Life
Jerry Patterson
that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
raven1
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
Define "physical reality".
John Harshman
Jerry Patterson wrote:
> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
Life: Loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.
Dale
news:8otjavs5a97408hh0...@4ax.com...
Exactly! Why is it that physical reality is so often called '"merely"
physical reality'? Just for starters, every single electron in the entire
universe is EXACTLY the same as every other electron. Put THAT in your pipe
and smoke it!
Ken Cope
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:akrjav4bqk9c5mb0m...@4ax.com...
> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
I knew you weren't really interested.
"Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the
inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody
machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of
a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half
the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this
machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the
next morning?" -- Douglas Adams
skeetor
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:b8d4h2$o...@library1.airnews.net...
i hate to play devil's advocate AND change the subject at te same time, but
you seem so emotional... so, why do you assume that "every single electron
in th entire universe is EXACTLY the same as every other ecectron." i mean
we have so little to go on, out of what percentage of known electrons have
been observed in all of existance? it must be some really really small
number.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist that
> life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those posters, then
> please provide a definition of life here.
I agree that the definition is going to be difficult, especially if we
want to include life-as-we-may-discover-it-elsewhere rather then only
life-as-we-know-it, and if we want to exclude human-made self-replicating
machines such as computer programs.
But to get us started, why don't *you* offer us a definition? And then
tell us what the challenge of providing a definition has to do with the
question of whether life is "solely a physical reality". If you don't
sneak a claim about "physical reality" into your definition, does a
conclusion about "physical reality" follow automatically from it? I.e.,
will the definition you're asking for get us any closer to an answer to
that question?
Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if you
want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that concept.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Robin Levett
message
news:pan.2003.04.26....@mail.utexas.edu...
He might also want to use an example - say, tissue culture
as used in micropropagation - to illustrate his
definition...
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
Justin Emalius
I think Jerry is trying to distinguish the material world of experience from
the spiritual. If you understand what distinguishes chemistry and physics
from theology and metaphysics, you already know what he means.
--
That is all.
Justin Emalius
Justin Emalius
"Life" is the property possessed by the objects of experience we call living
things which is absent from the objects of experience that are nonliving.
It's the difference between us and our corpses. It's the life science
equivalent of mass-energy in the physical sciences - the property that
distinguishes material things like you, me and our corpses from nonmaterial
things like our thoughts and concepts.
No one had to define "life" for us to know the difference between living
things and nonliving things. Sense experience tells us whether objects of
experience are living or not the same way sense experience informs us
whether something is material or not.
Leonardo Dasso
> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
I really dont like how "constituents of life" sounds. You dont say the
"constituents of love" or the "constituents of playing football". Also,
what do you mean by "life is solely a physical reality"? Do you mean
"life is an emergent property of the physical"? Your post is
grammatically poor and syntactically sad, and betrays a lack of
understanding of the underlying science. Your "blessings" also irritate
me. Your post suggests a religious fundie trying to be naughty --and
failing miserably. I doubt you would benefit from an attempt to define
life. And I doubt you are really interested.
regards
leo
dkomo
What's the matter, you don't have access to a dictionary?
Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction -- Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary
Witziges Rätsel
> > Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> > that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> > posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> "Life" is the property possessed by the objects of experience we call
> living
> things which is absent from the objects of experience that are nonliving.
> It's the difference between us and our corpses. It's the life science
> equivalent of mass-energy in the physical sciences - the property that
> distinguishes material things like you, me and our corpses from
> nonmaterial
> things like our thoughts and concepts.
> No one had to define "life" for us to know the difference between living
> things and nonliving things. Sense experience tells us whether objects of
> experience are living or not the same way sense experience informs us
> whether something is material or not.
Baloney!
Life is a cabaret.
Lane Lewis
Right after we here your definition.
Lane
Frank J
As you know, many posters do not insist that life is solely a physical
reality. Nevertheless, they do not pretend that their non-insistence
somehow implies that there is a better scientific explanation for the
origin of species than the one we have.
raven1
<notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>
>> Define "physical reality".
>
>I think Jerry is trying to distinguish the material world of experience from
>the spiritual.
Sigh. Define "spiritual".
> If you understand what distinguishes chemistry and physics
>from theology and metaphysics, you already know what he means.
My opinion about what distinguishes the former from the latter may be
quite different from his, I suspect.
Jerry Patterson
JP
I am sorry that you seem so unhappy.
Jerry Patterson
JP
It has dimensions, that is, line length, weight, and if appropriate,
can be timed. I am mildly surprised that this is not common knowledge.
Jerry Patterson
<notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
JP
Yes, and I do that in an attempt to avoid knee-jerk reactions that
often accompany the word soul, even if the pagan Aristotle used it in
his works. In the past, no other poster has made any attempt to define
life in spite of energetic criticisms of any opposing viewpoints to
any claim of its immateriality.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
My question is clearly of a philosophical nature and a common
dictionary is not normally an adequate source for such a serious
definition.
However, your dictionary is something less than Mirriam-Webster's
Unabridged:
Main Entry:1life
Pronunciation:*l*f
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural lives \-*vz\
Etymology:Middle English lif, from Old English l*f; akin to Old High
German l*b life, Old Norse l*f life, Old English libban, lifian to
live * more at LIVE
1 a : animate being : the quality that distinguishes a vital and
functional being from a dead body or purely chemical matter *life is
the immediate gift of God— William Blackstone* *my ability to give
life to an animal— Mary W. Shelley* — compare DEATH 1 b : the
principle or force by which animals and plants are maintained in the
performance of their functions and which distinguishes by its presence
animate from inanimate matter c (1) : the state of a material complex
or individual characterized by the capacity to perform certain
functional activities including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and
some form of responsiveness or adaptability (2) : a specific aspect of
the process of living or performing the functions involved in living
*the physical and emotional life of a boy— Harrison Smith* *the
cowboy's sex life was intermittent— D.B.Davis*
2 : the course of existence : the sequence of physical and mental
experiences that make up the existence of an individual : the totality
of actions and occurrences constituting an individual experience
*emotions provoked by particular events in his life— T.S.Eliot*
*interests T that have occupied his life— F.R.Leavis* *children T are
the joy of our lives— Agnes S. Turnbull*
3 : BIOGRAPHY 1 *a shilling life will give you all the facts—
W.H.Auden* *a full-length life*
4 a : the earthly state of human existence as distinguished from the
spiritual state after death *all those who in this transitory life—
Book of Com. Prayer* b : a spiritual form of eternal existence
transcending physical death *he who hears my word T has passed from
death to life— Jn 5:24 (Revised Standard Version)* *his craving T for
release into the life to come— Rodney Gilbert*
5 a : the duration of the earthly existence of an individual;
specifically : the period from birth to death *his habits were such
as promise a long life— T.B.Macaulay* *early in life he had married*
b : a specific phase of earthly existence *parents T had more effect
on your child life— Glamour (Australia)*; especially : the period
from an event until death *six senators appointed for life* c : a
sentence of imprisonment for the remaining portion of the convict's
earthly existence *if found guilty T he could get life— George Quint*
d : continued existence and right to function (as in a political
office) *the secretary of state T whose life depends on such a fickle
thing as votes— E.O.Hauser* *fighting for his political life— New York
Times*
6 : a way or manner of living; especially : one associated with an
occupation, location, or time *a continent where the rural life is
predominant— P.E.James* *she will have a wretched life with this young
scamp— L.C.Douglas* *the life of the colonists is visible to the eye—
R.W.Hatch*
7 : someone held to be as dear to one as existence — usually used as
a term of endearment *my bride, my wife, my life— Alfred Tennyson*
8 : something held to be essential to animate existence or to a
livelihood *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life—
Jn 6:63 (Revised Standard Version)* *the fishing village drew its life
from the sea*
9 : a vital or living being; specifically : PERSON *many youthful
lives miss the opportunities for education— Ernest & Pearl Beaglehole*
10 : the force or principle that animates and usually tends to shape
the development of something *the life of the constitution T has been
not logic but experience— F.A.Ogg & Harold Zink*
11 : energy and liveliness in action, thought, or expression :
ANIMATION, SPIRIT *gives thy gestures grace and life— William
Wordsworth* *there was little life in her voice— Winston Churchill*
*there is still life in the old conceptions of loyalty— Leslie Rees*
*breathe life into books for children— Rumer Godden*
12 : the form or pattern of something as it exists in reality *a
drawing from the life* *screen motion was a little faster and more
jerky than life— Otis Ferguson* *pictures show the family to the life—
May L. Becker*
13 : a person whose life is insured (as by a life-insurance policy);
especially : one considered with regard to his prospects for a long
existence *an insurance doctor had pronounced him a first-class life—
E.M.Lustgarten*
14 a : the period of duration of something held to resemble a natural
organism in structure or functions *throughout the life of the
republic— C.L.Jones* *ended the Labour government's life within T one
year— Herbert Dorn* b : the period of time during which a material
object is fit for use or the efficient performance of its functions :
the number of times an object may be used efficiently *the life of the
road was hardly a year— American Guide Series: New Hampshire* *the
life of a battleship was set at twenty years— C.E.Black &
E.C.Helmreich* *tool life varied greatly with the microstructure of
the steels being machined— F.H.Colvin* c : the period of existence
(as of an ion) — compare HALF-LIFE d : the period of time during
which a legal document or relationship (as a marriage) is in force and
effect e : the period of time during which something (as a book or a
play) continues to be popular *making a few books tremendously popular
but shortening the lives of all— J.D.Hart* *the permanent life of
distinguished minor fiction— E.K.Brown* f : the property (as
resilience, elasticity, springiness) of an inanimate substance
resembling the animate quality of a living being *the life of a bow*
*an elastic belt that had lost most of its life* g : the length of
time that the usefulness or quality of a packaged product lasts before
deterioration begins *lengthen the life of packaged fresh meat cuts—
V.J.Hillery* *shelf life of baked pies— Lou Bisno*
15 : living beings; especially : the living things of a particular
kind, quality, or environment *bird life* *plant life* *forest life*
16 a : human activities: as (1) : the active or practical part of
human existence *if a student is to be prepared for life, he must be
prepared for making a living— Bulletin of Bates College* (2) : social
activities *entered the life of the court* b : the activity and
movement characterizing the presence of living beings *sidewalk cafes
just now stirring to midmorning life— P.E.Deutschman* c : the
activities of a given sphere, area, or time *economic and commercial
life was almost wholly at a standstill— R.A.Hall b.1911* *life in the
Mediterranean war theater* *participate in local, state, and national
life— John Lodge* *his private life*
17 : one that inspires or excites spirit and vigor and is usually held
to provide a principal basis for enjoyment or success *the life of the
party* *he was the life of the enterprise*
18 a : another chance or a continued opportunity given to one likely
to lose; especially : an opportunity given a batter in cricket and
baseball to reach a base or to continue at bat because of a fielding
error b : one of several turns limited in number by the rules of a
game (as English pool) during which a player may continue in the game
until he makes a mistake (as hitting the wrong ball or pocketing his
own ball)
19 capitalized , Christian Science : 2GOD b(6)
20 : something resembling animate life: as a : continued active
existence and development *British Columbia's chance for a separate
political life— R.W.Van Alstyne* *upon circulation T the life and
prosperity of a newspaper depends— F.L.Mott* b : a state
characterized by the functioning of the mechanical parts (as of a
motor) *the engine coughed into life— B.R.Ingram*
21 : conscious existence supposed to be a quality of the soul or as
the soul's nature and being
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist that
>> life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those posters, then
>> please provide a definition of life here.
