Thursday, December 29, 2005

The BIG Question.

A lot has been said about life, God, origin, evolution, et cetera on my blog recently. People appreciate that the theory of evolution makes sense. But they say that still there are questions that science hasn't answered yet. The biggest question that popped up from the discussion and remains unanswered as yet was, What is life?
Talking objectively and not opining on what people believe or don't believe, here's what I've understood of life.
We are all made up of matter. For elaboration on that click here to learn it from Sumedh.
So is everything around us. Then what precisely makes us different from any other spatially and temporally bound functioning packet of energy? Its this ability to ask this question perhaps. Its the ability to see the colour of this font and call it by a name perhaps. Its the ability to be more than a passive functional unit and change the course of physical events as 'we' please. The ability to be aware of the physical and the abstract, to be aware of awareness itself makes us different. Its not just the series of physical reactions (i.e. chemical reactions at a finer level) that a stimulus initiates in the functional unit that 'we' call as 'our' body to present to 'our' cerebral cortex its form. I mean, the stimulus' visual, auditory, tactile or chemical form. I mean, its physical surface, its chemical composition and its spatial orientation. Thats just perceiving the sense of it. And as you know various associations start forming in 'our' brains following that and we react. Awareness works not just while identifying or learning about a stimulus, it works in knowing it. It percieves the object in an abstract frame.
Abstract is something that cannot be defined in physical terms. Its not the physical terms that we cannot understand, I'd like to clarify. But even abstract thinking is most of the times a logical chain of thoughts. And thoughts are various circuits activated together simultaneously.
It is actually the awareness of a living organism of itself that makes it different from the non living. What psychologists use for the seemingly most intelligent species, the ID or the EGO exist in every unicellular organism and perhaps in 'living' viruses and prions too. It is the awareness of the self , the basis of which is that the self is different from the non-self. Now it makes perfect sense that living 'substances' require a system to perceive the differences between the self and the non-self, to identify the differences and another system to express their reaction to the differences. So there are the sensors, the processros and the motors.
Life formed in such a way that it was programmed to identify and protect the self. Its the same kind of programme that fuses hydrogen nuclei to form the Sun. This is the divine knowledge, in fact, knowledge itself is a property of life. But again its the physical forces that act in enabling life to be life.
A new-born child is only aware of its self. So it cries when its hungry. Because it has been programmed to identify the stimulus it recieves and classify it as good or bad for itself and react to protect itself. As she grows up, millions of stimuli shape her knowledge of the self. She defines good and bad more frequently now. Then she understands others' perception of hers. She compares her understanding with theirs and now she knows herself in a different and so-called more mature perspective.
But there is a still higher entity in the structure of life. Self is mine. There is a ME. When I address myself, I am aware of me and not just myself. Its not just the difference between me and my surroundings, its me. Its not my name, my sex, my nationality, my race, my physical form or a combination of these. It is me. In one word, its the consciousness thats me.
Hmmm... The mist seems to be forming again. What is consciousness? What am I referring to when I say I? My body, my thoughts, my emotions, my will? Am I just a thought, i.e. , a collection of neuronal circuits simultaneously activated in my brain? If so then where do I produce will from? Is my will only an expression of what my instincts (as yet unlocalized circuits) say is good for my self? Would I not have any will if I couldn't be aware of my physical or abstract worlds? Or do my worlds exist only because I do? The world is as it seems to the observer. I am the observer. Awareness, consciousness, self, I, will, would define life by their definition. Dive into the mist of the mystery called life to get the answer or surrender by accepting anything that anyone has to say.
You make the choice, while I pop-up a pill of Valium!

5 Comments:

At Thursday, December 29, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To begin with,lemme make an honest confession...I do not have the answers to most of your answers...make that none!!...simply cuz my mind never dared to trail off on this track!!!...science n technology can today(or at least in the next say 5-10 years maybe) explain probably everything one ever wonders...emotions can be equated wih neurotransmitter changes,actions can be equated with trained behavioural patterns and probably tomorow(or maybe even today!) instincts and will, will be linked to some sort of a neuronal activity at a specific given locus in that huge thing called the cerebral cortex....what with gene mapping and chromosomal analysis,you wud probably even have a study establishing a certain instinctual bahaviour wid a certain genotype(akin to personality types maybe!).....
BUT at the end of the day,inspite of such elaborate dissections of our physical and mental self,where do we stand?....understanding life maybe,you'd say!!....perfect!...BUT take a look outside the four walls of the room harbouring ur computer and you see LIFE....u see a toddler trying to walk n u see life,u see an ageing couple trying to help each other cross the road and you see LIFE,you see a colourful butterfly fluttering its tender wings and u see LIFE....the galli ka kutta,the milkman,the sabzi-walla,the rose bud which is waiting to bloom,the fishes swimming lazily in your fish-pond,the leaves which rustle by unnoticed,the insect buzzing around you....life in its myriad forms is indeed beautiful...AND probably that itself makes u wonder what exactly is life?..doesn't it...and so we come back to square one!...and even though i guess u don't quite appreciate the "i think" kinda comments...I cant help "thinking"..:-) that life is just another form of expression!!...every aspect that you can think off finds an expression in one form or the other of life!!...the grumpy dog,the lazy fish,the elated butterfly!!!...(ok...ok 4give me for the transferred epithets...you see "The world is as it seems to the observer. I am the observer"....
But a thought that crosses my mind now is ..is life limited only to the so called "animate" objects...who respond to stimulus,respire,reproduce and so on?...or does it include under its perview a much larger spectrum encompassing the dust settling on your window-panes,the brick-mortar structure you call "walls",the gas stove,the tea-pot...and maybe even the abstract!!..your thoughts,your feelings,your ambitions..what we choose to call "inanimate"....hmmmm...i guess its gettin a li'l too abstract now..and off the track maybe...but hey allow me to copy dis one on my blog!..
To conclude,on a lighter note,as SHABNAM would rightly agree,"LIFE is not just about living,its about LIVING!"

