Is Life Solely Physical?
Jerry Patterson
initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
while.
Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
definition of life.
********************
>> >replication;
>> >heredity;
>> >homeostasis;
>> >organization;
>> >metabolism;
>> >excitability;
>> >growth
********************
For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
with the above "definition?" If you disagree, what is your definition
of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
r norman
The cross-postings (not to mention the content) argue that this is a
troll, not a serious albeit naive scientific question.
You have selected traditional intro biology "definitions" of life.
however, as a rule, biology is not really concerned with defining just
what life is, but how the processes that make up living organisms, the
ones you list, function at the molecular, the physical-chemical and
the biochemical levels. That is why no one is interested in defining
it. Everything that we know about biology, about biochemistry and
organic chemistry, and about biophysics and physical chemistry for the
last couple of hundred years shows that there is nothing at work in a
living organism beyond the laws of physics and chemistry. That is,
life is solely physical-chemical.
The nature of first matter is a question of cosmology. The nature of
first life is a question of abiogenesis. Both are actve and
interesting areas of research. That life is solely physical does not
depend on the details of how those investigations proceed.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com...
Life to non-life is a continuum of biophysical states. For the purposes of
discussion, the definition above might be a good foundation, however, there
may be some holes in it. For example, viruses have replication, heredity,
homeostasis, and organization, but not metabolism, excitability, or growth
(I'm not sure about the latter). Some people might argue that viruses are
alive. Prions fall into exactly the same categories, if you accept the
notion that replication equals heredity, but I don't think anyone seriously
argues that they are alive.
Why do you think there is a necessary relationship between the definition of
life and whether living things are what they are because of their
biochemical properties?
Frank
SortingItOut
Scientific research on that subject appears to be ongoing. I'm afraid
you'll have to wait like the rest of us for a complete answer, and we
may not get that answer in our lifetime.
Dunk
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Most people think that life is not solely physical and don't give a
hoot about definitions.
Getting hung up on definitions is often not helpful. But in this case
if you want to analyze/debate the issue on the basis of definitions
the first one you need is 'physical'. Or better, define non physical.
That is, what else would life be, and what is the evidence for it?
By the way, have you ever asked an electrical engineer what
electricity is? They often say 'We know how to describe it and all
that, but we can't define it'. A satisfactory definition requires
some more basic terms in the same discipline in which to couch the
definition. Or you can start with a few undefined terms, as in math.
Still, some clarification of what you have in mind as nonphysical life
is essential before your question can be answered. If on the other
hand you answer that that you have no idea what you mean, then there
is no way to answer the question.
So: what particular nonphysical aspects do you want to know about?
Dunk
rich hammett
> Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
> initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
> while.
> Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
> solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
> and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
> definition of life.
> ********************
>>> >replication;
>>> >heredity;
>>> >homeostasis;
>>> >organization;
>>> >metabolism;
>>> >excitability;
>>> >growth
> ********************
> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
> with the above "definition?"
Life is different things for different questions. I think the
above list is too restrictive for a fundamental definition, since
it excludes virii, for example, which don't have metabolism or
growth, at least.
> If you disagree, what is your definition
> of life?
Luckily, I don't need one. I can just call it on a case-by-case
basis. Those items above are all part of it, but I can be
flexible. If it has any 5 of those, I'm pretty sure I'd call it
life, but SOMEBODY here can always come up with a counterexample.
> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
How nice of you to telegraph that you will just blow these
answers off and go to your next question. You really don't
like science, do you?
rich
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Ring Toss Dave
itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
thus, so far it is more then just physical.
Bobby D. Bryant
> If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
> itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
> thus, so far it is more then just physical.
"So far"??? Will it suddenly become physical when someone figures out how
to make it?
And BTW, no one has been able to reproduce the Himalayas either. Does
that mean that _they_ aren't physical? (Is that why they're such a popular
spot for monks?)
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
And if life consists of boofar in addition to matter, where did the first
boofar come from?
Cyde Weys
> If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
> itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
> thus, so far it is more then just physical.
We've managed to create a fully synthetic polio virus in the lab. Sure,
viruses aren't technically life, but they're darned close. In a few
more years (or possibly decades), I'm sure we'll have created artificial
life such as E. coli in the laboratory from scratch.
--
Usenet is a strange reality where you see people beating up a patch of
grass where nine years ago there used to be a horse. -Nuke
Cyde Weys
Life is solely physical. And there's no reason I need to offer up a
differentiation between life and nonlife, because in my view at least,
life doesn't have any "soul" that makes it fundamentally different: all
atoms are pretty much the same. But those biological guidelines are
pretty accurate if you insist on trying to define one set of atoms over
another set of atoms as life versus inanimate.
eyelessgame
> with the above "definition?"
I don't care much about the definition. There are a number of
entities we call "alive". There may be edge cases where we disagree
on whether something's alive. I don't see that that's all that
relevant. Unless one wants to argue whether a given thing (a virus, a
brain-dead mammal, etc.) is "alive", it's rather pointless (and may
distort the discussion) if one requires a sharp definition of what is
and isn't life -- we haven't established that a sharp delineation
exists in nature.
> If you disagree, what is your definition of life?
I don't necessarily have one, not that categorizes everything into a
boolean state of alive or not alive. Viruses (for example) exist,
they perform certain sorts of biochemical reactions; whether those
reactions count as the virus being "alive" is an artificial
human-induced categorization. Viruses share some of the same
characteristics as bacteria and multicellular organisms, and in some
ways are very different. Whether one categorizes viruses as "alive"
or "not alive" doesn't change their nature at all.
> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of matter,
What does "non-physical" mean in the context you're using it? What
would a "non-physical" component of life be? How would you know it
was there? How would you test for it? How would the chemical and
biological processes that we see in living things be different if this
hypothetical "non-physical" attribute were absent?
> then how did the first matter come to be?
Well, since there was matter for about ten billion years before life
(by any definition) existed on this planet, this is of course a
completely separate question. However:
There appears to be no shortcut to learning a great deal of physics if
one wishes to understand the answer to that question in any depth.
Hadrons appeared at some point in the early stages of cosmic
expansion; leptons somewhat earlier; photons earlier yet. I don't
know the details and understand it only superficially (I have an
engineering bachelor's from Caltech, which involved a good amount of
physics, but this gets far beyond me.) Some hypotheses of potential
space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
aimed at the general public for an overview.
eyelessgame
Tim Tyler
: We've managed to create a fully synthetic polio virus in the lab. Sure,
: viruses aren't technically life, but they're darned close. In a few
: more years (or possibly decades), I'm sure we'll have created artificial
: life such as E. coli in the laboratory from scratch.
Probably not "from scratch" - since we are ourselves living organisms -
so this will still be a case of "life coming from life".
IMO, creating life "from scratch" ought to mean setting up some plausible
pre-biotic conditions and watching living organisms emerge.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1.org
Jerry Patterson
JP
What cannot be defined cannot be well understood.
>> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>
>How nice of you to telegraph that you will just blow these
>answers off and go to your next question. You really don't
>like science, do you?
>
>rich
JP
I do like science. As a matter-of-fact, the various sciences,
including the physical sciences, were first classified by classical
philosophy, the mother science.
Jerry Patterson
JP
What cannot be defined cannot be well understood. A definition
describes what is.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
How about that?
>You have selected traditional intro biology "definitions" of life.
>however, as a rule, biology is not really concerned with defining just
>what life is, but how the processes that make up living organisms, the
>ones you list, function at the molecular, the physical-chemical and
>the biochemical levels. That is why no one is interested in defining
>it. Everything that we know about biology, about biochemistry and
>organic chemistry, and about biophysics and physical chemistry for the
>last couple of hundred years shows that there is nothing at work in a
>living organism beyond the laws of physics and chemistry. That is,
>life is solely physical-chemical.
JP
What cannot be defined cannot be well known.
>The nature of first matter is a question of cosmology. The nature of
>first life is a question of abiogenesis. Both are actve and
>interesting areas of research. That life is solely physical does not
>depend on the details of how those investigations proceed.
JP
How did the first matter come to be?
Jerry Patterson
JP
What cannot be defined cannot be well understood.
>By the way, have you ever asked an electrical engineer what
>electricity is? They often say 'We know how to describe it and all
>that, but we can't define it'. A satisfactory definition requires
>some more basic terms in the same discipline in which to couch the
>definition. Or you can start with a few undefined terms, as in math.
JP
Yes, electricity is not well understood. We have learned well how to
use what we do not fully understand.
>Still, some clarification of what you have in mind as nonphysical life
>is essential before your question can be answered. If on the other
>hand you answer that that you have no idea what you mean, then there
>is no way to answer the question.
>
>So: what particular nonphysical aspects do you want to know about?
