Life - an Unequivicol Definition

or you want to use that as a dodge to evade the problems that arise from your application of your definition to multicellular life.Happy Holidays (all of them)

Hi AlphaOmergakid,Apologies for suspending you for 24 hours, but I want you to realize that I meant it sincerely when I ruled that arguments based upon strict and precise definitions held inflexibly and determinedly should cease. That approach could be used to block progress in a discussion on any topic, as has occurred in this thread for nearly a month. I want to see constructive approaches, not accusations, complaints and inflexibility.I would also like to see more consistency, as opposed to the inconsistency you have often displayed. For example, here you are at the end of November in Message 141 saying you reject a continuum from chemicals to life: And here you are just a couple weeks later saying the opposite in Message 292: Many times you appear to disagree just to disagree, regardless of how inconsistent with your past arguments. When you return after your suspension, please change your approach. No more "argument from definition." No more complaints about moderation. No more claims of what you have demonstrated. No more accusations that people are ignoring your arguments. Just calmly and straightforwardly make your points, and if they are rational and supported by evidence then they will carry the day.

Not so much controversial as open to interpretation, which is why I asked you to clarify things.Life as we know it is not "self-contained" (having everything it needs, independent), rather it is massivly dependent on the environment\ecology that it lives in and interacts with, that it relies on for nourishment and other things necessary for life to contnue, to grow, to reproduce, etc.To apply this to life thus requires interpretation of what was meant, not what was said. When you simplify, you need to be sure you have (a) retained critical aspects and (b) not openned the door to things that don't fit.And there are a multitude of examples (objective evidence) of things that meet your criteria for multicellular life, yet are not generally considered to be life. You openned the door to them by being too simplified in definition and application.enjoy

Curiously, I don't believe anyone disagrees with there being a dichotomy established by the words (LIFE) and not(LIFE), just that words don't define nature. Rather words should be used to model nature so that it improves our understanding. The better the model the closer it models reality. Nor does one definition stand alone; rather they overlap and cover different aspects with different degrees of accuracy and useability.Each definition produces different results for a line between (LIFE) and not(LIFE), and these differences establish that de facto there is a grey area (and thus a continuum), where the line by each and every definition is necessarily arbitrarily created by the definition and not by nature.For if the dichotomy was real and a fact of nature, the there would be no disagreement.And that is why being pedantic about the words in one or two definitions doesn't resolve any problems caused by the definitions. Which demonstrates that the (false) dichotomy you try to define by words has no meaning in nature, that there actually IS a category of "almost life" in nature, because dna IS different from lead: it has some of the attributes of life, but not all.You cannot define this away, it is a fact of nature.Nature defines life, you just observe and theorize about your observations.Enjoy

emphasis mineLet's just cut to the chase RAZD. I agree 100% with your last sentence. So what have scientists and lay people all over the world observed countless times....

quote:

---

1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells
2. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.
Cell theory - Wikipedia

---

And this is the foundation of Biology.Now what about this "almost life" stuff. And what about the so called continuum from chemicals to life. It's all hypothetical. This continuum is hypothesized, not observed. At best, what is observed is a few examples of interesting molecular arrangements that have some of the characteristics of known cellular life. The continuum hypothesis is abiogenesis. The observed entities are viruses, prions and a handful of other named things. There is no observed continuum. There is no observed "edge of life". There is no observed chemical evolution of life. This is all hypothetical word soup in a Darwinian warm little pond somewhere. That's all.The one entity that is said to be on the "edge of life" is the virus. I say Barbara Streisand! What characteristics of life does it have? Well it self replicates, and evolves. It doesn't metabolize once it is assembled. It doesn't show signs of homeostasis once it is assembled. Virions do degrade and cannot infect a living cell any more. It doesn't grow once it is assembled. It has no real organization of "organelles". And without pre-existing cellular life, the observations are that virions would just be degrading organic compounds over time.So How is this at the "edge of life"? By the 7 characteristics of life, I count 2 of 7. Sounds much closer to the chemical side of any hypothetical continuum rather than the life side. It's pretty dark gray to me! And prions are even less "life like".So I think it is incumbent on you to observationally establish this grey continuum from chemicals to life.I am preparing several posts for my defense of my definition of life. I should have it posted before the next holiday on Friday.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Hi AlphaOmegakid,You're ignoring moderator rulings again. Me in Message 335:

quote:

