Life - an Unequivicol Definition

Cue a 300+ post discussion about what a dichotomy is...HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

Isn't that exactly what I said?.....Here it is again... We label this color as "one" with the word "grey", but it has many indistinguishable shades. Ok, I see that you agree, great....You see this wasn't a trick Hold on there horsey!......I agree that everyone is trying to say there is a continuum from non-life to life. But this is not the continuum that I defined and you agreed to. That was a contimuum from chemicals to life. Do you see any difference at all in those two concepts?I have argued that there is a valid continuum on this subject, but at the same time I have argued that there is no continuum at all that can be created between non-life and life. Those two phrases leave no in-between simply because they are mutually exclusive words. No other reason. It's a logical inconsistency. It doesn't meet the definition of a continuum, because there is no transition. Please see Message 312 It is equivalent to saying that there is a continuum from white to non-white. Which is nonsensical. I understand why it is used often Really, you just agreed to the continuum of chemicals to life. Life can be unequivocally defined just as pure white is unequivocally defined as far as the continuum is concerned. It only means that the grey stuff is not living, but in between chemicals and life. Whether the ends of the continuum are equivocally defined or unequivocally defined has no bearing on whether a continuum can exist or not.

It can't be non living because then it would be black.You're literally saying that all the non-white regions are black and that grey does not exist.That's not refuting the concept, that's just outright rejecting it without discussion.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Some biologists, myself included, disagree with this particular analogy using only the purest white on a continuum to represent life.We think that for the definition of life to be useful to the field of biology and all the related fields of study it has to be flexible and using the continuum analogy life would include not only pure white but would extend to somewhere in the mid-gray region.What this boils down to is you saying "life has to have this narrow set of parameters and any deviation from that is non-life."andUs saying " nope, not for us. We use a broader definition of life, so that everyone in the fields can understand each other. Sometimes, some of us may use a narrow definition for life, which we define, and other times we need a broad definition, which we define.You are never going to get us to use only your definition for life. Those of us studying life define it the way that works best for us and aids communication the best. Get over it.Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

As I promised in Message 262: Note that this evaluation only applies to your application of your definition to multicellular life. I have included one example of a single cell life form for example on how your definition was intended to be applied.From Message 1 your proposed definition of life is: "Self-contained" has been further clarified (Message 92) as:

quote:

---

Here is the definition of self-contained which you evidently are unaware...

quote:

---

1. containing in oneself or itself all that is necessary; independent.
Self-contained Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

​

A living organism, by my definition , has everything within itself to use and synthesize ATP, It has DNA, and RNA, and it has proteins.

---

Leaving aside for now the FACT that cells are NOT truly self-contained in this sense (without nourishment they die or go dormant — we can *assume* that the evaluation is done at a single point in time), ...... AND, for the purpose of this definition this containment cannot refer in any way shape or form to only a living containment ("oneself or itself" connotations), as that would be begging the question.Basically this is defining the "self" to be comprised of some kind of distinct envelope or container or boundary that can be easily identified, and whatever is contained inside that boundary.In addition, "Entity" has been further clarified (Message 255) as:

quote:

---

Entity is defined as:

​

quote:

---

a thing with distinct and independent existence. (Google)

---

​

Any organism (single celled or multicellular) is a thing with "distinct and independent existence". ...

---

Again, it is imperative that "entity" cannot be considered in any way shape or form to be limited to life forms for the purposes of this definition, as that would be begging the question -- ie life is comprised of ... life.And again, no known lifeforms are truly independent -- they depend on their habitat\ecology for nourishment and livable conditions. We will add this to the caveat on "self-contained" ...In Message 289 I asked for clarification on several other parts of this definition, and based on the answers received we can further clarify:

• uses ATP, metabolism and "synthesizes ATP with enzymes" are just chemical reactions going on within the self enclosure, ones involving ATP and unspecified enzymes,
  ​
• "genetic process" cannot mean a process limited to, or implying, living things, so what is meant is a chemical reaction, or a set of chemical reactions going on inside the self enclosure,
  ​
• "requiring the transfer of information" means the chemical reactions of transcription, so "the transfer of information from DNA to RNA" is in reality just more chemical reactions going on inside the self enclosure, this time involving DNA and resulting in RNA.

In Message 256 the definition was amended to: And a contiguous system just means each part touches another part in some way.[abe] The way this definition is to be applied to multicellular life was described in Message 320: In other words if there is a living cell inside an enveloped entity defined by a boundary and the internal contents, then that whole entity (including the boundary) is alive.This is further clarified in Message 284: So not everything inside the boundary or the boundary itself need to be alive to meet the definition. This would include hair, hooves, nails, scales, shells, bark, core wood, some dead cells, etc etc etc ... (which raises questions of how much needs to be alive for the whole entity to be considered alive by this definition ... 1 cell?) [/abe]So now we can restate the definition as clarified (retaining the caveat that the evaluation is done at a single point in time, noted by * below): Now we can consider what this definition means: Note that two caveats were included to make the cell 100% alive, and that this also applied to other entities being considered.Note that the yes/no answers designate evidence that those reactions had occurred but are not ongoing at the time of evaluation.Note that the definition also makes the clam's shell, the lobster's shell, the hermit crab's house, the baggie, and the wooden dolls "alive" by this definition, not a normal result.Note that the caveats for "self-contained" and "independent" are that we only look at the entities at a single point in time, whereas a realistic evaluation would look at a behavior over a longer period of time, one that would include the consumption of raw materials (food) and the expulsion of waste -- which means that all life forms fail the "self-contained" condition ... unless the entity is expanded to include it's habitat\ecology ... and then you have problems with that boundary element.Note further that the baggie and the Russian dolls also include bacteria in the air and water, as would the rock and the bone (which would make them alive).Because this makes things that are not normally considered "alive" by common consensus views of life, this definition fails to adequately distinguish between "life" and "not life" ... it fails at the multicellular level.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : abe where AOK clarified his position on multicellular life applicationsEdited by RAZD, : clrty2

My rule for transitioning from participant to moderator in a thread is no posts for two days. Two days will have passed since my last post as Percy around noontime today (Eastern time), and then I will assume a moderator role for this thread.