>
>I agree that the definition is going to be difficult, especially if we
>want to include life-as-we-may-discover-it-elsewhere rather then only
>life-as-we-know-it, and if we want to exclude human-made self-replicating
>machines such as computer programs.
>But to get us started, why don't *you* offer us a definition? And then
>tell us what the challenge of providing a definition has to do with the
>question of whether life is "solely a physical reality". If you don't
>sneak a claim about "physical reality" into your definition, does a
>conclusion about "physical reality" follow automatically from it? I.e.,
>will the definition you're asking for get us any closer to an answer to
>that question?
JP
In past threads I certainly provided a definition and was criticized
by posters who insisted life was solely a physical reality, but would
not define it because it was too much fun (and required little
thought) to post claims of electro-chemical, chemical, etc. in the
brain, but no definition. I am asking anyone with a definition to post
it here.
>Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if you
>want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that concept.
JP
You seem to be a thoughtful person and I find it surprising that the
word physical is not understood. Physical means defined by line
length, weight, or timing. Reality means what is.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
There is no notion here of origin of species. A philosophical
definition of life is a scientific definition and should be worded
with care. Have you a definition for life?
Jerry Patterson
JP
You appear to be affraid. I gave mine on several posts in previous
threads. Why are you reluctant to give a definition? You can't? Who
are "we?"
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
>Lane
Jerry Patterson
JP
You must be irritated easily. Leo, I am very confident you have a
dictionary and are quite competent to use it. You should illustrate
the grammatic flaw(s) in the paragraph rather than simply throw an
accusation. A competent definition should answer your other questions.
You should know full well that I defined life in other threads. I am
asking others for theirs. Have you one?
Jerry (I don't aspire to irritate you)
Jerry Patterson
JP
You don't believe in God? Why do you bother to post Adams' frustration
in his reasoning ability? Machine? Whew.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Why did you use the word "merely?" Pipe? Where is the definition of
life? Electrons?
The Ghost In The Machine
<dmg...@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Apr 2003 05:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
<b8d4h2$o...@library1.airnews.net>:
Pedant point: Not quite true, as they're in different states. :-)
(Cf Pauli's Exclusion Principle for some issues thereon.)
Then again, you're mostly right; there's no way to distinguish
one from another, once they're brought to the same state,
and some experiments are designed to confuse two electrons --
and they work. (The double-slit experiment comes to mind,
for example.)
As for "physical reality": if I bump my knee on a table,
the knee and table are mostly empty space, but, because
of those darned electrons, I may sustain a rather painful
injury, if I bump it hard enough. :-) But the nuclei
would barely notice.
At this level I'm not quite sure how to characterize
life; the electrons don't really care. Of course,
certain higher-level structures -- mitochondria, cells,
blood vessels, organs -- in a corpse function quite
differently from those in a living, breathing, healthy,
active, thinking, etc. human being.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:00:20 +0000 (UTC)
<3EA9CF0...@pacbell.net>:
I prefer it to its alternative. :-) Of course Marvin
may have a difference of opinion. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random Prozac-deprived android here
John Harshman
Jerry Patterson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:00:20 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>>that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>>posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>>
>>
>>Life: Loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.
>>
>
> JP
> I am sorry that you seem so unhappy.
I'm sorry you seem so humor-impaired. That was an apposite quote from
Marvin the paranoid android. It would do you considerable good to read
some Douglas Adams. (I note that I'm not the only person to find Adams
an appropriate reference for this thread.)
ML Carle
Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>>
>
>JP
>There is no notion here of origin of species. A philosophical
>definition of life is a scientific definition and should be worded
>with care. Have you a definition for life?
>. . .
>Blessings,
>Jerry
>http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
>
>
Then would you be so kind as to not cross-post this to talk.origins?
dkomo
>
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:14:13 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> >> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> >> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> >> . . .
> >> Blessings,
> >> Jerry
> >> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
> >
> >What's the matter, you don't have access to a dictionary?
> >
> >Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> >growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction -- Webster's New
> >Collegiate Dictionary
> >
> >
> > --dk...@cris.com
>
> JP
> My question is clearly of a philosophical nature and a common
> dictionary is not normally an adequate source for such a serious
> definition.
>
Oh? Then I would be interested in your "philosophical" as opposed to
biological definition of life.
> However, your dictionary is something less than Mirriam-Webster's
> Unabridged:
>
You just posted a ton of irrelevant definitions regarding biological
life. The only one from that mass that counts is:
"c (1) : the state of a material complex or individual characterized
by the capacity to perform certain functional activities including
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and
some form of responsiveness or adaptability."
And that's not much different than the definition I posted.
KISS.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dale"
<dmg...@nspm.airmail.net>:
<snip>
>Just for starters, every single electron in the entire
>universe is EXACTLY the same as every other electron. Put THAT in your pipe
>and smoke it!
But that's because there *is* only one electron. You see,
there's this trick of bouncing back and forth in time, in
the process occupying all the "electron habitats" everywhere
and everywhen...
;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
raven1
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:58:37 +0000 (UTC), raven1
><psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>>that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>>posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>
>>Define "physical reality".
>
>JP
>It has dimensions, that is, line length, weight, and if appropriate,
>can be timed. I am mildly surprised that this is not common knowledge.
Don't be. We get trolls in t.o with all sorts of agendas, not to
mention personal definitions of common terms. It's prudent for us to
ask for clarification.
SortingItOut
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:14:13 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> >> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> >> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> >> . . .
> >> Blessings,
> >> Jerry
> >> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
> >
> >What's the matter, you don't have access to a dictionary?
> >
> >Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> >growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction -- Webster's New
> >Collegiate Dictionary
> >
> >
> > --dk...@cris.com
>
> JP
> My question is clearly of a philosophical nature and a common
> dictionary is not normally an adequate source for such a serious
> definition.
Actually, it's not at all clear that your opening request for a
definition is of a philosophical nature. You asked for a definition
that reflected life as solely physical, and one was provided. You
failed to extend dkomo (and the rest of us) the courtesy of
identifying spcifically what was wrong with the definition he
provided. And since you apparently have additional constraints on the
type of definition you will accept for discussion, please provide
these detailed requirements up front. Otherwise, we are all wasting
precious time.
>
> However, your dictionary is something less than Mirriam-Webster's
> Unabridged:
>
<snip definition>
Justin Emalius
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:11:22 +0000 (UTC), "Justin Emalius"
> <notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>>> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>>
>>> Define "physical reality".
>>
>> I think Jerry is trying to distinguish the material world of
>> experience from the spiritual.
>
> Sigh. Define "spiritual".
>
Sigh indeed. It looks like the next thing you may be asking is what the
meaning of "is" is.
>> If you understand what distinguishes chemistry and physics
>> from theology and metaphysics, you already know what he means.
>
> My opinion about what distinguishes the former from the latter may be
> quite different from his, I suspect.
I suspect it is not.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:26:23 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>
>> I agree that the definition is going to be difficult, especially if we
>> want to include life-as-we-may-discover-it-elsewhere rather then only
>> life-as-we-know-it, and if we want to exclude human-made
>> self-replicating machines such as computer programs.
>
>> But to get us started, why don't *you* offer us a definition? And then
>> tell us what the challenge of providing a definition has to do with the
>> question of whether life is "solely a physical reality". If you don't
>> sneak a claim about "physical reality" into your definition, does a
>> conclusion about "physical reality" follow automatically from it?
>> I.e., will the definition you're asking for get us any closer to an
>> answer to that question?
>
> JP
> In past threads I certainly provided a definition
I guessed I missed it. Please post it again or else post a google link,
so we can talk about it.
> and was criticized by posters who insisted life was solely a physical
> reality,
Sounds like you rolled your conclusions into your definition... but I
won't know unless I *see* it.
> but would not define it because it was too much fun (and
> required little thought) to post claims of electro-chemical, chemical,
> etc. in the brain, but no definition. I am asking anyone with a
> definition to post it here.
After you, my friend.
>> Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if you
>> want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that concept.
>
> JP
> You seem to be a thoughtful person and I find it surprising that the
> word physical is not understood. Physical means defined by line length,
> weight, or timing.
Does that cover electormagnetism? Relativity? Quantum mechanics?
> Reality means what is.
No problem with that; that's what scientists busy themselves about.
Given your definition of "physical reality" and your forthcoming
definition of "life", what makes you think life isn't part of physical
reality?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
SortingItOut
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:58:37 +0000 (UTC), raven1
> <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
> ><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> >>that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> >>posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> >
> >Define "physical reality".
>
> JP
> It has dimensions, that is, line length, weight, and if appropriate,
> can be timed. I am mildly surprised that this is not common knowledge.
Common among whom? Physicists? Philosophers? I have an engineering
degree and have never heard of this definition of physical reality.
Also, I'm curious...would a definition of a non-physical entity
include similarly descriptive terms? Could you give me a definition
of a spiritual entity or non-phyisical entity (or whatever the correct
term would be) just so I can see what one would look like?
Also, I don't understand why your definition of "physical reality"
above is acceptably short and concise, but dkomo's definition of life
(elsewhere in this thread) apparently isn't even in the right ballpark
(in your opinion)? What am I missing?
John Wilkins
Jerry
Life's pretty easy to define: it is the process of the reproduction of
dissipative thermodynamic structures (including those subsequent
dissipative structures that do not reproduce). The trouble only arises
if you want to define *only* living things according to some prior
"intuition" but leave out all possible "non-living things" that might
also be both dissipative and reproducing, such as von Neumann machines.
"Soul" (psuche) was the term Aristotle used for "motive force" that
caused change. The changes he discussed in De Anima (anima being the
Latin translation of "soul"/psuche, and the root for "animated") were
growth, reproduction, motion and intellection. In no way was this
immaterial.
So far, depsite all attempts through the history of biology, no place
has been successfully reserved for immaterial anythings. It has been
tried with reflexes, organic chemistry, then vital forces, impetuses,
generative powers, preformations, fructifications, moule interieurs,
nisus formativa, feus éthéré, élans vital, and entelechies; nothing has
worked. You mightn't like it, but life seems not to need anything
immaterial. It is, purely and simply, a series of chemical and physical
reactions, of varying complexity.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
raven1
<notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:11:22 +0000 (UTC), "Justin Emalius"
>> <notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>>>> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>>>
>>>> Define "physical reality".
>>>
>>> I think Jerry is trying to distinguish the material world of
>>> experience from the spiritual.
>>
>> Sigh. Define "spiritual".
>>
>
>Sigh indeed. It looks like the next thing you may be asking is what the
>meaning of "is" is.
No, just how do you define "spiritual"? It's a valid question. A Zen
Buddhist, for example, would define it far differently than someone
coming from a Judeo-Christian or Moslem background, and a Hindu would
define it differently still. A Humanist might use the term to mean
something different from any of the above.
So, are you defining "spirit" in terms of consciousness, awareness, or
whatever? Is it an emergent property of matter, or does it have its
own independent existence, like the concept of a "soul"? If so, what
are its properties, and are you claiming or implying that non-physical
intelligences exist? Please clarify, because I honestly don't know
what you mean by the term.
>
>>> If you understand what distinguishes chemistry and physics
>>> from theology and metaphysics, you already know what he means.
>>
>> My opinion about what distinguishes the former from the latter may be
>> quite different from his, I suspect.
>
>I suspect it is not.
I suspect it is. Someone who signs his posts with "Blessings" is
unlikely to think that the distinction between them is that the first
two are sciences, while the latter two are a bunch of superstitious
nonsense and intellectual masturbation respectively. YMMV.
