Hello World, I’m Alive!
What is the spark that gives life to plants, animals, and even us? This question has eluded scientists and people of faith alike. In fact, people in science, religion, and philosophy can't agree on what life is. Before computers, brain research, and AI, science defined life in terms of the maintenance and replication of cells, whereas religion and philosophy defined life in terms of conscientiousness and individuality. Now beliefs are varied and confused. This article will delve into these foundational secrets.
The Science
Classical science has defined life for both plants and animals in terms of five cell properties. If a cell has 1) compartmentalization, 2) growth and division, 3) information processing, 4) energy transduction and 5) adaptability, then it is “alive”. Today we can mimic by experiment most of the organic molecules used in the construction of RNA, but the spark that we associate with life has never been produced in the test tube. However, in the last few decades many have abandoned the “cell definition of life” in favor of artificial reproduction of the brain, specifically because of the advancements in computers, AI, and brain research. Think of “Data” in Star Trek, or even the cuddly puppies that bring comfort and joy to kids and seniors. If something can think and reason on some reasonable level is it less alive than a being with cells?
Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving organics and is the leading theory regarding how life began on Earth. There are many virtues and challenges to this theory that are being argued extensively. Abiogenesis concludes that after about 100-200 million years in the development of the earth its atmosphere and surface became somewhat habitable, and over billions of years organic compounds were produced and the simple single cell life sprang into existence.
In 1952 Stanley Miller and Urey conducted the groundbreading Miller-Urey experiment. They used the same primordial atmosphere and conditions believed to have existed 4.4 billion years ago on the earth of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water with an electric arc (simulating lightning). The results of the experiment produced some of the amino acids used in proteinogenic, or those incorporated by RNA proteins. The experiment was repeated again in 2008 and 2010 producing more, but not all proteinogenic amino acids in known life (17 of 22). Some believe that since all necessary amino acids could not be produced by this process that the protocells, or earliest cells before life, had simpler RNA structure.
Sometime in the development process, abiogenesis made the “leap of life” to a LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) cell from which all subsequent life forms descend. This process has never been produced in the lab, but believed by some that given enough time, say billions of years, that “life will find a way”. Those abiogenesisists who think this way are not being true to science. By “whistling past” this important step lays many theoretical details suspect that have this as its foundation. However, they justify their position by saying life had billions of years, whereas they only had a few weeks or months in the lab.
Proposed Stages in Abiogenesis, or the Origin of Life 1
Creationists (those who believe God provided life to the cells), panspermiaists (yup, this is an actual word, meaning those who believe life was spawned by meteorites), and terraformers (those who believe that life was brought to the earth by aliens) might provide a theory in how life was transferred to earth, but still duck the question of, “what is life”. Most scientific creationists believe in most of the same earth life timeline and processes (albeit some cling to the 6,000 year belief) as the abiogenesisists, however, they believe that life was introduced on earth by God. He provided the LUCA spark (or sparks) for the many species of plants and animals.
Top, ‘The Creation of Adam’ (c. 1511) by Michelangelo. (Public Domain), Btm L, Murchison meteorite, Astrobiology at NASA. Btm R, Barrier Canyon, Utah Petroglyoph, © Copyright 2007 Calvin J. Hamilton
The idea that amino acids might have traveled to Earth on meteorites may sound like science fiction, but it's supported by some reasonable evidence. For example, scientists have found that organic molecules can be produced under high UV and low temperature conditions that could exist in space. We also know that some organic compounds are found in space and in other star systems.
Terraforming appears in science fiction movies and books. The idea that life might have been brought here by extraterrestrials has existed since the 1970s. However, this theory is being suggested by respectable scientists.2 For instance the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick and the originator of the “RNA world” hypothesis, Leslie Orgel, have suggested that an alien civilization on the verge of extinction could have seeded habitable planets with life.
Recently some scientists have jumped to a new definition of life centered around the brain. A cynic might point out that since science has blunted its spear on producing a live cell, then why not just redefine what constitutes life? Hans Moravec published a paper in 1998 (and updated in 2009) “When will computer hardware match the human brain?” 3, that might be dated, but still relevant. He claims that our current computing technology is on the order of a lizard (approaching a mouse), but before 2050 will rival human intelligence. 4
Evolution of Computer Capability to Mimic the Human Brain3
The Religion
Traditional Christians cite Genesis for the introduction of life.