>
>Dunk
JP
The question here is for those believing life is solely physical. How
then did the first matter come to be?
Jerry Patterson
JP
I suspect you may be correct. How did the first matter come to be?
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:49:31 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>
>And if life consists of boofar in addition to matter, where did the first
>boofar come from?
JP
I suppose from the same cause, if boofar is of the matter.
Jerry Patterson
JP
The only reason is that what is not defined cannot be well understood.
How, then, did the first atoms come to be?
Jerry Patterson
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Ring Toss Dave wrote:
>> If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
>> itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
>> thus, so far it is more then just physical.
>
>We've managed to create a fully synthetic polio virus in the lab. Sure,
>viruses aren't technically life, but they're darned close. In a few
>more years (or possibly decades), I'm sure we'll have created artificial
>life such as E. coli in the laboratory from scratch.
JP
How, then, did the first matter come to be?
Jerry Patterson
<dr...@swbell.net> wrote:
>If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
>itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
>thus, so far it is more then just physical.
JP
It seems you are correct.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
>> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
>> with the above "definition?"
>
>I don't care much about the definition. There are a number of
>entities we call "alive". There may be edge cases where we disagree
>on whether something's alive. I don't see that that's all that
>relevant. Unless one wants to argue whether a given thing (a virus, a
>brain-dead mammal, etc.) is "alive", it's rather pointless (and may
>distort the discussion) if one requires a sharp definition of what is
>and isn't life -- we haven't established that a sharp delineation
>exists in nature.
JP
If differences exist, distinguishing definitions are attainable. If
not, we would not be able to distinguish differences. What cannot be
defined cannot be well understood.
>> If you disagree, what is your definition of life?
>
>I don't necessarily have one, not that categorizes everything into a
>boolean state of alive or not alive. Viruses (for example) exist,
>they perform certain sorts of biochemical reactions; whether those
>reactions count as the virus being "alive" is an artificial
>human-induced categorization. Viruses share some of the same
>characteristics as bacteria and multicellular organisms, and in some
>ways are very different. Whether one categorizes viruses as "alive"
>or "not alive" doesn't change their nature at all.
>> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of matter,
>
>What does "non-physical" mean in the context you're using it? What
>would a "non-physical" component of life be? How would you know it
>was there? How would you test for it? How would the chemical and
>biological processes that we see in living things be different if this
>hypothetical "non-physical" attribute were absent?
JP
I did not use the term "non-physical."
>> then how did the first matter come to be?
>
>Well, since there was matter for about ten billion years before life
>(by any definition) existed on this planet, this is of course a
>completely separate question. However:
>There appears to be no shortcut to learning a great deal of physics if
>one wishes to understand the answer to that question in any depth.
>Hadrons appeared at some point in the early stages of cosmic
>expansion; leptons somewhat earlier; photons earlier yet. I don't
>know the details and understand it only superficially (I have an
>engineering bachelor's from Caltech, which involved a good amount of
>physics, but this gets far beyond me.) Some hypotheses of potential
>space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
>where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
>understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
>aimed at the general public for an overview.
JP
I think perhaps this question lies in the realm of the philosophical
sciences, likely, metaphysics, the science of being.
>eyelessgame
AC
But there may never be an all-encompassing definition of "life". Just as
there are problems at the edges with the definition of "species" (eg. ring
species), no definition is likely going to be satisfactory in every
circumstance. When you look at a virus, you are looking at something that
has many of the same traits that we see in those things we can positively
identify as living, but does not share all such features. Definitions can
act as filters, but as with any filter, one must be cautious as to what one
catches.
>
>>> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>>
>>How nice of you to telegraph that you will just blow these
>>answers off and go to your next question. You really don't
>>like science, do you?
>>
>>rich
>
> JP
> I do like science. As a matter-of-fact, the various sciences,
> including the physical sciences, were first classified by classical
> philosophy, the mother science.
This has been hashed over quite a bit. While the origins of modern science
are certainly in philosophy, science as it practiced now is no longer
chained to these philosophies.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
When the universe had sufficiently expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium
formed. Since then, stars have taken over the job.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
Biology is not concerned with how matter came to be. It is sufficient to
biology that matter exists and behaves in a fashion that facilitates the
existence of living organisms. It matters not whether Orf the Giant Saliva
Ogre created the universe and all the matter in it, or any other
particularly story or theory you wish to invoke. Why should biologists,
within their field of inquiry, care how exactly how matter and energy
actually came into existence?
--
Aaron Clausen
TomS
<slrnbk4kn7...@ts1.alberni.net>, AC stated..."
People like to blame evolution.
If there is anything in science that disturbs them, they blame
it on evolution.
They don't blame the rising crime rate (if there is one) on the
teaching of plate tectonics, or on teaching about computers, or on
teaching recent discoveries about the planets.
They will blame the vile social/political movements of the 20th
century on evolution. Even though the proponents of these movements
didn't care about evolution, and if there was a science that they
appealed to, it would have been some simple-minded old-fashioned
ideas about genetics and inheritance. (Maybe even inheritance of
acquired characteristics.)
It isn't evolution that says that all life on earth is based
on chemicals. But evolution gets blamed for it.
People will make up all kinds of stuff, just so they can blame
evolution.
Frank Reichenbacher
What if it can only be roughly defined? As I suggested above, the
biophysical properties that result in life, grade continuously into what is
non-life.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:41:35 +0000 (UTC), pdu...@palebluedot.net
> (Dunk) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:49:31 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
> ><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
> >>initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
> JP
> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical. How
> then did the first matter come to be?
Matter? I thought the question was about the definition of life? When did we
switch subjects?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
On second thought...
You evaded my question. Why do you think there is a relationship between
what life "is" and whether some metaphysical property activates or
implements the quality of life? If metaphysics activates life, why would
biochemistry matter? Couldn't anything be "alive"?
Frank
Lenny Flank
<snip more of Jerry's same old song-and-dance)
> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical.
Hey Jerry, what non-physical thing are you suggesting is part of life,
and where can we see it.
Please be specific.
The last time I asked you this simple question, you danced ar5ound for
weeks without answering it. Are you gonan answer it this time, or am
I just gonna get a repeat performance of the Fundie Two-Step.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
Lenny Flank
Jerry, what the bloody hell does the "first matter" have to do with "life".
Do you know what a "blithering idiot" is, Jerry? You're blithering.
jeffery joel bezaire
has little to do with other groups]
Hi Jerry,
Again I find myself objecting not to the actual original point of your
post (requesting a definition of life), but rather with arguments that you
make in regards to that point. I know we didn't come to much agreement
over anything last time, but I feel obliged to respond to your arguments
again here.
Once again, since I don't want to take a position regarding the definition
of life (not my field - I'm a physicist), I will snip heavily to just
focus on your arguments I take issue with.
>
>JP
>What cannot be defined cannot be well understood.
>
As others have pointed out, this is simply not true in the case of a
continuum. For example, can you define adulthood and childhood for me? My
6 month old is clearly a child, and I am clearly an adult, yet an exact
definition that would pinpoint the moment a child turns into an adult is
impossible. So it is with the chemical reactions that are life. There
appears to be a continuous progression from non-life to life, with viruses
already having been provided as an example of a "fuzzy" spot (the
equivalent of a 16 year old in my child-adult analogy).
Similarly can you define hot and cold for me? How about near and
far? big and small? liberal and conservative?
All of these things defy exact definitions, and yet they can all be well
understood, except perhaps at their boundaries. So it is with life and
non-life.
>JP
>Yes, electricity is not well understood. We have learned well how to
>use what we do not fully understand.
You made this statement last time around, and you were corrected by a host
of physicists who told you that electricity and magnetism were among the
most well understood physical phenomena around. I find it disappointing
that you did not learn anything from that exchange.
>
>>Still, some clarification of what you have in mind as nonphysical life
>>is essential before your question can be answered. If on the other
>>hand you answer that that you have no idea what you mean, then there
>>is no way to answer the question.
>>
>>So: what particular nonphysical aspects do you want to know about?
>>
>>Dunk
>
>JP
>The question here is for those believing life is solely physical. How
>then did the first matter come to be?
>. . .
This seems to be a complete non sequitor to me. I don't comprehend how the
origin of the first matter can possibly have any bearing on whether or not
life is solely physical. But I suppose that that's okay, since I want to
take a position on whether or not life is solely physical, but I can tell
you where the first matter came from.
If you really want to know, I'd be happy to explain it to you. Perhaps you
could first define for me what you mean by matter, just so we're on the
same page to start with.
best regards,
Jeff Bezaire
--
eyelessgame
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:28:21 +0000 (UTC), aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
> >> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
> >> with the above "definition?"
