution a byproduct of the fundamental forces pushing stuff around randomly, stuff that would become eventually sentient?

[cryptodevil]

No, evolution applies to genetic mutation on replication in an organism.

Chemical elements do not evolve, they are formed.