That's because your "point" is fuzzy.
Others seem to think otherwise. From
the post of the month thread:
quote:
A really clear and illustrated way to explain a concept that's actually quite difficult for people to get a handle on - the notion that most of physical existence is on a continuum but our categories invariably assume discreet states.
quote:
Seconded, that post is pretty cool and agree, it takes a concept that for some is difficult to understand and makes it very clear.
Then you are applying a definition of those colors relative to your vision.
Of course. Colors were described before the wavelengths were asigned to them.
So yellow is clear? Blue is clear? And green is fuzzy? Can't you also just as easily recognize green? It is defined as well.
Yes, but that is not what the analogy is explaining. Yellow = life, and blue = non-life... the green is the yet to be defined stuff in between.
See, what you are missing is that the reason you recognize any color at all is because it is defined.
Not because of the wavelength definition though. And that's a part of the point that helps expose the problem. Nailing down exact wavelengths of light to be certain colors doesn't remove the problem of some colors not being easily defined as one of them.
An exact and/or specific definition of "life" has the same problem.
Sure, I agree with you that there is a continuum of light and colors. But isn't a ruler a continuum also? But can't we define 1mm, 1cm, 1m? Once we define it it is recognizeable.
But deinifions of things like color and life are
qualitative ones. To be analogous, we'd need to be defining somethign like "short" as, say, 1 mm. The problem is then whether something that is 2 mm is short or not. Compared to the difference betwee 1 and 1.01 mm, it isn't, but compared to 1 m it is.
Is there a visible difference in .999m and 1.0m. It's fuzzy at arms length, but is is clear close up, because of the definition.
Sure, but "life" isn't quantitative. Like I said above, we'd need to be deciding: if 1.0 m is "long", then is .999m?
For example, yellow is wavelengths of 590 - 560 nm and blue is 490 - 450 nm, in between we have green from 560 - 490 nm.
If we have light that has a wavelenth of 525 nm, should we put it on the yellow side or the blue side?
It is green, because it is defined that way.
Missing the point. It has to be either yellow or blue but its not clear which one it should be included with. In this analogy, green is the things between "life" and "non-life" that we can't easily decide is either one.
Could we all agree that 525.1 nm is definately yellow and 524.9 nm is definately blue?
We could argue all we want. But if it is defined, it is defined.
But the definition isn't helping us decide what it looks more like.
Is light that is exactly 560 nm yellow or green?
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.
Again, I agree that light is a continuum. But a continuum can be defined in science. However, You are claiming that "Life" is a continuum. So I ask you to establish that claim. Life is nothing like light.
There's two seperate ways I could go with this...
First, things like viruses and prions sit between "life" and "non-life".
Also there's stuff like this going on:
quote:
Abstract
We propose the Thermal Protein First Paradigm (protocell theory) that affirms that first life was cellular. The first cells emerged from molecular (chemical) evolution as protocells (heated amino acids self-order in copolymerization reactions to form thermal proteins which self-organize when in contact with water to form protocells). Metaprotocells are specialized protocells capable of synthesizing ATP (light energy conversion to chemical energy), polypeptides, and polynucleotides. Aggregations of protocells in thermal protein matrices form distinctive morphologies (protocellular networks). Prokaryotic cells emerged from metaprotocells. We classify protocells and metaprotocells as members of the Domain Protolife. We revised the cell theory to include protolife. source
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.
What you have here is a bold claim that needs supporting evidence. As I understand you, you are saying "life' is just a contiuum of chemical reactions. Ok, you need to establish that continuum.
See above, but also:
There's links to sources in the
wiki definition of life where you'll find this:
quote:
It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. Defining life is difficultin partbecause life is a process, not a pure substance.
This one looks alright:
http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html
There's also some decent stuff here:
What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds? - PMC
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.
Do you think that it isn't? Why?
™ Version 4.2
(1)