 
At Thursday, December 29, 2005, Blogger spriha said...

Yeah okay... Thats life to us from an emotional poetic perspective. Tell you what, thats the pov that I need, to inspire myself to explore life scientifically.
By the way, what do you mean I don't appreciate "I think" kinda comments? Have you never read the thing at the top of my blog?
By the way its really great that you could survive all of that...
Thanks buddy...

 
At Thursday, December 29, 2005, Blogger Shiva said...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! What a post!... You sure are on fire girl... 3 HUGE posts on the same topic??? Whoa!!.. Anyway, i have used up all my vocabulary in commenting my thoughts in your previous posts... and with no new vocabulary to use, my mind cannot think of any thing new to comment on such megaloblastic earth shattering topics...

I'm pretty excited about new year's... can't even study due to the excitement... but sould be updating my blog soon enough...

And @ sumedh: How were your exams? Visited your page... it was great! Very fascinating stuff... Especially the Mathematical calculations...

 
At Friday, December 30, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

first, many thanks spriha and shiva for your kind words on my site :-) glad you liked it.

somewhere in para #2 you said that living things have the ability to change the course of events as per their wishes because they have what inanimate things don't have - that being life.

in order to make this statement, you must first assume a detached frame of reference - a "3rd person" approach. as in the living club vs. the nonliving club where club 1 has control over itself and the other club, whereas club 2 is totally silent (passive units).

as a corollary, you must also assume that there are two distinct clubs in the gamut of creation as a whole.

so, where i think this assumption falters is that its unlikely that "creation" (no debate here on the creator okay), made up of the same building blocks, suddenly dichotomizes at a certain level so as to produce "thinking, aware individuals", and a "dumb everything else".

i think the spectrum is of immense help in understanding this. at one end you have the elements, which look quite dumb to us, and at the other end are we the evolved humans, like Darwin, who are so smart and can understand the whole process of evolution etc etc.

having understood these things, with our limitations, of course, we form certain conclusions and draw our lines on the dead and the living. but one must realize that our perception is a huge liability. we perceive far less than all that is there to be perceived. just take for example sight - all we can see is 400-800 nm out of the whole humungous electromagnetic spectrum. and we aware humans say that "seeing is believing".

my point is that this can easily be extrapolated to other senses (devices of awareness), which we find are so inadequate in a lot of ways.

so because of the "apparent" differences we feel that there's something called living, and something else called non-living.

by the way, why make such a distinction at all? you and the keyboard you type on are made up of the same matter! fundamentally you're the SAME - proton, electron, neutron (and whatever meson, quark, lepton...) isn't that enough reason to believe that there should be no dichotomy?

let's just accept that we are yet to see that similarity due to our shortcomings. for centuries people thought that trees are "nonliving", until dr. subhash chandra bose did his famous electric stimulation and other experiments. this, like the smoke screen of mystery, shall continue to behold us - until the mystery melts in discovery, that is.

so maybe when spriha is 60, she will have found that her speakers sing to her, not only because they have the technology to produce sound, but also because they too feel and enjoy the music!! :-)

ok, that's about that point.

next, when you mentioned about prions, you have entered a beautiful arena. prions, also known as infectious proteins, are the most elementary pathogens. where people thought viruses are the bridges between living and nonliving (thinking that RNA/DNA, if present, then something can be considered to be living), now they're thinking hey - if prions can cause disease, they must be alive too.

BUT, hang on a second. what's a protein? polymeric chains of amino acids. what are those? -COOH attached to a combination of C, N, H, O, and some with iodine and some with sulphur. so isn't that a part of the inanimate group - considering it's just a bunch of molecules? but according to you they have awareness, which is the hallmark of life.

i think the futility of the dichotomy becomes evident when one considers the "living status" of prions.

what is a pathogenic process? why isn't lead poisoning a pathogenic process? well, sure it is! we would swear by the basophilically stippled RBCs that the entity is a disease.

well, why isn't Pb a pathogen, then? cause of a pathogenic process is a pathogen. but, pathogens must be "alive". well, something must be clashing around here, right!

end of that. next is the baby reference.

when you say the baby is programmed, you are very correct. its DNA make up, the factors that made it the way it is at the point of crossing over of genes in meiosis or whatever, determined how it took shape. so then what's the deal about autonomy of action?

extrapolating this small example, we find that all that we are is a function of the programme - the genes. and what we are in the present - 20 odd years on - is a function of what has been added to the programme along the way - as a consequence of our environment and other things (stimuli).

picture this: (1) baby formed out of "out-of-baby's-control-programme" i.e. genetic makeup.
(2) baby receives first ever stimulus
(3) baby reacts based PURELY on programmed information
(4) baby is slightly modified as a result of this stimulus-reaction process
(5) thus, original plan has been slightly modified - baby has undergone a slight change
(6) baby faced with new stimulus
(7) reacts on basis of new, modified programme.

take this chain forward by many years and trillions of interactions - what do you get?

so where's the autonomy? isn't it all a reaction?

 
At Saturday, December 31, 2005, Blogger spriha said...

I think I have mentioned somewhere that the autonomy of life is within the boundaries physical laws. Within our limited knowledge of it or lets say, limited capacity to imagine, we can rightly assume that the basis of our consciousness is nothing but changes in energy levels of infinite points in space on a scale of time. I have only tried to throw some light on OUR PERCEPTION of life.
By the way, the position of an observer is elimentary to any physical phenomenon, I guess.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home