> >
> >I don't care much about the definition. There are a number of
> >entities we call "alive". There may be edge cases where we disagree
> >on whether something's alive. I don't see that that's all that
> >relevant. Unless one wants to argue whether a given thing (a virus, a
> >brain-dead mammal, etc.) is "alive", it's rather pointless (and may
> >distort the discussion) if one requires a sharp definition of what is
> >and isn't life -- we haven't established that a sharp delineation
> >exists in nature.
>
> JP
> If differences exist, distinguishing definitions are attainable.
And in cases where a continuum exists, one cannot draw a sharp line.
> If
> not, we would not be able to distinguish differences. What cannot be
> defined cannot be well understood.
What cannot be defined as a clear exclusive category is generally a
red flag that the attempt at categorization is flawed.
"Multicellular life" can be precisely defined. In fact, "cellular
life" and "prokaryotic life" can also be defined. But "life" isn't
easy to define -- and that's not because it "can't be understood" but
because it's an arbitrary distinction. A seed that is subjected to
progressively more brutal stresses is less and less likely ever to
germinate. At what specific point does it stop being alive?
> >> If you disagree, what is your definition of life?
> >
> >I don't necessarily have one, not that categorizes everything into a
> >boolean state of alive or not alive. Viruses (for example) exist,
> >they perform certain sorts of biochemical reactions; whether those
> >reactions count as the virus being "alive" is an artificial
> >human-induced categorization. Viruses share some of the same
> >characteristics as bacteria and multicellular organisms, and in some
> >ways are very different. Whether one categorizes viruses as "alive"
> >or "not alive" doesn't change their nature at all.
>
> >> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of matter,
> >
> >What does "non-physical" mean in the context you're using it? What
> >would a "non-physical" component of life be? How would you know it
> >was there? How would you test for it? How would the chemical and
> >biological processes that we see in living things be different if this
> >hypothetical "non-physical" attribute were absent?
>
> JP
> I did not use the term "non-physical."
Pardon me, you're correct. Permit me to rephrase. You can judge for
yourself the degree to which it changes the nature of my question.
What would non-"solely physical" life mean, in the context you're
using the term "solely physical"? What would a not "solely physical"
component of life be? How would you know it was there? How would you
test for it? How would the chemical and biological processes that we
see in living things be different if living things were instead
"solely physical"?
> >> then how did the first matter come to be?
> >
> >Well, since there was matter for about ten billion years before life
> >(by any definition) existed on this planet, this is of course a
> >completely separate question. However:
>
> >There appears to be no shortcut to learning a great deal of physics if
> >one wishes to understand the answer to that question in any depth.
> >Hadrons appeared at some point in the early stages of cosmic
> >expansion; leptons somewhat earlier; photons earlier yet. I don't
> >know the details and understand it only superficially (I have an
> >engineering bachelor's from Caltech, which involved a good amount of
> >physics, but this gets far beyond me.) Some hypotheses of potential
> >space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
> >where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
> >understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
> >aimed at the general public for an overview.
>
> JP
> I think perhaps this question lies in the realm of the philosophical
> sciences, likely, metaphysics, the science of being.
If you're not prepared to study the physics, you can "think perhaps"
whatever you like, and it'll be indistinguishable from thinking
nothing at all. Once people "thought perhaps" gravity lay in the
realm of the philosophical sciences, since "action at a distance" was
"obviously" metaphysical in nature. Someone needs to trot out the
Ellison quote again about the difference between opinions and informed
opinions.
"Metaphysics" has, historically, had little value beyond "we don't
understand it yet". The area of questions we've had to relegate to
"metaphysics" has shrunk considerably, and this particular question is
leaving the realm of metaphysics and becoming a question answerable by
the hardest of sciences even as we speak. But of course, if you
choose not to learn what the physics of the beginning of the universe
are, then you can "think perhaps" there's some other answer somewhere
else.
eyelessgame
r norman
wrote:
>What cannot be defined as a clear exclusive category is generally a
>red flag that the attempt at categorization is flawed.
>
>"Multicellular life" can be precisely defined. In fact, "cellular
>life" and "prokaryotic life" can also be defined. But "life" isn't
>easy to define -- and that's not because it "can't be understood" but
>because it's an arbitrary distinction. A seed that is subjected to
>progressively more brutal stresses is less and less likely ever to
>germinate. At what specific point does it stop being alive?
>
>
Unfortunately, biology is a special field where even clear categories
become fuzzy and ill defined. "Multicellular" is certainly one of
those.
Look at the slime molds. The plasmodial slime molds are
"single-celled" organisms with thousads of nuclei. The cellular slime
molds live sometimes as separate cells and sometimes as a
multicellular community.
Look at the volvocine series of green algae, starting with organisms
that live as single cells, those that lives as "colonies" of 2 or 4
cells, as clumps of a dozen or so, of up to a hundred, and of hundreds
of cells -- the whole showing a smooth gradation from clearly
unicellular life to relatively complex multicellular.
Is a chain or colony of bacteria or fungi a group of single cells or a
multicellular entity? Many cyanobacteria have two distinct cell types
living together and dividing functions between them.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
It seems the universe was composed of matter. How did the first matter
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<lub4kvsoauu2dtuff...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Cyde Weys
>> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Ring Toss Dave wrote:
>> >> If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
>> >> itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
>> >> thus, so far it is more then just physical.
>> >
>> >We've managed to create a fully synthetic polio virus in the lab. Sure,
>> >viruses aren't technically life, but they're darned close. In a few
>> >more years (or possibly decades), I'm sure we'll have created artificial
>> >life such as E. coli in the laboratory from scratch.
>>
>> JP
>> How, then, did the first matter come to be?
>
>
>Jerry, what the bloody hell does the "first matter" have to do with "life".
>
>Do you know what a "blithering idiot" is, Jerry? You're blithering.
JP
Until you regain your civility, goodbye.
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:p1b4kv851va9jt51c...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:41:35 +0000 (UTC), pdu...@palebluedot.net
>> (Dunk) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:49:31 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
>> ><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
>> >>initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
><snip>
>
>> JP
>> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical. How
>> then did the first matter come to be?
>
>Matter? I thought the question was about the definition of life? When did we
>switch subjects?
>
>Frank
JP
There is no switch. The definition of life was offered by a poster.
You may, or may not, propose a definition. Independent of your
offering a definition, if you believe life is solely physical, how did
the first matter come to be.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Then it is not well understood. It remains a mystery until it is
understood.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:27:36 +0000 (UTC),
JP
A proper definition must define an element of reality such that it
cannot be confused with another element of reality. It has the same
effect as the mathematical definition of a physical property, even
those that are abstract, such as the moment of inertia.
>>>> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>>>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>>>
>>>How nice of you to telegraph that you will just blow these
>>>answers off and go to your next question. You really don't
>>>like science, do you?
>>>
>>>rich
>>
>> JP
>> I do like science. As a matter-of-fact, the various sciences,
>> including the physical sciences, were first classified by classical
>> philosophy, the mother science.
>
>This has been hashed over quite a bit. While the origins of modern science
>are certainly in philosophy, science as it practiced now is no longer
>chained to these philosophies.
JP
There never was a chain, by definition. To what philosophies do you
refer?
Jerry Patterson
JP
I have not here mentioned metaphysics. So far there is no need to
enter into a metaphysical exchange. I evaded nothing. I did not
mention quality of life as that is not proper to our discussion.
Metaphysics cannot activate life.
Some things are alive. if you think life is solely physical, then
please define it in physical terms.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<p1b4kv851va9jt51c...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip more of Jerry's same old song-and-dance)
>
>> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical.
>
>
>Hey Jerry, what non-physical thing are you suggesting is part of life,
>and where can we see it.
>Please be specific.
JP
Hello again to you Lenny. I am suggesting nothing. The only question
asked is how the first matter came to be. If matter is physical, its
cause must possess physical properties in order to impart them.
>The last time I asked you this simple question, you danced ar5ound for
>weeks without answering it. Are you gonan answer it this time, or am
>I just gonna get a repeat performance of the Fundie Two-Step.
JP
You and I have differing opinions about that. The above answer is very
direct. How do you think is could be more direct?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
>
>
>
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:27:33 +0000 (UTC),
JP
Your point does, indeed, describe the attitude of many working in the
physical sciences. Those folks depend professionally on the constant
functioning of the principle of cause and effect. If they want to
limit their reasoning only to that which is caused, without
investigating the cause(s) of those effect(s), thus learning about the
effect, that is their concern. They simply demure from this
discussion.
AC
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:42:34 +0000 (UTC), AC <tao...@alberni.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:27:33 +0000 (UTC),
>>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> JP
>>> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical. How
>>> then did the first matter come to be?
