Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 256 of 374 (773817)
12-09-2015 3:46 PM


Because of RAZD's relentless non-comprehension of "self-contained entity", I will revise my definition to improve it. It's part of the scientific process, and it clarifies the type of self-contained entity.
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which is a contiguous system that uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA.

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2015 7:46 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 374 (773826)
12-09-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 1:05 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
A multi-cellular organism is made up of many cells which are alive by my definition and you agree. And a multicellular organism is defined as contiguous system of cells. So is the system self contained? Yes, the system has living cells that make up it's boundary. ...
Two problems:
(1) your definition does not say this, it makes no specification for what the enclosing envelope is made from, and
(2) you are now using life to define life. The purpose of an unambiguous* definition is to determine if something is living independently of any reference to other life -- that is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
The atmosphere is an envelope that contains all living things, it has an outer boundary made up of atmosphere\self and your current argument makes it alive.
That you don't understand this being a direct and unambiguous application of your argument is not my problem: you know what you want your definition to say and turn a blind eye to what it does say when your argument is followed.
... So within that boundary is the rest of my definition satisfied? Well you already agreed that the individual cells are alive by my definition, so it does satisfy. You have a strange logic that twists an turns to prove mine wrong, but you claim equivocation without showing which words equivocate.
Your argument makes any container with living cells in it alive. To say otherwise is equivocation, because you are changing the definition between one and the other.
Further, a major part of the digestion of foods and the breakdown to ATP is done by gut bacteria, not the composite entity.
So.....that still doesn't nullify the definition.
It does indeed nullify your application of the definition to multicellular life ... because the composite structure is not doing what your definition requires to be called life -- breaking down ATP -- something else is. That makes the gut bacteria alive but not the composite. The container is not the thing contained.
You have to equivocate on the meaning of the words in your definition to stretch it as you are attempting to do.
Now if you are going to pretend that the composite entity forms a self contained envelope around the cells.
I don't claim this or pretend this. Maybe your strawman friend does!
... Yes, the system has living cells that make up it's boundary. All the other cells are within the systems boundary. ...
So are those cells that make up the boundary (a) just outside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells, (b) part inside and part outside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells, or (c) completely inside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells? If you say (a) then they are not part of the entity, being on the outside looking in. If you say (b) then they are partly part of the entity and partly not part of the entity, which is very ambiguous, and if you say (c) then you have done precisely what I said.
Perhaps you don't understand what a strawman argument is either. Just because it says something that you don't like that doesn't make it a strawman -- it has to misrepresent your argument.
Another problem you have now created for yourself is the question of where that boundary actually ends and things outside the boundary (ie the rest of the universe) begins.
Your mouth is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your mouth that you are chewing on are outside the boundary.
The throat that passes food from your mouth to your stomach is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your throat that you are swallowing are outside the boundary.
Your stomach is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your stomach that you are digesting and your gut bacteria are outside the boundary. (which would be normal interpretation of your relationship to gut bacteria).
Your intestines that pass the remains of your meal along to your anus are also lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your intestines that you are passing are outside the boundary.
Your anus that passes the remains of your meal outside of your entity is lined with cells forming the boundary of your entityness, so things that you are expell are outside the boundary. (which means that your crap is not part of your living entity, again consistent with normal interpretations of your relationship to crap).
In other words there is a tube that turns your boundary into a convoluted donut shape defined by the actual boundaries of your cells.
There are also "dimples" in that donut for you lungs and skin pores, and the tube branches to include your nostrils.
So no, you cannot say that the gut bacteria make you alive either.
and that this enclosure within a larger self contained envelope means it is alive without itself doing any of the ATP/DNA/RNA molecular chemistry, then you are equivocating on what you mean by said envelope ... with consequences:
So your strawman friend has consequences. Let's put him in timeout. Or should we spank him? Torture? By the way, is he alive?
Curiously making fun of an argument does not refute it. Until you actually address the argument it is alive and well.
What you have to do is look at the interstices between the cells and within the out boundary (roughly) delineated by the confining cells outer boundaries ... but not inside the cells ... and apply your definition: hint -- it doesn't work.
