I like it! It's really interesting to consider information as an aspect of life. I try to resist anthropomorphizing systems by thinking of things like cells as intelligent beings consciously doing x, y, z. But they certainly are complex systems that depend on information being chemically transmitted from one part to the other in order to survive and continue functioning.
This is all well in good, (Defining life) as a cell is a ambiguous thing. What about complex A.I systems? What I think is a better definition, is the ability to formulate strategic navigation to goals by either (genetic algorithms, or Learning algorithms).
Life has no designer, that is 100% right. That being said, why are the majority of humans still enamored with religions of all sorts? That nonsense does not make any sense at all, yet we have wars based on those beliefs. If humans would just start to become smarter....
Prof Paul Nurse is not just a great scientist, but a very humble person that elevates his status. As a Professor of Biochemistry working in India I sent him an e mail about a book on immunology that I planned to write and wanted his blessings. Within a week I got his reply wishing me the best. A Nobel Laureate could have easily ignored my letter, but his prompt reply taught me the great lesson that those truly great are very humble. Having read of his personal life made my respect towards him grow much more.May the Almighty God bless dear Paul. Regards , Dr Biju C Mathew
The wolf eats the deer weeding the slowest , the unlucky and most foolish deer thus the younger eaten deer has a more limited role on the herd production being killed while the other deer live to a older age reproducing more resulting in more offspring and having a greater impact on the gene pool.
Why do u need someone else to endorse your book? Do u lack self-confidence?? Why do u care what a nobel laureate think about your work unless u aren't sure of urself and that ur ideas aren't capable to survive the deepest scrutiny and review by ur own peers???
@@johnmonk3381To start off from the top of your comment: he didnt write that he needed the endorsement. He wrote that he wanted it. To want something isn’t interchangeable with having a need for that same thing. Moving on to the latter half of your comment: why would he not care for what a nobel laureate thinks of his work? They both work in the same branch of science, they are academic colleagues. Sure; he does not need to care. But he can perfectly well wish or want to care, as it is reasonable. Finally; there is nothing wrong or out of the ordinary with not being completely sure of oneself. Being sceptical of your self or your own work, can be a great strength, as those insecurities may motivate you to pursue further improvements. I hope you take these lessons to heart. Have a great day
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 There are NO lessons to be learnt from your comments in my opinion. There is no need to write to a nobel laureate to seek "blessings" to write a book. This is a professor of an esteemed branch of science for goodness sake. Or allegedly that's what he claims. Which makes me very much doubt his credentials. And then asking "god al-mighty" to bless someone??? Like seriously??? From a man of science?? Now I really doubt he should write a book after all!!
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 Even if there are fundamental flaws in the ideas that the author wish to publish, and being any polite person, how would a nobel laureate point this out? Or even bother to point them out to a complete stranger anyways?? Of course anyone would have just asked the person to continue what he wished to do, there was no need for paul to review the work presented, because he HAD no freaking idea whose work it was or WHY he had to even bother at all, because the entire scientific community would do the critical reviewing regardless. Which brings me back to the point I was making, this "professor" was wasting his time asking for "blessings", if his ideas weren't robust enough to withstand peer reviews and criticisms. It would have made no DIFFERENCE whose blessings were given
I am from the same discipline as he is and I am just telling you that he summarised all of the cell biology in 5 minutes. That's incredible and it shows the depth of his understanding of the subject.
Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes. Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other. God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it. For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️
As a grad student in the early 90's I attended a 3 day meeting of about 20 people at a small research center in Texas. Paul Nurse was the invited guest. Nurse was both hilarious and brilliant. A down to earth guy who engaged with all of us grad students. I can still see him one night while we were having a social get together, Nurse holding a drink and wearing a cowboy hat. Great meeting!
Unless you live in a world where your "purpose" is for someones else's personal gain... I was born as a number(ssn) in a system that wants you to work in it so "they" live better lives...Government/Taxes, Corporations, Businesses...Now you might think well then go live in a forest somewhere? Do you really think that is realistic when I was born into a system and taught to live in this system? I went to school and was told how to be a person in a system, follow laws/rules, and was told I NEEDED a job to live, I was never told that it was okay to go live in a forest in a hut...How many people can you ask that will tell you they hate the way "The System" is and how hard it is for people to live in it? Now ask them if they would drop this system and go live in a forest? What do you think the answer would be? Now what do you think their "purpose" is? Remember you were born into this system without currency, food, knowledge of anything...unless you grew up in a rich family from one of these corporations...your just another number in a never ending assembly line to make someone else's life better than your own.
@just so You're kidding aren't you? Something can have a purpose but no intention. So for example, your ears have a purpose, but what do they intend? I think the cells of a body have a purpose, but no intention.
@@Dave_of_Mordor it is difficult. I got my masters in cancer biology and now work as a microbiologist for a mould remediation company lol. Not what was intended but it’s a start
@@tomasgriffiths4249 is there a reason why you're not choosing to be a programmer or in IT? Tech jobs are in demand right now. Even with the crazy laid off, there are still a lot of people hiring
I'm in the same field as him, and I just wanted to let you know that he summed up cell biology in five minutes. That is astounding and demonstrates the breadth of his knowledge on the topic.
This is always a great topic to hear. Although I still think we underdefine life. We define life based off of how far we can perceive life. We didn't know that cells and other microorganisms existed before someone could make us perceive them. What if life exists at a smaller level than what we can currently perceive? More interestingly, what if life exists at a level greater than a level which we can perceive? A level at which our senses can't allow us to perceive it. For example, the cells in our bodies are examples of life. But then because they lack brains with ears, eyes, noses and other senses, they can't perceive our world the way we do. What if we lack the sense organs to perceive life at a scale larger than ours?
@@Dave_of_Mordor I think what she meant was that we didn't knows cell's had life way back in history of humans and science not that she didn't personally know that.
I've often wondered about what makes us alive. At the molecular level, the elements that make up living beings are no different than those of inanimate objects. For example, I imagine that you could stack up all the element that make up a human body, like the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., and I think each molecule inside us would be no different from the elements in a stone or in the air. Once you go small enough, we are composed of strictly non-living things, yet we are living. What a miracle. Thank you for a great video that helps me think about what life really is.
Love the way you put this. On one hand, we are a thing but on another, we are alive. Yet on another hand, we think and contemplate at a level nothing else on earth can. "What a miracle" is what you said. Yes, thinking about it almost leads to the 'uncomfortable' conclusion the religious folks came to many years ago. Life is an intentional design receiving constant care and guidance by a super life who's steering the entire thing to extremely gorgeous conclusions, albeit not without various forms and or levels of death and tragedy.
What is intelligent life? Welcome to the Vitalism debate! From Wikipedia: "Vitalism is the rejected tradition in biology which proposes that life is sustained and explained by an unmeasurable, intelligent force or energy." When biology discovered cellular organization, the seemingly infinite hubris mankind posseses presumed to conclude that given time, life could produce itself! It cannot. It is incomprehensibe yet undeniable that we have a Maker, a Sustainer. Every instance of our existence is His product, His gift. I very much enjoy living! And so I should look to my Life Giver! Instead of inventing a pretense that He does not exist!!!
We are bigger than the sum of our parts, which is creative process built into our reality. We are no longer just bio machine, we are spiritual beings that also have creative possibilities, just like the force which designed this complex and elegant space-time continuum with fascinating laws of math, physics, chemistry, possibility of evolution etc. We live in the world of ideas, not just executing animal instincts as bio-robots. We are meant to elevate our purpose and strive for further growth of consciousness.
This is a wonderful summary and explanation of such a complex thing. It got me wondering something: What happens when life reaches a such a level of complex information management that it can and does start to speculate about what it is itself? We are living, and now we are asking what it is and what it means to be living. What is the purpose of existing, if there even is one? I don’t have an answer, but I think the question is well worth pondering.
It’s a great question that would surmise a myriad of answers, and each of them, in their own way correct and appropriate for each ‘user’ or ‘live-er’ For me, in this moment, as I type from the High Rockies, and Spring is just starting to take the Bat-ton from Winters hand. Life is to be outside, in the sun, listening to a creek swell and crash from rock to moss covered rock. To stand toes to sand, on the fractured pebble beaches and be brave enough to breach the water that was snow moments ago. To do the thing, no matter the perceived difficulty, to be in the dance of life. To not be caught up in whether one is stepping in correct cadence, but to step, and step, and step with no consideration of onlookers, that this is your dance, to the beat of your drum, and how you rep with each step, is personal, it’s unique, and done best by being in the one place, you could only truly be, right here, right now. The stage of life, ready for the next step. (That’s what I’ve been working on, Torger. How about you? What’s your speculation on life and a life well lived?)