>>
>>Biology is not concerned with how matter came to be. It is sufficient to
>>biology that matter exists and behaves in a fashion that facilitates the
>>existence of living organisms. It matters not whether Orf the Giant Saliva
>>Ogre created the universe and all the matter in it, or any other
>>particularly story or theory you wish to invoke. Why should biologists,
>>within their field of inquiry, care how exactly how matter and energy
>>actually came into existence?
>
> JP
> Your point does, indeed, describe the attitude of many working in the
> physical sciences.
Physicists are concerned with the origins of matter. Biologists are not.
> Those folks depend professionally on the constant
> functioning of the principle of cause and effect. If they want to
> limit their reasoning only to that which is caused, without
> investigating the cause(s) of those effect(s), thus learning about the
> effect, that is their concern. They simply demure from this
> discussion.
I realize that you are trying, yet again, to insert your own notions of
immateriality, into this debate, but I want you to tell me why a biologist
should be at all concerned with how matter formed. I don't particularly
trust your motives, nor am I impressed with this constant assertion of
immateriality, so before we go one step further, please tell me why any
biologist should concern himself with a field of inquiry that deals with the
earliest phases of the universe. Or do you just want to assert that
biologists miss some sort of secret point you won't reveal to me?
--
Aaron Clausen
Bobby D. Bryant
Neither; he just wants to be able to convince himself that he has
confounded those who disagree with him.
Unfortunately, you didn't respond with the anticipated stunned silence,
and now he has run off the end of his plan for this iteration of the
debate. So he'll now make some crude efforts at damage control (as quoted
above) and eventually be forced to drop the thread altogether. But that's
no problem because he can start a fresh try after a few days, weeks, or
months when he convinces himself that he can control the discussion better
if he tries again.
And of course, when he does try again he'll still approach the problem by
trying to trip up those who disagree with him, rather than by proposing
something tangible for discussion. (Bet you've never seen *that*
strategem before, eh?)
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Frank Reichenbacher
Yes you did. Your question assumes that there is an alternative to a
physical nature. The "meta" in metaphysics means, "beyond", i.e., beyond
physics, or alternative to a physical nature.
So far there is no need to
> enter into a metaphysical exchange.
Too late for that.
I evaded nothing. I did not
> mention quality of life as that is not proper to our discussion.
You brought it up.
> Metaphysics cannot activate life.
I know that.
>
> Some things are alive.
Yep.
> if you think life is solely physical, then
> please define it in physical terms.
You certainly are slippery character.
What is the alternative? If I didn't think that life is purely physical,
what else would there be other than some metaphysical action or process?
The respondents to your question have already defined life in physical
terms, generally agreeing with the 6-point list you posted. Most, however,
have done so only with the caveat that life exists on a biophysical
continuum and that there may some differences of interpretation.
So what, if anything, is unsatisfactory in these responses?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
No it wasn't. The initial state of the universe did not include matter. Go
read up on the Big Bang and then come back.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
The initial state of the universe following the Big Bang did not include
matter as we know it. The first matter formed when inflation caused the
density of energy to decline and temperatures to drop to a point where
quarks could form the first protons and neutrons.
Frank
rich hammett
In the same way that "red," which grades insensibly into
"orange," is poorly understood.
rich
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>>
>>> . . .
>>> Blessings,
>>> Jerry
>>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>>>
>>
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Mitchell Coffey
you think the universe wasn't always there? I take it you think it
came to be by magic?
Mitchell Coffey
AC
I'm waiting for Jerry to start the "I only respond to one post per person
per day" nonsense again.
--
Aaron Clausen
eyelessgame
I stand corrected, thanks. "Eukaryotic life", then, perhaps? Even
that probably has border cases somewhere.
But in any case we can study categories of entities even when there
are borderline cases that may or may not fall within the category. I
contend that simply by insisting on an all-inclusive,
undisputed-border definition of what is and is not "life" distorts the
discussion -- because the position held by one side (vitalism)
requires this undisputed border, and the true state of affairs makes
their position untenable from the start.
eyelessgame
David Jensen
<slrnbk7ukp...@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net>:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:58:39 +0000 (UTC),
>Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
...
>> And of course, when he does try again he'll still approach the problem by
>> trying to trip up those who disagree with him, rather than by proposing
>> something tangible for discussion. (Bet you've never seen *that*
>> strategem before, eh?)
>
>I'm waiting for Jerry to start the "I only respond to one post per person
>per day" nonsense again.
Well, if he actually _responds_ that wouldn't be bad.
Lenny Flank
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:24:53 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<lub4kvsoauu2dtuff...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Cyde Weys
> >> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ring Toss Dave wrote:
> >> >> If it is, no one can make it yet, something is missing, it is life
> >> >> itself. So far as I know, no one has been able to reproduce life,
> >> >> thus, so far it is more then just physical.
> >> >
> >> >We've managed to create a fully synthetic polio virus in the lab. Sure,
> >> >viruses aren't technically life, but they're darned close. In a few
> >> >more years (or possibly decades), I'm sure we'll have created artificial
> >> >life such as E. coli in the laboratory from scratch.
> >>
> >> JP
> >> How, then, did the first matter come to be?
> >
> >
> >Jerry, what the bloody hell does the "first matter" have to do with "life".
> >
> >Do you know what a "blithering idiot" is, Jerry? You're blithering.
>
> JP
> Until you regain your civility, goodbye.
>
<sniffle> <sob> Boo hoo hoo.
How about if someone ELSE asks you the very same question, Jerry --
would you answer it THEN? What sorry-ass excuse would you come up
with then?
Lenny Flank
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:23:47 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<p1b4kv851va9jt51c...@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip more of Jerry's same old song-and-dance)
> >
> >> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical.
> >
> >
> >Hey Jerry, what non-physical thing are you suggesting is part of life,
> >and where can we see it.
>
> >Please be specific.
>
> JP
> Hello again to you Lenny.
Hello. Answer my damn question.
>I am suggesting nothing.
Don't bullshit me, Jerry. Answer my damn question.
The only question
> asked is how the first matter came to be. If matter is physical, its
> cause must possess physical properties in order to impart them.
>
> >The last time I asked you this simple question, you danced ar5ound for
> >weeks without answering it. Are you gonan answer it this time, or am
> >I just gonna get a repeat performance of the Fundie Two-Step.
>
> JP
> You and I have differing opinions about that. The above answer is very
> direct. How do you think is could be more direct?\
You could answer my damn question. If you think there is some
non-physical thing in life, tell me what it is and where we can see
it.
You can either answer that question for me, or dance the Fundie
Shuffle some more.
And a one-ah, and a two-ah . . . . . . . .
r norman
wrote:
That we certainly agree on. Long ago in this thread, I posted a
response indicating that biologists really don't care how to define
life, exept in the first chapter of the intro text where it is sort of
expected. The important thing is to try to understand how the life
processes work. Clearly, virtually all living things share a long
list. The fact that there are grey areas between life and non-life
(or between any two "discrete" categories" merely illustrates a
possible evolutionary path between the two states.
SortingItOut
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:19:52 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
> <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> >news:lna4kv0doia10orvk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 04:38:59 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
> >> <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
<snip>
I disagree. The arguments we are having (so far) with regards to the
term "life" are solely with respect to its use as a term of
classification. That is, how many different objects are included in
the class of objects that we say possess "life", how do we handle the
fringe cases such as viruses, etc.
On the other hand, there is nothing that suggests that any particular
lifeform, such as humans or fungi, can't be completely understood
given enough study. In other words, our ability to completely
understand any particular lifeform is not hindered one iota by our
arguments over the term 'life'. Given enough study, there will be no
remaining mysteries about any particular lifeform even if we continue
to argue for centuries about the term "life".
I think you have an underlying point to all this that is being
needlessly sidetracked over a superficial argument over definitions.
There is no absolute definition for the term 'life'. It's whatever we
decide it is. However, there is an absolute reality about what makes
up any particular lifeform and how it works. This is an area that can
truly be investigated. Let's refocus the argument there. For the
purposes of this thread, can't we just say that 'life' = 'all
vertabrates' and go from there?
Now...you seem to be attempting to establish some kind of relationship
between life (i.e. all vertabrates) and the origin of matter. I
personally don't see any connection whatsoever. Perhaps you can start
by outlining why it is that the origin of matter has anything to do
with whether or not life is purely physical. For example, isn't it
possible for us to completely and totally understand how a vertabrate
functions and still not have a clue as to where matter came from?
SortingItOut
But I don't think life can be, or even needs to be, defined this way.
