|
Author
|
Topic: What is Life?
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
Message 14 of 268 (587171)
10-17-2010 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by mosassam
10-17-2010 12:31 PM
|
|
mosassam writes: Life is a fundamental feature of reality
Well, not the most extensive definition of life I have seen.  Any chance you could be more explicit, so that we know what you are referring to?
mosassam writes: I would like to put this thought forward: What if Life is an independently existing, NON-PHYSICAL phenomenom?
How would you identify this non-physical phenomenon? How would you detect it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:31 PM | | mosassam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 17 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:56 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 27 of 268 (587189)
10-17-2010 2:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by mosassam
10-17-2010 12:56 PM
|
|
mosassam writes: but I am completely unwilling to say that Life doesn't exist
Why are you unwilling? If you are unable to define the thing that you want so much to exist, then perhaps it is a psychological issue. I do not mean that you are 'mad' or 'ill', but that maybe there is an intrinsic part of many people's psyches that wants 'life' to be real. To paraphrase Voltaire: ""Let us accept that life exists. But what if it didn't? Well, we would have to invent it, because it is necessary for the individual / society , for whatever reasons."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:56 PM | | mosassam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:16 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 31 of 268 (587200)
10-17-2010 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by mosassam
10-17-2010 3:16 PM
|
|
mosassam writes: I wondered if there was a similar kind of definition for Life but, judging by the responses I've received to this thread it appears there isn't. This leads me to suspect that Life, like Mind, cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
Just because we don't have a definition, does not mean that it does not exist. Does happiness exist? Yes? Well, there is no exact definition of happiness. Not having an exact definition does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:16 PM | | mosassam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 4:37 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 35 of 268 (587209)
10-17-2010 5:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by mosassam
10-17-2010 4:37 PM
|
|
In response to mosASSam.
mosassam writes: Have the manners not to wade in with some facile comment, actually think about it because there is a paradox here that is at the heart of what I'm trying to understand.
Ok, since you accuse me of lacking manners, I will act without manners.
mosassam writes: it exists but it is not scientifically proven to exist.
This is not a paradox - it is simply that you are stupid. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 4:37 PM | | mosassam has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes: Now, the only reason the evos won't attempt to define life is because it resticts them on their origin of life mythologies. Sad, sad, sad. quote:
The author is in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3206, USA, and a former Editor-in-Chief of Science.
So you think he is not an 'evo'? A biologist tries to define life and Creo's jump up and claim victory? Sad, sad, sad.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Sad Sad Sad
Kid writes: Why don't you quit being sad, sad, sad, and comment on his definition of life. The people in this forum have yet been able or willing to define it. So do you agree with his scientific definition of life? And if not why? And support your reasons.
Aaaw diddums...did I point out that you were wrong? Were you unable to defend your stupid comment? And I didn't even bother correcting your ignorant mistake of "Evolution" = "Origin of life". Cry me a river. Build a bridge. Get over it. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Sad Sad Sad
kid writes: "Run, run as fast as you can; You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
Oh nooes! You are insulting me with nursery rhymes!! Did the other kids in the playground teach you that?
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Sad Sad Sad
kid writes: Treating them as not life is a "vital" step in understanding what they are. Viruses predominantly destroy life.
Since viruses do not predominantly destroy life, treating them as not life is obviously not "vital" in understanding what they are. In fact, scientists have understood what they are for quite a while and haven't needed to categorise them as 'life' or 'not life'. All they actually needed to do was study them. I also note that you have abandoned your falsehood about people not attempting to define life. Having Dr. Adequate list the 6 definitions in this thread alone must have been enough for you to realise that you were completely wrong. Apology accepted.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes: Again nothing but pet definitions here. My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book. It is in the article I provided.
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad. (Describe what you think a 'scientific definition' is, and you will see your obvious mistake.)
kid writes: My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book.
You keep claiming that these definitions are in every biology book - prove it. Copy one of these definitions from a biology book into a post. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes: No the definition from the Science article is not circular at all. It gives seven criteria that all life has. Anything that doesn't meet all seven is not life. Rather simple. Not circular at all. kid writes: I complain because the definition includes a term that presuposes life already. Now had he defined it with terms such as mutation and natural selection, then maybe his definition wouldn't be circular. But again, natural selection presuposes life. So you would have to define NS in such a way as to not be circular. The Seven Pillars of Life writes:
The second pillar of life is IMPROVISATION. ... In our current living systems, such changes can be achieved by a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced.
So...your favourite definition of life doesn't have circular reasoning? Are you claiming that The Seven Pillars doesn't include a term that presupposes life? Can you not see the reference to natural selection? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes: It is circular as I pointed out. So, what should we do? Should we keep it in? Would the definition of life suffice with just six pillars? I think six pillars is just fine. All life has those.
So, first you say that people refuse to give a definition of life. Dr. A. shows you that people have given definitions. So you instead claim that those definitions are wrong. Then you say that Koshland has given a definition. But now you claim that Koshland's definition is wrong and needs to be changed. What is your complaint? Is it that no scientist will give a definition of life that you agree with? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes: Isn't that the process of science? don't you like that process? Yes, I think his definition is very good. However, just one part appears to be circular to me. If we remove that one part only, then we can test the definition to see if it excludes any absolutely known life.
How would you identify "absolutely known life"? Which definition of life would you use?
kid writes: I can't see that if we elliminate that one section that it changes anything. It doesn't exclude anything that isn't already included with the other six pillars. So what is the value of including the poentially circular element if it is not needed in the first place?
Drone bees can't reproduce but they definitely appear alive. So, is it ok to remove 'Reproduction' from your criteria aswell?
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes: Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?
They are born. Being born is not one of the criteria for being alive. (We can add it if you think it should be.) They can't reproduce, therefore if Reproduction is a required ability then they can't be classed as alive. We can remove the Reproduction criteria if you feel it is getting in the way.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes: There is no requirement that an organism reproduce to be qualified as being alive...Either they must be able to reproduce, or they were reproduced from a parent organism/s.
I couldn't find a link to this detail in any of your posts. I found this: quote:
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
on Wiki (which has a list of criteria identical to yours - but includes evolution). But this differs to your definition of Reproduction. Could you please cite a full definition of Reproduction in relation to the definition of life. Because every description of the Reproduction criteria that I can find requires the individual to "be able to reproduce" and not "be reproduced". A single link should suffice to clarify your position. Or are you moving away from the standard definition of life? Which is fine, as long as it is explicitly stated.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3971 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 158 of 268 (594400)
12-03-2010 11:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
12-03-2010 10:56 AM
|
|
Ringo writes: If you want your One True Definition to be taken seriously, you'll have to be more precise with your language.
From what AOK is saying, he is using the standard definition of life found in most biology books. The precise language should already exist. Therefore he can provide a link rather than go into the detail himself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by ringo, posted 12-03-2010 10:56 AM | | ringo has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2