@@chanceschimel5675 I like this. One thing that strikes me about our existence is that it is experiential and therefore creative. By being, we are each an act of creation. And the creative act that is “us” is also the many creative acts of the parts of each of us, from atoms to cells to organs and systems, whose creative acts make “us” possible but are also independent of us. And together, in larger ways, we are also together part of even bigger acts of creation, all the way out to the entire universe itself. This is the great dance of creation, and to me it is a source of awe. I need to give this some more thought.
Purpose of life cannot be deduced by rational analysis. Just like what is life? And that is the limitation of materialism, the current western philosophy
A asked several LLM chatbots the same question (excluding Bard, as I am currently in France and don't have access). Cohere seemed to give by far the clearest & briefest answer: "Life is a characteristic of organisms that distinguishes them from non-living things. It is the ability to grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli, maintain homeostasis, and perform other functions that are necessary for the survival of the organism."
So, "Life" is an exchange of chemical reactions: "Life, is chemicals and molecules." Chemistry is responsible for Life. The point that I don't understand here is, how does the dead matter of chemicals become Life? We are all made up of molecules and atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, etc. But, these chemicals are dead. How do they come to life?
What makes our Nitrogen, Carbon and Hydrogen different, such that they are working together as a cell? What's the glue and core thing responsible for this?
I've always wondered what the defining factor would be when a tree or other plant dies vs when it's alive. You can clearly tell a vibrant green living tree apart from a barren brittle dead rotting tree. But is it possible to measure the exact moment the life force leaves the tree/plant in the way we can see when a person or animal dies?
Life is in each component of an entity, and when something "dies" we can say that it loses the ability to provide these components with what they need to work properly. When a person dies, not all their cells die immediately. That's why you can remove a heart, a lung, or a liver from a deceased person and transplant them into a living one because the cells inside are not dead yet. You can extract living cells from a body even several days after death and keep them in culture in a lab for eternity. So I would say life "fades" slowly from a dead entity.
Tree doesn't perceive itself as an individual, but rather as one with its environment. There's no "death", as the ecosystem goes on. Death of individual was made up by highly evolved humans and it's an illusion. We are also NOT individual, we are one creature with other humans and nature. ONE! Individual death is not death at all, since the humanity continues on. Being selfish and isolated is a sickness. Community, connection, love, that's what we must do to survive and strive!
@@rwLincoln Most of a tree is already dead - the bark, and the heartwood are not made of living cells. Only the cambium and the sapwood are still alive. Perhaps the long slow death starts while the tree is still growing.
He's lying. Top-down energy-dependent Creation of life and all biodiversity is miRNA-mediated via RNA interference (RNAi) in yeasts to humans, the 2002 Science Breakthrough of the Year.
“Talking to the public” involves so much politics, power, and weirdness that isn’t always so close to the processes that most scientists are really interested in…
I think this a good definition for life. That’s what this question is looking for - a definition. Here’s how I personally define life: Life is that which fights its impermanence. It seems to me that to in order to exist, something must persist. Existence is persistence. Everything is impermanent, but things can attempt to fight against that for a while. Of course, entropy will win out eventually. But anything which works to persist, to survive time and change, that to me is life. Thoughts?
Similar thoughts here. Came to the conclusion that it is all a battle against entropy and the innate programming of the laws of nature. We spend our whole existence delaying the inevitable but at the end ...the program, the codes and the platform has an agenda. It is intentionally well built.
@@bronzejourney5784 A living thing uses energy to create localised areas of low entropy. A stone building does not use up energy (there is no chemistry going on). And a stone building is gradually breaking down and losing its fight against the 2nd law. It is just happening so slowly you can't see it. Life has persisted for billions of years. That stone building will be gone in less than a million.
Thank you to Big Think and Paul Nurse for making this video a sincere encapsulation of these principles in 7 1/2 mins. without pitching your book - I'm now more inclined to order it on account of your immense spirit!
‘A living thing can acquire a purpose. Purpose to better itself.’ So the meaning of life is just to simply exist. And be one’s best self. That’s all… I… I like that a lot.
Every day when I wake up I take a cold shower and at that moment I say thank you life for coming back in me and giving me a new day to enjoy. It seems that from now on I have to thank the cells, the genes, the chemistry and so on. Very nice video
I've read in the book "Wonders of Earth, Sea and Sky" edited by Edward Singleton Holden, volume XI, 1902, that "...in the fact that living creatures always consist of the four elements, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. Every living creature from a man to a mushroom, or even to the smallest animalcule or unicellular plant is always partly fluid, but never entirely so. Every living creature also consists in part (and that part is the most active living part) of a soft, viscid, transparent, colorless substance, termed protoplasm, which can be resolved into the four elements, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. Besides these four elements, living organisms commonly contain sulphur, phosphorus, chlorine, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium and iron..." I think, that rule is suitable for the Earth. For other planets may exist other rules, in my opinion.
Beautiful definition at the end. Made me drop a tear even. However, I like this thermodynamic definition more: Living things are open systems that slow or reverse entropy in their own system at the expense of the larger closed system they inhabit.
I've often wondered about what makes us alive. At the molecular level, the elements that make up living beings are no different than those of inanimate objects. For example, I imagine that you could stack up all the element that make up a human body, like the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., and I think each molecule inside us would be no different from the elements in a stone or in the air. Once you go small enough, we are composed of strictly non-living things, yet we are living. What a miracle. Thank you for a great video that helps me think about what life really is.
The idea that a living thing can develop "purpose to be better adapted" (7:05), takes us out of material science and into a nebulous metaphysical area - how does a living thing embody purpose? does the simplest cell embody purpose? how does this purpose come about? what does it abide in? And: if a living thing can develop the purpose to be better adapted can it also develop other types of purposes? I'm surprised he made this statement, tbh.
I've always thought the question of "What is consciousness and how does it work?" was by far the most existentially important question in the world. But the question of "What is life and how does it work?" has always been the runner up question to me. Now, as I think about how life must constantly manage information in order to remain alive, I wonder if consciousness is fundamentally related to life. Not because all conscious things need to be alive as a prerequisite, but because increased levels of consciousness allows _life_ to flourish. And I know people would say things like "Bacteria are alive. Are you suggesting they are conscious?" And to that I could only say "Maybe, sort of?" I think consciousness and life are both on a spectrum. Viruses seem to especially skirt the official definition of life and I know _I'm_ only half conscious at work meetings. In reference to "The Selfish Gene" (everyone should read it) we're basically all just gene vehicles. Very complex, intelligent, and cultured, yes. However, we were constructed by genes over the course of _millions_ of years for the sole purpose of housing them so that they can continue propagating themselves. I don't mean to anthropomorphize a bunch of chemicals (they didn't plan it all out), but perhaps there was (and is) an incomprehensibly minute level consciousness residing in the DNA of all cells.
The fundamental error that modern western philosophers have been making continuously is that they are searching for human consciousness in things that are not human. The problem with Selfish Gene theory is that it made genes as new super conscious deity, self-created God. And BTW, Genes do not control the shape of a cell or organism, it is still a mystery, so the theory is not complete yet. The book needs revision, it has been several decades old now :)
I would ask what is matter really? In a black hole, which is matter packed infinitely tight together, time stops and there is nothing. The opposite is also nothing, vast space with no matter I think a monkey is as conscious as a human but the difference is intelligence. We are intelligent enough to be a form of consciousness where we piece the information as perceived from the universe around us and question it using language
@May B Tommorow You may be right about that, but I also think consciousness could be intrinsically related. At least from an individual’s subjective experience, consciousness IS the reason there is something rather than nothing.
@@tristandrew5903 Theoretical physics is by definition a concept without proof (yet). Space is not nothing, but rather a field. Consciousness & intelligence are two separate things. Do not forget that animals are given a 'manual for living' by nature while humans are deprived of it, thus we keep searching.