Congratulations, the bag is now alive by your equivocated definition.
Oh goody! Please award my consequence to Mr. strawman by putting him in the corner. I wouldn't go so far as torture yet, but I will be consulting with George W. Maybe if you award him the fish, he will stay away!
Still not a refutation, nor an honest reply. Your problem is again two-fold: the problems (1) and (2) listed above.
I do not claim any of your words above. What I do claim is that the contiguous system of cells within the multicellular organism, creates a boundary of that entity which contains the remainder of that entity, and therefore a mutlti-cellular organism is self-contained entity. Those are my words!
Yes, those are your words and your argument that is not actually based on your definition of life words, but what you want it to say -- you are using different definition of the enclosure for your cells and your multicellular entity, which is equivocation. This is why it applies to the baggie with the goldfish:
The baggie is made up of molecules in a contiguous system of atoms that creates a boundary of that entity which contains the remainder of that entity, and therefore the baggie being is a self-contained entity. That is your argument.
Just as with all your challenges you focus in on a few words without considering all the words. You have focused on the words"self-contained" and ignored the word "entity".
Entity is defined as:
quote:
a thing with distinct and independent existence. (Google)
Baggie with water and goldfish contained inside ... distinct and independent existence: check.
For example I can put 50 bagged goldfish on a table and someone else can come in and count them. If some don't have a goldfish and some don't have water, then they are not the same and the person could easily count just the baggies with water and goldfish. A child could do it. I can also take one of them into a different room and it is still a baggie with water and a goldfish. Distinct and independent.
Any organism (single celled or multicellular) is a thing with "distinct and independent existence". For instance, the mule. Everyone understand that a mule has distinct and independent existence. Likewise, when everyone looks at your picture of twisty-tied-baggie-holding-a-goldfish thingy , they immediately recognize at least four distinct and independently existing thingies. So the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition. You have gone from one segment of words, over and over again, to try and show equivocation. Those strawmen are just that.
Here are some other examples for you. A car is a composite of many parts. Each part may be identified as an entity. But a car is also an entity because it has a distinct and independent existence. However "a person in a car thingy" does not have a distinct independent existence. An ocean is an entity. And an ocean has many living things within. So it meets much of my definition, but an ocean is not self-contained. So ALL THE WORDS in the definition have meaning. You just can't cherry pick some of the words and claim "equivocate"!!!
Wishful thinking on your part. Talk about straw men. If an object in a car is an independent entity that is also part of the car as an independent entity then the same applies to the person in the car where the entity is "occupied car" and usually the driver is an important part of its "carness". When I look at cars on the highway each one is occupied, each one is an independent entity and each one is an "occupied car" entity.
Ocean is a self contained entity as well, sorry, as it certainly has a surface and a bottom that meets the surface in a continuous envelope. Again this is a matter or you wanting words to say one thing but not another even when used the same way. And an ocean has many living things within. So it meets ALL of your definition.
Just like the baggie with water and a goldfish does.
Living entities keep multiplying all around you! This is not a straw man argument, it is why your definition fails for multicellular organisms.
... So the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition. ...
With no additions or any clarification addendum, and certainly with consistent application of those words without any flip-flops on what they mean.
An unambiguous definition would not classify viri as living in one location and not living in another location.
An unambiguous definition would not need to have it's application to one type of life explained by adding information on what the definition "meant" to say but didn't.
Chloroplasts however only meet part of the definition. You excluded the part about the synthesis of the enzymes used in making the ATP. This does not happen within a chloroplast. So you have a real difficult time fairly representing the definition as stated without excluding words from it and therefore strawmanning the definition.
See herebedragons post Message 258.
But even without that information, you are putting Chloroplasts in the same category as you put viri: sometimes living entities and sometimes not living entities. By your application of your definition. Seems a little ambiguous to me.
An unambiguous definition would not classify chloroplasts as living in one location and not living in another location.
This is a prime example of you cherry picking parts of the definition while excluding other. I have already said a mitochondria does meet my definition. However, they only meet the definition when living inside the cell. ...