Take rocks for example. All rocks have the property of mass and
volume. However, some rocks also have the property of "contains
silicon". Not all rocks have that. Still others may have the
property of "contains silicon dioxide". Even fewer rocks have that
property. (I'm not a geologist, I'm just trying to make a point)
It seems to me that life is like this also. Some objects, such as
rocks, have none of the properties we attribute to lifeforms (from you
original list, for example, and I'm sure the list could be made
longer). Other objects, such as viruses, have some of the properties
but not all of them. Other objects, such as bacteria, have a more
complete set of these properties. And still others, such as those
with brains, have "life" properties that bacteria don't have.
The term "life" is nothing but an arbitrary grouping of these
properties. It doesn't mean we don't understand the specific
properties.
<snip>
SortingItOut
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:26:03 +0000 (UTC), eri...@home.com
> (SortingItOut) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
> >> Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
> >> initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
> >> while.
> >>
> >> Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
> >> solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
> >> and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
> >> definition of life.
> >>
> >> ********************
> >> >> >replication;
> >> >> >heredity;
> >> >> >homeostasis;
> >> >> >organization;
> >> >> >metabolism;
> >> >> >excitability;
> >> >> >growth
> >>
> >> ********************
> >>
> >> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
> >> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
> >
> >
> >Scientific research on that subject appears to be ongoing. I'm afraid
> >you'll have to wait like the rest of us for a complete answer, and we
> >may not get that answer in our lifetime.
>
>
> JP
> I suspect you may be correct. How did the first matter come to be?
I'm lost as to why you re-asked your question.
Others more knowledgable than me can answer your question with a fair
degree of completeness. They'll give technical answers that say
matter came from "x". I suspect your reponse to that will be "But
where did x come from". They'll respond one level deeper and say
"From y", to which you'll say "But where did y come from?".
Can we assume for the sake of argument that science does not know the
ultimate answer to your question? Or is it possible that you'll be
satisfied with "Matter came from an energy singularity (or whatever)"
(perhaps that's good enough, but you're not telling us how far back
you want to go)? Assuming that you'll continue to ask until the point
where we've exhausted scientific knowledge, let's just cut to the
chase and say "we don't know". Then you can cease asking this
question and we can move on.
RetroProphet
"Many people think all things can't be explained by chemistry and physics, that
it's explainable only as something outside science - a life force. That was also
the view about our genetic inheritance before we knew about DNA. Most scientists
believe there isn't anything else." But, he admits, "that's still a hypothesis."
He knows at this point based on the scientific data, that he couldn't convince a
skeptic. "They would just say, 'That is just your prejudice."' He adds, with a
chuckle, "Which is not to say that your prejudice may not turn out to be right."
- excerpt from interview with Francis Crick by Daniel Voll (1994)
As to the origin of matter, I kinda like Edward Tryon's idea that the universe
is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, popping into existance uncaused.
Theodore Schick's "The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God" is an
interesting look at science and logic as it bears on the origin question:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/ theodore_schick/bigbang.html
Bill Rogers
> Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
> initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
> while.
>
> Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
> solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
> and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
> definition of life.
>
> ********************
> >> >replication;
> >> >heredity;
> >> >homeostasis;
> >> >organization;
> >> >metabolism;
> >> >excitability;
> >> >growth
>
> ********************
>
> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
> with the above "definition?"
Sounds OK to me.
> If you disagree, what is your definition
> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
Sure life is purely physical. But what does the origin of matter have
to do with whether life is purely physical.
But why not? Life is an emergent property of certain complex
arrangments of matter. Matter is an emergent property of of certain
sufficiently complex mathematical structures. Mathematical structures
just are.
Jerry Patterson
<vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
JP
The Big Bang is one of many theories. How do you dimension energy?
Jerry Patterson
JP
What difference does it make as to number?
>On the other hand, there is nothing that suggests that any particular
>lifeform, such as humans or fungi, can't be completely understood
>given enough study. In other words, our ability to completely
>understand any particular lifeform is not hindered one iota by our
>arguments over the term 'life'. Given enough study, there will be no
>remaining mysteries about any particular lifeform even if we continue
>to argue for centuries about the term "life".
JP
Until then, it is not well understood as solely physical.
>I think you have an underlying point to all this that is being
>needlessly sidetracked over a superficial argument over definitions.
>There is no absolute definition for the term 'life'. It's whatever we
>decide it is. However, there is an absolute reality about what makes
>up any particular lifeform and how it works. This is an area that can
>truly be investigated. Let's refocus the argument there. For the
>purposes of this thread, can't we just say that 'life' = 'all
>vertabrates' and go from there?
JP
I don't think so. If life is solely physical, many, if not all, of its
attributes can be understood on the basis of knowing its cause. How
did the first matter come to be? There can be no effect not present in
its cause!
A proper definition describes an element of reality so uniquely that
it cannot be mistaken for another element of reality. I do agree that
we do not appear to have an understanding of life as solely a physical
being.
>Now...you seem to be attempting to establish some kind of relationship
>between life (i.e. all vertabrates) and the origin of matter. I
>personally don't see any connection whatsoever. Perhaps you can start
>by outlining why it is that the origin of matter has anything to do
>with whether or not life is purely physical. For example, isn't it
>possible for us to completely and totally understand how a vertabrate
>functions and still not have a clue as to where matter came from?
JP
If one thinks life is solely physical, all that is physical must have
had a beginning. Therefore, life had a beginning. How did it come to
be? That is the connection.
If you believe that life was preceded by constituent elements, how did
the first element of matter come to be? If you think life was never
the result of the combining of elements and it first existed as
"life," how did that come to be?
Jerry Patterson
<vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
JP
Your inference might well have merit and if you want to pursue that,
please start a new thread on that topic and let me know its title and
date you intend to post it. I will participate. This thread is based
on the premise that life is solely physical, not inferences.
>So far there is no need to
>> enter into a metaphysical exchange.
>
>Too late for that.
JP
It is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about life as
solely physical.
>
> I evaded nothing. I did not
>> mention quality of life as that is not proper to our discussion.
>
>You brought it up.
JP
Please cut and paste my mentioning of quality of life.
>
>> Metaphysics cannot activate life.
>
>I know that.
JP
Metaphysics is the science of being and it has many categories. No
science can activate anything. Science is the study of reality so that
truth can be discovered.
>
>>
>> Some things are alive.
>
>Yep.
>
>
>> if you think life is solely physical, then
>> please define it in physical terms.
>
>You certainly are slippery character.
JP
That is insulting. It is simply the topic of this thread, nothing
more.
>What is the alternative? If I didn't think that life is purely physical,
>what else would there be other than some metaphysical action or process?
JP
That can be discussed on a new thread as I mentioned above.
>The respondents to your question have already defined life in physical
>terms, generally agreeing with the 6-point list you posted. Most, however,
>have done so only with the caveat that life exists on a biophysical
>continuum and that there may some differences of interpretation.
JP
I read of no such agreement. Please cut and past such an agreement and
who agreed. If a definition is not formable, then life is not
understood as solely physical.
>So what, if anything, is unsatisfactory in these responses?
>
>Frank
JP
If life is well understood as solely physical, it must, then, be
definable and how it came to be as a physical reality along with any
of its associated elements from which it metamorphosed.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Possibly. You seem to think so.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<1ad7kvkqje5visvur...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:23:47 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<p1b4kv851va9jt51c...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> ><snip more of Jerry's same old song-and-dance)
>> >
>> >> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical.
>> >
>> >
>> >Hey Jerry, what non-physical thing are you suggesting is part of life,
>> >and where can we see it.
>>
>> >Please be specific.
>>
>> JP
>> Hello again to you Lenny.
>
>
>
>
>Hello. Answer my damn question.
JP
Your language is of the gutter and uncivil. I will no longer respond
to you on this thread.
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
(Bill Rogers) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
>> Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
>> initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
>> while.
>>
>> Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
>> solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
>> and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
>> definition of life.
>>
>> ********************
>> >> >replication;
>> >> >heredity;
>> >> >homeostasis;
>> >> >organization;
>> >> >metabolism;
>> >> >excitability;
>> >> >growth
>>
>> ********************
>>
>> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
>> with the above "definition?"
>
>Sounds like a pretty fair list of attributes of life to me.
JP
Yes, but it is not a definition.
>>If you disagree, what is your definition
>> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>
>I agree that life is "solely" physical. I haven't a clue where the
>first matter came from. Can you tell me?
JP
No, not in solely physical terms.
>I'm not sure what the origin of matter has to do with whether life is
>"solely" physical or is physical plus an undefined something else,
>though.
JP
I respect you for your reply.
Jerry Patterson
(SortingItOut) wrote:
JP
You are right, I tacitly understood that you meant life is the object
of scientific research. You must have referred to the origin of
matter?
