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.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
And would it still meet the definition of continuum? Yes No
Well that would depend on your definition of "quite distinct" wouldn't it? When does "quite distinct" become "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" ... ?
And ...
... that is actually the POINT of this discussion of continuum -- when you break it down into small increments the differences are not that great, it is only when you step back and look at the whole picture that you see area (a) of the continuum is different from area (z) of the continuum.
Well, it doesn't happen in a continuum. The edges are always quite distinct, "obvious", and "definable".
Curiously it happens all the time. Even when they are just slightly different shades of grey, right? You do realize that edges are not separate areas of a continuum yes? Perhaps not ... can you tell me where the inner edge of "white" is? (between "white" and 'grey"?) where the inner edge of "black" is? (between "black" and"grey"?)
I guess with you it happens by ignoring the definition. Maybe? Yes No
No, it happens when you reduce the continuum to a set of ridiculously minimal differences that only an obstinate person would still say were "quite distinct" ...
... such as between (a) and (b) or between (b) and (c) or between (c) and (d) or between (d) and (e) or between (e) and (f) or between ... (y) and (z) ...
... while the overall combined differences between (a) and (z) would by most people's impressions seem "quite distinct" ....
The question is when does "quite distinct" kick in ... at what point does a difference between (n) and (n+1) ... {where "n" represents a letter in the alphabet and "n+1" represents the next letter in the alphabet} ... is it between (n) and (n+2)? between (n) and (n+3)? when does it become "quite distinct"?
Do words really mean anything anyway? Yes No
Indeed yes, and that is why your definition is in such trouble defining multicellular life.
You want us to accept that if a cell is living by your definition somewhere inside some boundary enclosure where everything inside is contiguous (touching another part) that the enclosed entity is alive ... whether it is a clam (with more mass and volume in the shell than the contents) or a lobster (that sheds a new shell every year) that this somehow makes the whole enclosed entity alive ...
... unless it is a goldfish inside a ziplock bag with water (contiguous, enclosed by a distinct boundary) ... ?
... or a Russian doll set with a bacteria in the innermost doll ... each doll is a distinct enclosing boundary in contact with the doll inside ...
... but there is no question (in your mind) that the clam and the lobster are alive ... because equivocation?
Because the words you use DO have meanings, even when they result in things becoming classified as "alive" by your definition that you did not intend.
Because your definition is anchored\embedded in processes that only occur inside a single cell and thus CANNOT be applied to multicellular life.
You quoted it but you don't seem to understand it: Black and white are distinct but gray and gray are not perceptibly different. Imagine a room with one wall painted black and one wall painted white. Black is different from gray because you've hit he wall. White is different from gray because you've hit the wall. Everything else in the room is gray.
Now apply this to the analogy. Life is one wall. Chemicals the other wall. The gray in between. Fine. So all the things in the grey are not white or are not life.
But also not just chemicals, because grey is not black.
Its between being just chemicals, and being life.
It is not life, it is not non-life, it is in between.
That is the concept that you have simply been outright rejecting without argument.
You won't stray from your hard dichotomy that it is either alive or it is definately not.
Look at what I said two weeks ago:
quote:But the things that are life-like, but don't meet your definition, are rejected as not being alive.
That's denying the grey area and insisting that life is only the things that are white.
quote:Instead, let's talk about the difference between chemistry and biology, or chemicals and organisms.
If you drill down into an organism, you find that it gradually changes into chemicals. If you expand up from the chemistry of an organism (which is not alive, itself), you find that it gradually changes into biology.
There is no sharp line where chemistry stops and biology starts. It is like that image of a gradient that I showed.
Trying to build a rigid definition of life is a fruitless endeavor because you are trying to find the point in that gradient where black becomes white... and that is impossible.
quote:
My definition does not remove the grey, but it limits what can be identified as white.
That's what I'm talking about; You are removing the grey area from what you are defining as life.
You can't say that the grey area is non-life, because that is the black part and grey is not black.
Well that would depend on your definition of "quite distinct" wouldn't it? When does "quite distinct" become "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" ... ?
I have often found that when a persons arguments don't work, they often try and change the words, like you are doing.