Curiously "the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition" doesn't mean you get to say what the environment is unless that is specifically listed in your definition, because that is what unambiguous means -- apply ALL of them and nothing else ... the mitochondria live and die by those words alone.
An unambiguous definition would not classify mitochondria as living in one location and not living in another location.
Or are we going to need to include environment as a critical element for all life-forms before we can consider whether or not they are alive? I don't see it in your definition ...
Enjoy

* unambiguous ... the word I think you really meant to say when you wrote unequivocal -- that is the way you have used "unequivocal" and you object when the word is used properly by others, eg two different definitions in the same argument.
unambiguous
adjective
1. not ambiguous; clear: an unambiguous message
ambiguous
adjective
1. having more than one possible interpretation or meaning
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 1:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 6:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 7:46 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 261 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 8:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 258 of 374 (773829)
12-09-2015 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 1:05 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
Chloroplasts however only meet part of the definition. You excluded the part about the synthesis of the enzymes used in making the ATP. This does not happen within a chloroplast.
Yes it does. Chloroplasts DO have DNA and even have the gene for ATP synthase as well as some other energy related genes.
Chloroplast DNA
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 1:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 259 of 374 (773834)
12-09-2015 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
12-09-2015 4:59 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
The atmosphere is an envelope that contains all living things, it has an outer boundary made up of atmosphere\self and your current argument makes it alive.
That you don't understand this being a direct and unambiguous application of your argument is not my problem: you know what you want your definition to say and turn a blind eye to what it does say when your argument is followed.
Fail. So the atmosphere contains itself? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I guess you do not realize that the earth is the other boundary and what contains the atmosphere. Take the earth away, and see if you have any atmosphere. Fail, Fail, and triple fail. My definition does not make it alive, and your false application of my definition is a strawman whether you want to believe it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 8:53 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 320 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2015 5:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 260 of 374 (773838)
12-09-2015 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
12-09-2015 4:59 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
RAZD writes:
It does indeed nullify your application of the definition to multicellular life ... because the composite structure is not doing what your definition requires to be called life -- breaking down ATP -- something else is. That makes the gut bacteria alive but not the composite. The container is not the thing contained.
You have to equivocate on the meaning of the words in your definition to stretch it as you are attempting to do.
No. Period. Fail miserably. First you don't understand digestion. The gut bacteria only make ATP within themselves. They do not make ATP for the multicellular organism. The cells which are part of the self contained entity make their own ATP. That is my definition exactly without equivocation. The only equivocation you address is the equivocation created by once again your own strawman argument that the gut bacteria are producing the ATP and not the multicellular organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 9:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 261 of 374 (773847)
12-09-2015 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
12-09-2015 4:59 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
RAZD writes:
An unambiguous definition would not classify viri as living in one location and not living in another location.
Another strawman. My definition doesn't do this. It identifies virions as non living in any location, and viruses as non-living in any location. I have said this over and over again. I have only said they are "alive" (DO YOU SEE THE QUOTE MARKS) in the sense that the whole host cell of which they are inside is alive, and they are part of the infected cell. By my definition strictly, they are non-living.
Now how many times do I have to repeat this, and how many times are you going to strawman it?
Here are my previous words:
AOK writes:
Using this definition, the virus is alive by my definition and most definitions within the host cell. But as I said earlier, the virus is only alive in the sense that it is within the self-contained entity of the cell.
The only way your argument works is if you ignore the gold word. And that's what you do, and that is a strawman.
Here again same post Message 232
A Virion is non-living. My definition clearly identifies this, and it is a much better way of understanding viruses, and it fits with the medical industries knowledge of them.
Crystal clear, nothing ambiguous.
Here agin same post:
So clearly the countering and consensus opinion is that viruses are not alive. They are only considered alive, as I have said multiple times now, in the sense that they are part of the living host cell.
Again, crystal clear but ignored by you.
Here agin same post:
Um, No. they don't live anywhere except in a host cell, and in the sense that the infected cell is alive, and they are a part of that.