Jerry Patterson
JP
You are absolutely correct. It turns out that I would not have
presumed that readers be asked for a definition that could be looked
up in a common dictionary . . . but you are right. This is, indeed, a
philosophical question.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
What is the specialty of Talk.origins? If life is one of them, then it
first must be understood in order to inquire as to its origins. Have
you a definition?
Jerry Patterson
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
JP
My friends don't find me humor impaired. If you want to reply to
Marvin, please do so. You placed it under my text.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
> --dk...@cris.com
JP
What is irrelevant to some is not to others. To what state do you
characterize life in your elected definition?
If you are a male, I reject your kiss. I even reject it if you are a
female.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
dkomo
So, you skipped providing your "philosophical" definition of life in
favor of the above sound bite. If you have already posted such a
definition elsewhere, give some links. However, your web site doesn't
count. It's only religious gibbering.
> To what state do you
> characterize life in your elected definition?
>
To what state of mangled semantics does the above sentence aspire?
> If you are a male, I reject your kiss. I even reject it if you are a
> female.
> . . .
KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Because the greatest truth is often to be found in simplicity...
KISS in my post should be compared to "Blessings" in others. It's
intended to convey a benefit to the reader.
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
AC
> Jerry Patterson wrote:
>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
> things which is absent from the objects of experience that are nonliving.
> It's the difference between us and our corpses. It's the life science
> equivalent of mass-energy in the physical sciences - the property that
> distinguishes material things like you, me and our corpses from nonmaterial
> things like our thoughts and concepts.
>
> No one had to define "life" for us to know the difference between living
> things and nonliving things. Sense experience tells us whether objects of
> experience are living or not the same way sense experience informs us
> whether something is material or not.
The circularity of this definition has my head spinning.
--
A. Clausen
AC
I fail to see how having any sort of philosophical definition of life means
that you have achieved a scientific definition.
--
A. Clausen
Robin Levett
I wonder whether we should add a humour reading list to the
FAQs on talkorigins.org? I'm sure that someone - say
Wilkins - would be able to knock one up in half an hour. It
seems to me that at least some familiarity with the works of
Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, Monty Python and the Goons
is essential, and maybe Buffy. Any other nominations?
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:28:33 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:26:23 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>>>
>>> I agree that the definition is going to be difficult, especially if we
>>> want to include life-as-we-may-discover-it-elsewhere rather then only
>>> life-as-we-know-it, and if we want to exclude human-made
>>> self-replicating machines such as computer programs.
>>
>>> But to get us started, why don't *you* offer us a definition? And then
>>> tell us what the challenge of providing a definition has to do with the
>>> question of whether life is "solely a physical reality". If you don't
>>> sneak a claim about "physical reality" into your definition, does a
>>> conclusion about "physical reality" follow automatically from it?
>>> I.e., will the definition you're asking for get us any closer to an
>>> answer to that question?
>>
>> JP
>> In past threads I certainly provided a definition
>
>I guessed I missed it. Please post it again or else post a google link,
>so we can talk about it.
JP
I will copy it here, but will certainly not respond to a single
question about it until you post your definition:
******************
William and Jerry agreed to start this thread since this topic was
inserted into the previous thread and varied too far the topic of that
thread. Since the notion of mind is one of the attributes proceeding
from the notion of "life," life will be considered here also.
I will define life as that immaterial reality that animates the body.
I also claim that thought is the activity of an immaterial source
since only an immaterial source can produce an immaterial effect
(thought). William's definition will be posted by him here and he will
delineate the consequences of his definition.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
******************
>
>> and was criticized by posters who insisted life was solely a physical
>> reality,
>
>Sounds like you rolled your conclusions into your definition... but I
>won't know unless I *see* it.
JP
Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that
it cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
noticeably true in the sciences.
>> but would not define it because it was too much fun (and
>> required little thought) to post claims of electro-chemical, chemical,
>> etc. in the brain, but no definition. I am asking anyone with a
>> definition to post it here.
>
>After you, my friend.
>
>
>>> Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if you
>>> want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that concept.
>>
>> JP
>> You seem to be a thoughtful person and I find it surprising that the
>> word physical is not understood. Physical means defined by line length,
>> weight, or timing.
>
>Does that cover electormagnetism? Relativity? Quantum mechanics?
JP
All of the above. Theories notwithstanding. As a scientifically
oriented person you know full well that electromagnetism has
dimensions. Are you now try to pull my leg. I have no patience for
that.
>> Reality means what is.
>
>No problem with that; that's what scientists busy themselves about.
>
>
>Given your definition of "physical reality" and your forthcoming
>definition of "life", what makes you think life isn't part of physical
>reality?
JP
Stop it! Give your definition of life or I will consider you a
four-flusher.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Possibly, that is true. Since there are an extremely large number of
animated creatures, there are questions that arise, for instance:
1. What manages all of the various diverse functions of these widely
varied bodies? There is no gland, organ, or physical process that can
be identified as life. All these bodies are sufficiently coordinated
so as not to harbor internal conflicts to the extent that they
function productively after birth. This is to say nothing of the
pre-birth animations.
2. Human life possesses even a greater variety of functions, including
intellect, will, conscience, instincts, etc.
3. Many believe that life is solely a physical phenomenon. For
centuries science has tried to produce life from basic elements. All
attempts have failed and hope seems to spring eternally. The question
that is important to answer, for the sake of science, is at what point
in this quest for the production of life does it become unreasonable
to continue such disappointing efforts if life cannot be produced?
What are the conditions that would make such a decision very
reasonable?
>"Soul" (psuche) was the term Aristotle used for "motive force" that
>caused change. The changes he discussed in De Anima (anima being the
>Latin translation of "soul"/psuche, and the root for "animated") were
>growth, reproduction, motion and intellection. In no way was this
>immaterial.
>
>So far, depsite all attempts through the history of biology, no place
>has been successfully reserved for immaterial anythings. It has been
>tried with reflexes, organic chemistry, then vital forces, impetuses,
>generative powers, preformations, fructifications, moule interieurs,
>nisus formativa, feus éthéré, élans vital, and entelechies; nothing has
>worked. You mightn't like it, but life seems not to need anything
>immaterial. It is, purely and simply, a series of chemical and physical
>reactions, of varying complexity.
JP
That is correct. It is certainly not within the provinces of the
physical sciences to comment on what may be immaterial. Responsible
science will not so claim. That is why the last question in my last
paragraph is important so as not to waste resources.
Jerry Patterson
(SortingItOut) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<q0llav4u0d86vfql2...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:58:37 +0000 (UTC), raven1
>> <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>> ><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>> >>that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>> >>posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>> >
>> >Define "physical reality".
>>
>> JP
>> It has dimensions, that is, line length, weight, and if appropriate,
>> can be timed. I am mildly surprised that this is not common knowledge.
>
>
>Common among whom? Physicists? Philosophers? I have an engineering
>degree and have never heard of this definition of physical reality.
JP
Anyone who studies physics. As an engineer you have studied, in
school, a specialized slice of physics. Did you not notice this?
>Also, I'm curious...would a definition of a non-physical entity
>include similarly descriptive terms? Could you give me a definition
>of a spiritual entity or non-phyisical entity (or whatever the correct
>term would be) just so I can see what one would look like?
JP
That is an excellent question. I have not been asked that before. My
current answer is one of little reflection and so may be flawed. It
seems to me that there are no definitions with similar terms,
although, I will try to incorporate a reference to what is physical.
A non physical (immaterial) entity is without dimensions. The
presence of a managing entity may be detected by the coordinated
functioning of the various parts of the physical body. On the other
hand, thoughts are non physical entities but manage nothing. Now, the
definition using the lack of dimensions is certainly in dispute on
this forum.
It turns out that the belief that life, for instance, is the result of
purely physical processing involves considerable faith owing to past
failures to produce life from basic materials. No one has answered the
question as to when the quest to produce life from basic materials
should be abandoned to conserve important scientific resources.
>Also, I don't understand why your definition of "physical reality"
>above is acceptably short and concise, but dkomo's definition of life
>(elsewhere in this thread) apparently isn't even in the right ballpark
>(in your opinion)? What am I missing?
JP
Because what is physical is, as it is. Some would call this objective
reality. I think any definition of life as solely physical is without
merit. No dimensions of those human attributes I term immaterial have
been determined. I know of no reasonable expectation that they will
ever be known.
Bobby D. Bryant
Yes, I see why the criticized it last time: you're specifying your desired
conclusions in your definition. So if there *isn't* any "immaterial
reality", life (as you define it) doesn't exist.
>>> and was criticized by posters who insisted life was solely a physical
>>> reality,
>>
>>Sounds like you rolled your conclusions into your definition... but I
>>won't know unless I *see* it.
>
> JP
> Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
> an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that it
> cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
> noticeably true in the sciences.
But you may have defined a non-existent entity by putting the constraints
you did on it.
That's why I said earlier that definining life is going to be difficult,
at least if we want a definition that will cover aliens (should we ever
meet any) but would still exclude stuff like computers.
>>> but would not define it because it was too much fun (and required
>>> little thought) to post claims of electro-chemical, chemical, etc. in
>>> the brain, but no definition. I am asking anyone with a definition to
>>> post it here.
>>
>>After you, my friend.
>>
>>
>>>> Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if
>>>> you want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that
>>>> concept.
>>>
>>> JP
>>> You seem to be a thoughtful person and I find it surprising that the
>>> word physical is not understood. Physical means defined by line
>>> length, weight, or timing.
>>
>>Does that cover electormagnetism? Relativity? Quantum mechanics?
>
> JP
> All of the above. Theories notwithstanding. As a scientifically oriented
> person you know full well that electromagnetism has dimensions. Are you
> now try to pull my leg. I have no patience for that.
No, I wasn't pulling your leg. You said "line length, weight, or timing",
and it wasn't clear to me if you meant *exactly* those things or were
merely citing examples of a more general idea. You now seem to be saying
"has dimensions", affirming the general idea.
>>> Reality means what is.
>>
>>No problem with that; that's what scientists busy themselves about.
>>
>>
>>Given your definition of "physical reality" and your forthcoming
>>definition of "life", what makes you think life isn't part of physical
>>reality?
>
> JP
> Stop it! Give your definition of life or I will consider you a
> four-flusher.
OK, I see why you think life isn't part of physical reality: you defined
it that way. Now all you have to do is show that life as we know it
conforms to your definition...
I haven't given a definition because, frankly, I don't know how it should
be defined. I was surprised a few months back when some of our resident
biologists told me that viruses aren't considered to be life. I gather
that that's because they can't reproduce without piggybacking on a living
organism's systems. But that's a difficult line to draw: we need to say
that life is self-sufficient for self-replication, but we need to make
sure we don't rule out the need for partners in sexually reproducing
species, or for an energy source in _any_ species.
I'm inclined to view life as a process rather than as a structure, which
*superficially* is similar to your definition, though I don't think
processes lie outside "physical reality". For example, the runoff after a
thunderstorm is a process, but few would deny it a seat in physical
reality.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
That was my error and I apologize. Life is that immaterial reality
that animates bodies.
>> To what state do you
>> characterize life in your elected definition?
>>
>
>To what state of mangled semantics does the above sentence aspire?
JP
Mangled semantics? Learn the language we use. State means that
condition of existence within which a reality is classed. For
instance, solid, liquid, living, dead, etc.
>> If you are a male, I reject your kiss. I even reject it if you are a
>> female.
>> . . .
>
>KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.
>
>Because the greatest truth is often to be found in simplicity...
JP
I understand the common meaning now that you failed to explain the boy
to boy one. These days it is hard to say.
