|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kid writes:
I couldn't find a link to this detail in any of your posts. There is no requirement that an organism reproduce to be qualified as being alive...Either they must be able to reproduce, or they were reproduced from a parent organism/s. I found this:quote:on Wiki (which has a list of criteria identical to yours - but includes evolution). But this differs to your definition of Reproduction. Could you please cite a full definition of Reproduction in relation to the definition of life.Because every description of the Reproduction criteria that I can find requires the individual to "be able to reproduce" and not "be reproduced". A single link should suffice to clarify your position. Or are you moving away from the standard definition of life?Which is fine, as long as it is explicitly stated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet another analogy that doesn't work. A dead person is about 99.99999% alive. Which raises another problem with any definition of life.
But we can without a clear definition of life still recognize it and recognize it's absence. Except that, of course, your definition of life is different from that used by Nobel-Prize-winning biologists. So when you say that "we" can recognize it, you mean you but not Nobel-Prize-winning biologist David Baltimore.
Yes, illogical, falacious scientists do argue this way. But the reality is that life is digital. It is on or off. It is alive or not alive. Therefore if you have seven qualities or processes that identify ALIVE!, you must have all seven. It's like having to turn on seven switches in order to open the logic gate for "on". Open six, and it is still off. So, just to make this clear, you believe that if some organism had only six out of seven of your pillars, it would not be alive?
Yes, I read your circular definition of "evolution" in post # 10. Try to lie less often.
Au contraire! Your circles just lead to equivocations on evolutionary terms. Try to lie less often.
The seven/six pillars is all seven/six in the "on" position (my suggestion is six). No continuum. Not at all like light. Even as bluster, this would be a whole lot more convincing if you yourself could be certain as to whether it was seven criteria or six. As it is, you seem certain that there is a definite list of criteria, but uncertain as to what it actually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 3134 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Again, that depends on the definition. The definition has been provided. If we define yellow as this and blue as that, the green in between doesn't easily fit with either one. By George, me thinks he's got it! That why it is called green. It is not yellow, and it is not blue. It is green. A virus is indeed an interesting chemical combination. It is not blue, it is not yellow. It is green. It is a virus! You see, with all that arguing, you have now realized your answer. Is a virus alive? No. Is a virus dead? No. What is it? Well it is viral (green). So the only question remains then is, is life a continuum or is it not? I say it is digital. In that case the virus is dead. You seem to think there is a continuum. In your case the virus is not alive and it is not dead. But this is only true if there is a continuum.
CS writes: First, things like viruses and prions sit between "life" and "non-life". Yes, I've heard this claim. I understand the claim. I am asking you to establish that "life" is a continuum. The claim relies on that premise.
Second, think about the calcium in a cow's bone and the calcium in a boulder. There's nothing different between them at the atomic scale, but one is in a living system and one is not. That the one piece of calcium is "alive" doesn't distinguish it from the other one. You are going to have to make this more clear. I think you have a non-sequitor here. It would be similar to saying what we eat is dead, but it becomes alive. This is not an OOL issue, because life already exists.
This one looks alright: http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html Did you read it? The author assumes life is emmergent. That would be a continuum. You just can't arbitrarily assume that. You must establish that, and that is what I am asking you to do.
There's also some decent stuff here: What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds? - PMC I don't know how you could call this desent. This article has no scientific value. It is merely speculation. And speculation after speculation.
I'm not aware of one source that I can point to that says that life is a continuum. Its just something I've come to understand over the years. Bingo. it is an assumption of philosophical naturalism. If Life exists, then it must have self organized in some progressive way. It is my contention that this must be established rather than assumed.
Do you think that it isn't? Why? I have aready said that I think the evidence is clear that life is digital. We clarify living things as dead or alive. Now remember, I only agree with six of the seven pillars of life. I think that natural selection uses circular reasoning. However, the other six don't. Yet, the other six are distinct things/processes. A program is a distinct thing which controls the life. Compartmentalization is a distinct thing. You can have both with a RNA molecule inside a lipid bilayer or a capsid, but you don't have life. No one considers a virion alive. We of course need metabolism/energy. Which is another distinctly defined process. So each of the six pillars can be found in non-living substances/processes, but it tales all six to be alive as the things which we call life today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AOK writes: Now remember, I only agree with six of the seven pillars of life. So, like everyone else that has posted in this thread and every definition that has been linked to in this thread, AlphaOmegakid has HIS own pet definition. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
When a person is pronounced dead, are they really dead since decomposition is happening to the body for a long time after being declared "dead'?