You have to ignore every single time I use the phrase "in the sense".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 9:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 262 of 374 (773849)
12-09-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 6:36 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
... My definition does not make it alive, and your false application of my definition is a strawman whether you want to believe it or not.
Jump up and down all you want to, but it is NOT a strawman -- it is your argument.
It is not your definition per se that makes it alive, it is the way you apply your definition to multicellular life that opens the door.
Your failure to understand that your definition ONLY applies to activity within a cell, and thus can ONLY make cells alive, is WHY you are jumping through hoops to make multicellular entities alive while desperately stomping around to deny that those very same hoops make other "self-contained entities" alive even though no rational person would consider them to be alive.
It is your multicellular argument that fails. As it is predestined to fail due to your definition being too particular (remember those criticisms from other posters?)
And once again CALLING it a strawman does not make it so, nor is that a refutation of my posting.
Please stop using that dodge as an excuse to fail to respond to the argument.
Curiously, I can spell it out for you step by step in detail if you wish ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 6:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 374 (773850)
12-09-2015 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 7:46 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
It seems you still fail to see the problem ...
... The gut bacteria only make ATP within themselves. They do not make ATP for the multicellular organism. The cells which are part of the self contained entity make their own ATP. That is my definition exactly without equivocation. ...
AND that ONLY makes the CELLS alive, not the multicellular entity (you haven't determined that it is an organism yet).
You have three possibilities:
(1) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, but does not have the wherewithal on it's own (enzymes, ATP, DNA, RNA, etc not in the cells) to conform properly to your definition ... so it is not actually alive by your definition, OR
(2) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, so it is alive because they are alive (which is begging the question (it is alive because it is made from life) and mistaking the contents for the container (two logical fallacies in one argument, stellar) ... without actually using your definition for the multicellular entity itself, OR
(3) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, which gives it (by spurious extension) the wherewithal based solely on activity within cells somewhere\anwhere within the self containing envelope to conform properly to your definition ... as if the cell walls did not exist ... and that very same argument applies to the goldfish in the water in the baggie.
Any way you cut it your definition does not make multicellular entities comply without also letting any number of other self-contained entities also alive ... ones that no rational person would consider to be living entities.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 7:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 264 of 374 (773851)
12-09-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by RAZD
12-09-2015 8:53 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
RAZD writes:
Curiously, I can spell it out for you step by step in detail if you wish ...
Yes, please do. step by step. List your premises and conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 9:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 265 of 374 (773854)
12-09-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 8:49 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
Another strawman. My definition doesn't do this. It identifies virions as non living in any location, and viruses as non-living in any location. I have said this over and over again. I have only said they are "alive" (DO YOU SEE THE QUOTE MARKS) in the sense that the whole host cell of which they are inside is alive, and they are part of the infected cell. By my definition strictly, they are non-living.
Dance dance dance. Yes I see the quotes ... they are marks of equivocation, ie using a different definition of "alive" ...
Are they dead? or are they (never lived \ not living \ never will live)? Obviously not the latter option because:
Here are my previous words:
AOK writes:
Using this definition, the virus is alive by my definition and most definitions within the host cell. But as I said earlier, the virus is only alive in the sense that it is within the self-contained entity of the cell.
The only way your argument works is if you ignore the gold word. And that's what you do, and that is a strawman.
Here again same post Message 232
A Virion is non-living. My definition clearly identifies this, and it is a much better way of understanding viruses, and it fits with the medical industries knowledge of them.
Crystal clear, nothing ambiguous.
Here agin same post:
So clearly the countering and consensus opinion is that viruses are not alive. They are only considered alive, as I have said multiple times now, in the sense that they are part of the living host cell.
Again, crystal clear but ignored by you.
Here agin same post:
Um, No. they don't live anywhere except in a host cell, and in the sense that the infected cell is alive, and they are a part of that.
And once again your constant whining about straw man arguments are neither correct nor any kind of response to my arguments nor any kind of refutation of it.
What I am doing is applying your arguments to situations that would not normally be considered living to show you how your definition fails -- see Reductio ad absurdum: "or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
You continue to equivocate in your funny little dance to try to make your definition work. You are too emotionally attached to it, it is your precious.