>KISS in my post should be compared to "Blessings" in others. It's
>intended to convey a benefit to the reader.
JP
Well said.
Howard Hershey
je...@dslextreme.com wrote on 4/27/03 10:02 PM:
[snip]
> That was my error and I apologize. Life is that immaterial reality
> that animates bodies.
[snip]
Vitalism lives! At least in the minds of some.
Howard Hershey
on 4/26/03 1:14 PM:
> Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
> What's the matter, you don't have access to a dictionary?
>
> Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction -- Webster's New
> Collegiate Dictionary
Although the above rather common as a useful and operational definition of
'life', the quibbles are that it may be a little too restrictive in some
respects. Specifically the requirement for growth and reaction to stimuli
tends to limit the use of the term 'life' to cellular entities and to
exclude viruses which can engage in metabolism directed to their
reproduction (this is an important caveat to the dictionary definition as an
entity that engaged in metabolism not directed to its own replication could
not be considered to be alive, at least for very long).
That just points out that the line between 'life' and 'nonlife' is not a
sharp demarcation, but a fuzzy boundary.
It also points out the vapidness of the structural definitions (a cell that
uses DNA and RNA to make proteins) that creationists usually give. Life is
a functional state, not a particular structure.
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
>
dkomo
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Are bacterial spores alive? They have no life functions, but have
enough remaining life structure to come back to "life" under the right
conditions.
And what about frozen egg and sperm cells? Functions have ceased.
Structure remains. Life is there. Likewise for frozen cysts. In
fact, I'm preparing a post called "Life at Absolute Zero" about
dessicated Artemia salina (brine shrimp) cysts frozen to a temperature
near absolute zero, then successfully revived.
From the paper describing that experiment:
"At these temperatures the only feature of the organism that persists
is its structure. While each atom retains its position, its momentum
goes to zero...Warming the system is a random process, so that the
momentum distribution after exposure to temperatures near absolute
zero is independent of the momentum distribution before freezing...if
an organism survives this process, all the information required for a
viable system capable of responding in the appropriate biological way
must be stored in its structure."
Life structure is primary. Function is secondary.
John Harshman
Robin Levett wrote:
This isn't quite on topic, and that's fitting considering the heavy
current topic drift, but I would think some explanation of "It's turtles
all the way down", "believe as many as six impossible things before
breakfast", and similar phrases would be appropriate for the same or a
related FAQ.
Leonardo Dasso
"Dick C" <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns936AACA571CE...@216.168.3.50...> news:4gjoavgbksfb5bimp...@4ax.com:
>
> > That was my error and I apologize. Life is that immaterial reality
> > that animates bodies.
>
> suffers extreme trauma.
>
>
It is well known that immaterial realities tend to dislike damaged goods
or goods past their sell by date. They then go away and try to find a
new body to animate. This may be understood to be "reincarnation", when
the immaterial reality goes off to animate a foetus. It may also be the
cause of multiple personality disorder; this is when several immaterial
realities fight to animate the same body and in the end they take turns.
Immaterial realities can explain many things and all this knowledge can
be acquired comfortably from an armchair --no need to do messy
experiments which are long, laborious and cost money and involve a lot
of applying for grants and other horrible activities.
regards
leo
Leonardo Dasso
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:rnhoav03a8k4rp93j...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> JP
> Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
> an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that
> it cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
> noticeably true in the sciences.
However, definitiions should include only terms or entities which are
well established or pre-defined. Once you include a non established, non
pre-defined entity such a "non material reality" in your definition,
then it is no longer a definition. It is just a string of words without
any meaning.
regards
leo
John Wilkins
Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
whole lot.
As to humour:
Pratchett
Python/Fawlty Towers
Goons
Adams
The Princess Bride (the book)
Flatland
Waugh (anything by Waugh, really)
Malcolm Bradbury (not quotable, but The History Man is just delicious,
and still faithful to the topic)
Science made stupid
Jonathon Swift (Gulliver's Travels, of course, and especially "A Modest
Proposal" - the War of the Books is just turgid)
That's all that comes to mind. Now go away - I'm doing my thesis. So if
you give me the saying and a rough I dea of who or where, I'll avoid the
thesis and track it down.
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 05:48:30 +0000 (UTC), john.w...@bigpond.com
> (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
....
> >> Yes, and I do that in an attempt to avoid knee-jerk reactions that
> >> often accompany the word soul, even if the pagan Aristotle used it in
> >> his works. In the past, no other poster has made any attempt to define
> >> life in spite of energetic criticisms of any opposing viewpoints to
> >> any claim of its immateriality.
> >
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >Life's pretty easy to define: it is the process of the reproduction of
> >dissipative thermodynamic structures (including those subsequent
> >dissipative structures that do not reproduce). The trouble only arises
> >if you want to define *only* living things according to some prior
> >"intuition" but leave out all possible "non-living things" that might
> >also be both dissipative and reproducing, such as von Neumann machines.
>
> JP
> Possibly, that is true. Since there are an extremely large number of
> animated creatures, there are questions that arise, for instance:
>
> 1. What manages all of the various diverse functions of these widely
> varied bodies? There is no gland, organ, or physical process that can
> be identified as life. All these bodies are sufficiently coordinated
> so as not to harbor internal conflicts to the extent that they
> function productively after birth. This is to say nothing of the
> pre-birth animations.
There is, as you say, no physical process necessary for all living
things. But of the many attributes and processes that maintain living
things, they are all physical.
Here is your problem - in philosophy, it is known as essentialism. You
have a term which you want to know the meaning of, but you cannot find
one physical thing in common with them all; so you conclude there is
nothing physical they all have in common and hence that the meaning
refers to nothing physical. [And thus far, I can agree with you or at
least grant it for argument's sake.]
So, you conclude, since any meaningful term has something in common in
all cases it can be applied, life is not a material thing.
However, there are three responses to this, all of which undercut your
claim.
1. Meaning is not applied in terms of necessary and sufficient criteria,
or at any rate it is not always applied this way. Many terms are applied
first to one thing, and then extended over time to other things that, at
the end of the series, has no common term that is both needed and enough
to mark out only the things in the series. This is the "baptismal"
theory of meaning. In science, for example, a term may be
paradigmatically applied to one phenomenon on the basis of folk
knowledge - consider the related term "organic" in "organic chemistry" -
at first it applied solely to the chemical products of living things;
now it applies to carbon-based chemistry. Now "life" in this case,
applied initially (say, by Aristotle) to a certain sort of thing: plants
and animals. We can define them pretty much in terms of growth,
respiration, metabolism and reproduction. But not viruses. Hence the
initial meaning (which had some essential definition) has been extended
now to cover other aspects of reality, and at the same time it has lost
some of the meanings it used to have (since we abandoned
preformationism, and so on). Look up Kripke and Putnam on this in any
introductory text on philosophy of language.
2. There is no valid inference from the contents of the mind, or, in a
more modern sense, the content of the use or meaning of a term, to the
way things are. This is a fallacy known variously as the Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness, the Ontological Fallacy, or the Fallacy of
Reification, all of which mean that you are making a "thing" out of a
Noun. Not all nouns need to have things they refer to. Perhaps there
*is* no single meaning to Life, but only "terrestrial animal life" and
"terrestrial plant life", ... and "Antarean glumph life", &c. What all
these different things might have in common, and *all* they might have
in common, is that *we*, the observers, are fitted with pattern
recognition hardware that groups them (falsely) together.
3. Even though there is no single set of *lower-level* physical
processes such as the Krebs cycle or DNA transcription that keeps all
living things together, it might still be that there are *higher-level*
*physical* things that do. For example, all things are subject to
ballistic physical laws, whether they are made from paper, dust, steel
or lead. In certain circumstances, they will all behave in the same way
(and in others, not, which is a useful way to see what the properties of
different things are apart from the things you are personally interested
in). Take, form example, the "property" of "circular motion". Is that a
physical thing? Well, no, but it is a physical *dynamic* and it is
attained in numerous ways (such as orbital dynamics, or water in a
whirlpool). There's nothing immaterial here - but there *is* something
abstract.
Abstract ideas tend to be the creation of language, and so we are again
back to the essentialist mistake. However, there are things about the
world (such as life, or mind) which can be attained in different ways,
rather like a destination that can be got to by the high and the low
road. If there *is* a dynamic, such as I proposed, of dissipative
structures (these are thermodynamic processes that expend energy to
maintain their structure - a flame is a dissiaptive structure, for
example) that reproduce enough to maintain a population of them, then
this can be achieved in many ways. Who knows, perhaps there *are* gas
beings in some nebula somewhere that meet this definition. Then we can
say - physical, but different to all other life, yet still Life.
These are called "emergent" or in other cases "supervenient" properties
in philosophy. Life may be an emergent phenomenon.
>
> 2. Human life possesses even a greater variety of functions, including
> intellect, will, conscience, instincts, etc.
So we do. The marvels of combinatorial complexity...
>
> 3. Many believe that life is solely a physical phenomenon. For
> centuries science has tried to produce life from basic elements. All
> attempts have failed and hope seems to spring eternally. The question
> that is important to answer, for the sake of science, is at what point
> in this quest for the production of life does it become unreasonable
> to continue such disappointing efforts if life cannot be produced?
> What are the conditions that would make such a decision very
> reasonable?
Science has *not* been trying to create life from basic elements for
centuries. In fact, as far as I know, nobody has been trying to do it at
all. Instead they have been investigating, slowly and methodically, the
possible precursor reactions to life. They have had marvellous success.
The basic compounds are known now to be easily synthesisable, and are
found in space as well as on earth. We know there are numerous chemical
reactions that could provide energy before the Krebs cycle evolved. We
know that compartmentalisation in lipid membranes occurs spontaenously.
We know that these things can spontaneously divide and "reproduce" in
the absence of genes. And we are getting an idea how one "metabolic"
molecule could have become a "genetic" one (RNA), leading to DNA later
on.
Science will abandon the project when it stops making progress. There is
no sign of that yet.
>
> >"Soul" (psuche) was the term Aristotle used for "motive force" that
> >caused change. The changes he discussed in De Anima (anima being the
> >Latin translation of "soul"/psuche, and the root for "animated") were
> >growth, reproduction, motion and intellection. In no way was this
> >immaterial.
> >
> >So far, depsite all attempts through the history of biology, no place
> >has been successfully reserved for immaterial anythings. It has been
> >tried with reflexes, organic chemistry, then vital forces, impetuses,
> >generative powers, preformations, fructifications, moule interieurs,
> >nisus formativa, feus éthéré, élans vital, and entelechies; nothing has
> >worked. You mightn't like it, but life seems not to need anything
> >immaterial. It is, purely and simply, a series of chemical and physical
> >reactions, of varying complexity.
>
> JP
> That is correct. It is certainly not within the provinces of the
> physical sciences to comment on what may be immaterial. Responsible
> science will not so claim. That is why the last question in my last
> paragraph is important so as not to waste resources.
> . . .
When science reaches blank walls, typically scientists turn to other
projects. Their time is precious - you cannot make a career banging your
head against an intractable problem. Don't worry, if it ever gets to
that point, you'll be able to tell. All the cited papers will get older,
and older...
However, the current research is dated this year, so that hasn't
happened yet.
Alexander Kalinowski
: Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
: posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
Alex:
I am not. Nonetheless, I have a definition for you folks out there:
Perception.
--
Waiting for you to return.
H,R.Gruemm
Why is it a question ? Definitions are not true or false (resp. right
or wrong), they are useful or not useful, common or uncommon, clear or
unclear ...