>Others more knowledgable than me can answer your question with a fair
>degree of completeness. They'll give technical answers that say
>matter came from "x". I suspect your reponse to that will be "But
>where did x come from". They'll respond one level deeper and say
>"From y", to which you'll say "But where did y come from?".
>
>Can we assume for the sake of argument that science does not know the
>ultimate answer to your question? Or is it possible that you'll be
>satisfied with "Matter came from an energy singularity (or whatever)"
>(perhaps that's good enough, but you're not telling us how far back
>you want to go)? Assuming that you'll continue to ask until the point
>where we've exhausted scientific knowledge, let's just cut to the
>chase and say "we don't know". Then you can cease asking this
>question and we can move on.
JP
If that is true, and I think it is, then the origin of matter, being
unknown, means that we do not understand life as solely physical. That
assertion becomes speculation. The interesting question is the
relationship of matter to time and eternity. But that is for another
time and thread.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<99c4kv44lp7vakm86...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:28:21 +0000 (UTC), aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
>> >> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
>> >> with the above "definition?"
>> >
>> >I don't care much about the definition. There are a number of
>> >entities we call "alive". There may be edge cases where we disagree
>> >on whether something's alive. I don't see that that's all that
>> >relevant. Unless one wants to argue whether a given thing (a virus, a
>> >brain-dead mammal, etc.) is "alive", it's rather pointless (and may
>> >distort the discussion) if one requires a sharp definition of what is
>> >and isn't life -- we haven't established that a sharp delineation
>> >exists in nature.
>>
>> JP
>> If differences exist, distinguishing definitions are attainable.
>
>And in cases where a continuum exists, one cannot draw a sharp line.
JP
A continuum of life?
>> If
>> not, we would not be able to distinguish differences. What cannot be
>> defined cannot be well understood.
>
>What cannot be defined as a clear exclusive category is generally a
>red flag that the attempt at categorization is flawed.
JP
If it is a reality, that is not likely the case. A thorough
understanding may not, indeed, be attainable, but an adequate
definition that distinguishes that element of reality from all other
elements of reality is necessarily attainable. That is so since we can
distinguish it from other realities. If we recognize a reality as a
unique existent from all other existents, we certainly, ipso facto,
have the resource to define it. The principle problem in some cases,
it seems, is that our predisposition(s) excludes the use of certain
distinguishing attributes.
>"Multicellular life" can be precisely defined. In fact, "cellular
>life" and "prokaryotic life" can also be defined. But "life" isn't
>easy to define -- and that's not because it "can't be understood" but
>because it's an arbitrary distinction. A seed that is subjected to
>progressively more brutal stresses is less and less likely ever to
>germinate. At what specific point does it stop being alive?
JP
Why is our recognition of life an arbitrary distinction from other
realities? Is it confused with other realities?
>
>> >> If you disagree, what is your definition of life?
>> >
>> >I don't necessarily have one, not that categorizes everything into a
>> >boolean state of alive or not alive. Viruses (for example) exist,
>> >they perform certain sorts of biochemical reactions; whether those
>> >reactions count as the virus being "alive" is an artificial
>> >human-induced categorization. Viruses share some of the same
>> >characteristics as bacteria and multicellular organisms, and in some
>> >ways are very different. Whether one categorizes viruses as "alive"
>> >or "not alive" doesn't change their nature at all.
>>
>> >> If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of matter,
>> >
>> >What does "non-physical" mean in the context you're using it? What
>> >would a "non-physical" component of life be? How would you know it
>> >was there? How would you test for it? How would the chemical and
>> >biological processes that we see in living things be different if this
>> >hypothetical "non-physical" attribute were absent?
>>
>> JP
>> I did not use the term "non-physical."
>
>Pardon me, you're correct. Permit me to rephrase. You can judge for
>yourself the degree to which it changes the nature of my question.
>What would non-"solely physical" life mean, in the context you're
>using the term "solely physical"? What would a not "solely physical"
>component of life be? How would you know it was there? How would you
>test for it? How would the chemical and biological processes that we
>see in living things be different if living things were instead
>"solely physical"?
JP
Those profound questions are properly the subject of a separate
thread. Here, we contend with the physical notion. I would be (and
have been so in the past) interested in such a thread if you would
start one. I would like to know when you might do so and the title of
such a thread. From experience, I know that this issue of physicality
must be concluded prior considering the non-physical in the same
thread. In the past such a mix led to endless diversions with no
useful outcome.
>> >> then how did the first matter come to be?
>> >
>> >Well, since there was matter for about ten billion years before life
>> >(by any definition) existed on this planet, this is of course a
>> >completely separate question. However:
>>
>> >There appears to be no shortcut to learning a great deal of physics if
>> >one wishes to understand the answer to that question in any depth.
>> >Hadrons appeared at some point in the early stages of cosmic
>> >expansion; leptons somewhat earlier; photons earlier yet. I don't
>> >know the details and understand it only superficially (I have an
>> >engineering bachelor's from Caltech, which involved a good amount of
>> >physics, but this gets far beyond me.) Some hypotheses of potential
>> >space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
>> >where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
>> >understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
>> >aimed at the general public for an overview.
>>
>> JP
>> I think perhaps this question lies in the realm of the philosophical
>> sciences, likely, metaphysics, the science of being.
>
>If you're not prepared to study the physics, you can "think perhaps"
>whatever you like, and it'll be indistinguishable from thinking
>nothing at all. Once people "thought perhaps" gravity lay in the
>realm of the philosophical sciences, since "action at a distance" was
>"obviously" metaphysical in nature. Someone needs to trot out the
>Ellison quote again about the difference between opinions and informed
>opinions.
JP
I am certainly prepared to study the physics. That what this tread is
all about. I simply catered to your remark,
***************
>>>Some hypotheses of potentiall space-time curvature satisfy, at
>>>some level, the question of 'but where did *that* come from?'
>>>(others don't), but again my understanding is fairly superficial.
>>>I recommend Hawking's books aimed at the general public for an overview.
***************
It seems you may have attended some of S. Hawking's many lectures at
Caltech on Saturdays. He has many speculations, but no defining
understanding. You see, I have grave doubts that this will ever be
resolved by investigations within the realm of physics.
>> >space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
>> >where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
>> >understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
>> >aimed at the general public for an overview.
>"Metaphysics" has, historically, had little value beyond "we don't
>understand it yet". The area of questions we've had to relegate to
>"metaphysics" has shrunk considerably, and this particular question is
>leaving the realm of metaphysics and becoming a question answerable by
>the hardest of sciences even as we speak. But of course, if you
>choose not to learn what the physics of the beginning of the universe
>are, then you can "think perhaps" there's some other answer somewhere
>else.
>
>eyelessgame
JP
Of course. Incidentally, what do you mean by metaphysics?
Richard Uhrich
OT: It does my heart good to see a Darb and a Mole agree on this 'vital'
issue. :-)
AC
Are you actually going to concede that somethings cannot be universally
defined? From this very short response, it's hard to tell whether you found
the example enlightening, uncomfortable or inapplicable.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
Since life, like many other things in this universe, may exist in gradients,
no definition may suit every circumstance.
>
>>>If you disagree, what is your definition
>>> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>>
>>I agree that life is "solely" physical. I haven't a clue where the
>>first matter came from. Can you tell me?
>
> JP
> No, not in solely physical terms.
Why don't you tell us what terms you can explain it in?
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
Have you got a theory that explains the evidence better? Come on Jerry, try
something positive instead of this now-tired stealth attack of yours.
--
Aaron Clausen
eyelessgame
Frank Reichenbacher
<snip>
> >> >You evaded my question. Why do you think there is a relationship
between
> >> >what life "is" and whether some metaphysical property activates or
> >> >implements the quality of life? If metaphysics activates life, why
would
> >> >biochemistry matter? Couldn't anything be "alive"?
> >> >
> >> >Frank
> >>
> >> JP
> >> I have not here mentioned metaphysics.
> >
> >Yes you did. Your question assumes that there is an alternative to a
> >physical nature. The "meta" in metaphysics means, "beyond", i.e., beyond
> >physics, or alternative to a physical nature.
Your question still assumes that there is an alternative to a physical
nature. I don't believe there is one. So now that we've established that,
why don't you answer my question?
>
> JP
> Your inference might well have merit and if you want to pursue that,
> please start a new thread on that topic and let me know its title and
> date you intend to post it. I will participate. This thread is based
> on the premise that life is solely physical, not inferences.
I thought it was about the origin of the first matter?
>
> >So far there is no need to
> >> enter into a metaphysical exchange.
> >
> >Too late for that.
>
> JP
> It is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about life as
> solely physical.
What else could it be?
> >
> > I evaded nothing. I did not
> >> mention quality of life as that is not proper to our discussion.
> >
> >You brought it up.
>
> JP
> Please cut and paste my mentioning of quality of life.