These were really beautiful 7 minutes. The video is so vivid and expressive, and dr. Nurse is so eloquent and precise that it can convert almost anyone to biology studies. Hopefully)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. IN HIM WAS LIFE; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,) full of Grace and Truth" John 1: 1 -5, 9 - 14
It's great to see 1.6 million views on an interesting topic versus the very low views on all the 'media' news outlets spewing politics, corruption and propaganda. Keep up the good work!
For me, the astounding discovery that information is running the show in biology points strongly to a designer. Specified digital information does not create itself from scratch and has only ever been shown to come from a mind.
Of course there's a designer of this elegant space time continuum, with all these fascinating laws and possibilities. Action-reaction. Universe couldn't create itself, obviously it had a force making it happen. Shalom!
@@mikesamovarov4054 the whole universe is chaotic, you choosing to chose what to think is beauty is your own very choosing. No creator, no purpose, nothing. I know it because you have not even an ounce of proof of what you are talking about.
@@ItumelengS Have you seen ATP synthase before? You know how many people fail out of civil engineering and yet natural selection can make a turbine on a molecular level. I think people need to be more adventurous with there thinking.
What if living and non-living is a false dichotomy? I think maybe replacing it with in-system and off-system is better. Meaning particles are either caught in a persistent and homeostatic relationship with other particles (in-system) or not (off-system). This would at least make it so viruses are no longer a paradox.
Spot on. I have pondered in similar lines. As all apparent distinctions are products of our own classifications/categorisations which naturally arose out of our 'need to understand'. So yes, I'd agree that it IS a false dichotomy. As is almost everything imo. 'Chemical reactions' do not exist strictly outside of 'biological interactions', for example. Nature/Reality/Existence/Universe, whatever name we assign to the system, it's ultimately ONE system. But, what keeps me up at night pondering, is WHY? I think it's a way to efficiently dissipate energy. Or maybe the concept of why which assumes a reason is a complete human invention, idk 😅
Have you read Maturana's and Varela's "The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding"? If not, I think you might find very interesting insights with some of the concepts they present there, such as "autopoeiesis". Their definition of life goes quite in line with your reasoning.
@@piratedgenes You pirated my thoughts. This must be an example of convergent evolution working on ideas. I see what you mean when you say our categorizations are anthropocentric. I think all of our definitions are arbitrary. Our brains try to model the universe but can't because in order to accurately model the the universe our brain will have to at least have as much particles as the universe, so the brain ends up approximating/digitizing/simplifying giving rise to our definitions and categorizations. I ended up thinking this way when I once watched some guy explain his theory he called "extended mind." While I did not end up agreeing with him that the mind "jumps out of the brain," it led me to wonder why I draw a line/definition between my mind or consciousness and the rest of the universe. Which then led me to think that the Buddhists were right when they say that we are "one with the universe" (it is sad how old knowledge is bastardized by pop culture). From there you could probably guess how I ended up with "nothing is alive." As to why, I tend to think it's all just a consequence of the forces that govern the universe interacting with each other. It also makes sense to think that it just a way for the universe to spread out energy and move us along towards heat death.
@@manuserodio No. I am not much of a reader. I just have no friends and end up randomly thinking on things like some Buddhist monk trying to unlock the secrets of the universe. I might read it if I can manage to get offline.
@@DorksterJr Haha, what if I did pirate your thoughts. Lol. Anyways, isn't it amazing that, 'Matter' after enough iterations of possible/stable arrangements can produce something as 'abstract' as thoughts and share them on a platform made by different groups of matter particles which never actively intended all the possible interactions. So Yay, convergent evolution! The ideas which developed with us as we kept surviving as a species, namely those distinctions that we 'sense' between any two things, must've stemmed from the very first distinction our species unintentionally invented, i.e., the concept of possessing a 'self' imo. Mind you, I'm not taking an arrogant stance, as I think that most species of the animal kingdom must also distinguish themselves from their environment, at least on a cognitive level, otherwise they wouldn't have survived. But, the onset of a proper linguistic structure solidified (and also exaggerated, imo) this concept of self in our species. Hence, our definitions and categorisations need not be 'accurate', just 'useful' enough for survival. We can't "see" the whole electromagnetic spectrum, physiologically speaking, because we didn't need to. We can't "know" the absolute truth, or the reason for our existence, because we don't need to. There's no evolutionary pressure that depends on us finding that 'truth'. And even if such a thing 'exists', the nature of information as we know it, forbids that....as there are always losses in transmission. Which is why every piece of info, or as you said how 'old knowledge' gets bastardized over enough transmissions. (And that in turn, 'allows' the evolution/selection of ideas/memes in the infosphere.) If you're interested, I'd recommend a book, "The Information" by James Gleick, for more on this. And yes, some buddhist disciplines, especially Zen, do reason in similar lines. As do some ancient Hindu philosophies, Taoism ...etc.
What a great generation of scientists we had and have for past 200 years ... seeing there dedication itself is a motivation.. and seeing Gen Z of today gives me jitters ... "ma life my rulez .."
I actually find it difficult to understand how there is a system that is working and evolving but in the same time that system have no designer‼️ it's like we find computer with artificial intelligence in the middle of nowhere, and due to the absence of the designer we believe that computer made itself
Right on! This is the whole hidden agenda of this video, not what life is all about. The goal is to continue to sell false macro evolution, his FAVORITE, Darwinism and keep people away from the Truth that is, not only there is a designer, but most likely it is the single reality in existence.
This video is amazingly beautiful 😍 to better itself, a living being has to transmit the experiences to the new generations...it makes me think of Pascal Poot who lives in the south of France and has decided to leave tomatoes grow by themselves in the garrigue which is a wild quite dry place and take the seeds of the ones who survived and do it again and again and the 10th generations of these tomatoes are very resistant to the dry seasons we have in the south of France. The seeds keeps the informations of the plant that died. I've always been fascinated by seeds, when you see a tiny seed of a cottonwood and think that it's a potential huge tree , it's amazing!
Beautiful and excellent presentation on life. Life is based on opportunities defined by the environment. Other than survival, the purpose is defined by the organism.
Paul's exploration of life, biology, and evolution through a multidisciplinary lens is truly captivating. His research's depth, especially regarding the commonality of cell reproduction mechanisms in different species, has made significant contributions to our understanding of life. However, the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) could further accelerate his studies and broaden the insights he could glean from his work. Artificial intelligence, with its ability to parse through vast amounts of data and discern patterns beyond human cognition, can add a layer of robustness to Paul's research. Here's how: Data Analysis: AI could expedite the process of identifying and understanding patterns in cell reproduction across different species. It can sift through vast genomic databases at a much faster pace than humans, recognizing patterns and correlations that could provide further evidence of a shared ancestral origin for all life. Predictive Modelling: Using machine learning algorithms, AI can generate predictive models for evolution based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. These models could offer insight into future evolutionary traits, providing a new dimension to the conversation about life and evolution. Chemistry & Information Management: AI can play an essential role in bioinformatics and cheminformatics, helping to understand complex chemical interactions and the flow of genetic information. Deep learning algorithms can model the intricate dance of molecules, proteins and DNA, providing insights about life at a level of detail we've never seen before. Simulation of Life Processes: AI can assist in creating sophisticated simulations of cellular processes and evolutionary pathways. These simulations can help visualize and understand the dynamic and complex processes that constitute life. By harnessing the power of AI, Paul can supercharge his research, making it more comprehensive, faster, and potentially uncovering insights that would be difficult to achieve through traditional means. The future of biology is not just in cells and genes, but also in bits and bytes. The essence of life, indeed, is a self-contained, evolving system - and artificial intelligence can help us understand that system like never before. Paul's presentation is impressive. The ability to convey complex biological concepts in an engaging and comprehensible manner is noteworthy. This informative exploration not only expands understanding but also ignites curiosity about life's intricacies. Anticipating more insightful work in the future. Great job!
"We are not special physically, but mentally we are unique. Atoms do not cease to exist; they continually move from one molecule to another, transitioning from one form to another. After death, all living things undergo a transformation 🐒🦍🐶🐯🐿️🦃🦘🐊🦎🦕🐞🦋🐌🐛🐠🐝🐜🦟🕸️🌻🌾🍁🍂🍇🍅🥥🥬🍢🍩🍥🥮🍫🥢🏞️🚖🚲🌀, participating in a cycle of recycling." And finally show humanity for all we are..
