Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9082 total)
117 online now:
Newest Member: Daniel Grossman
Post Volume: Total: 897,070 Year: 8,182/6,534 Month: 1,251/1,124 Week: 20/430 Day: 20/35 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THEORY OF LIFE
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 1 of 28 (464964)
05-01-2008 12:02 PM


Message 3 has become the defacto opening post. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide contents, add forwarding note.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:07 AM minaras has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12832
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 28 (465119)
05-03-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by minaras
05-01-2008 12:02 PM


This is much too long for an opening post. Would you like to consider using the shorter form you proposed last August, what is life??

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by minaras, posted 05-01-2008 12:02 PM minaras has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by minaras, posted 05-04-2008 6:30 AM Admin has replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 3 of 28 (465229)
05-04-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-03-2008 9:07 AM


THEORY OF LIFE
Please see Message 5 for the opening post. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add note, hide contents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:07 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-05-2008 9:34 AM minaras has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12832
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 28 (465339)
05-05-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by minaras
05-04-2008 6:30 AM


Re: THEORY OF LIFE
This new attempt is still twice as long as your original post over at what is life?, which was already at the margins of acceptable length. This is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.
Could you trim this down to a few paragraphs that introduce the topic and describe your position? You can introduce all the additional information you like in the course of discussion. Please post a note when you're done.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by minaras, posted 05-04-2008 6:30 AM minaras has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by minaras, posted 05-05-2008 12:40 PM Admin has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 5 of 28 (465357)
05-05-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
05-05-2008 9:34 AM


Re: THEORY OF LIFE
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way...
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.
If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.
The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reaction.
The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.
1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivate in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.
2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.
2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-05-2008 9:34 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12832
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 6 of 28 (465473)
05-07-2008 9:13 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 7 of 28 (466232)
05-13-2008 6:34 PM


quote:
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way...
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.
If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.
The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reaction.
The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.
1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivate in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.
2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.
2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.
  —minaras
Good viewpoint. It deserves no less attention than most other well established hypothesis about life. Life exists only for us the living and once we die life stops existing. Thus, we have absolutely no verifiable way of knowing if life exists beyond our scope of perception.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AshsZ, posted 05-19-2008 4:52 AM Agobot has replied

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 8 of 28 (467018)
05-19-2008 4:41 AM


Calling it an illusion forces a sort of re-defining upon the word itself. Life is just a word that our language uses to identify a thing and although it somewhat vague in some senses, for the most part a child could point to an object and ask if it is life or not and you'll be able to provide a clear-cut answer.
You touched on this and perhaps lets just look at matter as matter - throw the concept of alive, dead, animate, inanimate, etc completely out the window. Rather, lets just say there is a molecular structure with characteristics of interest you wish to understand.
Viruses and prions are components of this molecular structure too as they directly interact with this molecular structure of interest.
Now, this "molecular structure" is a single entity - not the seperate individuals (such as people, butterflies, fish, etc) - as they are all confined to the boundaries of the planet of which they exist. The planet's environment also affects the nature and structure of this molecule, and vice versa too.
In this view, "life" could be defined as the entire planet and I wouldn't be inclined to say is an illusory perspective. It just depends on your definition of the word.
The molecular structure of life today is assuredly of vast difference compared to when it originated. It probably didn't even resemble any of the biochemical structures we are accustomed to identifying today.
Consider the events of a typical star for a moment. Initially its pieces are scattered and over time through gravitation they coalesce. These pieces are the simplest form of matter but eventually enough of these atoms gravitate together and something amazing occurs - they start bonding together to create more complex forms of matter. The process is self-sustaining and over time produces ever increasingly complex forms of matter.
Now imagine for a moment you aren't privvy to the natural processes involved in star formation or the dynamics occuring within stars throughout their lifetime. Even if you were to look at the materials and conditions existing within a middle-aged star do you think it would be fair to say that the knowledge gained from just observing the star's current condition would lack the insight into the process of fusion which gave rise to that condition?
What I am getting at here is that we can look at the current structure of life that exists today and break it down into its constituents but at some point there exists a "jump" in material characteristic that just cannot be revealed by this top-down scrutiny? Again, I'm falling back on the phenomena of fusion that occurs within a star and the inability to know that the process of fusion even exists as a character of matter unless it is observed.
Interestingly enough, we can see matter that exists in the form of "inanimate" as well as "animate", or, "living" vs. "non-living". The hangup I see within this post is only a simple matter of definition which is why I suggest to look at it simply from a perspective of behaviour the "stuff" you are describing exhibits. You cannot express your thought from both the observer and the object at the same time - seperate yourself from the object entirely.
In the end, "life" is easy to define. What is making it difficult for you is trying to define "life" from a "non-life" perspective. You are entangling the fact that you, yourself, ARE "life" with the need to present your definition of life from a "non-life" perspective. In turn, becoming confounded within yourself and expressing only that fact rather than clearly defining "life" itself, which I am sure everyone here could identify if a 6-year old were to point to it.
Edited by AshsZ, : simple edit
Edited by AshsZ, : clarifying edit

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 9 of 28 (467019)
05-19-2008 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
05-13-2008 6:34 PM


LOL, talk about being confused.
"Life" exists because the definition of life defines all of the elements that exist in the world today. i.e. Life is "x" and "x" is exists, so life exists. The things that fulfill the definition of "life" are here - by the very definition, "life" does exist.
Breaking it down any further than the simple definition doesn't mean you are further proving that life exists. It only means that you are further refining the definition of what the word "life" means.
It is laughable in the fact that one can let a word be their thought rather than let the thought be simply expressed as a word.
What is the question here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Agobot, posted 05-13-2008 6:34 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Agobot, posted 05-21-2008 4:46 AM AshsZ has replied
 Message 19 by minaras, posted 09-19-2013 3:41 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 10 of 28 (467343)
05-21-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by AshsZ
05-19-2008 4:52 AM