As long as we use the definition consistently, "life" signifies
whatever our definition says. Of course, if we define life as "big
red plastic beach ball", we might want to coin another word for
"metabolizes, reproduces etc.". ;)
Regards,
HRG.
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
JP
I will repeat what was written below:
*******************
>> JP
>> Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
>> an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that it
>> cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
>> noticeably true in the sciences.
*******************
Now, give your reasoning as to why is does not exist!
>>>> and was criticized by posters who insisted life was solely a physical
>>>> reality,
>>>
>>>Sounds like you rolled your conclusions into your definition... but I
>>>won't know unless I *see* it.
>>
>> JP
>> Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
>> an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that it
>> cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
>> noticeably true in the sciences.
>
>But you may have defined a non-existent entity by putting the constraints
>you did on it.
JP
How do you define something. _Constraint_ is _ purpose _ of _
definition!
>That's why I said earlier that definining life is going to be difficult,
>at least if we want a definition that will cover aliens (should we ever
>meet any) but would still exclude stuff like computers.
JP
It is not difficult. You don't seem to understand the essence of a
definition.
>
>>>> but would not define it because it was too much fun (and required
>>>> little thought) to post claims of electro-chemical, chemical, etc. in
>>>> the brain, but no definition. I am asking anyone with a definition to
>>>> post it here.
>>>
>>>After you, my friend.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hint: you may need to include a definition of "physical reality" if
>>>>> you want to discuss life's conformance or non-conformance to that
>>>>> concept.
>>>>
>>>> JP
>>>> You seem to be a thoughtful person and I find it surprising that the
>>>> word physical is not understood. Physical means defined by line
>>>> length, weight, or timing.
>>>
>>>Does that cover electormagnetism? Relativity? Quantum mechanics?
>>
>> JP
>> All of the above. Theories notwithstanding. As a scientifically oriented
>> person you know full well that electromagnetism has dimensions. Are you
>> now try to pull my leg. I have no patience for that.
>
>No, I wasn't pulling your leg. You said "line length, weight, or timing",
>and it wasn't clear to me if you meant *exactly* those things or were
>merely citing examples of a more general idea. You now seem to be saying
>"has dimensions", affirming the general idea.
JP
What dimensions are not included?
>
>>>> Reality means what is.
>>>
>>>No problem with that; that's what scientists busy themselves about.
>>>
>>>
>>>Given your definition of "physical reality" and your forthcoming
>>>definition of "life", what makes you think life isn't part of physical
>>>reality?
>>
>> JP
>> Stop it! Give your definition of life or I will consider you a
>> four-flusher.
>
>OK, I see why you think life isn't part of physical reality: you defined
>it that way. Now all you have to do is show that life as we know it
>conforms to your definition...
JP
OK nothing. You can't define life! That was the point of this thread .
. . that is if you think life is physical. If you can't define it then
you shouldn't be commenting on any definition.
>I haven't given a definition because, frankly, I don't know how it should
>be defined. I was surprised a few months back when some of our resident
>biologists told me that viruses aren't considered to be life. I gather
>that that's because they can't reproduce without piggybacking on a living
>organism's systems. But that's a difficult line to draw: we need to say
>that life is self-sufficient for self-replication, but we need to make
>sure we don't rule out the need for partners in sexually reproducing
>species, or for an energy source in _any_ species.
JP
Then don't criticize another definition. You only know what it isn't?
Fine. Eliminate all that it isn't and then define what is left.
>I'm inclined to view life as a process rather than as a structure, which
>*superficially* is similar to your definition, though I don't think
>processes lie outside "physical reality". For example, the runoff after a
>thunderstorm is a process, but few would deny it a seat in physical
>reality.
JP
Life is a process? Of what? What is its cause as a process?
Ferrous Patella
news:1fu4n2t.18smgbi7n0v80N%john.w...@bigpond.com by
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins):
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Robin Levett wrote:
>>
[...]
>> > I wonder whether we should add a humour reading list to the
>> > FAQs on talkorigins.org? I'm sure that someone - say
>> > Wilkins - would be able to knock one up in half an hour. It
>> > seems to me that at least some familiarity with the works of
>> > Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, Monty Python and the Goons is
>> > essential, and maybe Buffy. Any other nominations?
>>
>>
>> This isn't quite on topic, and that's fitting considering the heavy
>> current topic drift, but I would think some explanation of "It's
turtles
>> all the way down", "believe as many as six impossible things before
>> breakfast", and similar phrases would be appropriate for the same or a
>> related FAQ.
I am quite fond of beetles jokes.
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
skeetor
> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
I am not really sure if I fall into your catergory or not but I read your
post several days ago and have been giving it some thought.
Lets look at the word "define" or as I like to look at it de-fine or in
some way to make what you are talking about seperate from every thing else
in existance, or not in existance, for purposes of examination. In the
book of Sirach, there is a passage which states that "God is all in all,"
and in another "God is greater that all of his works." I could derive from
these two rules that God all that there is and all that there isn't. So as
I see it God is the epitome of that which cannot be defined.
Early in the bible God created all species, but he only gave "life" to one
of them. So from the begining there must be a difference between this
cellular metabolic life many people refer to and the life that we actually
have.
If that life that was breathed into adam is still in us today, I believe it
is the true "life" and if it is, I also believe that it is that small part
of God that resides in all of us. And if it is truely God, and not just an
aspect of him (ie, his love, his power, etc) then anything other than a
physical life would be impossible to de-fine. There have been many good
definitions of a physical Life, (ie. metabolism, procreation, etc...) just
take one of those.
skeetor
"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:3EAC6A8E...@cris.com...
are you attempting to prove that animal's have instincts that they are born
with?
howard hershey
If the definition of life is the capacity for metabolism, growth,
reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, the only way to operationally
determine if a bacterial spore is alive (rather than dead, and bacterial
spores do die over time) is to actually test it for those functions.
In a population of spores, you will see a decreasing frequency of spores
that exhibit the "capacity for" the functions mentioned above.
> And what about frozen egg and sperm cells? Functions have ceased.
> Structure remains. Life is there. Likewise for frozen cysts. In
> fact, I'm preparing a post called "Life at Absolute Zero" about
> dessicated Artemia salina (brine shrimp) cysts frozen to a temperature
> near absolute zero, then successfully revived.
Again, if the definition of "life" is the capacity to perform particular
functions, the only way to determine if a particular object is alive or
dead is to test whether it can actually perform the functions.
Otherwise one is reduced to saying that from past experiment, 90% of
spores frozen for one year are 'alive'. 10% no longer are alive.
> From the paper describing that experiment:
>
> "At these temperatures the only feature of the organism that persists
> is its structure. While each atom retains its position, its momentum
> goes to zero...Warming the system is a random process, so that the
> momentum distribution after exposure to temperatures near absolute
> zero is independent of the momentum distribution before freezing...if
> an organism survives this process, all the information required for a
> viable system capable of responding in the appropriate biological way
> must be stored in its structure."
>
> Life structure is primary. Function is secondary.
Not if the definition requires particular functions rather than
particular structures.
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
>
dkomo
*If* the definition of life is based on functions. I'm suggesting
that the definition needs to be broadened to include structure. A
starting point might be something like "contains DNA or RNA and
proteins". I'm only referring to "wet" life right now to keep things
simple. Forget artificial life for the moment.
And you just said "bacterial spores do die over time." Does that
imply that you think they are alive, death being the cessation of
life?
> In a population of spores, you will see a decreasing frequency of spores
> that exhibit the "capacity for" the functions mentioned above.
>
My understanding is that some fraction of these spores do not come
back to "life", this fraction increasing as the spores age. It cannot
be determined by microscopic examination which spores are still viable
and which are not.
> > And what about frozen egg and sperm cells? Functions have ceased.
> > Structure remains. Life is there. Likewise for frozen cysts. In
> > fact, I'm preparing a post called "Life at Absolute Zero" about
> > dessicated Artemia salina (brine shrimp) cysts frozen to a temperature
> > near absolute zero, then successfully revived.
>
> Again, if the definition of "life" is the capacity to perform particular
> functions, the only way to determine if a particular object is alive or
> dead is to test whether it can actually perform the functions.
> Otherwise one is reduced to saying that from past experiment, 90% of
> spores frozen for one year are 'alive'. 10% no longer are alive.
>
Not the only way. Clearly a rock is not alive at any temperature and
this can easily be determined from examination of its structure. On
the other hand, if you examine a spore under an electron microscope,
you can see all the basic structures of a bacterium whether they are
performing any functions or not. So you can at least say that there
is a *possibility* that it is alive, and if so, its life is encoded in
its structure.
> > From the paper describing that experiment:
> >
> > "At these temperatures the only feature of the organism that persists
> > is its structure. While each atom retains its position, its momentum
> > goes to zero...Warming the system is a random process, so that the
> > momentum distribution after exposure to temperatures near absolute
> > zero is independent of the momentum distribution before freezing...if
> > an organism survives this process, all the information required for a
> > viable system capable of responding in the appropriate biological way
> > must be stored in its structure."
> >
> > Life structure is primary. Function is secondary.
>
> Not if the definition requires particular functions rather than
> particular structures.
>
But who says the definition requires particular functions? I used to
think that, but now I don't think such a definition is adequate.
dkomo
Frank J
> >> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> >> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> >> . . .
> >> Blessings,
> >> Jerry
> >> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
> >
> >reality. Nevertheless, they do not pretend that their non-insistence
> >somehow implies that there is a better scientific explanation for the
> >origin of species than the one we have.
>
> JP
> There is no notion here of origin of species. A philosophical
> definition of life is a scientific definition and should be worded
> with care. Have you a definition for life?
The best one I heard, which separates the bacteria (living) from the
viruses (nonliving), is that a living thing must reproduce and
metabolize using at least one complete thermodynamic cycle. It sounds
dry and technical, of course, but neither does it contradict any
philosophical definition that one may want to reserve for one or more
species.
skeetor
dkomo
I was talking about the basic biological structures and functions of
life, and how life should be defined. I never even touched on
neurology, which is what animal instincts are dependent on.
Richard Uhrich
.....
>
> Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
> to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
> relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
> find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
> just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
> so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
> of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
> whole lot.
>
It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
Russell, but we may never know.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Howard Hershey
on 4/28/03 8:47 PM:
I do think that is the way to go, unless you want to restrict your
definition of life to the types of life seen on the earth. One could
certainly present a structural definition of life that only encompasses the
current forms of life on the earth.
> I'm suggesting
> that the definition needs to be broadened to include structure. A
> starting point might be something like "contains DNA or RNA and
> proteins". I'm only referring to "wet" life right now to keep things
> simple. Forget artificial life for the moment.
Yes. Except something that contains DNA or RNA and proteins can be very,
very dead. And that would exclude any forms of life that did not use DNA or
RNA or proteins. Agreed that there currently are no examples of that, but I
would think that a definition of life should be broad enough to include
possible chemical alternatives.
>
> And you just said "bacterial spores do die over time." Does that
> imply that you think they are alive, death being the cessation of
> life?
It means that the only way we can *know* bacterial spores are currently
alive or dead is if they exhibit the functional properties (metabolism
related to reproduction, reproduction, growth, and reaction to stimuli being
the ones that the dictionary uses), not if they exhibit a particular
structure.
>
>> In a population of spores, you will see a decreasing frequency of spores
>> that exhibit the "capacity for" the functions mentioned above.
>>
>
> My understanding is that some fraction of these spores do not come
> back to "life", this fraction increasing as the spores age. It cannot
> be determined by microscopic examination which spores are still viable
> and which are not.
That is why structure is not a good operational way of identifying an entity
as being alive.
>
>>> And what about frozen egg and sperm cells? Functions have ceased.
>>> Structure remains. Life is there. Likewise for frozen cysts. In
>>> fact, I'm preparing a post called "Life at Absolute Zero" about
>>> dessicated Artemia salina (brine shrimp) cysts frozen to a temperature
>>> near absolute zero, then successfully revived.
>>
>> Again, if the definition of "life" is the capacity to perform particular
>> functions, the only way to determine if a particular object is alive or
>> dead is to test whether it can actually perform the functions.
>> Otherwise one is reduced to saying that from past experiment, 90% of
>> spores frozen for one year are 'alive'. 10% no longer are alive.
>>
>
> Not the only way. Clearly a rock is not alive at any temperature and
> this can easily be determined from examination of its structure.
A rock does not exhibit all the functional properties attributed to life.
Specifically, it does not reproduce or have a metabolism related to
reproduction or respond to stimuli. Certain rocks can grow (crystals).
> On
> the other hand, if you examine a spore under an electron microscope,
> you can see all the basic structures of a bacterium whether they are
> performing any functions or not. So you can at least say that there
> is a *possibility* that it is alive, and if so, its life is encoded in
> its structure.
One can say that it has a structure consistent with life. You cannot,
however, say that it is alive.
>
>>> From the paper describing that experiment:
>>>
>>> "At these temperatures the only feature of the organism that persists
>>> is its structure. While each atom retains its position, its momentum
>>> goes to zero...Warming the system is a random process, so that the
>>> momentum distribution after exposure to temperatures near absolute
>>> zero is independent of the momentum distribution before freezing...if
>>> an organism survives this process, all the information required for a
>>> viable system capable of responding in the appropriate biological way
>>> must be stored in its structure."
>>>
>>> Life structure is primary. Function is secondary.
>>
>> Not if the definition requires particular functions rather than
>> particular structures.
>>
>
> But who says the definition requires particular functions? I used to
> think that, but now I don't think such a definition is adequate.
>
There are indeed ways that it is inadequate. Namely, that every one of the
'functions' of life, separately, can be found in non-living materials. But
I think a structural definition is too rigidly bound to the forms of life we
see on the present-day earth.
Alan Wostenberg
Thanks for that notion of "baptismal theory of meaning" and reminding
us in your point #2 there is no valid inference from the contents of
the mind to the way things are.
You speak about a "thermodynamic process that expends energy". Is this
an error of reification? For a process (change) is not a thing. But a
living being is one thing.
Now if by "emergent" you mean the whole is the result of the
comingling of it's parts, then I don't see how a unity can emerge from
a plurality of parts. At best we'd get a plurality -- a machine.
-- Alan Wostenberg
Spin beads? http://www.thelightofheaven.com
Keith Bloom
> As to humour:
> Pratchett
> Python/Fawlty Towers
> Goons
> Adams
> The Princess Bride (the book)
> Flatland
> Waugh (anything by Waugh, really)
> Malcolm Bradbury (not quotable, but The History Man is just
> delicious, and still faithful to the topic)
> Science made stupid
> Jonathon Swift (Gulliver's Travels, of course, and especially "A
> Modest Proposal" - the War of the Books is just turgid)
Will Cuppy: How to Become Extinct, How to Attract the Wombat, and
How to Tell Your Friends from the Apes.
Also the Firesign Theatre's play _I Think We're All Bozos On This
Bus_.
They aren't quoted much in TO, but they should be.
Keith
"Animals without backbones hid from each other, or fell down.
Clamasaurs and oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then
came the sponges, which sucked up about ten percent of all
life. Hundreds of years later, in the Late Devouring Period,
fish became obnoxious. Trailerbikes, chiggerbites, and
mesquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally,
tiny edible plants sprang up in rows, giving birth to
generations of insecticides and other small dying creatures.
Thank you." -- Firesign Theatre
Alan Wostenberg
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<ubimavg89qurrhmij...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:54:13 +0000 (UTC), eri...@home.com
> > (SortingItOut) wrote:
> >
> > >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<rumlavcuelmkh3663...@4ax.com>...
> > >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:14:13 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Jerry Patterson wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> > >> >> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> > >> >> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> > >> >> . . .
> > >> >> Blessings,
> > >> >> Jerry
> > >> >> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
> > >> >
> > >> >What's the matter, you don't have access to a dictionary?
> > >> >
> > >> >Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> > >> >growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction -- Webster's New
> > >> >Collegiate Dictionary
> As long as we use the definition consistently, "life" signifies
> whatever our definition says. Of course, if we define life as "big
> red plastic beach ball", we might want to coin another word for
> "metabolizes, reproduces etc.". ;)
Swell point. So we have two definitions so far:
Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction
Life: thermodynamic processes that expend energy to maintain their
structure
So you and I are either an organismic state or a thermodynamic
process. But these are such dead inert things! To understand life must
we reduce it to something which is not life?
Here's a definition from the old Catholic encyclopedia
Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is
capable of self-movement or immanent action.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm .. article goes on to
define "self-movement" and "immanent action". The entry on "mechanism"
is also helpful)
Ken Cope
"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:3EADB219...@san.rr.com...
> John Wilkins wrote:
> .....
>
>
> >
> > Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
> > to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
> > relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
> > find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
> > just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
> > so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
> > of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
> > whole lot.
> >
>
> It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
> Russell, but we may never know.
I too would have sworn Russell, but it appears to be William James:
http://andstuff.org/TurtlesAllTheWayDown
John Harshman
Ken Cope wrote:
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:3EADB219...@san.rr.com...
>
>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>.....
>>
>>
>>
>>>Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
>>>to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
>>>relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
>>>find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
>>>just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
>>>so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
>>>of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
>>>whole lot.
>>>
>>>
>>It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
>>Russell, but we may never know.
>>
>
> I too would have sworn Russell, but it appears to be William James:
>
> http://andstuff.org/TurtlesAllTheWayDown
Unfortunately, the source for the attribution is given only as "American
Museum of Natural History", with no further clue as to where or how AMNH
either imparted or learned this wisdom. This trail appears to lead
nowhere, except that it gives John Wilkins a good reason to read the
collected works of William James by next Tuesday.
This whole "turtles" thing begins to assume the dimensions of an urban
legend. It's always a friend of a friend who talked to the old lady,
never the person actually making the claim.
Leonardo Dasso
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:af2cab3d.03042...@posting.google.com...
devoid of poetry, or grandiloquent definitions which are vacuous.
regards
leo
Ken Cope
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EADB98F...@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Ken Cope wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:3EADB219...@san.rr.com...
> >
> >>John Wilkins wrote:
> >>.....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
> >>>to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
> >>>relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
> >>>find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
> >>>just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
> >>>so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
> >>>of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
> >>>whole lot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
> >>Russell, but we may never know.
> >>
> >
> > I too would have sworn Russell, but it appears to be William James:
> >
> > http://andstuff.org/TurtlesAllTheWayDown
>
>
> Unfortunately, the source for the attribution is given only as "American
> Museum of Natural History", with no further clue as to where or how AMNH
> either imparted or learned this wisdom. This trail appears to lead
> nowhere, except that it gives John Wilkins a good reason to read the
> collected works of William James by next Tuesday.
Nonetheless, Wilkins would manage to make this an exercise in pragmatism.
Richard Uhrich
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:3EADB219...@san.rr.com...
>
>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>.....
>>
>>
>>
>>>Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
>>>to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
>>>relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
>>>find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
>>>just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
>>>so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
>>>of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
>>>whole lot.
>>>
>>>
>>It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
>>Russell, but we may never know.
>>
>
> I too would have sworn Russell, but it appears to be William James:
>
> http://andstuff.org/TurtlesAllTheWayDown
>
>
That sounds authentic. I did like the Hawking punch line better, though:
"You think you're pretty clever, don't you young man, but it's turtles
all the way down."
Jerry Patterson
JP
If a definition does not conform to objective reality its use will
ultimately lead to error.
Jerry Patterson
<Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:rnhoav03a8k4rp93j...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 05:11:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>> JP
>> Of course I did! That is how a definition is constructed. One examines
>> an element of reality and then proceeds to define it so uniquely that
>> it cannot be confused with another element of reality. This is very
>> noticeably true in the sciences.
>
>However, definitiions should include only terms or entities which are
>well established or pre-defined. Once you include a non established, non
>pre-defined entity such a "non material reality" in your definition,
>then it is no longer a definition. It is just a string of words without
>any meaning.
>
>regards
>leo
>
JP
Do you believe all reality is material?
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
JP
Perception - awareness of the elements of environment through
physical sensation : reaction to sensory stimulus.
Thanks to Webster,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 05:48:30 +0000 (UTC), john.w...@bigpond.com
>> (John Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>....
>> >> Yes, and I do that in an attempt to avoid knee-jerk reactions that
>> >> often accompany the word soul, even if the pagan Aristotle used it in
>> >> his works. In the past, no other poster has made any attempt to define
>> >> life in spite of energetic criticisms of any opposing viewpoints to
>> >> any claim of its immateriality.
>> >
>> >
>> >Jerry
>> >
>> >Life's pretty easy to define: it is the process of the reproduction of
>> >dissipative thermodynamic structures (including those subsequent
>> >dissipative structures that do not reproduce). The trouble only arises
>> >if you want to define *only* living things according to some prior
>> >"intuition" but leave out all possible "non-living things" that might
>> >also be both dissipative and reproducing, such as von Neumann machines.
>>
>> JP
>> Possibly, that is true. Since there are an extremely large number of
>> animated creatures, there are questions that arise, for instance:
>>
>> 1. What manages all of the various diverse functions of these widely
>> varied bodies? There is no gland, organ, or physical process that can
>> be identified as life. All these bodies are sufficiently coordinated
>> so as not to harbor internal conflicts to the extent that they
>> function productively after birth. This is to say nothing of the
>> pre-birth animations.
>
>There is, as you say, no physical process necessary for all living
>things. But of the many attributes and processes that maintain living
>things, they are all physical.
JP
Would you kindly prove that?
>Here is your problem - in philosophy, it is known as essentialism. You
>have a term which you want to know the meaning of, but you cannot find
>one physical thing in common with them all; so you conclude there is
>nothing physical they all have in common and hence that the meaning
>refers to nothing physical. [And thus far, I can agree with you or at
>least grant it for argument's sake.]
JP
They all are comprised of small particles, molecules, atoms, etc.
>So, you conclude, since any meaningful term has something in common in
>all cases it can be applied, life is not a material thing.
>However, there are three responses to this, all of which undercut your
>claim.
>1. Meaning is not applied in terms of necessary and sufficient criteria,
>or at any rate it is not always applied this way. Many terms are applied
>first to one thing, and then extended over time to other things that, at
>the end of the series, has no common term that is both needed and enough
>to mark out only the things in the series. This is the "baptismal"
>theory of meaning. In science, for example, a term may be
>paradigmatically applied to one phenomenon on the basis of folk
>knowledge - consider the related term "organic" in "organic chemistry" -
>at first it applied solely to the chemical products of living things;
>now it applies to carbon-based chemistry. Now "life" in this case,
>applied initially (say, by Aristotle) to a certain sort of thing: plants
>and animals. We can define them pretty much in terms of growth,
>respiration, metabolism and reproduction. But not viruses. Hence the
>initial meaning (which had some essential definition) has been extended
>now to cover other aspects of reality, and at the same time it has lost
>some of the meanings it used to have (since we abandoned
>preformationism, and so on). Look up Kripke and Putnam on this in any
>introductory text on philosophy of language.
JP
Why not viruses?