What I think we all need to do is tune in to Professor Jim Tour's explanation of a simple cell. The membrane of the cell has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one works. The carbohydrates on the membrane of a cell are more complex than the RNA and DNA combined. When a cell wants to transport material from one part of the cell to another part, it builds a tubular transport system where the material is delivered and then the tubular transport disappears. All of the parts of a cell have to be put together at a specific moment for the cell to function. What am I getting at? I am saying that a simple cell is one of the most complex systems imaginable and since 1952 when they started investigating how cells work, they have still not found out how the most basic parts of a cell work let alone be created. The primordial soup hypothesis is not how cells came to be is my analysis. We are composed of a trillion cells.
I was thinking about how medicines and nutrients work. And I ask myself… Is it chemical? Or is it mechanical… Or are chemical and mechanical processes just different versions of the same thing… When we talk about “keys” that fit an unlock other processes or mechanisms. I mean, I do think there’s a difference between the mechanical and the chemical… I was thinking the chemical is kind of a bath and when you introduced other elements or agents or reagents or whatever… That you change the nature of that bath and causes other reactions to occur, or to be more likely to occur. They talk about taking drugs, that really only reduce the symptoms of some thing… Without dealing with the underlying causes. And even to describe what an underlying cause is, might be a little bit tricky. I mean… The malfunctioning or non-- ideal functioning of a certain set of nerves, or whatever… Due to environmental factors or unfavorable gene expression. It’s all fantastic.
I'd say the opposite. Mathematics is an oversimplification that fails to accurately characterize life, and everything is life. Biologists are completely misled.
Paul nurse certainly painted the properties of life quite eloquently. It inspired my thoughts to ponder some conditions we develop as we age. Sometimes genes turn on expressions that are unpleasant but could have a role in protecting us... How to turn them back off.
Life is a miracle on itself, very happy experiencing consiousness at all myself Yet I am a bit confused by his comments on information. If you bend a river, stream on the beach, to what extend is information is passed to the water? It flows as it goes sort of (or totally not)? Just curious and asking questions
1. The cell is really critical for the way i think about life, because it's the simplest entity that expresses characteristics of life. It can grow, it can divide, it can reproduce. And really, all living things- myself, a plant, an insect is either a single cell or made up of groups of cells acting together. Most people are not excited by yeast. I have to say, I am excited by the yeast. They just think, “well it's good for making beer and wine and bread maybe”, but actually, it's very good as a model for other cells in all sorts of more complicated living things like ourselves.
Paul Nurse was very interesting to listen to. Better than most. If order is perfection and entropy a deterioration toward disorder, the decline must also indicate impending imperfection. Ergo... all matter, systems, and grand designs from whatever designer, are subject to the environment one derives existence from, and cannot transcend the rules of the existence it has achieved. If life is an inevitability of the universe, the philosophical mystery becomes: is life necessary? If to be conscious is to suffer, would suffering end in the absence of consciousness?
I think Prof Nurse defined living in the video than defining life. Life is a Consciousness force that has a mechanism to get integrated with a living substance. Unfortunately we don't have the knowledge to understand the mechanism yet. But, we will be in next 100 years from now.
I was fascinated with the idea that beings are just receptors for a vast "consciousness " ( for want of a better word). Like how radios pick out sound waves. Radio waves pass by us all the time but we only hear them thru certain receptors. Dog cells only respond or link to dog frequency wave. I don't remember where I read this idea but it made me think about things differently.
Success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it. Building wealth involves developing good habits like regularly putting money away in intervals for solid investments. Financial management is a crucial topic that most tend to shy away from, and ends up haunting them in the near future.., I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life!!
Experiences.. why did we start thinking, moving, seeing, eating. The meaning of live is to follow your thoughts and heart and see new taste new move new hear new.
Life is the animation of matter and energy where the universe can observe itself. Space and time changes when it is observed by something animated. Where, spacetime no longer happens all at once, rather, becomes static in a moment. Therefore, life controls what the universe is and becomes. That is the purpose of it.
"Life is spend energy to make more life......Best definition i came across" That's not even a definition. You can't use the term being defined in the definition of the term being defined.
I would say that life is defined as the primary main objective and secondary main objective. Primary main objective: Procreate (multiply) secondary main objective: survive. (continuation, homeostasis)
Survive isn't really a good "property", since survive means remain alive. It contains in its own meaning that which it is supposed to define, so you get circularity.
What do you think of this definition of life?
I like it! It's really interesting to consider information as an aspect of life. I try to resist anthropomorphizing systems by thinking of things like cells as intelligent beings consciously doing x, y, z. But they certainly are complex systems that depend on information being chemically transmitted from one part to the other in order to survive and continue functioning.
That was pretty good!
This is all well in good, (Defining life) as a cell is a ambiguous thing. What about complex A.I systems? What I think is a better definition, is the ability to formulate strategic navigation to goals by either (genetic algorithms, or Learning algorithms).
it makes virus alive........previously they where concidered automaton.......
Life has no designer, that is 100% right. That being said, why are the majority of humans still enamored with religions of all sorts? That nonsense does not make any sense at all, yet we have wars based on those beliefs. If humans would just start to become smarter....
Prof Paul Nurse is not just a great scientist, but a very humble person that elevates his status. As a Professor of Biochemistry working in India I sent him an e mail about a book on immunology that I planned to write and wanted his blessings. Within a week I got his reply wishing me the best. A Nobel Laureate could have easily ignored my letter, but his prompt reply taught me the great lesson that those truly great are very humble. Having read of his personal life made my respect towards him grow much more.May the Almighty God bless dear Paul. Regards , Dr Biju C Mathew
The wolf eats the deer weeding the slowest , the unlucky and most foolish deer thus the younger eaten deer has a more limited role on the herd production being killed while the other deer live to a older age reproducing more resulting in more offspring and having a greater impact on the gene pool.
Why do u need someone else to endorse your book? Do u lack self-confidence?? Why do u care what a nobel laureate think about your work unless u aren't sure of urself and that ur ideas aren't capable to survive the deepest scrutiny and review by ur own peers???
@@johnmonk3381To start off from the top of your comment: he didnt write that he needed the endorsement. He wrote that he wanted it. To want something isn’t interchangeable with having a need for that same thing.
Moving on to the latter half of your comment: why would he not care for what a nobel laureate thinks of his work? They both work in the same branch of science, they are academic colleagues. Sure; he does not need to care. But he can perfectly well wish or want to care, as it is reasonable.
Finally; there is nothing wrong or out of the ordinary with not being completely sure of oneself. Being sceptical of your self or your own work, can be a great strength, as those insecurities may motivate you to pursue further improvements.
I hope you take these lessons to heart. Have a great day
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 There are NO lessons to be learnt from your comments in my opinion. There is no need to write to a nobel laureate to seek "blessings" to write a book. This is a professor of an esteemed branch of science for goodness sake. Or allegedly that's what he claims. Which makes me very much doubt his credentials. And then asking "god al-mighty" to bless someone??? Like seriously??? From a man of science?? Now I really doubt he should write a book after all!!
@@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 Even if there are fundamental flaws in the ideas that the author wish to publish, and being any polite person, how would a nobel laureate point this out? Or even bother to point them out to a complete stranger anyways?? Of course anyone would have just asked the person to continue what he wished to do, there was no need for paul to review the work presented, because he HAD no freaking idea whose work it was or WHY he had to even bother at all, because the entire scientific community would do the critical reviewing regardless. Which brings me back to the point I was making, this "professor" was wasting his time asking for "blessings", if his ideas weren't robust enough to withstand peer reviews and criticisms. It would have made no DIFFERENCE whose blessings were given
I am from the same discipline as he is and I am just telling you that he summarised all of the cell biology in 5 minutes. That's incredible and it shows the depth of his understanding of the subject.
What about Creator in the Evolution?
Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes.
Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other.
God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it.
For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️
@@eSKAone- Well there is no evidence to support your claims.
@@eSKAone- thats your philosophy. Scientist have proof of what they say. Proofs are trusted than philosophies.
@@ThriftyCHNRWhat did this commentator say that is so wrong in your eyes that triggered you to leave this comment? Really curious.
As a grad student in the early 90's I attended a 3 day meeting of about 20 people at a small research center in Texas. Paul Nurse was the invited guest. Nurse was both hilarious and brilliant. A down to earth guy who engaged with all of us grad students. I can still see him one night while we were having a social get together, Nurse holding a drink and wearing a cowboy hat. Great meeting!