It is not my definition of "quite distinct". Merriman or any other dictionary will do quite fine, but "quite distinct" does not mean "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" .
I have often found that when a persons arguments don't work, they often try and change the words, like you are doing.
When someone explains their understanding to you and you make it clear you disagree, wouldn't you find it unhelpful if they repeated their explanation in exactly the same way? Wouldn't you find it more helpful if they tried to explain their understanding again in a different way? Just like people have been doing over and over again here in this thread?
It is not my definition of "quite distinct". Merriman or any other dictionary will do quite fine, but "quite distinct" does not mean "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same".
You have too many spurious complaints. You're all full of definitions and no comprehension. RAZD said quite a bit more than just his opening comment about "quite distinct" - why don't you respond to that? It was Message 303.
Now apply this to the analogy. Life is one wall. Chemicals the other wall. The gray in between. Fine. So all the things in the grey are not white or are not life.
Yes, I understand this exactly like you do.
No, you've misunderstood the analogy. By your definition, there is nothing between life and non-life - i.e. there is no room, just one wall touching the other; there is no gray, only black and white. That's not a continuum.
No, you've misunderstood the analogy. By your definition, there is nothing between life and non-life - i.e. there is no room, just one wall touching the other; there is no gray, only black and white. That's not a continuum.
Ringo, I will try patiently to explain this one more time. I used your example. Please read it again! I am doing this for you, Percy, RAZD, Cat Sci, and anyone else who says I am not allowing for a valid continuum on this topic of "life".
Life is one wall, and it is white.....Agree?
Chemicals are the other wall, and it is black....Agree?
There is an area in between these two walls, which we will call gray, which creates a continuum between the white and the black....Agree?
We have two definitive colors (black and white), and a transition of colors in between which is hard to differentiate the color changes (gray).....Agree?
Now, how many distinct colors do we have?.....Two (white and black).....Agree?
How many non-distinct colors do we have?....One (gray, the transition between which has many shades)....Agree?
This is a valid, logical continuum......Agree?
So, Life is white (dogs, cats, bacteria, etc.)....Agree?
And Black is chemicals (let's say elemental chemicals like lead)......Agree?
And what is between in the gray?....(Virions, Viruses, Self-replicating molecules, fire, crystals, etc.)....Agree?
All of this, I agree makes perfect sense as a continuum. Do you agree? All I need is your agreement or disagreement. I claim that this continuum fairly represents the transition from chemicals to life with a grey fuzzy area of things that are in between chemicals and life. Do you agree also?
After I have gotten your response(s), I will explain further. Thanks
I am hoping that all will respond in some way...This is not a trap!...Just a very patient explanation so that no one can say that I do not allow for a continuum on this subject.
I have often found that when a persons arguments don't work, they often try and change the words, like you are doing.
Curiously I find when someone is losing an argument that they ignore the points that are fatal to their argument and start attacking the person over nitpicking of words.
It is not my definition of "quite distinct". Merriman or any other dictionary will do quite fine, but "quite distinct" does not mean "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" .
And amusingly I am not trying to change the definition of "quite distinct" at all. I have no problem with it -- I am just pointing out that there is a level at which it no longer applies (unless you are an obstinate pedant), a different thing altogether.
Note your definition (and the part you ignore):
quote:: Continuum...a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. Google
A continuum has an infinite gradation from one end to the other, which means that you can cut it in half and have two continua...
one from white to middle grey, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
one from middle grey to black, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
Cut those in half and you have four continua ...
one from white to light grey, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
one from light grey to middle grey, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
one from middle grey to dark grey, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
one from dark grey to black, each end is "quite distinct" from the other ...
Keep doing that and you continue to have continua ...but are the ends still "quite distinct"?
If not, then at what point does it become something "not quite distinct", yet still remain a continuum?
quote:(Message 303): ... it happens when you reduce the continuum to a set of ridiculously minimal differences that only an obstinate person would still say were "quite distinct" ...
... such as between (a) and (b) or between (b) and (c) or between (c) and (d) or between (d) and (e) or between (e) and (f) or between ... (y) and (z) ...
... while the overall combined differences between (a) and (z) would by most people's impressions seem "quite distinct" ....