I don't think we need this, because everyone realizes the dichotomy. A dichotomy cannot be a continuum.I find it ridiculous that I have to defend who created the dichotomy of "non-life" to "life". Everyone posting in this forum right now is in support of this false continuum except me. They created this analogy. not me!I just don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. I guess the word "created" is so offensive to posters in this forum that they can't even understand the word when used in another context. In fact, it is clear they don't understand most words.I just find it amazing that my words quoted above, exactly as written can be interpreted in this way.

I admittedly don't understand what this means. Can you explain a little?

You can turn a dichotomy into a continuum by introducing a third state in between them.White or black is a dichotomy. If we introduce grey, then we can create a continuum.Life or non-life is a dichotomy. If we introduce a third state in between, then we can create a continuum.Until you can stop refusing to even consider the idea, you're never going to be able to talk to us about this concept.

I know you've argued that. You're wrong. The only way to argue away a fuzzy line between life and non-life is by defining it away, like you do. You're arbitrarily defining some gray as black and some gray as white. The problem is that that isn't a useful definition. If it was, scientists would have thought of it before you did.

This is your original image you posted. This is my image alteration to your image to help explain my argument. Above the yellow line represents my legitimate continuum from chemicals to life. I agree that life can be hypothesized as an emergent property of natural chemicals. And scientists are currently performing OOL experiments in this field. This is where AOK stands above the yellow line.Everyone (you inclusive) has been arguing a "continuum" from "non-life" to "life". I show this representation below the yellow line. I am showing that this argument is equivalent to saying that there is a "continuum" between non-white and white. The problem is, there can never logically be anything continuing in between white and non-white. The same applies to "non-life" and "Life", because these terms exclude each other and there is no middle ground. This is a logical inconsistency and not a visual one.You can move the location of the touching arrows wherever you like, but there will be no continuum between the one side and the other, because of the terms used. In other words, the "definitely black" is no more non-white than the "almost white". They are both equally non-white. It is a logical inconsistency, and therefore should be avoided.Percy has asked me to use different methods to explain this, and I hope this suffices. In my image, I am showing you where the line can be perceived with my own eyes. Does it matter? Gray is still non-white. So if you want shades of gray to be called white, then call them white. Everything else will still be non-white. It is your dichotomy. Not mine. I didn't use the term "non" in my continuum. That's why you are struggling with this, because it is your logical inconsistency. I am not making this dichotomy. You and other posters want to use the terms with the prefix "non". For instance viruses. In my visual above the yellow line we could place the virus where we think it make sense. Let's say it is in the very light grey area.I can say that a virus is very close to living. It's pretty far away from just simple chemicals and it is pretty close to living. That's legitimate. Now if we place the virus on the "non-life"/"life" chart in exactly the same spot, what can we say? Not much, because we don't have a continuum. We have a dividing line between life and non-life. So a virus is either "alive" by one definition or it is "not alive" by another definition. I didn't create this dichotomy. You all did. The continuum doesn't exist with your language use.In the continuum from chemicals to life, we can have an equivocal definition of life, or we can have an unequivocal definition of life. That does not destroy the continuum from chemicals to life in any manner.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

But I haven't defined this away. No one has accepted my definition. You have defined it away. You are using the words "life" and "non-life". Forget my definition. It doesn't exist for a moment. Your defining terms alone says anything not alive is "non-living". How can anything possibly be in between "life" and "non-life"? It can'tFrom chemicals to life this works. From non-life to life you have nothing but a dichotomy and no continuum. You defined this not me! And your wrong! Not Me!

Hi, AOkid. ...which brings us back to the the point I made a long time ago that we have to consider the reason for coining a term.Why would we want to use terms is such a way that they don't reflect reality?The life sciences have been trying, for some time now, to shift away from thinking in term of dichotomies toward thinking in terms of continua, because it better represents reality. We don't need or really even want an unequivocal definition of "life" because it facilitates and justifies all kinds of false thinking. For example, read what you just wrote: "We don't have a continuum"? Yet, in the very next paragraph you say, "That does not destroy the continuum from chemicals to life in any manner".You can't have it both ways: if there is a continuum, there is no clear dividing line. You blame us for it, but the very first responses you got in this thread were people expressing skepticism toward the idea of "defining" life unequivocally. How on Earth are you blaming us for the dichotomy that we've said, from the beginning, we don't like?

Of course it can. That's what people have been telling you for hundreds of posts. That's a false dichotomy. Done.

Hi BJCan you not see any difference at all in the words "chemicals to life" and " non-life to life"???????There's a big difference! One is a continuum and one logically cannot be a continuum.There is an association between chemicals and life. Chemicals is also not the negation of life.However non-life is the negation of life. Look at the white non-white chart. About two thirds is non-white by anyone's eyes. What is left....white. Nothing in-between. Black is no more non-white than light grey is non white. They are equally the same non-white. Every other non-white shade is equally non-white. There is no progression. just one side and the other side. The terms that you chose, life and non life are what disqualifies the continuum. The terms are defining it.