Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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 2875 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 2875 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 274 of 374 (773982)
12-11-2015 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Percy
12-11-2015 11:41 AM


The horse is just about dead!
Percy writes:
Even whether a person is living or dead is a continuum. Is a person dead when they stop breathing? When their heart stops? When they're brain dead? When their cells are dead?
If you choose brain death, how much of the brain must be dead before the person is considered dead?
If you choose cell death, what percentage of cells must be dead before the person is considered dead? Does it matter which cells in the body are dead?
You can choose hard and fast definitions for living and dead, but they would remain just your opinions. There are a variety of opinions out there, and so fixing on any particular definition would be arbitrary. There is a gray area between living and dead where we can't be sure.
Percy, your brain cells are just about to recognize the problem whether you want them to or not!. Yes my friend, you can and do have a continuum between life and death. It was me that used that example almost eons ago now and in my last post. Yes! Yes!, we agree on something!
And I agree that there is a continuum between harbor/ocean, foothills/mountains, rich/poor, and on and on! Even life/chemicals. Oh mercy, we are almost best buddies now!
But here's the rub! You can't have a continuum between harbor/non-harbor, ocean/non-ocean, rich/non-rich, poor/non-poor, foothills/non-foothills, and mountains/non-mountains. Do you see now how nonsensical these all are! And the same applies to living/non-living.
Did that sink in? Or is it still blowing by?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 12-11-2015 11:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 12-11-2015 6:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2015 7:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 277 by herebedragons, posted 12-11-2015 10:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 278 of 374 (774033)
12-12-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2015 7:42 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Cat Sci writes:
I can point to one side and say "white", and I can point to the other side and say "black", and then I can admit that I don't know where white ends nor where black begins.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Well I would say there is something tragically wrong with that. You just contradicted yourself in one sentence and you cannot realize it after all these posts.
It is not a problem for biology.
That's clear, and that is what is tragically wrong with Biology
And it doesn't count as equivocation.
Correct, this isn't equivocation. It is contradiction. That's worse than equivocation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2015 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2015 1:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 280 of 374 (774057)
12-12-2015 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2015 1:40 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Cat Sci writes:
You are fatally failing to understand what a continuum is.
The whole point of it is being able to say that one thing changes into another without being able to point to where that change takes place.
This is just as contradictory. Think about it for a moment. You just said one thing is changing into another thing. Then you said you can't tell where that change takes place. Then how do you know it changed?
There is no contradiction at all. And you're unable to show one.
Sure I can...
I can point to one side and say "white"
You just said definitively that one side is white.
and I can point to the other side and say "black"
And you just said definitively one side is black.
and then I can admit that I don't know where white ends nor where black begins.
your admission is contradictory, because you just said where white ends and you just said where black begins. It's at the sides. At least that's what you said.
You are completely and utterly wrong about what a continuum is, and this is causing you to miss a very important part about how defining life in a strict manner is unimportant to biology.
What you and others can't comprehend is that the white/black continuum is defined as three things. White on one edge, black on the other edge, and the continuum of grey in the middle. The white and the black are definitive, but the grey is in between and not definitive.
When you use life/non-life or white/non-white, you just have two things which are mutually exclusive. So anything other that white would be non-white, and anything other than life would be non-life.
Life is a continuum from chemical process to biological process to cultural processes.
This again is a faith based statement. The theories within Biology clearly state that life is at least cellular,and that all cells come from pre-existing cells.
That's an issue that your whole approach to defining is failing to account for, or well, even notice.
Well the issue to your approach is you want me and others to accept your religion. I will stick with what Biologists theorize about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2015 1:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 12-12-2015 5:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2015 6:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 284 of 374 (774222)
12-14-2015 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by RAZD
12-13-2015 7:46 AM


RAZD writes:
The ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a refutation, and what it shows here is that my argument is making an impact.
It did make an impact, thank you. That's the reason I do this.
That won't help you either: the lower 48 states are also call the contiguous 48 states, because they form a contiguous group of one toughing another. Curiously you can stand on the outer boundary of this land mass and not know it.
Oh it helps a lot. It may not help you, because you tend to evaluate one word/phrase in the definition by itself.
A clam is a contiguous organism with a clear outer boundary, so is everything inside the outer boundary living ... including the shell? Same for exoskeleton organisms like the shells of lobsters?
The definition identifies the "self contained entity which is a contiguous system " as being alive or not. The definition in your example identifies the organism as a whole as being alive. It does not require that all the contiguous parts of the system be alive. They may or may not be.
1) "genetic process" -- what do you mean by this and can you state it in a way that does not imply life ... as in "chemical reactions" ... ?
(2) "synthesized" -- isn't that just more chemical reactions?
(3) "requiring the transfer of information" -- do you mean transcription ("Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA (mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase.")
(4) "synthesize enzymes ... to RNA" -- are you talking about making RNA enzymes?
Protein enzymes. See Central dogma of molecular biology - Wikipedia
for basically what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2015 7:46 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 8:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 285 of 374 (774223)
12-14-2015 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by New Cat's Eye
12-13-2015 6:54 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Cat Sci writes:
You're misunderstanding. Going from left to right:
White clearly begins at the left edge of the image, then as you go to the right it gradually changes into grey and you cannot tell where white ends, nor where grey begins. Then grey gradually changes into black and you cannot tell where grey ends and black begins. Then black clearly ends at the right edge of the image.
You don't know where white ends nor where black begins, because it gradually changes to and from grey in between. You do know where white begins and black ends, that's at the edges of the image.
This is due to the nature of what being a continuum is. This is the concept that you are failing to comprehend.
No, I'm afraid I understand exactly what a continuum is, but you don't.
quote:
Continuum...a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. Google
This is why you contradict yourself saying that" you cannot tell where white ends or where grey begins", yet you also say "White clearly begins at the left edge of the image". White and Black are distinct, definable, perceivable, and are at the edges. The variations in grey are hard to perceive. That is the definition of a continuum.
No, the white is life and the black is non-life and the grey is all the stuff between life and non-life.
This is why the analogy doesn't work! You just showed a continuum with three colors, and now you use two labels for the distinct ends which are mutually exclusive. So if white is life and black is non-life, then the grey is also non-life, because anything non-white is also non-life in your analogy.
You don't have to agree that the analogy truly represents reality, but to discuss the idea you have to understand what the analogy is representing. Until you can do that we cannot discuss the idea.
Ok, but we do have to agree on what is on the left and what is on the right. It cannot be life and non-life. The continuum doesn't work. I have said before, you can have life and chemicals as your continuum with the grey being anything in-between. This analogy is logical and consistent with a continuum, but I don't think you like it, because it highlights the distinct edges even more. You have rejected this thus far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2015 6:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2015 7:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 290 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 8:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 286 of 374 (774224)
12-14-2015 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Percy
12-12-2015 5:36 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Percy writes:
You're rejecting common language anyone would use when describing a continuum, even just a simple blending of white into black. Why don't you tell us what language you would use to describe a continuum from white to black?
See Message 285