“Living thing can acquire a purpose. Purpose to better itself.” Greatest quote.
The most stupid quote ever .PURPOSE is product of intelligence. Intention . Choice .Unless the living thing has a brain .
Unless you live in a world where your "purpose" is for someones else's personal gain...
I was born as a number(ssn) in a system that wants you to work in it so "they" live better lives...Government/Taxes, Corporations, Businesses...Now you might think well then go live in a forest somewhere? Do you really think that is realistic when I was born into a system and taught to live in this system? I went to school and was told how to be a person in a system, follow laws/rules, and was told I NEEDED a job to live, I was never told that it was okay to go live in a forest in a hut...How many people can you ask that will tell you they hate the way "The System" is and how hard it is for people to live in it? Now ask them if they would drop this system and go live in a forest? What do you think the answer would be? Now what do you think their "purpose" is? Remember you were born into this system without currency, food, knowledge of anything...unless you grew up in a rich family from one of these corporations...your just another number in a never ending assembly line to make someone else's life better than your own.
❤
I think "purpose" is not the same thing as "intention"
@just so You're kidding aren't you? Something can have a purpose but no intention. So for example, your ears have a purpose, but what do they intend?
I think the cells of a body have a purpose, but no intention.
I met him in Paris last year when he gave a conference and he really inspired me to continue my studies in biology! 🧬
I would love to meet him. Bet he was super nice lol
What are you guys planning to do with biology? I heard it's pretty difficult to get a job with it unless you want to be a doctor.
@@Dave_of_Mordor it is difficult. I got my masters in cancer biology and now work as a microbiologist for a mould remediation company lol. Not what was intended but it’s a start
@@tomasgriffiths4249 is there a reason why you're not choosing to be a programmer or in IT? Tech jobs are in demand right now. Even with the crazy laid off, there are still a lot of people hiring
@@Dave_of_Mordor could you be more specific on the tech jobs one should pursue?
I'm in the same field as him, and I just wanted to let you know that he summed up cell biology in five minutes. That is astounding and demonstrates the breadth of his knowledge on the topic.
This is always a great topic to hear. Although I still think we underdefine life. We define life based off of how far we can perceive life. We didn't know that cells and other microorganisms existed before someone could make us perceive them. What if life exists at a smaller level than what we can currently perceive? More interestingly, what if life exists at a level greater than a level which we can perceive? A level at which our senses can't allow us to perceive it. For example, the cells in our bodies are examples of life. But then because they lack brains with ears, eyes, noses and other senses, they can't perceive our world the way we do. What if we lack the sense organs to perceive life at a scale larger than ours?
You really didn't know that cells and other microorganisms had life? This is what was taught when I was in highschool 17 years ago.
There is no god, piss off.
@@Dave_of_Mordor I think what she meant was that we didn't knows cell's had life way back in history of humans and science not that she didn't personally know that.
@@Dave_of_Mordor You didn't understand the comment.
@@anitachandra2030 you're right. I was skimping and nitpick those words. I apologize
I've often wondered about what makes us alive. At the molecular level, the elements that make up living beings are no different than those of inanimate objects. For example, I imagine that you could stack up all the element that make up a human body, like the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., and I think each molecule inside us would be no different from the elements in a stone or in the air. Once you go small enough, we are composed of strictly non-living things, yet we are living. What a miracle.
Thank you for a great video that helps me think about what life really is.
Love the way you put this. On one hand, we are a thing but on another, we are alive. Yet on another hand, we think and contemplate at a level nothing else on earth can.
"What a miracle" is what you said. Yes, thinking about it almost leads to the 'uncomfortable' conclusion the religious folks came to many years ago.
Life is an intentional design receiving constant care and guidance by a super life who's steering the entire thing to extremely gorgeous conclusions, albeit not without various forms and or levels of death and tragedy.
consciousness separates the inanimate and alive
What is intelligent life?
Welcome to the Vitalism debate!
From Wikipedia: "Vitalism is the rejected tradition in biology which proposes that life is sustained and explained by an unmeasurable, intelligent force or energy."
When biology discovered cellular organization, the seemingly infinite hubris mankind posseses presumed to conclude that given time, life could produce itself!
It cannot.
It is incomprehensibe yet undeniable that we have a Maker, a Sustainer. Every instance of our existence is His product, His gift.
I very much enjoy living!
And so I should look to my Life Giver!
Instead of inventing a pretense that He does not exist!!!
We are bigger than the sum of our parts, which is creative process built into our reality. We are no longer just bio machine, we are spiritual beings that also have creative possibilities, just like the force which designed this complex and elegant space-time continuum with fascinating laws of math, physics, chemistry, possibility of evolution etc. We live in the world of ideas, not just executing animal instincts as bio-robots. We are meant to elevate our purpose and strive for further growth of consciousness.
We're all made of stars!
Moby
This is a wonderful summary and explanation of such a complex thing. It got me wondering something: What happens when life reaches a such a level of complex information management that it can and does start to speculate about what it is itself? We are living, and now we are asking what it is and what it means to be living. What is the purpose of existing, if there even is one? I don’t have an answer, but I think the question is well worth pondering.
It’s a great question that would surmise a myriad of answers, and each of them, in their own way correct and appropriate for each ‘user’ or ‘live-er’
For me, in this moment, as I type from the High Rockies, and Spring is just starting to take the Bat-ton from Winters hand. Life is to be outside, in the sun, listening to a creek swell and crash from rock to moss covered rock.
To stand toes to sand, on the fractured pebble beaches and be brave enough to breach the water that was snow moments ago.
To do the thing, no matter the perceived difficulty, to be in the dance of life. To not be caught up in whether one is stepping in correct cadence, but to step, and step, and step with no consideration of onlookers, that this is your dance, to the beat of your drum, and how you rep with each step, is personal, it’s unique, and done best by being in the one place, you could only truly be, right here, right now. The stage of life, ready for the next step.
(That’s what I’ve been working on, Torger. How about you? What’s your speculation on life and a life well lived?)
@@chanceschimel5675 I like this. One thing that strikes me about our existence is that it is experiential and therefore creative. By being, we are each an act of creation. And the creative act that is “us” is also the many creative acts of the parts of each of us, from atoms to cells to organs and systems, whose creative acts make “us” possible but are also independent of us. And together, in larger ways, we are also together part of even bigger acts of creation, all the way out to the entire universe itself.
This is the great dance of creation, and to me it is a source of awe.
I need to give this some more thought.
@@TorgerVedeler-j8vyour response is unbelievably moving !
Purpose of life cannot be deduced by rational analysis. Just like what is life? And that is the limitation of materialism, the current western philosophy
I think the ancient Greeks and more would agree with you
A asked several LLM chatbots the same question (excluding Bard, as I am currently in France and don't have access).
Cohere seemed to give by far the clearest & briefest answer:
"Life is a characteristic of organisms that distinguishes them from non-living things. It is the ability to grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli, maintain homeostasis, and perform other functions that are necessary for the survival of the organism."
So, "Life" is an exchange of chemical reactions: "Life, is chemicals and molecules." Chemistry is responsible for Life. The point that I don't understand here is, how does the dead matter of chemicals become Life? We are all made up of molecules and atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, etc. But, these chemicals are dead. How do they come to life?
That’s the mystery in essence we are just hydrogen evolved over billions of years
Yes we are , a billion years old carbon@glintrhmj
as far as I know most fundamental start from the Big Bang were hydrogen and helium eventually yes evolving to carbon and then us @@SuntoSet77
What makes our Nitrogen, Carbon and Hydrogen different, such that they are working together as a cell? What's the glue and core thing responsible for this?
Maybe nothing changed, and everything is inherently alive. Just not in a way we understand
Great video. Only one thing: what appears at 1:18 is not an insect but a crustacean, woodlouse (Oniscidea)
I've always wondered what the defining factor would be when a tree or other plant dies vs when it's alive. You can clearly tell a vibrant green living tree apart from a barren brittle dead rotting tree. But is it possible to measure the exact moment the life force leaves the tree/plant in the way we can see when a person or animal dies?