---

Discussion of the subtopic of continuums has gone on long enough and should be discontinued. I rule that the outcome of the discussion is that there is a continuum from life to non-life. The subject can be raised again if someone else joins the thread who also believes there can be no continuum from life to non-life, because a fresh perspective is often helpful.

---

Me in Message 339:

quote:

---

Repeating what I said there in different terms, because continuums are a side discussion that doesn't seem to be moving toward resolution, I ruled that at least in this thread there is a continuum from life to non-life.

---

You in this message: I'm suspending you for 24 hours again. Next suspension will be for a week.

Curiously I am not surprised that you chose this response first, rather than address the issues raised in Message 320, because you have avoided these issues for some time.Please note the chart and the FACT that NOT ONE known life form truly qualifies as 100% life without making allowances\caveats\excuses.This is because NO KNOWN life form is totally 100% self-contained and EVERY known life for is highly DEPENDANT on the environment it lives in and (constantly) interacts with.The cell wall, your chosen boundary, is a semi-permeable membrane. It lets water and nutrients in and waste out. Without nutrients the cell dies or goes dormant (ceases activity that you use to identify life, so it becomes not-life by your definition). Just to be clear this is not a definition of life, rather it is an observation of what we know of current, highly evolved life - as defined by the "standard" list of characteristics, a list that everyone agrees is not all-inclusive nor all-exclusive, but a starting point.Further the purpose of this observation is to define the basis for cell theory, their reason for concentrating on the cell and not the areas of (current) ambiguity.This is similar to evolution concetrating on existing life and not the (current) ambiguity of origins.Defining boundaries of investgation however does not corral\coerce nature into compliance with those boundaries: grass ignores fences. There is no 100% continuous record of fossils (closest would be foraminifera with a 65kyr 99% complete record), but there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by evolutionary theory. The observed entities are fossils, remnants, residue, parts that continue to exist in a world now dominated, controlled, and run by highly evolved cell life forms.And there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by theories of origin\abiogenesis: it is evidence based science, not imagination, that is being pursued. Nope. For several reasons, not least of which is that it is off-topic. Another is that this has been done: see
Building Blocks of Life, part 1 and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)So spend your time defending your arbitrary and incomplete (at best) definition from the failures identified before getting banned again.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ?

Unfortunately you apparently do not understand the definition of self contained which was previously provided. The word/phrase in no way implies that the boundary is impermeable and that things cannot enter and exit the container.Apparently you have a " highly literal application of this dictionary definition". I have been warned against this, so I will cite examples in the "common language" as I was encouraged to do.In the previously cited Google definition the example of a train was given as a self-contained entity. A train is what we see, and we see the boundary of the train. However that boundary is not impervious. Diesel fuel can enter, and exhaust can exit. People can enter and people can exit. Product can enter and product can exit. So a train is clearly given as an example where the definition was cited by me.Apartments are also often described as self-contained. Yet, they are not impermeable. People can come in and out. Animals can come in and out. Food enters apartments and is eaten! Crap and urine exits in the trash and the sewer! And apartments are highly dependent on the environment they are in, and they constantly interact with that environment!Machines are described as self-contained entities. They have doors and panels and all kinds of openings for things to come in and out.And of course cells are described as self-contained entities.So maybe you misunderstand the word. I can cite a multitude of other examples, but I would refrain from using "highly literal applications of this dictionary definition" if I were you. No it is a theory. Just like TOE is a theory. It is a fact much like TOE is a fact. Except for concrete and block wall fences. Grass isn't so ignorant of them! There are lots of boundaries defined in science.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Curiously I used the definition you provided and emphasized.btaim* - you still fail to address the bizarre classification of things as "life" that other people do not.You will note that I used a caveat for "self-contained" in the table that specifically addressed the issue of the degree of self-enclosure during evaluation. I need not point out nor address whether or not this degree of self-enclosure is a grey scale issue to show that your definition fails miserably to exclude entities not normally cosidered "life" ... now including trains, apartments and machines.No person can objectively use your definition and not encounter the same problem ... unless they equivocate on how they apply it based on their a priori knowledge of what is normally considered "life" and what is not.Enjoy* - be that as it mayEdited by RAZD, : ps