The question is when does "quite distinct" kick in ... at what point does a difference between (n) and (n+1) ... {where "n" represents a letter in the alphabet and "n+1" represents the next letter in the alphabet} ... is it between (n) and (n+2)? between (n) and (n+3)? when does it become "quite distinct"?
It would appear that you are that obstinate person ... so is there a continuum between "quite distinct" and "not quite distinct" ... ?
Now, the rest of my post that you ignored (See Message 303 again):
quote:and that is why your definition is in such trouble defining multicellular life.
You want us to accept that if a cell is living by your definition somewhere inside some boundary enclosure where everything inside is contiguous (touching another part) that the enclosed entity is alive ... whether it is a clam (with more mass and volume in the shell than the contents) or a lobster (that sheds a new shell every year) that this somehow makes the whole enclosed entity alive ...
... unless it is a goldfish inside a ziplock bag with water (contiguous, enclosed by a distinct boundary) ... ?
... or a Russian doll set with a bacteria in the innermost doll ... each doll is a distinct enclosing boundary in contact with the doll inside ...
... but there is no question (in your mind) that the clam and the lobster are alive ... because equivocation?
Because the words you use DO have meanings, even when they result in things becoming classified as "alive" by your definition that you did not intend.
Because your definition is anchored\embedded in processes that only occur inside a single cell and thus CANNOT be applied to multicellular life.
What about the hermit crab ... "Most of the 1100 species possess an asymmetrical abdomen which is concealed in an empty gastropod shell carried around by the hermit crab." -- how is it different from (a) the goldfish-water-ziplock-bag entity and (b) the original gastropod entity?
So you are having two difficulties: one at the cell level between what is 100% alive and what is 100% not ever alive, and one between what is a multicellular entity and what is something else entirely. Difficulties that you have not resolved to anyone's (but your own) satisfaction.
Keep doing that and you continue to have continua ...but are the ends still "quite distinct"?
If not, then at what point does it become something "not quite distinct", yet still remain a continuum?
At the point when you have two distinct things, and only two things. Example: Life and non-life. These are two distinct things with nothing in between, because the term life excludes all non-life, and the tern non-life excludes all life.
To have a continuum, you must have at least three things. Two distinct things being compared or contrasted and at least one thing in between.
For instance evolution. Evolution is a continuum from bacteria to ...whatever organism you want to pick. Homo sapiens for instance. According to TOE, myriad genetic mutations gradually occurred over billions of years and many quite distinct organisms were formed in the continuum. Now if we go back to the fabled LUCA, there was sometime after a single mutation away a LUCA1 population beginning to evolve, then LUCA1 evolved into LUCA2, ad nauseam.
Now Luca to luca1 does not qualify as a continuum. But Luca to luca2 does with the transition of luca1 in between. Now even though these may be the same species, they are still quite distinct organisms, are they not? In fact, it is as small as a single mutation (nucleotide) that evolution may be identified.
Now in the grand fable of chemicals to Luca, those self replicating molecules must make mistakes and mutations and "evolve" into quite distinct populations which compete for resources and somehow magically arrive eventually at LUCA. So basically, you have the same type of continuum.
So by definition, the extremes of any continuum are quite distinct.
Where do you draw the line to show where the gradient is no longer white?
The limitations of the image being in a digital format do not count; in a true gradient one element is indistinguishable from the adjacent one.
To have a continuum, you must have at least three things. Two distinct things being compared or contrasted and at least one thing in between.
With no distinction between adjacent elements. It is impossible to point to where white becomes grey.
You are trying to make this a hard dichotomy; where something is either alive or it is not.
That's where a continuum can come into play: What if you're wrong and there is a third state that is neither life nor non-life but rather something between those states that we cannot distinguish from either one?
Contrary to your insistence, that does not prevent us from pointing to the things that are obviously alive or not. Just like my arrows above clearly point to the distinct white and black parts, but also admit that you cannot tell where white ends and black begins.
Contrary to you insistence, that is not a contradiction.
Where do you draw the line to show where the gradient is no longer white?
The limitations of the image being in a digital format do not count; in a true gradient one element is indistinguishable from the adjacent one.