Life is in each component of an entity, and when something "dies" we can say that it loses the ability to provide these components with what they need to work properly. When a person dies, not all their cells die immediately. That's why you can remove a heart, a lung, or a liver from a deceased person and transplant them into a living one because the cells inside are not dead yet. You can extract living cells from a body even several days after death and keep them in culture in a lab for eternity. So I would say life "fades" slowly from a dead entity.
When something dies, it stops metabolizing, that is, it stops processing and transfering energy from the greater environment to itself.
Tree doesn't perceive itself as an individual, but rather as one with its environment. There's no "death", as the ecosystem goes on. Death of individual was made up by highly evolved humans and it's an illusion. We are also NOT individual, we are one creature with other humans and nature. ONE! Individual death is not death at all, since the humanity continues on. Being selfish and isolated is a sickness. Community, connection, love, that's what we must do to survive and strive!
@@earthjustice01 so a tree cut down will go through a long slow death
@@rwLincoln Most of a tree is already dead - the bark, and the heartwood are not made of living cells. Only the cambium and the sapwood are still alive. Perhaps the long slow death starts while the tree is still growing.
What is life?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more...
The truth
Damn I wanted to say that!
I came here to say this, but knew in my heart it had already been said
😂 same here…
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
What a clear and wonderful summary for the question of life! Thank you all!
You really believe that?
So the mechanical metaphor. Again. Thank you Descartes.
Inspiraing ideas that make sense even to a novice. What a wonderful world we live in. Thankyou
It's great to hear from scientists - I wish more scientists were willing to talk to the public like Paul...🎉
He is an ignorant scientist don't let him fool you , there is no evolution, God made all this
More scientists….less influencers
Hear hear!
He's lying. Top-down energy-dependent Creation of life and all biodiversity is miRNA-mediated via RNA interference (RNAi) in yeasts to humans, the 2002 Science Breakthrough of the Year.
“Talking to the public” involves so much politics, power, and weirdness that isn’t always so close to the processes that most scientists are really interested in…
I think this a good definition for life. That’s what this question is looking for - a definition. Here’s how I personally define life: Life is that which fights its impermanence. It seems to me that to in order to exist, something must persist. Existence is persistence. Everything is impermanent, but things can attempt to fight against that for a while. Of course, entropy will win out eventually. But anything which works to persist, to survive time and change, that to me is life. Thoughts?
That was beautiful and seemingly philosophical ❤🎉
A stone building is also persistent. Thats not a very inclusive definition of what is life.
Life sustains itself. Death does not.
Similar thoughts here. Came to the conclusion that it is all a battle against entropy and the innate programming of the laws of nature. We spend our whole existence delaying the inevitable but at the end ...the program, the codes and the platform has an agenda. It is intentionally well built.
@@bronzejourney5784 A living thing uses energy to create localised areas of low entropy. A stone building does not use up energy (there is no chemistry going on).
And a stone building is gradually breaking down and losing its fight against the 2nd law. It is just happening so slowly you can't see it. Life has persisted for billions of years. That stone building will be gone in less than a million.
I could listen to him talk for hours, absolutely fascinating!
This was perfect, I was very interested in the book, congrats and a hug from Brazil!
Thank you to Big Think and Paul Nurse for making this video a sincere encapsulation of these principles in 7 1/2 mins. without pitching your book - I'm now more inclined to order it on account of your immense spirit!
‘A living thing can acquire a purpose. Purpose to better itself.’
So the meaning of life is just to simply exist. And be one’s best self.
That’s all…
I… I like that a lot.
Every day when I wake up I take a cold shower and at that moment I say thank you life for coming back in me and giving me a new day to enjoy. It seems that from now on I have to thank the cells, the genes, the chemistry and so on. Very nice video
I think you should thank Jesus and reflect on the purpose of your life and where the information comes from.
Amen. Who made the chemicals to begin with?
I've read in the book "Wonders of Earth, Sea and Sky" edited by Edward Singleton Holden, volume XI, 1902, that
"...in the fact that living creatures always consist of the four elements, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. Every living creature from a man to a mushroom, or even to the smallest animalcule or unicellular plant is always partly fluid, but never entirely so. Every living creature also consists in part (and that part is the most active living part) of a soft, viscid, transparent, colorless substance, termed protoplasm, which can be resolved into the four elements, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. Besides these four elements, living organisms commonly contain sulphur, phosphorus, chlorine, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium and iron..."
I think, that rule is suitable for the Earth. For other planets may exist other rules, in my opinion.
Beautiful definition at the end. Made me drop a tear even. However, I like this thermodynamic definition more: Living things are open systems that slow or reverse entropy in their own system at the expense of the larger closed system they inhabit.
What an excellent video. The narrative/presentation is so clear, articulate and well presented. My compliments.
All the complexity can be summed up neatly in your talk, thank you for your great work!
No, it can't at all. Please educate yourself.
I've often wondered about what makes us alive. At the molecular level, the elements that make up living beings are no different than those of inanimate objects. For example, I imagine that you could stack up all the element that make up a human body, like the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., and I think each molecule inside us would be no different from the elements in a stone or in the air. Once you go small enough, we are composed of strictly non-living things, yet we are living. What a miracle.
Thank you for a great video that helps me think about what life really is.
What a wonderful, clear and concise piece. Thank you!
@@nightcandle62 no it doesn't, silly person. it was a compliment.
A very amazingly coherent & short explanation, that stuck to it's core and in emergence explained the core idea. ❤️☮️💙
Final conclusion was great. The system has enough variblity, so the whole thing can evolve by natural selection. A kind of machine learning technique
Great presentation. I earned a Biology degree then went to law school. However, I am still drawn to Biological Sciences.
You must have stopped with old-school teachings as well.
Life is so huge to explore and this 5 principles can help us understand it on a deeper perspective. ✨✨
4:14 for me it’s the desing of the system itself that shows me that there’s an amazing designer
The idea that a living thing can develop "purpose to be better adapted" (7:05), takes us out of material science and into a nebulous metaphysical area - how does a living thing embody purpose? does the simplest cell embody purpose? how does this purpose come about? what does it abide in? And: if a living thing can develop the purpose to be better adapted can it also develop other types of purposes? I'm surprised he made this statement, tbh.
I've always thought the question of "What is consciousness and how does it work?" was by far the most existentially important question in the world. But the question of "What is life and how does it work?" has always been the runner up question to me.
Now, as I think about how life must constantly manage information in order to remain alive, I wonder if consciousness is fundamentally related to life. Not because all conscious things need to be alive as a prerequisite, but because increased levels of consciousness allows _life_ to flourish.
And I know people would say things like "Bacteria are alive. Are you suggesting they are conscious?" And to that I could only say "Maybe, sort of?" I think consciousness and life are both on a spectrum. Viruses seem to especially skirt the official definition of life and I know _I'm_ only half conscious at work meetings.
In reference to "The Selfish Gene" (everyone should read it) we're basically all just gene vehicles. Very complex, intelligent, and cultured, yes. However, we were constructed by genes over the course of _millions_ of years for the sole purpose of housing them so that they can continue propagating themselves. I don't mean to anthropomorphize a bunch of chemicals (they didn't plan it all out), but perhaps there was (and is) an incomprehensibly minute level consciousness residing in the DNA of all cells.
The fundamental error that modern western philosophers have been making continuously is that they are searching for human consciousness in things that are not human.
The problem with Selfish Gene theory is that it made genes as new super conscious deity, self-created God.
And BTW, Genes do not control the shape of a cell or organism, it is still a mystery, so the theory is not complete yet. The book needs revision, it has been several decades old now :)
I think "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the most existentially important question in the world
I would ask what is matter really? In a black hole, which is matter packed infinitely tight together, time stops and there is nothing. The opposite is also nothing, vast space with no matter
I think a monkey is as conscious as a human but the difference is intelligence. We are intelligent enough to be a form of consciousness where we piece the information as perceived from the universe around us and question it using language
@May B Tommorow You may be right about that, but I also think consciousness could be intrinsically related. At least from an individual’s subjective experience, consciousness IS the reason there is something rather than nothing.
@@tristandrew5903 Theoretical physics is by definition a concept without proof (yet). Space is not nothing, but rather a field.
Consciousness & intelligence are two separate things. Do not forget that animals are given a 'manual for living' by nature while humans are deprived of it, thus we keep searching.