Nope. That's what "contiguous" means, but not what a "contiguous system" means. Because everything after this hinges on this false interpretation, then your argument for the "fish in a baggy thingy" and the "Russian Dolls with a bacteria inside thingy" becomes just a strawman argument. Nope, this is your strawman. This is correct, no strawman here. This is where the prodigal son goes wayward. Repent from your strawman tendencies! Come back to the Father. He only wants you to include the word "system" in your understanding. Is that such a difficult moral dilemma? Come home son!

So a "contiguous system" would not be contiguous. Fascinating. Curiously this is exactly how you defend your definitions application to multicellular life.Equivocate much? Thus the baggie with the goldfish in water is alive. You just confirmed it, thank you. As has been pointed out, calling it a strawman does not make it so. You have failed to show how I can distinguish life* from non-life* using your definitions, your words, your interpretations.The only difference is that you equivocate when you compare non-life* entities to life* entities - by saying the application does not apply to non-life* because that is a strawman, but that it does apply to life* without being a strawman -- you have not actually shown how I - or anyone else - should distinguish between them via your definition.EnjoyNotes:(1) "life*" and "non-life*" refer to such entities as they are normally defined by most people, not as the AOK definition defines them.(2) strawman fallacy (one definition of straw man, there are others):

quote:

---

Definition:

​

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

​

Examples:

​

1. People who opposed the Charlottetown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada.

​

2. We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.

​

Proof:

​

Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.

---

No, what is fascinating is you cannot comprehend the definitional difference between one word "contiguous" and two words "contiguous system". Can you see any difference at all there? Does the word "system" possibly have any meaning at all? Apparently not to you, and therefore, you create a strawman by not recognizing any meaning at all from the word "system".Once again... You said.... No, I disagree. Period. You have described what "contiguous" means only. You have not included the meaning of the word "system". Therefore you have created a strawman. You are attacking my definition by discounting significant words within my definition. You did this earlier with "self-contained" by misrepresenting the definition, and now you are doing this by discounting the meaning of "system".That is the epitome of a strawman.And you clearly don't understand equivocation, because I have not used any of these words with multiple meanings.

Nope. Again, I did not confirm this. You must first include the word "system" as you apply the definition of life to your "baggy with a goldfish thingy". Can you show me or any one in the "common language" how this thingy is recognized as a "system". EVIDENCE PLEASE!Remember, please don't use any "highly literal application of the dictionary definition".However, the "goldfish in a baggy thingy" can evolve just like you previously described. And so does the Russian Dolls with the bacteria inside. They are alive using your definition. Once you contrive a thing to be multiple things then your definition fails with the same evaluation.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Nope. A "contiguous system" would be a system composed of contiguous elements -- eg touching at a minimum.This "system" can -- according to you -- include living and non-living elements.Thus the goldfish in the baggie of water is still a contiguous system. The elements even interact with each other, so even if you stretch your definition to mean a "contiguous system of interacting parts" it still fails to eliminate the baggie\goldfish entity from the "life*" category.You cannot make your definition say something it doesn't just because you want it to. Yet you insist that one application defines "life*" properly while an identical application does not.Enjoy

Curiously it doesn't matter whether this little rant is correct or not (it isn't) it does not make your definition any better. See previous response.The fish interacts with the water, the water interacts with the baggie and any air in the baggie. They form a system of interacting parts.Life interacts with it's ecology and cannot maintain itself without it.EnjoypsSystem
noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.orSystem
noun
1. a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity;