|
Author
|
Topic: Modularity, A distinguishing property of life
|
Phage0070
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
Hyroglyphx writes: Hot or cold is subjective. It's not beholden to only one opinion. Is living and non-living subjective? Because if it is then I guess all things are subjective.
Are you joking? Did you seriously just make that argument? Example: A) I can pick up a salt shaker. B) Can I pick up a cup too? C) If so, I can pick up all things! I don't even recall what logical error this is because it is so blindingly obvious I never had to reference it.
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
Saying that the distinction between a pile of gravel is arbitrary does not mean, or imply, that gravel itself has no objective existence. It simply means that the terms are arbitrary. At what point does the pile turn into a parking lot? LOL, did you make that picture?!?! That's hilarious. When the gravel is piled up, its piled up gravel. When the pile smooths out to make a parking lot then its gravel leveled to make a parking lot.
And this is because the term is simply a label that you apply. The only reason something cannot be sort of alive and sort of non-living is because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. It's common sense. I look at a frog and it is alive. I look at a rock and it is non-living, my likes or dislikes be damned.
It is the SAME STUFF! The carbon is just the same, the oxygen is just the same, the hydrogen is just the same, it is all the same material! You don't seem to be ascribing some dramatic transition from pile to parking lot, but somehow jamming some carbon together makes you all holy in your pants. Why? Because there is a world of difference between adjectives describing the actions of the gravel from biochemical stew. You sound as if you can throw some carbon here, and a dash of ammonia there, place it in the oven for 30 minutes at 450 degrees and, huzzah, life!!!
If one of the first studies in an entire field is discredited does it invalidate the entire field? Does the name of the field become forever bound to that first experiment, so that other experiments need to make up their own names for the field? The entire concept is ludicrous! You didn't answer what I asked. What was so different, since we're on a everything is similar and therefore is the same kick, about his definition versus the one I provided? Well, whatever... I will be out of town on business tomorrow for three weeks and unsure when I will have computer access. I'd promise you that I would get back to any response you have, but I kind of don't see the point. Its like a treadmill... It sure is fun, but we're not really getting any where. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by Phage0070, posted 07-04-2009 1:41 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
Are you joking? Did you seriously just make that argument? Example: A) I can pick up a salt shaker. B) Can I pick up a cup too? C) If so, I can pick up all things! I'll choose the answer you would take, which is C, because all matter is made of the same thing, can't you see! It's all just atoms and molecules anyway! What is a salt shaker or a cup anyway? Are they not just human conceptions? When does a salt shaker become a cup, and when does a cup become a salt shaker? 
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Phage0070, posted 07-04-2009 1:47 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3128 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Instantaneous
Hyroglyphx writes: When the gravel is piled up, its piled up gravel. When the pile smooths out to make a parking lot then its gravel leveled to make a parking lot. I think Phage made an excellent analogy here as to the limitations of using anthropocentric labels to describe natural phenomena. So what is the exact point that the gravel ceases from becoming just a pile and is truley a parking lot? And vice versa. How much gravel can be piled uon each other or does it have to be completely flat with only 1 level of gravel with no piece of gravel on top of another piece of gravel? And at what precise, specific point in time does this occur? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:14 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3128 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Instantaneous
Hyroglphyx writes: I'll choose the answer you would take, which is C, because all matter is made of the same thing, can't you see! It's all just atoms and molecules anyway! What is a salt shaker or a cup anyway? Are they not just human conceptions? When does a salt shaker become a cup, and when does a cup become a salt shaker? I think you are missing the point here. I think everyone can distinguish most forms of life (though not all) from non-life at the macroscopic level i.e. the level we humans observe on a day to day basis without using any type of microscopic instruments. The issue is when we look at life at the nano level (atomic/molecular) there really are no distinguishing features that differentiate the two (can you tell the difference in structure between a molecule of sugar inside a living organism and one outside). Why do we care? Because it is at this level that abiogenesis (yes I am just using this as a label to describe the chemical synthesis of the first molecules of biological "life") occurred. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:18 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Instantaneous
How is this vastly different from the [truncated, pop dictionary]? Here, compare: Encyclopedia.com - abiogenesis The development of living organisms from non-living matter, as in the origin of life on Earth, or in the concept of spontaneous generation which was once held to account for the origin of life but which modern understanding of evolutionary processes has rendered outdated. Dictionary.com - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. TrraaAAPP! I even forwarned you to take the conjunctive into account but you just jumped right in! Now I do have a dilemma. In view of the other sources provided, all quite specific, could this be a continuation of your intellectual dishonesty exposed, or (that’s a conjunctive separating two complete and separate thoughts) is this a case of intellectual deficiency?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 12:19 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Phage0070
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
Your argument suffered from the Fallacy of Composition. Link
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:18 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Phage0070
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
Hyroglyphx writes: When the gravel is piled up, its piled up gravel. When the pile smooths out to make a parking lot then its gravel leveled to make a parking lot.
And it is "smoothed out" when? If the piece of gravel is at a 45 degree angle from the ground, is that a pile or a lot? If you need more pieces how many do you need? If you have them more than one deep, how much can the layers differ?
You didn't answer what I asked. What was so different, since we're on a everything is similar and therefore is the same kick, about his definition versus the one I provided?
I don't think I can make the text much larger without prompting moderation. --- In light of his most recent posts I propose that Hyroglyphx is a troll, trying to get as many responses as possible before being caught in something so ludicrous that he needs to retreat on a fictional trip. I will not be replying to him any longer, and I suggest nobody else does either in the absence of moderation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:14 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
themasterdebator
Inactive Member
|
Re: Instantaneous
It's common sense. I look at a frog and it is alive. I look at a rock and it is non-living, my likes or dislikes be damned. "common sense" as you call it is actually what caused people to believe abiogenesis hundreds to thousands of years ago. They saw a pile of dead meat, then saw flies coming out of it and used there "common sense" to come up with the explanation that flies are born from meat. So if you want to take the common sense approach(and not the scientific experimentation one) then you would have to believe in abiogenesis. To further explain, I would like you to answer the following questions. When you "look"(and I use this term metaphorically) at a virus, is it alive or nonliving? Why? When you "look" at a self replicating molecule, is it alive or nonliving? Why? Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given. Edited by themasterdebator, : added quotes
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:14 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:20 PM | | themasterdebator has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
appearances and overlapping attributes
hi themasterdebator, welcome to the fray.
"It's common sense. I look at a frog and it is alive. I look at a rock and it is non-living, my likes or dislikes be damned." "common sense" as you call it is actually what caused people to believe abiogenesis hundreds to thousands of years ago. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips Using these aids helps sort out what you say from what your quoted sources say.
"common sense" as you call it is actually ... Not really sense that is common, rather it is more often common ignorance embedded into cultures.
To further explain, I would like you to answer the following questions. When you "look"(and I use this term metaphorically) at a virus, is it alive or nonliving? Why? When you "look" at a self replicating molecule, is it alive or nonliving? Why? So far, every element that I have seen that has been proposed to differentiate life from non-life has examples to life that don't qualify and examples of non-life that do qualify, and it is only when you compile a rather extensive list, and then back off to a level where there are no such overlaps, that we can get a common understanding, however this ignores the gray landscape in between. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Instantaneous
Is living and non-living subjective? Because if it is then I guess all things are subjective. 205 post in a you may be close to getting it. As we cannot point to the dividing line between life and non-life; yes it is subjective. Only mathmaticians and the faithful deal in absolutes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 1:37 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: 09-23-2008
|
|
Message 207 of 291 (514283)
07-05-2009 8:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Filameter
06-18-2009 2:51 PM
|
|
Intelligent design reductionist
Filameter writes: I am proposing that the absence of integrated design characteristics in life forms is scientific evidence against a designer who knew the ultimate purpose of the parts in life forms.
In the reductionist view (approach), that phenomena we see ("Life") can be explained in terms of components and how those components interact with each other. - Life is a mechanism. This is the greatest technology we have ever fallen over. We can not surpass it even with the greatest human minds. These artificial "life" forms are nothing less then intelligently made. Machines that think they themselves are alive but are not. The illusion of intellectually extreme complexity. The technology of creating life like systems, highly automated to create the illusions of living systems. Even the universe is an illusion of nature, make, designed to fool even the wisest fools like mankind - that’s you and me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Filameter, posted 06-18-2009 2:51 PM | | Filameter has not replied |
|
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: 09-23-2008
|
|
|
Message 208 of 291 (514284)
07-05-2009 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by Larni
07-04-2009 5:44 PM
|
|
Physical life is - non-existent - mechanisms only
Larni writes: As we cannot point to the dividing line between life and non-life; yes it is subjective.
News flash: Life has need reverse-engineered and been found to be a mechanism. Bio-molecular chemists and physicist’s are reductionist’s. Life does not look to be anymore then molecular machinery and DNA programming. The greater the complexity of the machinery and the programming changes nothing. Intellectual design will always be complexity technology and complex non-natural engineering is always intelligent designed technology.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Larni, posted 07-04-2009 5:44 PM | | Larni has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 213 by Larni, posted 07-06-2009 5:41 AM | | Bio-molecularTony has not replied | | | Message 217 by Larni, posted 07-06-2009 1:56 PM | | Bio-molecularTony has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3128 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Who invited Tony to muddle up the life/non-life debate
Tony writes: In the reductionist view (approach), that phenomena we see ("Life") can be explained in terms of components and how those components interact with each other. - Life is a mechanism. This is the greatest technology we have ever fallen over. We can not surpass it even with the greatest human minds. These artificial "life" forms are nothing less then intelligently made. Machines that think they themselves are alive but are not. The illusion of intellectually extreme complexity. The technology of creating life like systems, highly automated to create the illusions of living systems. Even the universe is an illusion of nature, make, designed to fool even the wisest fools like mankind - that’s you and me. Oh great. Who invited Tony to obfuscate an already obfuscated topic on the distinction between life and non-life  We only need a panspermia advocate to the mix and our abiogenesis fruit salad will be complete. I give up.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
|
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: 09-23-2008
|
Is Life: #1,2,3,4
What is life... Well we got 4 basic choices I would think. #1 Is life supernatural - at every level is more then just some simple mechanism. #2 Is life just complex intelligently designed machinery - Not really alive in itself. #3 Is Life simple non-complex chemical reactions, not complex enough to be called machinery. Not special enough to be called a living system or a fully automated system. #4 Is life just a bunch of random mutations and lucky happenings (selections) that make it all work. Is it just that we are so stupid that we are over rating all this as something great and wondrous. Life being not life at all, not even good enough to be machinery.
|
™ Version 4.2