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 12-12-2015 5:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Percy, posted 12-14-2015 9:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 292 of 374 (774264)
12-15-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Percy
12-11-2015 6:24 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Percy writes:
All of these make perfect sense in their particular context. If the context is bodies of water, then harbor/non-harbor and ocean/non-ocean make perfect sense. If the context is wealth, then rich/non-rich and poor/non-poor also make perfect sense. If the context is geography or geology then foothills/non-foothills and mountains/non-mountains make perfect sense. And if the context is life then living/non-living makes perfect sense.
Apparently to you living/non-living and life/chemicals are distinctly different opposites. I don't mind using the term life/chemicals, if that's what it takes to help the discussion move forward, but I don't agree with you that living/non-living is a completely different beast, and I don't think anyone else does, either.
Apparently you and Cat Sci do not understand mutually exclusive words. For a moment, let's forget about the concept of a continuum and just use two words, "atheist" and "non-atheist". The set of atheists is the set of all people who meet the definition of atheist. The set of non-atheists is all other people in the world who do not meet the definition of atheist. So who is not included in those two categories? NO ONE! In the case of the continuum, this becomes nonsensical.
Using "Life" and assuming there is an unequivocal definition of life, then all members of the life category are those candidates that meet the definition of "life". The candidates that don't meet this definition fall into the category "non-life". There is no grey in between. Only black and white, and the distinction is clear.
Your earlier objections had a completely different basis, nonsensically mixing "obvious" and "arbitrary" in ways that no one else had, and insisting that your nonsensical statements were identical in meaning with other people's when they were clearly not.
Well you clearly 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
From your declaration I already realize the problem with the use of the mutually exclusive terms used for the "opposite end". Your argument is nonsensical from the get go. Then you talk about the illogical "region between living and non-living". You are correct that the distinct edges are "obviously alive and not alive. There just is no grey area from your own words.
Then later you say:
Percy writes:
The ambiguity lies in the middle, not at the endpoints, and in the middle is where your attempt at a definition of life fails, because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary, and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know.Message 171
The problem here is that you think the definition of life lies in the middle. It doesn't. On any continuum the edges are distinct ("obvious"). The synonym for distinct is "clear", "well defined", and "obvious". Which is exactly how you defined life in regards to a dog. So somehow, in your mind a dog is "obviously' "defined" as alive. And that definition lies at the "end" as you say. Then you make your nonsensical statement in contrast to this by saying that "anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary". This makes no sense in relation to your prior comments.
So sarcastically, I put the two words together, and you immediately recognized it as nonsensical. That's why I put them together, because it is exactly what you are arguing. Nonsense.
The only way the continuum logically works is if you leave "life" undefinable, "fuzzy" and grey. Then the endpoints must be something other than "life", because the end points are clearly defined. This is what everyone is missing. And this is why this argument doesn't work as previously stated.
The only way this argument works is to say that life is undefinable and grey and on the left portion is a dog in the whiter area of grey and on the right side is elemental chemicals and black. Anything left of black is "alive" at some undefinable level. But none of this makes sense in Biology either, so I don't think any of these analogies work, even though as you say they ar in the common language which doesn't justify their use.
Post modernism is also in the common language even though it is logically incoherent. These things become emotionally accepted when the logic breaks down.
However, if "life" is definable and clear, and "obvious" as I argue, then there can be a "chemical evolution" from chemicals to life. And viruses and prions and self replicating molecules might have some relative location in the grey area, but they will not be "alive", and they will not be elemental chemicals.
This makes complete sense!, but it makes it difficult for OOLers. Tht's why they like equivocation and want to leave "life" undefinable., so they can win people's emotional side even when their logic fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 12-11-2015 6:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2015 12:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 300 by Percy, posted 12-15-2015 3:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 4:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 293 of 374 (774268)
12-15-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by RAZD
12-15-2015 8:34 AM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
RAZD writes:
First that definition is not saying that the extremes are different from the middle rather than part of it.
So White is grey and black is grey. OK, now I understand it like you do!. Gobbledegunk!
You can keep cutting strips off until you reach a point where the extremes are not very distinct.
And would it still meet the definition of continuum? Yes No
quote:
Continuum...a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. Google
How does that happen?
Well, it doesn't happen in a continuum. The edges are always quite distinct, "obvious", and "definable".
I guess with you it happens by ignoring the definition. Maybe? Yes No
Just a possibility? Yes No
Do words really mean anything anyway? Yes No

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 8:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by ringo, posted 12-15-2015 12:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 5:05 PM 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