(Genesis 2:7, see also, Moses 3:4–7, 19) “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
The Hebrew word for “breath” is “neshama” and is used for vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect, soul, or spirit.5 Most Christians will tell you that God placed Adam’s spirit into his body and he became an animated living soul. This is also true for most modern talks delivered by general authorities in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Interestingly, early members of the LDS church may have understood “breath of life” as being different from the spirit. John Taylor gave this comment:
“We breathe what we call the breath of life; is it by any action of ours? God made us and planted that principle within us,” and “God has made us and he is our Father. He has planted within us the breath of life and we continue to inhale and breathe day after day.” 6
It seems that John Taylor was talking about something other than the spirit of man. A close look at Abraham 5:7 may explicitly mention three properties of Adam’s being:
“And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
Here it seems that there are three specific parts mentioned: Adam’s body (elements of this world), Adam’s spirit, and the breath of life. These three made up Adam’s soul. So, what is the “breath of life”? Could it be one / or both of two properties; “intelligence” (one of the meanings of neshama), or “the life and light of Christ” (another meaning of neshama). LDS doctrine gives us four properties that construct man and give him life: 1) his body, 2) intelligence, 3) his spirit (that houses the intelligence), and, 4) the life of Christ.
Let’s briefly look at each of these in the table below and construct what I’ll call a “human life model”.
From our limited information, life is composed of these four parts; the body, the spirit, intelligence, and the light and life of Christ. I think that we sometimes underestimate the light of Christ. Without it all nature would die and fall apart. Jesus himself said,
(John 8:12) “I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
The Greek word for “light” is phos which means luminousness (in the widest application, natural or artificial, abstract or concrete, literal or figurative): - fire, light. 7 I believe that light in this sense is not limited to electromagnetic radiation. It may include photons, but is much more foundational.
So, from what we know let’s construct a simple system model, as shown below. On the left is the spirit brain and on the right is the physical, or brain housed in our bodies.
Interestingly, brain research shows that the body brain is capable of motion, emotion, memory, and perception. 8 Thousands of tests have been conducted showing that it is limited to these four functions of the body. For instance moving a limb, joy and anger, short term and long term memory, and the processing of our senses (sight, touch, etc.) have all been linked to areas of the brain. However, abstract thinking such as mathematics, music, logic, etc. cannot be found anywhere in the brain. Some neurosurgeons (non-LDS) claim that these abstract processes are performed somewhere in the soul. 9
Therefore I propose that there are really two brains, one spiritual and the other physical. In my simple model I show them separated by a link. However, they may really be integrated into one package, just different matter. A filter exists between the two that allows abstract thinking to be shared, but blocks spiritual memory and perceptions that would interfere with and confuse this earth life and its purpose. Also, the body brain has a virus. It has an approximate 100 year obsolescence that allows it to no longer function. Both brains are powered by the light of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
I predict that science will never “light up” the cell. It is too complex and they are missing three key ingredients, intelligence, the spirit, and the light of Christ. However, they may build a computer (and robot) that performs on the human level and mimics the physical and known spiritual brain functions within the next couple of decades.
Likewise, the bible leaves us lacking in any details on the “breath of life”. The little amount of revealed LDS information indicates that animated matter is a complicated and multi-dimensional thing. I guess we’ll need to ask the first man, Adam. Hmmm, Adam the first man? Looks like a topic for another post.
Origin of life stages, showing the large gap between what can reasonably be inferred and what is not yet understood. Redrawn after Walker, Sara I. (13 November 2017). "Re-conceptualizing the origins of life". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 375 (2109): 20160337. DOI:10.1098/rsta.2016.0337
The unreasonable likelihood of being: origin of life, terraforming, and AI, Robert G. Endres, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18545
“When will computer hardware match the human brain?”, Hans Moravec, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, Journal of Evolution and Technology. 1998. Vol. 1.
“Rise of the Robots--The Future of Artificial Intelligence”, Hans Moravec, March 23, 2009, Scientific American.
Strong’s Concordance, 5397, pg. 81.
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 17:371 (April 8, 1875); and 20:132 (December 1, 1878).
Strong’s Concordance, 5457, pg. 77.
Wilder Penfield, “The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain”, ISBN:B0025E7NUY, January 1975, Princeton University Press
Michael Egnor & Denyse O’Leary “The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon's Case for the Existence of the Soul”, ISBN: 1546006350, 2025, Worthy
Very thorough and interesting. I recently saw a movie called "The Great Flood" (which I didn't like), which featured putting people through traumatic simulations, which were then directly fed into an AI to help the program be more humanly emotional. The idea is to use transferred human emotional reactions (not just knowledge) to teach the AI how to feel and react like humans would feel and react--basically giving it the experiences of life. One of the ways we are all different from each other is we all possess different emotions after experiencing very similar experiences. If we can ever manage to teach AI emotion, WHOSE emotions will we teach it?
ReplyDeleteGreat question
Delete