With no distinction between adjacent elements. It is impossible to point to where white becomes grey....That's where a continuum can come into play:
Cat Sci: Please show me how any of this is different from what I said in Message 308
You are trying to make this a hard dichotomy; where something is either alive or it is not....
What if you're wrong and there is a third state that is neither life nor non-life but rather something between those states that we cannot distinguish from either one?
See Message 308. I created a valid logical continuum between chemicals and life. I chose this specifically because this is the continuum upon which all OOL research is based. I used Ringo's walls, because she used them, but your graphic is just fine with me.
I think you will agree, that according to OOL research, there is indeed a continuum hypothesized from chemicals to life.....Agree?
I am in no way creating any dichotomy. I am using the only scientific continuum that exists in the discussion of life.
However, look at your comments. You want the ends of the continuum to be "life" and "non-life". Not me! You, Percy, Ringo, and RAZD continually refer to the ends of the continuum with these words. I have continually said that these words make a continuum impossible, because they are mutually exclusive words.
You can have a visual continuum between white and black, because white and black are distinct colors and there can be a transition in between. You can have a continuum between chemicals and life. But you cannot have a continuum between "life" and "non-life", because, as you recognize, this is a dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive words, because one word is defined as the negative of the other word. So there is no in between. I have not chosen these words. You have. (and others have) What you have done is equivalent to your visual continuum being labeled "white" on the one side and "non-white" on the other side. Surely, I agree that the black is "obviously" non white. But also the dark gray is also "obviously" non-white, and the light grey is just as "obviously" non-white. In fact if I push away from the computer screen just a little, you can easily and "obviously" perceive that non white extends at least to the center line of the oval on the left side. So, what are you left with? Well it's not a continuum at all. It is a diagram that obviously has white on the left side to about the centerline of the oval and non-white for the rest of the diagram. No one would consider this a continuum. Non white extends all the way to white. It "obviously" includes black and a multitude of gray shades, so Non-white is not distinct but has multiple colors within.
It is absolutely impossible and logically inconsistent to have a continuum between non-life and life. That is my claim, and I stand solidly behind it.
Now, the interesting thing is, why do all of you resist the real continuum that "science" is hypothesizing from chemicals to life?, and why do you want to confuse the issue with terms like "life" and "non-life"?
Re: The Russian Dolls of life ... (round 3 and counting)
It is obvious to everyone else that it seems you are incapable of understanding what a continuum truly is.
To have a continuum, you must have at least three things. Two distinct things being compared or contrasted and at least one thing in between.
No: you just need to have one thing, with variations from one extreme to another (like the height of all people).
So by definition, the extremes of any continuum are quite distinct.
But the second tallest person is not distinctly different from the tallest person, because they are (by the rest of the same definition)
quote:Continuum...a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, .... Google
Where the difference in height can be imperceptible, by definition. But this masochistic equine necrophilia seems pointless to continue in the face of your obstinate (intentional?) failure in comprehension to even understand the points being made.
Instead, why don't you address the actual issues with your failed definition:
quote:and that is why your definition is in such trouble defining multicellular life.
You want us to accept that if a cell is living by your definition somewhere inside some boundary enclosure where everything inside is contiguous (touching another part) that the enclosed entity is alive ... whether it is a clam (with more mass and volume in the shell than the contents) or a lobster (that sheds a new shell every year) that this somehow makes the whole enclosed entity alive ...
... unless it is a goldfish inside a ziplock bag with water (contiguous, enclosed by a distinct boundary) ... ?
... or a Russian doll set with a bacteria in the innermost doll ... each doll is a distinct enclosing boundary in contact with the doll inside ...
... but there is no question (in your mind) that the clam and the lobster are alive ... because equivocation?
Because the words you use DO have meanings, even when they result in things becoming classified as "alive" by your definition that you did not intend.
Because your definition is anchored\embedded in processes that only occur inside a single cell and thus CANNOT be applied to multicellular life.
What about the hermit crab ... "Most of the 1100 species possess an asymmetrical abdomen which is concealed in an empty gastropod shell carried around by the hermit crab." -- how is it different from (a) the goldfish-water-ziplock-bag entity and (b) the original gastropod entity?