Isn't decomposition are cells that are still active in order to do decomposition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
When a person is pronounced dead, are they really dead since decomposition is happening to the body for a long time after being declared "dead'? Isn't decomposition are cells that are still active in order to do decomposition? As I understand it decomposition is caused by the gut bacteria spreading throughout the body and consuming it; so the bacteria are still alive but the body with which they were formerly in a symbiotic relationship is dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
barbara writes:
Declaring someone dead usually involves an established legal definition (e.g. "Brain death has occurred"). When a person is pronounced dead...Legal definitions tend to aim at completely dead beyond all (as much as possible) doubt, to avoid mistakes. But from a broader PoV, defining 'death' is not much easier than defining 'life'.It seems to me that there is a grey area between 'alive' and 'dead' where the difference is blurred. "He's stopped breathing!""Oh, it's ok. He was holding his breath."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I have aready said that I think the evidence is clear that life is digital. We clarify living things as dead or alive. What is this clear evidence that life is digital? Simply because our language has compartmentalized it like that!? That would be absurd. Do you have any scientific sources suggesting that life is digital? There's nothing about the atoms in living organisms that distinguish them from ones in non-living things. And, living things are made of the same atoms as non-living things. There is no "spark of life" that distinguishes one atom as living and one as not. That's because life is a process that many atoms are going through together. Its not some wacky "thing" that the atoms possess. If it was digital then we should be able to find that stuff that makes a living thing different. But we can't, so its not.
it {the continuum of life} is an assumption of philosophical naturalism. If Life exists, then it must have self organized in some progressive way. It is my contention that this must be established rather than assumed.
I just deduced that life isn't digital above without relying on those assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is also simply related to one species in one segment of society.
There are seeds stored in gene banks all over the world as well as the spare copies stored at Svalbard. For decades those seeds exhibit none of the signs we associate with "being alive". Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
Could that be considered as 'resuscitation'? (I don't know.) For decades those seeds exhibit none of the signs we associate with "being alive".But make that a rhetorical question, as I suspect it is off-topic. But I agree with your point that things behave 'dead' and then behave 'alive'. One of the parts that 'life' criteria often has is "can".i.e. The organism can reproduce. From this it could be said that a dormant seed can grow, reproduce, etc. depending on external conditions. But this (again) starts drifting into a bespoke definition of life for seeds which requires extra conditional statements.e.g. A seed is alive - but only if it is in moist soil. It all gets a bit messy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But in the case of seeds the test is after the fact.
We plant seeds; if they grow then we can say, "Yup, it was alive." If it does not grow we can say "Yup, it was not alive." But looking at seeds they best we can do is say "It's likely that x% will germinate. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have aready said that I think the evidence is clear that life is digital. You mean "binary".
We clarify living things as dead or alive. Which in Opposite World would be a good reason for you to reject definitions of life that identify it by a single quality in favor of a definition which gives entities marks out of seven. (I say "seven" because I shall ignore for now your shift away from the definition which you thought was so "scientific" when you started posting on this thread.)
So the only question remains then is, is life a continuum or is it not? I say it is digital. In that case the virus is dead. You seem to think there is a continuum. In your case the virus is not alive and it is not dead. But this is only true if there is a continuum. But don't you see that the choice of definition has no relevance to the substantive question? If someone wants to propose (for example) an intermediate having 5/7 of the pillars, the question of whether (what you would like to call) life could have or did emerge by a process in which such an intermediate played a role is unaffected by whether we choose to call it "something that's 5/7 alive" or "something that, while not alive, has 5/7 of the defining qualities of life". That would just be describing the same thing in different words. But when we wish to discuss the origin of life, your choice of words must lead to confusion. It is easy to propose a scenario in which something having six of the "pillars" acquired the seventh by the ordinary humdrum process of Darwinian evolution. According to your definition, that would be a plausible explanation of the origin of life (7/7) from non-life (6/7). And yet I feel that it would be misleading to describe it as such --- but your definition forces one to do so.
So each of the six pillars can be found in non-living substances/processes, but it tales all six to be alive as the things which we call life today. Where when you say "we", you tacitly exclude people who disagree with you, such as Nobel-Prize-winning biologists. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kid writes:
So: So the only question remains then is, is life a continuum or is it not? I say it is digital. In that case the virus is dead. You seem to think there is a continuum. In your case the virus is not alive and it is not dead. But this is only true if there is a continuum.1) Your definition of 'life' excludes viruses. 2) Dr. A's definition of 'life' includes viruses. Which definition is correct and why?Please be precise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, AOk.
AlphaOmegakid writes: ...the diploma holds meaning in a variety of contexts outside of hiring. But the context of your analogy was hiring, so none of these other meanings are relevant to your analogy. -----
AlphaOmegakid writes: Bluejay writes: ...in defining life, we're not just looking for something to which we can assign meaning: we're looking for something that has meaning beyond what we assign to it. Baloney! We ARE looking for something we can assign meaning. The living organisms are distinctly different from those which are non-living. Including viruses. Okay, you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I know this because the example you provided is not an example of the thing you were trying to defend, but an example of the opposite option. Assigned meaning is meaning that doesn't exist until we define it to exist. This is opposed to real meaning, which is meaning that exists independent of a definition that we assign to it. Anytime you define something based on a series of attributes that are not always correlated with each other, the meaning is assigned, and not real. -----
AlphaOmegakid writes: No [viruses] are not equivalent to rocks and sand. We know this, because rocks and sand have definitions. And viruses don't meet those definitions. Would you say viruses are more similar to things in the category "life" or to things in the category "rocks, sand and other minerals." -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Johnson Junior Member (Idle past 5093 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
What is the simplest life form?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024