The six-point definition you posted to initiate this thread references the
several "qualities" that characterize living organisms.
> >
> >> Metaphysics cannot activate life.
> >
> >I know that.
>
> JP
> Metaphysics is the science of being and it has many categories. No
> science can activate anything.
I though metaphysics couldn't activate anything?
Science is the study of reality so that
> truth can be discovered.
You can have your definition of metaphysics if you want, I'll stick with the
correct one.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Some things are alive.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >
> >> if you think life is solely physical, then
> >> please define it in physical terms.
> >
> >You certainly are slippery character.
>
> JP
> That is insulting. It is simply the topic of this thread, nothing
> more.
Your slipperiness is the topic of this thread? I thought it was the
definition of life? Or was it the origin of the first matter. I really can't
keep track, I wish you'd make up your mind.
>
> >What is the alternative? If I didn't think that life is purely physical,
> >what else would there be other than some metaphysical action or process?
>
> JP
> That can be discussed on a new thread as I mentioned above.
>
> >The respondents to your question have already defined life in physical
> >terms, generally agreeing with the 6-point list you posted. Most,
however,
> >have done so only with the caveat that life exists on a biophysical
> >continuum and that there may some differences of interpretation.
>
> JP
> I read of no such agreement. Please cut and past such an agreement and
> who agreed. If a definition is not formable, then life is not
> understood as solely physical.
Me, from my first response to your post:
"Life to non-life is a continuum of biophysical states. For the purposes of
discussion, the definition above might be a good foundation, however, there
may be some holes in it."
rich hammett:
"Those items above are all part of it, but I can be
flexible. If it has any 5 of those, I'm pretty sure I'd call it
life, but SOMEBODY here can always come up with a counterexample."
Cyde Ways:
"...because in my view at least,
life doesn't have any "soul" that makes it fundamentally different: all
atoms are pretty much the same. But those biological guidelines are
pretty accurate if you insist on trying to define one set of atoms over
another set of atoms as life versus inanimate."
>
> >So what, if anything, is unsatisfactory in these responses?
> >
> >Frank
>
> JP
> If life is well understood as solely physical, it must, then, be
> definable and how it came to be as a physical reality along with any
> of its associated elements from which it metamorphosed.
Many of the respondents, including me, have argued that it is probably not
possible to draw a hard and fast line between life and non-life. This does
not mean that science won't someday soon be able to create a living
organisms from "scratch". Living in a sense that everyone will agree that it
is a living thing.
Frank
SortingItOut
Nothing. I was only trying to illustrate that "life" is a term of
classification, not understanding.
>
> >On the other hand, there is nothing that suggests that any particular
> >lifeform, such as humans or fungi, can't be completely understood
> >given enough study. In other words, our ability to completely
> >understand any particular lifeform is not hindered one iota by our
> >arguments over the term 'life'. Given enough study, there will be no
> >remaining mysteries about any particular lifeform even if we continue
> >to argue for centuries about the term "life".
>
> JP
> Until then, it is not well understood as solely physical.
Until when? When we completely understand a given lifeform, or when
we agree on the definition of life?
But maybe it's a moot point. I think I'm starting to see where you're
coming from. I'll address that in another post.
>
> >I think you have an underlying point to all this that is being
> >needlessly sidetracked over a superficial argument over definitions.
> >There is no absolute definition for the term 'life'. It's whatever we
> >decide it is. However, there is an absolute reality about what makes
> >up any particular lifeform and how it works. This is an area that can
> >truly be investigated. Let's refocus the argument there. For the
> >purposes of this thread, can't we just say that 'life' = 'all
> >vertabrates' and go from there?
>
> JP
> I don't think so. If life is solely physical, many, if not all, of its
> attributes can be understood on the basis of knowing its cause. How
> did the first matter come to be? There can be no effect not present in
> its cause!
By that logic, we cannot assume that a rock is solely physical. Is
that your point?
>
> A proper definition describes an element of reality so uniquely that
> it cannot be mistaken for another element of reality. I do agree that
> we do not appear to have an understanding of life as solely a physical
> being.
Your second statement does not follow from the first. "Life" has not
been demonstrated to be a unique element of reality, so your second
statement has no relationship to your first.
Is THAT where we are talking past each other? Is it your assertion
that when someone says "Life is solely physical", you think that they
mean there is a physical entity called "life" that that is made of
matter and nothing else? If so, then we aren't on the same page, and
I suspect that most of your responders aren't on the same page as you,
either. Please clarify. I can explain further, but I'll wait for a
reply first.
>
> >Now...you seem to be attempting to establish some kind of relationship
> >between life (i.e. all vertabrates) and the origin of matter. I
> >personally don't see any connection whatsoever. Perhaps you can start
> >by outlining why it is that the origin of matter has anything to do
> >with whether or not life is purely physical. For example, isn't it
> >possible for us to completely and totally understand how a vertabrate
> >functions and still not have a clue as to where matter came from?
>
> JP
> If one thinks life is solely physical, all that is physical must have
> had a beginning. Therefore, life had a beginning. How did it come to
> be? That is the connection.
Again, "life" has not been demonstrated to be a unique physical thing.
Instead, it is a term use to classify objects. Science would tell
you that life on Earth started sometime after matter originated. But
*when* life started depends on your definition of life. Is it a
self-replicating molecule?...a metabolizing group of self-replicating
molecules?...a thunderstorm (I'm not kidding)? What types of objects
do you consider living objects?
How matter came to be still seems irrelevent.
SortingItOut
(This is the second of two posts I'm writing to you tonight in this
thread. This response will probably make more sense if you read the
other one first.)
In response to your question above, yes, I was referring only to your
question about the origin of matter. I should have made that more
clear. Sorry for the confusion (and my frustration).
>
> >Others more knowledgable than me can answer your question with a fair
> >degree of completeness. They'll give technical answers that say
> >matter came from "x". I suspect your reponse to that will be "But
> >where did x come from". They'll respond one level deeper and say
> >"From y", to which you'll say "But where did y come from?".
> >
> >Can we assume for the sake of argument that science does not know the
> >ultimate answer to your question? Or is it possible that you'll be
> >satisfied with "Matter came from an energy singularity (or whatever)"
> >(perhaps that's good enough, but you're not telling us how far back
> >you want to go)? Assuming that you'll continue to ask until the point
> >where we've exhausted scientific knowledge, let's just cut to the
> >chase and say "we don't know". Then you can cease asking this
> >question and we can move on.
>
> JP
> If that is true, and I think it is, then the origin of matter, being
> unknown, means that we do not understand life as solely physical. That
> assertion becomes speculation.
Let's consider 5 objects: a rock, a hurricane, a watch, a virus, a
human.
We don't know about the origin of matter for any of these objects.
Are you saying, therefore, that it is speculation to claim that any of
these objects is solely physical? Is it speculation to claim that a
rock or a hurricane or a man-made object is solely physical?
As I read your posts there seems to be two ideas coming through from
you. I could be wrong about either one (or both of them), but let me
state what I think you're saying. It's either (or both, or neither):
1) We don't completely understand everything, therefore we can't claim
any object is solely physical. (I may have extrapolated from your
actual point).
2) Life itself is a separate entity, and not merely a property of a
physical object. And this entity called life is what some people
claim is solely physical, and you object to that assertion.
Number 1 above seems like nothing more than the classic
god-of-the-gaps type of argument. Any place where we don't understand
something is a place where magical, mystical, supernatural entities
might exist. And you've expanded that argument to include essentially
everything. In response, I'd say first that the scientific stance has
been repeated to a nausiating degree in this newsgroup. My
understanding is simply that we develop theories to explain evidence
and those theories hold until proven lacking or wrong. In regards to
the topic at hand, there is no evidence to suggest that non-physical
entities are constituent components of rocks, storms, or what we
generally consider to be lifeforms. In fact, we don't have any
evidence to suggest that non-physical entities even exist. Yes, we
don't completely understand everything, and we may find someday that
they do indeed exist and where, and we may find that indeed there are
invisible pink elephants dancing on our heads, and that the world was
actually created last Thursday, etc., etc., etc.
Number 2, as I expressed in my other post, is a claim I've never heard
before, and that's why I'd like you to clarify your position before I
respond further. I still think, though, that most people posting to
this thread disagree with the first sentence in #2 above.
> The interesting question is the
> relationship of matter to time and eternity. But that is for another
> time and thread.
I doubt I'll participate in that one.
Richard Uhrich
As long as they say DEI, we know they're still jealous.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:34:44 +0000 (UTC),
JP
None of the above. Since you are talking about a process of which I am
not familiar, I don't know. While life itself produces processes in
conjunction with bodies, life itself is not a process, but a resource
for processes.