The real question here is whether or not your definition can determine clearly and concisely, without ambiguity, explanation or equivocation, whether an entity is alive or not, based solely on the entity in question, with no additional criteria.
Obviously in the case of viri it cannot. You say it is "alive" but not alive ... and that it is not "non-living" inside a cell, and that which it is depends on where it is rather than what it is.
Equally obviously in the case of multicellular life it cannot. Clue: it doesn't say anything about any process or activity outside the cell.
Fail fail fail fail.
Dance dance dance dance.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 8:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-10-2015 9:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 374 (773855)
12-09-2015 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 9:22 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
Yes, please do. step by step. List your premises and conclusions.
Tomorrow. But not my premises and conclusions -- your arguments.
Enjoy
Edited by Admin, : Fix typo. Possibly an attempted change in italization left some remnants behind.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 9:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 267 of 374 (773873)
12-10-2015 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
12-09-2015 9:56 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
RAZD writes:
You continue to equivocate in your funny little dance to try to make your definition work. You are too emotionally attached to it, it is your precious.
This is the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen written. Read all of Message 232. Message 232 is about what the scientific community says about viruses for the most part. Not what my definition says. When I refer to my definition, it agrees with the scientific community which says that viruses are non-living.
It is you and a small handful of other scientists who argue they are alive by equivocating the term "living". And then I go through a long dissertation how viruses are referred to as "dead", and "alive" within my post. These are the equivocating terms They use, and I explain why they use them that way. It is this explanation that you apparently think is my argument. It is not, it is their argument, and your's apparently. Everything I say, which I quoted for you in gold is in reference to and in context of this....
Message 185
me writes:
These claims are likewise false. The definition is one that identifies "life" or "living organisms". So viruses or any other chemical arrangement must be evaluated against the definition and not your parody of it. The definition does not "ignore and pretend that viruses are non-life" (paraphrase) Instead the definition clarifies what a virus really is. A virus is a poison to living cells. When it is outside a host cell the definition identifies that it is not life. It cannot respire, make proteins, replicate, grow, adapt, or evolve. When it enters a living host, it actively starts disturbing the cell. My definition properly identifies the living organism as an infected host cell. That cell is alive. This is consistent with Cell Theory. The virus is only "alive" in the sense that it is part of a cell. Within that environment, the virus self-assembles duplicates and those populations evolve. But once the damaged cell explodes or the viral particles are released, the virus goes back to its chemical state, which is not living. All Life comes from pre-existing life. There are no exceptions to this. Those scientist you appeal to as claiming that viruses are "alive" are only claiming this within a host cell. So my definition properly and consistently with all other scientific observations and theories clarifies what a virus is in all of its forms.
This paragraph states my claims clearly. But apparently you have a low reading comprehension or you ignore my argument completely. A virion outside a host cell is non-living by my definition. When a virus enters the cell, it is the cell that is alive, not the virus by my definition. The virus is a poison to the cell. The virus causes the cell to multiply the chemical poison. The cell explodes and the non-living chemical poison is released into the environment. At no time, and unequvically does my definition declare a virus alive.
However, I clearly state that YOU and a handful of other scientists claim that viruses are "alive". YES! the quote marks highlight that this word is used equivocally. It is YOU and THEY who equivocate. NOT ME!
That's the whole point which blows by you. Every time after this that I refer to a virus as being "alive" in a particular "sense" I am referring back to this post. This is not my claim, it is yours and other scientists. And I agree with you it is equivocal You have spent several posts now on viruses tring to snip my words and show that I am equivocating, when you don't even realize that I am explaining why THEY equivocate.
This is beyond the pail. Yes, I am dancing all the way to the bank on this one. This is a ridiculous fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 9:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-10-2015 12:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 291 by Meddle, posted 12-15-2015 10:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 268 of 374 (773883)
12-10-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 4:24 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
It is either "obviously" or "arbitrarily", but both together is nonsensical as you agree.
I think you have problems with language and logic and facts. You're the one who used "obviously" and "arbitrarily" together, not me, and yes, it's nonsensical.