So you are having two difficulties: one at the cell level between what is 100% alive and what is 100% not ever alive, and one between what is a multicellular entity and what is something else entirely, and where this multcellular entity can vary from 100% alive contents and boundary to almost 0% alive contents with 100% not alive boundary (clams, lobsters, hermit crabs, ... and goldfish-water-ziplock-bag entities, Russian Dolls, etc ... things people do not regularly consider as alive).
Difficulties that you still have not resolved to anyone's (but your own obstinate) satisfaction.
How many non-distinct colors do we have?....One (gray, the transition between which has many shades)....Agree?
No. Every shade of gray is a colour. At the very least, we have dark gray, medium gray and light gray. Those are three "separate" colours even if they can't be defined unequivocally.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
This is a valid, logical continuum......Agree?
Yes, it's a continuum because it goes from one extreme to another without distinct "shades of gray".
AlphaOmegakid writes:
And what is between in the gray?....(Virions, Viruses, Self-replicating molecules, fire, crystals, etc.)....Agree?
All of this, I agree makes perfect sense as a continuum. Do you agree? All I need is your agreement or disagreement. I claim that this continuum fairly represents the transition from chemicals to life with a grey fuzzy area of things that are in between chemicals and life. Do you agree also?
This is what everybody has been trying to tell you: there is a continuum from non-life to life and some of the things "between" life and non-life can not be unequivocally defined as either life or non-life. With any unequivocal definition, there can be no shades of gray. An unequivocal definition of an equivocal situation has no value.
But you cannot have a continuum between "life" and "non-life", because, as you recognize, this is a dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive words, because one word is defined as the negative of the other word.
There is nothing more dichotomous than black and white. And yet, we can produce a continuum between them.
What you have done is equivalent to your visual continuum being labeled "white" on the one side and "non-white" on the other side. Surely, I agree that the black is "obviously" non white. But also the dark gray is also "obviously" non-white, and the light grey is just as "obviously" non-white.
Whoops, I submitted this hastily and meant to make a different point. Yes, black = non-white
You keep harping on this point that since grey is not white then it has to be non-life. But you're failing to recognize that grey is not black, so therefore it isn't non-life either.
The whole point is that it is something in between. You refuse to even talk about this because you cannot allow yourself to consider that life/non-life is not a strict and hard dichotomy and that it can have a continuum between them.
Surely, I agree that the black is "obviously" non white. But also the dark gray is also "obviously" non-white, and the light grey is just as "obviously" non-white.
And yet, by the nature of being a continuum, you cannot tell where, exactly, white becomes non-white. You cannot draw a line to say that this where grey begins.
In fact if I push away from the computer screen just a little, you can easily and "obviously" perceive that non white extends at least to the center line of the oval on the left side.
As I explained beforehand, this is cheating. You cannot create a perfect continuum with a digital image. Artifacts of the digital nature of the image are moot points.
So, what are you left with? Well it's not a continuum at all.
It represents a continuum. Whether or not it is a true continuum, based on the limitations of the media in which it is being communicated, has nothing to do with the point that it is being used to make.
No one would consider this a continuum.
Everyone but you considers it a continuum. You utterly refuse to because it destroys your argument.
Non white extends all the way to white. It "obviously" includes black and a multitude of gray shades, so Non-white is not distinct but has multiple colors within.
Yes, of course. That's the point of a continuum.
It is absolutely impossible and logically inconsistent to have a continuum between non-life and life. That is my claim, and I stand solidly behind it.
There you go making a strict and hard dichotomy.
The whole point of bringing up the continuum is to suggest to you to drop this dichotomy and start thinking about what life is in a different way.
Consider a third state that is between life and non-life that spans into not being strictly distinct from either one. A blurry grey in between white and black, if you will.
Now, the interesting thing is, why do all of you resist the real continuum that "science" is hypothesizing from chemicals to life?, and why do you want to confuse the issue with terms like "life" and "non-life"?
I started this rabbit whole with the concept being between biology and chemistry, I've been at this same position for weeks.
You have just been outright refusing to talk about it in the context of what life is.
And you really got to stop contradicting yourself:
quote:I am in no way creating any dichotomy.
quote:It is absolutely impossible and logically inconsistent to have a continuum between non-life and life.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