>2. There is no valid inference from the contents of the mind, or, in a
>more modern sense, the content of the use or meaning of a term, to the
>way things are. This is a fallacy known variously as the Fallacy of
>Misplaced Concreteness, the Ontological Fallacy, or the Fallacy of
>Reification, all of which mean that you are making a "thing" out of a
>Noun. Not all nouns need to have things they refer to. Perhaps there
>*is* no single meaning to Life, but only "terrestrial animal life" and
>"terrestrial plant life", ... and "Antarean glumph life", &c. What all
>these different things might have in common, and *all* they might have
>in common, is that *we*, the observers, are fitted with pattern
>recognition hardware that groups them (falsely) together.
JP
What do you mean by "mind?"
>3. Even though there is no single set of *lower-level* physical
>processes such as the Krebs cycle or DNA transcription that keeps all
>living things together, it might still be that there are *higher-level*
>*physical* things that do. For example, all things are subject to
>ballistic physical laws, whether they are made from paper, dust, steel
>or lead. In certain circumstances, they will all behave in the same way
>(and in others, not, which is a useful way to see what the properties of
>different things are apart from the things you are personally interested
>in). Take, form example, the "property" of "circular motion". Is that a
>physical thing? Well, no, but it is a physical *dynamic* and it is
>attained in numerous ways (such as orbital dynamics, or water in a
>whirlpool). There's nothing immaterial here - but there *is* something
>abstract.
JP
What distinction are you making between "immaterial" and "abstract?"
>Abstract ideas tend to be the creation of language, and so we are again
>back to the essentialist mistake. However, there are things about the
>world (such as life, or mind) which can be attained in different ways,
>rather like a destination that can be got to by the high and the low
>road. If there *is* a dynamic, such as I proposed, of dissipative
>structures (these are thermodynamic processes that expend energy to
>maintain their structure - a flame is a dissiaptive structure, for
>example) that reproduce enough to maintain a population of them, then
>this can be achieved in many ways. Who knows, perhaps there *are* gas
>beings in some nebula somewhere that meet this definition. Then we can
>say - physical, but different to all other life, yet still Life.
>These are called "emergent" or in other cases "supervenient" properties
>in philosophy. Life may be an emergent phenomenon.
JP
Intelligent life? If so, emergent from what?
>> 2. Human life possesses even a greater variety of functions, including
>> intellect, will, conscience, instincts, etc.
>
>So we do. The marvels of combinatorial complexity...
>> 3. Many believe that life is solely a physical phenomenon. For
>> centuries science has tried to produce life from basic elements. All
>> attempts have failed and hope seems to spring eternally. The question
>> that is important to answer, for the sake of science, is at what point
>> in this quest for the production of life does it become unreasonable
>> to continue such disappointing efforts if life cannot be produced?
>> What are the conditions that would make such a decision very
>> reasonable?
>
>Science has *not* been trying to create life from basic elements for
>centuries. In fact, as far as I know, nobody has been trying to do it at
>all. Instead they have been investigating, slowly and methodically, the
>possible precursor reactions to life. They have had marvellous success.
>The basic compounds are known now to be easily synthesisable, and are
>found in space as well as on earth. We know there are numerous chemical
>reactions that could provide energy before the Krebs cycle evolved. We
>know that compartmentalisation in lipid membranes occurs spontaenously.
>We know that these things can spontaneously divide and "reproduce" in
>the absence of genes. And we are getting an idea how one "metabolic"
>molecule could have become a "genetic" one (RNA), leading to DNA later
>on.
JP
What do you mean by "precursor reactions to life?"
>Science will abandon the project when it stops making progress. There is
>no sign of that yet.
>> >"Soul" (psuche) was the term Aristotle used for "motive force" that
>> >caused change. The changes he discussed in De Anima (anima being the
>> >Latin translation of "soul"/psuche, and the root for "animated") were
>> >growth, reproduction, motion and intellection. In no way was this
>> >immaterial.
>> >
>> >So far, depsite all attempts through the history of biology, no place
>> >has been successfully reserved for immaterial anythings. It has been
>> >tried with reflexes, organic chemistry, then vital forces, impetuses,
>> >generative powers, preformations, fructifications, moule interieurs,
>> >nisus formativa, feus éthéré, élans vital, and entelechies; nothing has
>> >worked. You mightn't like it, but life seems not to need anything
>> >immaterial. It is, purely and simply, a series of chemical and physical
>> >reactions, of varying complexity.
>>
>> JP
>> That is correct. It is certainly not within the provinces of the
>> physical sciences to comment on what may be immaterial. Responsible
>> science will not so claim. That is why the last question in my last
>> paragraph is important so as not to waste resources.
>> . . .
>
>When science reaches blank walls, typically scientists turn to other
>projects. Their time is precious - you cannot make a career banging your
>head against an intractable problem. Don't worry, if it ever gets to
>that point, you'll be able to tell. All the cited papers will get older,
>and older...
>
>However, the current research is dated this year, so that hasn't
>happened yet.
JP
Does the science to which you refer admit to immateriality?
Jerry
Ken Cope
Annotations for Terrapin Station shows that people have been trying
to nail an attribution for a long time (scroll to about the middle):
http://arts.ucsc.edu/GDead/AGDL/terr.html
Halcyon
"Justin Emalius" <notta...@notta.domain.not> wrote in message
news:xouqa.3974$B61...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Jerry Patterson wrote:
> > Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> > posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
living
> things which is absent from the objects of experience that are nonliving.
> It's the difference between us and our corpses. It's the life science
> equivalent of mass-energy in the physical sciences - the property that
> distinguishes material things like you, me and our corpses from
nonmaterial
> things like our thoughts and concepts.
>
> No one had to define "life" for us to know the difference between living
> things and nonliving things. Sense experience tells us whether objects of
> experience are living or not the same way sense experience informs us
> whether something is material or not.
I don't remeber which one but I read a quote in a Carl Sagan book regarding
the search for a definition of life to the effect of "Everyone in this room
knows the difference between a living horse and a dead one. Pray therefore
let us cease floggin the latter."
dkomo
Well, if you prefer, the definition of life can be made substantially
more elaborate. Here, chew on this:
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~elitzua/life-def.htm
See the attributes under "A Living Organism". It sounds anything but
"a dead inert thing." Especially interesting is the information
processing attribute (#11).
> Here's a definition from the old Catholic encyclopedia
>
> Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is
> capable of self-movement or immanent action.
>
In other words, life is that attribute of a living thing that makes it
alive.
Sheesh.
> (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm .. article goes on to
> define "self-movement" and "immanent action". The entry on "mechanism"
> is also helpful)
SortingItOut
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:51:52 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:24:56 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 05:11:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> >> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:26:23 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> >>>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:23:40 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Many posters seem to understand the constituents of life and insist
> >>>>>> that life is solely a physical reality. If you are one of those
> >>>>>> posters, then please provide a definition of life here.
> >>>>>
> >
> >OK, I see why you think life isn't part of physical reality: you defined
> >it that way. Now all you have to do is show that life as we know it
> >conforms to your definition...
>
> JP
> OK nothing. You can't define life! That was the point of this thread .
I thought the point of this thread was for you to obtain a definition
of life consistent with life being solely a physical reality (see
original post preserved above). A definition has been provided
elsewhere in the thread. Why are we still discussing this, and how
can you make the claim that life is not define-able when a definition
has been provided?
> . . that is if you think life is physical. If you can't define it then
> you shouldn't be commenting on any definition.
>
John Wilkins
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3EADB98F...@pacbell.net...
> >
> >
....
> > Unfortunately, the source for the attribution is given only as "American
> > Museum of Natural History", with no further clue as to where or how AMNH
> > either imparted or learned this wisdom. This trail appears to lead
> > nowhere, except that it gives John Wilkins a good reason to read the
> > collected works of William James by next Tuesday.
>
> Nonetheless, Wilkins would manage to make this an exercise in pragmatism.
Not without some cash to give it value.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Wilkins
> Ken Cope wrote:
>
> > "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote...
> >
> >>John Wilkins wrote:
> >>.....
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Six impossible things, along with "words mean exactly what I want them
> >>>to mean" (the Humpty Hypothesis) and other such Carroll sayings would be
> >>>relatively easy to find. But the turtles one is not. I once tried to
> >>>find it in Russell, which is where most people say it comes from, and I
> >>>just can't. Of course Russell's books, and biographies, and letters, and
> >>>so forth makes Darwin look like a wimp - it takes several feet (a couple
> >>>of meters for civilised folk) on a shelf. So *I'm* not going to read the
> >>>whole lot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It would be nice to track this one down. I recall Hawking attributing to
> >>Russell, but we may never know.
> >>
> >
> > I too would have sworn Russell, but it appears to be William James:
> >
> > http://andstuff.org/TurtlesAllTheWayDown
>
>
> Unfortunately, the source for the attribution is given only as "American
> Museum of Natural History", with no further clue as to where or how AMNH
> either imparted or learned this wisdom. This trail appears to lead
> nowhere, except that it gives John Wilkins a good reason to read the
> collected works of William James by next Tuesday.
I'll start on my 1906 edition of Varieties of Religious Experience
tonight. Hell, I've done 86,000 words of the thesis. I deserve a break.
>
> This whole "turtles" thing begins to assume the dimensions of an urban
> legend. It's always a friend of a friend who talked to the old lady,
> never the person actually making the claim.
If it turns out to be Terry Pratchett, I'm going to be really pissed
off.
John Wilkins
I don't need to. No property or aspect of life that has been
investigated has been shown not ot be physical, including all the things
that were previously claimed to be non-physical. The onus is on whoever
claims the vitalist position is correct to show the opposite applies.
Suppose I claim that there are angles responsible for some (unobserved)
feature of orbital mechanics (I am choosing this example out of
history). Along comes some French smartarse who shows how the equations
of the man who had recourse to angels to explain why planets didn't
collapse into the sun actually explain why the solar system is stable,
and says of the action of angels, "I have no need for that hypothesis".
Would it be reasonable to insist thereafter that if we looked in some
place we haven't yet seen, or someplace we could in principle never see,
angels really *were* at work? I think not.
>
> >Here is your problem - in philosophy, it is known as essentialism. You
> >have a term which you want to know the meaning of, but you cannot find
> >one physical thing in common with them all; so you conclude there is
> >nothing physical they all have in common and hence that the meaning
> >refers to nothing physical. [And thus far, I can agree with you or at
> >least grant it for argument's sake.]
>
> JP
> They all are comprised of small particles, molecules, atoms, etc.
*blink* Sorry? Oh, I see - you mean that this is what they all have in
common. Well yes, but so too do nonliving things, so we need to find
those aspects of life, under the essentialist account, which all and
*only* living things have. Nothing is to be found that is not also true
of nonliving things, some quite complex and sophisticated. The
essentialist will claim that no physical things explains life...
>
> >So, you conclude, since any meaningful term has something in common in
> >all cases it can be applied, life is not a material thing.
>
> >However, there are three responses to this, all of which undercut your
> >claim.
>
> >1. Meaning is not applied in terms of necessary and sufficient criteria,
> >or at any rate it is not always applied this way. Many terms are applied
> >first to one thing, and then extended over time to other things that, at
> >the end of the series, has no common term that is both needed and enough
> >to mark out only the things in the series. This is the "baptismal" theory
> >of meaning. In science, for example, a term may be paradigmatically
> >applied to one phenomenon on the basis of folk knowledge - consider the
> >related term "organic" in "organic chemistry" - at first it applied
> >solely to the chemical products of living things; now it applies to
> >carbon-based chemistry. Now "life" in this case, applied initially (say,
> >by Aristotle) to a certain sort of thing: plants and animals. We can
> >define them pretty much in terms of growth, respiration, metabolism and
> >reproduction. But not viruses. Hence the initial meaning (which had some
> >essential definition) has been extended now to cover other aspects of
> >reality, and at the same time it has lost some of the meanings it used to
> >have (since we abandoned preformationism, and so on). Look up Kripke and
> >Putnam on this in any introductory text on philosophy of language.
