Creating life

[MohtasaUnique]

I've always wondered, and now I'm going to ask what you guys think.

What is the difference between creating life and recreating life? Why, through such a simple act, can we easily create life when the world's brightest minds cannot even dream of REcreating or replicating life? I'm not talking about stem cells grow-your-own-liver science, I'm talking about the imitation or recreation of the state of being.

Do you have any opinions on the subject?

Also, is life even real? The brain, which is essentially the only thing keeping out bodies from decomposing, is nothing but a giant mass of chemical reactions. Every emotion, every decision, every thought is generated by some chemical, so is there really such thing as free will or life, since we can't consciously control these reactions?

 

[bendoe]

This is pear science fiction today

 

[MohtasaUnique]

This is pear science fiction today

What's pear science? :x

This debate isn't whether it's fiction or not.

 

[Runewhat]

Life is living. Living is to exist, and function. Our brains both exist, and function. When the brain does not function, we do not live. We are alive and living. Therefore, life is real.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Life is living. Living is to exist, and function. Our brains both exist, and function. When the brain does not function, we do not live. We are alive and living. Therefore, life is real.

That doesn't make any sense... computers function, but are they alive? The definition of being "alive" is to make conscious decision, but how can you prove any decision is conscious or intentional or of free will when your brain is nothing but a conglomeration of chemical reactions.

 

[Snobb3n]

Your alive when your brain is functioning and when you can think....Otherwise we could be a tree.

 

[Dismiss God]

Your life isn't your brain its your consciousness. Your grip on reality. People in comas have semi perfectly working brains. You are alive when you are able to think and make rational thoughts. There is no difference between creating life and re creating it. Two people fuck and make a baby a scientist puts sperm into a womb the difference is unseen. Who are you to dignify the way organisms are created being classified as moral or not.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I'm not dictating the way organisms should be created at all, nor judging on whether it's moral or not to synthesize life. I'm saying why can't life be recreated by humans, and with all the knowledge humans have amassed when nature can do it without a single bit of effort. This isn't a morality debate, it's dealing with the science of creation and whether there is actually a true human conscious, or if it's just cause and reaction, dictated by stimuli to the body and chemical reactions inside the body.

 

[Relevance]

What is the difference between creating life and recreating life? Why, through such a simple act, can we easily create life when the world's brightest minds cannot even dream of REcreating or replicating life? I'm not talking about stem cells grow-your-own-liver science, I'm talking about the imitation or recreation of the state of being.

Life is a continuous and incredibly complex progress. Achieving consciousness took several billions of years of evolution (and modern science is only aged in centuries).

We are currently still taking baby steps. I expect within a few decades the first artificial organelle's will be synthesized. It will take much much longer before any full on life form to be produced (if it can be). Of course, another (and more practical) approach is through cognitive science and computer simulation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/18/ibm_closer_to_thinking_computer_chip/

Also, is life even real? The brain, which is essentially the only thing keeping out bodies from decomposing

Life forms do not need a centralized nervous system to prevent decomposition.

Every emotion, every decision, every thought is generated by some chemical, so is there really such thing as free will or life, since we can't consciously control these reactions?

I suppose you would need to define free-will. Modern quantam mechanics supports the idea that actions are NOT pre-determined and rather a scale of chaotic processes that we are still trying to understand.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Life is a continuous and incredibly complex progress. Achieving consciousness took several billions of years of evolution (and modern science is only aged in centuries).

Yet we understand nearly everything about the process. We understand how someone's conceived, how they grow and mature, and how they react, just not how they live. So unless the process is 1% biology, and 99% something we completely don't understand, you'd think we'd be able to have an inkling of how life is created.

We are currently still taking baby steps. I expect within a few decades the first artificial organelle's will be synthesized. It will take much much longer before any full on life form to be produced (if it can be). Of course, another (and more practical) approach is through cognitive science and computer simulation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/18/ibm_closer_to_thinking_computer_chip/

No comment on this, there are too many concepts I don't know enough to respond ;D I'll read through the link and get back to you

Life forms do not need a centralized nervous system to prevent decomposition.

Humans do, that's all I'm worried about at this point

I suppose you would need to define free-will. Modern quantam mechanics supports the idea that actions are NOT pre-determined and rather a scale of chaotic processes that we are still trying to understand.

Again, I don't know anything about quantum physics, I'll look it up and get back to you;]


Thanks for the good debate guys, keep it coming, I'm legitimately curious about this

 

[Curren$y]

The difference between creating life and re-creating life: The human-created illusion of morality.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

The difference between creating life and re-creating life: The human-created illusion of morality.

This makes no sense, and morality is not part of this debate