The question is...
The question is... is life just a mental state(illusionary, a dream) or is it real? As i pointed earlier, we have no real way of knowing that, since our perceptions are confined only to this (real or illusionary) world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AshsZ, posted 05-19-2008 4:52 AM AshsZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AshsZ, posted 05-21-2008 5:32 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2013 8:58 PM Agobot has not replied

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 11 of 28 (467346)
05-21-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Agobot
05-21-2008 4:46 AM


Re: The question is...
Life is just a word - how you define it may seem to be the question but I have the feeling it is really deeper than that (for you).
I get the impression that what you are questioning is whether or not your conscious mind is a concrete or abstract manifestation... that is how I interpret your question/statement. I think it is necessary to divide the concept of life and the concept of mind for any discussion, not just this one. They are not within comparable bounds to each other - like the "apples and oranges" adage.
Taking an additional step here based on your post, it may be questioned whether or not "life" inherently gives rise to mind (or awareness, consciousness, etc). This is a completely spicy, indulgent, and exciting topic to entertain. For sake of conversation, I'll presume this is your direction and pose:
The nature of living organisms is predicated by the structure of the DNA molecule. The very basic "common denominator" behaviour of DNA is rather simple in function - reproduce; continue on. This is true across any and all living organisms. I've intentionally thrown both the words "DNA" and "organism" about as if they are one in the same - they really ARE one in the same - people are their DNA just as well.
It can be postulated that our "minds" are fundamentally rooted in the soil of the DNA molecule's behaviour. The "mind" as we know it is a manifestation of the 204 billion atoms composing the 3 billion base pairs in a molecule that would stretch from here to the moon if so persuaded. When you think about it, our lives are completely and totally guided by the fundamental desire to stay alive and to reproduce. We all want to live and we all want to get laid. Freud wasn't too far off, really. He just wasn't privvy to the molecular mechanisms of life.
In a way, you are almost asking if it is possible for a molecular structure to have a mind, or awareness, or a "mental state". The real answer (to each his own) lay in whether or not you believe the mind is an entity totally seperate to the matter our bodies are composed of or if you believe the mind is an effect manifesting from chemical/material interaction.
In this respect, the only thing that is real is that of which you beleive it real, so to each his own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Agobot, posted 05-21-2008 4:46 AM Agobot has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 12 of 28 (706382)
09-10-2013 2:20 PM


Thank you for the positive responses to the thread. I would like to point out how my thoughts have evolved and matured over time. Current definitions of life find it difficult to normally include viruses and prions without adding sub-definitions, exceptions, etc. Viruses and prions are the simplest known organisms and one idea is to study the functions of the most simple organisms and let them dictate what is life and build a new model and accommodate it in the larger scale.
We showed that life exists only in a changing state and living material can be further reduced and divided till the point we have a single chemical reaction. So , life is a sum of countless chemical reactions. Obviously in the past they were much fewer so we must assume that a source of energy (sun) caused a burst of reactions in terms of number and complexity. But giving energy to increase the number of reactions just leads to mindless chaotic and random reactions. It also suggests that each organism is a system of random chemical reactions, or else a chemical mindless automaton.
This seems pretty nave as a conception because we know that reactions follow very precise patterns and in fact, can be viewed as being directed by other complex processes and pattern driving structures. But..a) If we consider the whole living system as a unique individual entity, it seems not to have any specific pattern and b) remember who is the reference frame! YOU! Or else a sum of chemical reactions, inside the system which it judges. The cause observed by the result.
After all, what would happen in a growing number of random chemical reactions after billions of years? A) Eventually some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal, allowing forms to be created, B) the reactions with repeatability that occur in a somewhat cyclical manner would survive in the long term, because they will not lead to a dead end and c) the reactions that will survive after billions of years will do it because these specific reactions pose surviving capacities over other. From our point of view (perspective) B is perceived as reproduction and C as evolution. What I try to say is that even we were indeed some automaton chemical reactions, even the fact that these reactions continue to happen makes them successful to our eyes regardless of how this happened. These reactions survived and there was a history behind this.
Human position in the system can explain everything. Both life and fire are chemical reactions but fire is very simple with no functional resemblance with us to perceived as life.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2013 3:06 PM minaras has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 28 (706383)
09-10-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by minaras
09-10-2013 2:20 PM


But this hardly means anything. "Some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal". That's not chemistry, that's not science. That's just words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by minaras, posted 09-10-2013 2:20 PM minaras has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by minaras, posted 09-11-2013 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 14 of 28 (706395)
09-10-2013 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Agobot
05-21-2008 4:46 AM


Re: The question is...
Agobot writes:
The question is... is life just a mental state(illusionary, a dream) or is it real?
Why do you believe mental states are not real?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Agobot, posted 05-21-2008 4:46 AM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by minaras, posted 09-19-2013 3:24 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 15 of 28 (706434)
09-11-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2013 3:06 PM


Sorry!!Maybe i didn't explain it very good!
If you go to a biology lab and put some living cells in a flask and you return after some days, how can you distinguish which cells are alive and which are dead? The answer is that living cells attach strongly to the flask wallls, while dead cells are floating in the fluid. This is done by reactions that promote the function of adhesive molecules. Cell-cell adherence is one of the basic properties of living cells. This is the reason why our body is held together and not spontaneously decomposed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2013 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 4:23 PM minaras has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022