>
> JP
> Why not viruses?
No metabolism, reproduction or growth on their own account (they
parasitise cells). Put viruses in a medium and they just slowly
denature.
>
> >2. There is no valid inference from the contents of the mind, or, in a
> >more modern sense, the content of the use or meaning of a term, to the
> >way things are. This is a fallacy known variously as the Fallacy of
> >Misplaced Concreteness, the Ontological Fallacy, or the Fallacy of
> >Reification, all of which mean that you are making a "thing" out of a
> >Noun. Not all nouns need to have things they refer to. Perhaps there *is*
> >no single meaning to Life, but only "terrestrial animal life" and
> >"terrestrial plant life", ... and "Antarean glumph life", &c. What all
> >these different things might have in common, and *all* they might have in
> >common, is that *we*, the observers, are fitted with pattern recognition
> >hardware that groups them (falsely) together.
>
> JP
> What do you mean by "mind?"
Brain processes in a social context. Disembodied Cartesian souls. It
doesn't matter for this argument. So long as we can agree there are
minds and they have (linguistic or semantic) contents, the argument
stands. We can have *that* debate a later time. :-)
>
> >3. Even though there is no single set of *lower-level* physical processes
> >such as the Krebs cycle or DNA transcription that keeps all living things
> >together, it might still be that there are *higher-level* *physical*
> >things that do. For example, all things are subject to ballistic physical
> >laws, whether they are made from paper, dust, steel or lead. In certain
> >circumstances, they will all behave in the same way (and in others, not,
> >which is a useful way to see what the properties of different things are
> >apart from the things you are personally interested in). Take, form
> >example, the "property" of "circular motion". Is that a physical thing?
> >Well, no, but it is a physical *dynamic* and it is attained in numerous
> >ways (such as orbital dynamics, or water in a whirlpool). There's nothing
> >immaterial here - but there *is* something abstract.
>
> JP
> What distinction are you making between "immaterial" and "abstract?"
An abstract notion is one that has no time or place index (the
alternative is "concrete") - "immaterial" might still be located in a
time and place even though it is not physical (material) - Descartes
thought that (the famous pineal gate theory :-)
>
> >Abstract ideas tend to be the creation of language, and so we are again
> >back to the essentialist mistake. However, there are things about the
> >world (such as life, or mind) which can be attained in different ways,
> >rather like a destination that can be got to by the high and the low
> >road. If there *is* a dynamic, such as I proposed, of dissipative
> >structures (these are thermodynamic processes that expend energy to
> >maintain their structure - a flame is a dissiaptive structure, for
> >example) that reproduce enough to maintain a population of them, then
> >this can be achieved in many ways. Who knows, perhaps there *are* gas
> >beings in some nebula somewhere that meet this definition. Then we can
> >say - physical, but different to all other life, yet still Life.
>
> >These are called "emergent" or in other cases "supervenient" properties
> >in philosophy. Life may be an emergent phenomenon.
>
> JP
> Intelligent life? If so, emergent from what?
Well all the cases we know so far are emergent from cell signaling
systems (nervous systems) that react directly to stimuli.
Reaction A generates product B which is a somponent of reaction C which
generates D ... which eventually generates soemthing we would call
living. Sulphur is involved in some pathways, clays in others (or
perhaps the same). There are more being uncovered almost daily.
How could it - you yourself say that science cannot comment on what is
immaterial; and anyway if it can explain these things in physical terms,
the question is, dare I say it, immaterial anyway...
John Harshman
Ken Cope wrote:
What a long, strange trip this is becoming! But at least we can now
resolve the "AMNH" citation, maybe. Because among the citations for the
story is this one: Bernard Nietschmann, "When the Turtle Collapses, the
World Ends," Natural History, 83(6):34 (June-July 1974). Based on
commentaries around the citation, I think the story is still not firmly
attributed in that article.
howard hershey
John Wilkins wrote:
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>>>1. Meaning is not applied in terms of necessary and sufficient criteria,
>>>or at any rate it is not always applied this way. Many terms are applied
>>>first to one thing, and then extended over time to other things that, at
>>>the end of the series, has no common term that is both needed and enough
>>>to mark out only the things in the series. This is the "baptismal" theory
>>>of meaning. In science, for example, a term may be paradigmatically
>>>applied to one phenomenon on the basis of folk knowledge - consider the
>>>related term "organic" in "organic chemistry" - at first it applied
>>>solely to the chemical products of living things; now it applies to
>>>carbon-based chemistry. Now "life" in this case, applied initially (say,
>>>by Aristotle) to a certain sort of thing: plants and animals. We can
>>>define them pretty much in terms of growth, respiration, metabolism and
>>>reproduction. But not viruses. Hence the initial meaning (which had some
>>>essential definition) has been extended now to cover other aspects of
>>>reality, and at the same time it has lost some of the meanings it used to
>>>have (since we abandoned preformationism, and so on). Look up Kripke and
>>>Putnam on this in any introductory text on philosophy of language.
>>
>>JP
>>Why not viruses?
>
>
> No metabolism, reproduction or growth on their own account (they
> parasitise cells). Put viruses in a medium and they just slowly
> denature.
[snip]
Arrrgh. Viruses. There be the problem in defining life. Viruses
clearly are parasites, but so are other *cellular* and even *metazoan*
entities that cannot survive outside a host.
But clearly viruses can only perform some of the functions of cells
unless they are in the environment of a cell, whereas other, cellular,
parasites like mycoplasmas and rickettsias do grow and have a
membrane-bound internal metabolism rather than an external metabolism
related to their reproductive success bounded by their host's membrane.
Yet viruses clearly have a genome and they replicate or reproduce and
evolve using the information encoded in that genome.
The reason this is problematic is because, to understand the likely
structure and functions of the ur-organisms, one needs to pare away
non-essential functions and structures or have simpler systems perform them.
DNA, of course, has long since been pared away as "necessary" for life.
RNA can certainly perform the 'information storage' function that DNA
serves for today's complex organisms for a putative simpler ur-organism.
Encoded protein also may be unnecessary, since it is clear that
important and fundamental 'enzymatic' activities can be performed by
RNA. The current question is whether RNA or some other molecule was the
first 'genetic' macromolecule of first life. It is also an open
question as to whether a bounding membrane is necessary.
Now, if you define life as a genetic system (including a macromolecule
containing information in sequence order) that can exploit the resources
of a specific environment to reproduce the genetic information, you
would have a definition that would exclude simple crystal formation, but
would include viruses and any likely ur-organism. Is that a better
definition? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Alan Wostenberg
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > So we have two definitions so far:
> >
> > Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> > growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction
> >
> > Life: thermodynamic processes that expend energy to maintain their
> > structure
> >
> > So you and I are either an organismic state or a thermodynamic
> > process. But these are such dead inert things! To understand life must
> > we reduce it to something which is not life?
> >
>
> Well, if you prefer, the definition of life can be made substantially
> more elaborate. Here, chew on this:
>
> http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~elitzua/life-def.htm
>
> See the attributes under "A Living Organism". It sounds anything but
> "a dead inert thing." Especially interesting is the information
> processing attribute (#11).
There's one to bookmark! I'll chew on it offline and get back if any
thoughts.
> > Here's a definition from the old Catholic encyclopedia
> >
> > Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is
> > capable of self-movement or immanent action.
> >
>
> In other words, life is that attribute of a living thing that makes it
> alive.
>
> Sheesh.
So strike the adjective 'living' and keep it "Life is that perfection
in a being in virtue of which it is capable of self-movement or
immanent action."
Alan Wostenberg
> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> news:af2cab3d.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > So we have two definitions so far:
> >
> > Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> > growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction
> >
> > Life: thermodynamic processes that expend energy to maintain their
> > structure
> >
> > To understand life must
> > we reduce it to something which is not life?
> >
> > Here's a definition from the old Catholic encyclopedia
> >
> > Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is
> > capable of self-movement or immanent action.
> >
> In other words we have an option between operational, useful definition
> devoid of poetry, or grandiloquent definitions which are vacuous.
Scientific imperialism is no better than philosophical imperialism. As
Maritain puts it in _the range of reason_
"In the history of human knowledge we see now one, now another of
these intellectual virtues, now one, now another, of these types of
knowledge, trying, with a sort of imperialism, to seize, at the
expense of the others, the whole universe of knowledge. Thus at the
time of Plato and Aristotle, there was a period of philosophical and
metaphysical imperialism; in the Middle Ages, at least before St.
Thomas Aquinas, a period of theological imperialism; since Descartes,
Kant and August Comte, a period of scientific imperialism which has
progressively lowered the level of reason while at same time securing
a splendid technical domination of material nature. It would be a
great conquest if the human mind could end these attempts at spiritual
imperialism "
John Wilkins
Howard, you just ruined my game plan. The idea was to step by step
discuss viruses and why they don't qualify until we get to *any* living
organism requiring other living organisms due to ecological cycles, in
order to demonstrate that the exclusion of viruses is not warranted.
Then we could start at the top (involvement in an ecocycle, with
reproduction, etc.) and work down until we got to crystals. Perhaps your
way is better...
Anyway, what he said...
David Jensen
<3EAEB18...@indiana.edu>:
[snip]
I don't think I have a better definition of life because any
sufficiently rigorous definition will end up with troublesome boundary
conditions, but I like, "life is a self-sustaining biochemical
reaction". It not only covers the things that we consider clearly to be
living, like ourselves, but it helps bring up the questions about
environment that are particularly noticeable for viruses, spores, and
seeds, as they do almost nothing when not in the right envirnment, but
'become alive' when in the right environment.
dkomo
>
> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3EADFBDD...@cris.com>...
> > Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>
> > > So we have two definitions so far:
> > >
> > > Life: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
> > > growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction
> > >
> > > Life: thermodynamic processes that expend energy to maintain their
> > > structure
> > >
> > > So you and I are either an organismic state or a thermodynamic
> > > process. But these are such dead inert things! To understand life must
> > > we reduce it to something which is not life?
> > >
> >
> > Well, if you prefer, the definition of life can be made substantially
> > more elaborate. Here, chew on this:
> >
> > http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~elitzua/life-def.htm
> >
> > See the attributes under "A Living Organism". It sounds anything but
> > "a dead inert thing." Especially interesting is the information
> > processing attribute (#11).
>
> There's one to bookmark! I'll chew on it offline and get back if any
> thoughts.
>
Yes, it is pretty amazing. One of the most detailed attempts at a
definition of life I've seen anywhere. Plus the article itself is
thought provoking whether you agree with it or not.
> > > Here's a definition from the old Catholic encyclopedia
> > >
> > > Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is
> > > capable of self-movement or immanent action.
> > >
> >
> > In other words, life is that attribute of a living thing that makes it
> > alive.
> >
> > Sheesh.
>
> So strike the adjective 'living' and keep it "Life is that perfection
> in a being in virtue of which it is capable of self-movement or
> immanent action."
But what's a "being"? Ok, let's try replacing being with thing: "Life
is that perfection in a thing in virtue of which it is capable of
self-movement or immanent action."
It still sounds like a rather circular definition. Besides, the
definition leaves out important aspects like metabolism, reproduction
and ability to respond to stimuli.