These were really beautiful 7 minutes. The video is so vivid and expressive, and dr. Nurse is so eloquent and precise that it can convert almost anyone to biology studies. Hopefully)
Fascinating ... But just makes me realise that as much as we know about life, there is still so much more that we don't know.
We only know what we're capable of perceiving. We'll understand more as we evolve. If we evolve.
@@mikesamovarov4054that is the answer i like
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
IN HIM WAS LIFE; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,) full of Grace and Truth"
John 1: 1 -5, 9 - 14
Its soooo refreshing to watch video like this without any religious mambo jumbo comments
After Bruce Lipton, this is the most wonderful concourse on the definition and mechanism of life I have heard in a while. 👏🏼✨
Really?
'Football is life'
- Danny Rojas
It's great to see 1.6 million views on an interesting topic versus the very low views on all the 'media' news outlets spewing politics, corruption and propaganda. Keep up the good work!
For me, the astounding discovery that information is running the show in biology points strongly to a designer. Specified digital information does not create itself from scratch and has only ever been shown to come from a mind.
Ohhh no designer 😮 man all of a sudden you can create this designer and still have no proof unless if you make some brilliant jumps to conclusions
@@ItumelengS I’m not saying proof. But there’s evidence that does indeed point to a mind behind the universe and of life.
Of course there's a designer of this elegant space time continuum, with all these fascinating laws and possibilities. Action-reaction. Universe couldn't create itself, obviously it had a force making it happen. Shalom!
@@mikesamovarov4054 the whole universe is chaotic, you choosing to chose what to think is beauty is your own very choosing. No creator, no purpose, nothing. I know it because you have not even an ounce of proof of what you are talking about.
@@ItumelengS Have you seen ATP synthase before? You know how many people fail out of civil engineering and yet natural selection can make a turbine on a molecular level. I think people need to be more adventurous with there thinking.
What if living and non-living is a false dichotomy? I think maybe replacing it with in-system and off-system is better. Meaning particles are either caught in a persistent and homeostatic relationship with other particles (in-system) or not (off-system). This would at least make it so viruses are no longer a paradox.
Spot on. I have pondered in similar lines. As all apparent distinctions are products of our own classifications/categorisations which naturally arose out of our 'need to understand'. So yes, I'd agree that it IS a false dichotomy. As is almost everything imo. 'Chemical reactions' do not exist strictly outside of 'biological interactions', for example. Nature/Reality/Existence/Universe, whatever name we assign to the system, it's ultimately ONE system. But, what keeps me up at night pondering, is WHY? I think it's a way to efficiently dissipate energy. Or maybe the concept of why which assumes a reason is a complete human invention, idk 😅
Have you read Maturana's and Varela's "The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding"?
If not, I think you might find very interesting insights with some of the concepts they present there, such as "autopoeiesis". Their definition of life goes quite in line with your reasoning.
@@piratedgenes You pirated my thoughts. This must be an example of convergent evolution working on ideas. I see what you mean when you say our categorizations are anthropocentric. I think all of our definitions are arbitrary. Our brains try to model the universe but can't because in order to accurately model the the universe our brain will have to at least have as much particles as the universe, so the brain ends up approximating/digitizing/simplifying giving rise to our definitions and categorizations. I ended up thinking this way when I once watched some guy explain his theory he called "extended mind." While I did not end up agreeing with him that the mind "jumps out of the brain," it led me to wonder why I draw a line/definition between my mind or consciousness and the rest of the universe. Which then led me to think that the Buddhists were right when they say that we are "one with the universe" (it is sad how old knowledge is bastardized by pop culture). From there you could probably guess how I ended up with "nothing is alive." As to why, I tend to think it's all just a consequence of the forces that govern the universe interacting with each other. It also makes sense to think that it just a way for the universe to spread out energy and move us along towards heat death.
@@manuserodio No. I am not much of a reader. I just have no friends and end up randomly thinking on things like some Buddhist monk trying to unlock the secrets of the universe. I might read it if I can manage to get offline.
@@DorksterJr Haha, what if I did pirate your thoughts. Lol. Anyways, isn't it amazing that, 'Matter' after enough iterations of possible/stable arrangements can produce something as 'abstract' as thoughts and share them on a platform made by different groups of matter particles which never actively intended all the possible interactions. So Yay, convergent evolution!
The ideas which developed with us as we kept surviving as a species, namely those distinctions that we 'sense' between any two things, must've stemmed from the very first distinction our species unintentionally invented, i.e., the concept of possessing a 'self' imo. Mind you, I'm not taking an arrogant stance, as I think that most species of the animal kingdom must also distinguish themselves from their environment, at least on a cognitive level, otherwise they wouldn't have survived. But, the onset of a proper linguistic structure solidified (and also exaggerated, imo) this concept of self in our species. Hence, our definitions and categorisations need not be 'accurate', just 'useful' enough for survival. We can't "see" the whole electromagnetic spectrum, physiologically speaking, because we didn't need to. We can't "know" the absolute truth, or the reason for our existence, because we don't need to. There's no evolutionary pressure that depends on us finding that 'truth'. And even if such a thing 'exists', the nature of information as we know it, forbids that....as there are always losses in transmission. Which is why every piece of info, or as you said how 'old knowledge' gets bastardized over enough transmissions. (And that in turn, 'allows' the evolution/selection of ideas/memes in the infosphere.)
If you're interested, I'd recommend a book, "The Information" by James Gleick, for more on this.
And yes, some buddhist disciplines, especially Zen, do reason in similar lines. As do some ancient Hindu philosophies, Taoism ...etc.
What a great generation of scientists we had and have for past 200 years ... seeing there dedication itself is a motivation.. and seeing Gen Z of today gives me jitters ... "ma life my rulez .."
This explanation is so good.
Thank you @big thinks for this beautiful,smart and meaningful video ❤
I would love to see this as a TV series.
Said he just wrote the book. Maybe PBS would produce that!
I really needed to see this positive humanity, there's so much senseless taking of life in the world.
I actually find it difficult to understand how there is a system that is working and evolving but in the same time that system have no designer‼️
it's like we find computer with artificial intelligence in the middle of nowhere, and due to the absence of the designer we believe that computer made itself
Right on! This is the whole hidden agenda of this video, not what life is all about. The goal is to continue to sell false macro evolution, his FAVORITE, Darwinism and keep people away from the Truth that is, not only there is a designer, but most likely it is the single reality in existence.
A design without a designer. ❤
'designed' by survival.
Autopilot is conclusive proof that airplanes can be invented without inventors.
@@Moepowerplant 😅 Not bad.
@@tomlabooks3263 Thanks OP's wasn't too shabby either 😂
Science explains arrangements, the inability to see arranger n make it random.. is not scientific, It's disability done with ego to not acknowledge
Great minds and deep thinking...thank you for this journey.
This video is amazingly beautiful 😍 to better itself, a living being has to transmit the experiences to the new generations...it makes me think of Pascal Poot who lives in the south of France and has decided to leave tomatoes grow by themselves in the garrigue which is a wild quite dry place and take the seeds of the ones who survived and do it again and again and the 10th generations of these tomatoes are very resistant to the dry seasons we have in the south of France. The seeds keeps the informations of the plant that died. I've always been fascinated by seeds, when you see a tiny seed of a cottonwood and think that it's a potential huge tree , it's amazing!
Beautiful and excellent presentation on life. Life is based on opportunities defined by the environment. Other than survival, the purpose is defined by the organism.
Interesting!!! Evolution is such beautiful consept
Paul's exploration of life, biology, and evolution through a multidisciplinary lens is truly captivating. His research's depth, especially regarding the commonality of cell reproduction mechanisms in different species, has made significant contributions to our understanding of life. However, the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) could further accelerate his studies and broaden the insights he could glean from his work.
Artificial intelligence, with its ability to parse through vast amounts of data and discern patterns beyond human cognition, can add a layer of robustness to Paul's research. Here's how:
Data Analysis: AI could expedite the process of identifying and understanding patterns in cell reproduction across different species. It can sift through vast genomic databases at a much faster pace than humans, recognizing patterns and correlations that could provide further evidence of a shared ancestral origin for all life.
Predictive Modelling: Using machine learning algorithms, AI can generate predictive models for evolution based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. These models could offer insight into future evolutionary traits, providing a new dimension to the conversation about life and evolution.