The analogy of the range of life from living to non-living with a gray scale has already been explained in several different ways, but let me try another. Here's the gray scale image again:
We know the color at the extreme left is white, and that the color at the extreme right is black. The question is how far from the left does white extend. Your answer is none. Our answer is that at some distance from the left it is no longer white, but we don't know how far that distance is.
Another way of saying it is that in your view there is only one point in the range from white to black that is white, and that point is at the extreme left. We're saying that there is a range that is white. From an HTML way of defining colors (just to use something everyone is familiar with), we're using the label "white" to apply not to just #FFFFFF, but also #FEFEFE and #FDFDFD and a bunch of other shades, too, some of which we're sure are white and some of which we're not.
You're having similar language, logic and fact problems in your posts to RAZD. You seem to be confusing RAZD's position with your own.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 4:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-11-2015 11:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 269 of 374 (773888)
12-10-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid
12-10-2015 9:50 AM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Read all of Message 232. Message 232 is about what the scientific community says about viruses for the most part.
You should read all of your own sources. You cited the Wikipedia article on viruses. It states quite clearly that, "Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms." That paragraph goes on to briefly describe properties that viruses share with cellular life, making clear why there is a variety of opinion. You want to ignore the variety of opinion within biology and just declare viruses non-living. Here is some of the variety of opinion that differs with you:
Seite wurde nicht gefunden. -: "Viruses straddle the definition of life."
Are viruses alive? New evidence says yes | Popular Science: "The diverse physical attributes, genome sizes and lifestyles of viruses make them difficult to classify. A new study uses protein folds as evidence that viruses are living entities that belong on their own branch of the tree of life."
Are Viruses Alive? - Scientific American: "First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly."
Viruses ARE Alive, And They're Older Than Modern Cells, New Study Suggests : ScienceAlert:
quote:
But one thing that scientists have struggled to agree on is whether or not viruses are alive. After all, they can't survive or replicate without a host cell, and due to their rapidly changing genes, scientists have never been able to work out how or when they evolved.
Now a study by researchers in the US has managed to complete the first viral tree of life, and it suggests that not only are viruses alive, they're also really, really old, and they share a long evolutionary history with cells.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
It is you and a small handful of other scientists who argue they are alive...
Obviously your survey was flawed.
This is beyond the pail.
Well, at least no one threw a pale of water on you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-10-2015 9:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 270 of 374 (773949)
12-11-2015 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
12-10-2015 11:44 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
I think you have problems with language and logic and facts. You're the one who used "obviously" and "arbitrarily" together, not me, and yes, it's nonsensical.
Of course I put them together specifically to show you that your prior arguments were nonsensical.
You said that
Percy writes:
We do have opposite ends of a continuum. A dog is obviously living. A block of lead is obviously non-living. Some things inhabit the region between living and non-living, like perhaps prions and viruses. Message 155
Now clearly, you used the word "ends" and "continuum" which means that the ends are quite distinct and "obvious" by definition. You also have defined one end (dog) as "living" (the distinct "end" of white in the analogy) and one end (lead) as "non living"(the distinct end of black in the analogy) These are your words exactly represented.
I have been trying to show you the contradiction over and over again, but you just can't comprehend it. The problem is, because you chose the words, "living " for one end and "non-living" for the other then there is no logical word for what is in the grey area because you chose two mutually exclusive words on each end.
That's why when I used the analogy, white was living , grey was non-living, and black was dead. That way the grey continuum from non-living to living makes sense. But you and others have refused to recognize this. This arrangement of the analogy recognizes that as an organism, it is ether alive or dead which we recognize in the biological world. And within OOL you have a grey fuzzy area from chemicals to life which is a the continuum you so desparately desire, but logically it has the unfortunate name of oops, "non-living."
This is your problem of logic with your own words. You can recognize this or continue to refuse. It doesn't matter to me, but in your analogy as expressed in your words, the grey area cannot be "living" and it cannot be "non-living" it is something other than those two words that must be in between.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 12-10-2015 11:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by NoNukes, posted 12-11-2015 11:13 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 12-11-2015 11:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 12-11-2015 11:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024