Chemistry & Information Management: AI can play an essential role in bioinformatics and cheminformatics, helping to understand complex chemical interactions and the flow of genetic information. Deep learning algorithms can model the intricate dance of molecules, proteins and DNA, providing insights about life at a level of detail we've never seen before.
Simulation of Life Processes: AI can assist in creating sophisticated simulations of cellular processes and evolutionary pathways. These simulations can help visualize and understand the dynamic and complex processes that constitute life.
By harnessing the power of AI, Paul can supercharge his research, making it more comprehensive, faster, and potentially uncovering insights that would be difficult to achieve through traditional means. The future of biology is not just in cells and genes, but also in bits and bytes. The essence of life, indeed, is a self-contained, evolving system - and artificial intelligence can help us understand that system like never before. Paul's presentation is impressive. The ability to convey complex biological concepts in an engaging and comprehensible manner is noteworthy. This informative exploration not only expands understanding but also ignites curiosity about life's intricacies. Anticipating more insightful work in the future. Great job!
Dr Paul Nurse might have used all AI tools
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me.
What is life?
Baby don't kill me.
"We are not special physically, but mentally we are unique. Atoms do not cease to exist; they continually move from one molecule to another, transitioning from one form to another. After death, all living things undergo a transformation 🐒🦍🐶🐯🐿️🦃🦘🐊🦎🦕🐞🦋🐌🐛🐠🐝🐜🦟🕸️🌻🌾🍁🍂🍇🍅🥥🥬🍢🍩🍥🥮🍫🥢🏞️🚖🚲🌀, participating in a cycle of recycling." And finally show humanity for all we are..
Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me
What I think we all need to do is tune in to Professor Jim Tour's explanation of a simple cell. The membrane of the cell has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one works. The carbohydrates on the membrane of a cell are more complex than the RNA and DNA combined. When a cell wants to transport material from one part of the cell to another part, it builds a tubular transport system where the material is delivered and then the tubular transport disappears. All of the parts of a cell have to be put together at a specific moment for the cell to function. What am I getting at? I am saying that a simple cell is one of the most complex systems imaginable and since 1952 when they started investigating how cells work, they have still not found out how the most basic parts of a cell work let alone be created. The primordial soup hypothesis is not how cells came to be is my analysis. We are composed of a trillion cells.
I was thinking about how medicines and nutrients work. And I ask myself… Is it chemical? Or is it mechanical… Or are chemical and mechanical processes just different versions of the same thing… When we talk about “keys” that fit an unlock other processes or mechanisms. I mean, I do think there’s a difference between the mechanical and the chemical… I was thinking the chemical is kind of a bath and when you introduced other elements or agents or reagents or whatever… That you change the nature of that bath and causes other reactions to occur, or to be more likely to occur.
They talk about taking drugs, that really only reduce the symptoms of some thing… Without dealing with the underlying causes. And even to describe what an underlying cause is, might be a little bit tricky. I mean… The malfunctioning or non-- ideal functioning of a certain set of nerves, or whatever… Due to environmental factors or unfavorable gene expression. It’s all fantastic.
This whole presentation is based on Darwinian nonsense. Please help fighting it wherever you can.
I think the hardest thing about defining life is that the definition must apparently exclude viruses.
The more you study bio, the more you realize it's a deeply mathematical information chain.
I'd say the opposite. Mathematics is an oversimplification that fails to accurately characterize life, and everything is life. Biologists are completely misled.
What on earth does this mean?
Paul nurse certainly painted the properties of life quite eloquently. It inspired my thoughts to ponder some conditions we develop as we age. Sometimes genes turn on expressions that are unpleasant but could have a role in protecting us... How to turn them back off.
A Nobel laureate is a lucky person who is chosen by a politician, so there is no guarantee that everything they say is true.
1:18 A woodlouse *isn't* an insect...🤦♂
Read the comments just to make sure that was covered
@@chadwickballew9667 😏👌
Such a coherent, precise and, yet, enthusiastic, presentation. Beautiful! So let's live our purpose of betterment, then.
Humans nowadays are struggling to know what is a man and what is a woman!!... I'm not going to expect from them the answer to what is life!!😅
Only the western people are having such problems.
Nature can be wonderful if we treated fair. Humanity has flaws .We don’t die we pass on our genes.
Life is a miracle on itself, very happy experiencing consiousness at all myself
Yet I am a bit confused by his comments on information.
If you bend a river, stream on the beach, to what extend is information is passed to the water?
It flows as it goes sort of (or totally not)?
Just curious and asking questions
Very clear and concise. Thanks.
1. The cell is really critical for the way i think about life, because it's the simplest entity that expresses characteristics of life. It can grow, it can divide, it can reproduce. And really, all living things- myself, a plant, an insect is either a single cell or made up of groups of cells acting together. Most people are not excited by yeast. I have to say, I am excited by the yeast. They just think, “well it's good for making beer and wine and bread maybe”, but actually, it's very good as a model for other cells in all sorts of more complicated living things like ourselves.
0:44 A geneticists and cell biologist, no wonder the admiration of life. I started appreciating God more after studying biology.
VERY CLEAR. Beautifully done.
It is interesting, thank you. You have listed some characteristics of living thing, but you haven't defined it.
Paul Nurse was very interesting to listen to. Better than most.
If order is perfection and entropy a deterioration toward disorder, the decline must also indicate impending imperfection. Ergo... all matter, systems, and grand designs from whatever designer, are subject to the environment one derives existence from, and cannot transcend the rules of the existence it has achieved.
If life is an inevitability of the universe, the philosophical mystery becomes: is life necessary? If to be conscious is to suffer, would suffering end in the absence of consciousness?
or a higher ( carer -chirst- consciouness ) consciousness? im with buddhism and chhristiantity it all seems like a test to me.
I think Prof Nurse defined living in the video than defining life. Life is a Consciousness force that has a mechanism to get integrated with a living substance. Unfortunately we don't have the knowledge to understand the mechanism yet. But, we will be in next 100 years from now.
...the conclusion where Nurse brings everything together is brilliant!
Life is energy. It gets into matter from the universe and becomes "alive" and leaves matter to go back to the universe leaving it "dead".
I respect your courage to speak publicly without feat of loosing buisness or going to jail
thanks
I was fascinated with the idea that beings are just receptors for a vast "consciousness " ( for want of a better word). Like how radios pick out sound waves. Radio waves pass by us all the time but we only hear them thru certain receptors. Dog cells only respond or link to dog frequency wave. I don't remember where I read this idea but it made me think about things differently.
Thank you.
Success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it. Building wealth involves developing good habits like regularly putting money away in intervals for solid investments. Financial management is a crucial topic that most tend to shy away from, and ends up haunting them in the near future.., I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life!!
Really, information plays a vital rule in life.
such a beautiful design created by a special DESIGNER!
Experiences.. why did we start thinking, moving, seeing, eating. The meaning of live is to follow your thoughts and heart and see new taste new move new hear new.
Life is the animation of matter and energy where the universe can observe itself. Space and time changes when it is observed by something animated. Where, spacetime no longer happens all at once, rather, becomes static in a moment. Therefore, life controls what the universe is and becomes. That is the purpose of it.
I want to point out how amazing Paul Nurse is.
I mean whatever you said was really good but honestly......life is something more and that we haven't discovered yet .
The thing that makes Life out of Death is its Motion. Chemistry is no passive process.
We are beings of movement, not atoms.
Beautiful explained!
Life is spend energy to make more life......Best definition i came across
"Life is spend energy to make more life......Best definition i came across"
That's not even a definition. You can't use the term being defined in the definition of the term being defined.
I would say that life is defined as the primary main objective and secondary main objective.
Primary main objective: Procreate (multiply)
secondary main objective: survive. (continuation, homeostasis)
Survive isn't really a good "property", since survive means remain alive. It contains in its own meaning that which it is supposed to define, so you get circularity.
Life is a framework of experiences we all are in, not by choice, but by an intricate compulsion.
awareness, and the conscious thought of being alive and aware of surroundings.
I believe having good boundaries for oneself & others is the key for healthy balanced life !
He also mentioned about life And that is coordination. From where this coordination comes from and why it exist at all?
What about the information (5:18) on DNA dysfunctional replication in cancer cells? Any news?
A great explanation of how life works!!!!
“Living thing can acquire a purpose” proves consciousness is a key principle of life.