Jerry Patterson
<RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Is "life" solely physical?
>
>"Many people think all things can't be explained by chemistry and physics, that
>it's explainable only as something outside science - a life force. That was also
>the view about our genetic inheritance before we knew about DNA. Most scientists
>believe there isn't anything else." But, he admits, "that's still a hypothesis."
>He knows at this point based on the scientific data, that he couldn't convince a
>skeptic. "They would just say, 'That is just your prejudice."' He adds, with a
>chuckle, "Which is not to say that your prejudice may not turn out to be right."
>- excerpt from interview with Francis Crick by Daniel Voll (1994)
JP
I think that is essentially true. It seems this a hard wall for the
physical sciences.
>As to the origin of matter, I kinda like Edward Tryon's idea that the universe
>is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, popping into existance uncaused.
>
>Theodore Schick's "The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God" is an
>interesting look at science and logic as it bears on the origin question:
>
>www.infidels.org/library/modern/ theodore_schick/bigbang.html
JP
Well, RetroProphet, there is, indeed, a new trend starting to deal
with the origin of matter. Along this line of thinking I am trying to
locate some writings of an up and coming young physicist, I think his
last name is Ricci, who thinks physicists will profit by studying
philosophy. Have you any information on this physicist?
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:34:57 +0000 (UTC),
JP
Perhaps you mean with "different attributes" in the place of
"gradients?" If you truly mean gradients, then it seems the definition
would likely include the notion changing form(s). Such would lead to
vexing problems of stability.
In a sense similar to defining trees in such a way to cover a variety
of species, it seems the characteristics of life can cover all life.
If not, how do we perceive differences among various life states and
their respective locations.
>>>>If you disagree, what is your definition
>>>> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>>>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>>>
>>>I agree that life is "solely" physical. I haven't a clue where the
>>>first matter came from. Can you tell me?
>>
>> JP
>> No, not in solely physical terms.
>
>Why don't you tell us what terms you can explain it in?
JP
As I have written previously, I have no definition of life consistent
with the topic of this thread. I know you participated on my thread of
several months ago where I defined life and many disagreed with me
since they insisted life was solely physical. I have now returned to
posting again (I have some time now) after being away for several
months and decided that I would solicit a definition of life that is
solely physical consistent with the insistence of many posters months
ago.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Matter can be better understood by knowing its origin. Matter, as an
effect, can be better understood when its cause is known. An effect
cannot possess what is not present in its cause.
>But why not? Life is an emergent property of certain complex
>arrangments of matter. Matter is an emergent property of of certain
>sufficiently complex mathematical structures. Mathematical structures
>just are.
It seems to me that mathematics provide insights into matter and its
order in terms of description of functions. I don't understand matter
as a property of math structures. Did you really intend that
relationship?
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:34:57 +0000 (UTC),
JP
Aaron, to what attack do you refer? I have no theory within the scope
of this thread. My mentality is to do nothing in stealth with the
exception of flying combat missions.
Please illustrate my stealth with copy and pasting my words.
AC
I mean gradients. As far as I can see, the lowely virus is a good example
of something that may or may not be alive.
>
> In a sense similar to defining trees in such a way to cover a variety
> of species, it seems the characteristics of life can cover all life.
> If not, how do we perceive differences among various life states and
> their respective locations.
Even within trees it gets complex. Is a rose bush a tree? Often what you
may assume is a standard scientific definition is nothing more than just
common nonclemature.
>
>>>>>If you disagree, what is your definition
>>>>> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
>>>>> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
>>>>
>>>>I agree that life is "solely" physical. I haven't a clue where the
>>>>first matter came from. Can you tell me?
>>>
>>> JP
>>> No, not in solely physical terms.
>>
>>Why don't you tell us what terms you can explain it in?
>
> JP
> As I have written previously, I have no definition of life consistent
> with the topic of this thread. I know you participated on my thread of
> several months ago where I defined life and many disagreed with me
> since they insisted life was solely physical. I have now returned to
> posting again (I have some time now) after being away for several
> months and decided that I would solicit a definition of life that is
> solely physical consistent with the insistence of many posters months
> ago.
And we're telling you that any definition of life we may come up with could
be falsified. The best we can do is come up with a definition that fits the
majority of organisms or potential organisms we know of.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
I disagree. I think life is a process.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
I'm waiting for you to reveal your hand. I'm quite certain your not as
non-commital as you seem. You have come close to showing it before, and I
have every expectation that you will do so again.
Better minds than mine have challenged your demand that certain things be
dimensioned. That is when you started your one-post-per-person-per-day
rule, which appared largely to be an attempt to avoid answering any
difficult questions.
Let's just cut to the chase. What is your problem with the Big Bang.
Above, it seems very clear that you do have some sort of problem, so let's
hear it. These games just get so tiring, Jerry. Perhaps you think it's
clever to dance around issues, hiding your hand. It would be nice if, for
just once, you would come to the point.
--
Aaron Clausen
Frank Reichenbacher
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>In the same way that "red," which grades insensibly into
> >>>"orange," is poorly understood.
> >>>
> >>>rich
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Possibly. You seem to think so.
> >
> >Are you actually going to concede that somethings cannot be universally
> >defined? From this very short response, it's hard to tell whether you
found
> >the example enlightening, uncomfortable or inapplicable.
>
> JP
> None of the above. Since you are talking about a process of which I am
> not familiar, I don't know.
You're not familiar with the way that one color paint can grade into
another?
While life itself produces processes in
> conjunction with bodies, life itself is not a process, but a resource
> for processes.
What has this got to do with anything?
Frank
Kyle C. Maxwell
Jerry, and you provided one of those occasions when you wrote,
<< While life itself produces processes in
conjunction with bodies, life itself is not a process, but a resource
for processes.
. . . >>
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Pleae define your terms -- not "life"
of course, but "process" and "resource for processes."
Then you can explain how you can definitively say what life is not when you
claim elsewhere that it myserious and undefinable.
Maxie Maxwell.
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
Which even in recall renews my fear."
(The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri)
eyelessgame
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC), aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<99c4kv44lp7vakm86...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:28:21 +0000 (UTC), aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<9eb0kv4kmrgms5ek9...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> For those posters thinking that life is solely physical, do you agree
> >> >> with the above "definition?"
> >> >
> >> >I don't care much about the definition. There are a number of
> >> >entities we call "alive". There may be edge cases where we disagree
> >> >on whether something's alive. I don't see that that's all that
> >> >relevant. Unless one wants to argue whether a given thing (a virus, a
> >> >brain-dead mammal, etc.) is "alive", it's rather pointless (and may
> >> >distort the discussion) if one requires a sharp definition of what is
> >> >and isn't life -- we haven't established that a sharp delineation
> >> >exists in nature.
> >>
> >> JP
> >> If differences exist, distinguishing definitions are attainable.
> >
> >And in cases where a continuum exists, one cannot draw a sharp line.
>
> JP
> A continuum of life?
A continuum between life and non-life.
>
> >> If
> >> not, we would not be able to distinguish differences. What cannot be
> >> defined cannot be well understood.
> >
> >What cannot be defined as a clear exclusive category is generally a
> >red flag that the attempt at categorization is flawed.
>
> JP
> If it is a reality, that is not likely the case. A thorough
> understanding may not, indeed, be attainable, but an adequate
> definition that distinguishes that element of reality from all other
> elements of reality is necessarily attainable. That is so since we can
> distinguish it from other realities. If we recognize a reality as a
> unique existent from all other existents, we certainly, ipso facto,
> have the resource to define it. The principle problem in some cases,
> it seems, is that our predisposition(s) excludes the use of certain
> distinguishing attributes.
>
> >"Multicellular life" can be precisely defined. In fact, "cellular
> >life" and "prokaryotic life" can also be defined. But "life" isn't
> >easy to define -- and that's not because it "can't be understood" but
> >because it's an arbitrary distinction. A seed that is subjected to
> >progressively more brutal stresses is less and less likely ever to
> >germinate. At what specific point does it stop being alive?
>
> JP
> Why is our recognition of life an arbitrary distinction from other
> realities? Is it confused with other realities?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "other realities". You might
want to take a stab at answering my question first, though, if you
think we can neatly place all "life" into one box and all "non-life"
into a second box. Which box contains viruses? Which box contains
frozen seeds? Which box contains "dead" seeds? Which box contains
soil? Which box contains lone strands of DNA? RNA?
If you're going to use "If you agree that life is solely physical" as
part of your argument. then the distinction you invite us to draw
between "physical" qualities of life and non-"physical" qualities of
life belong right here in this thread. I can't address your question
until I know whether I agree with its assumptions -- and for that I
need to know what the assumptions really are.
> Here, we contend with the physical notion.
What physical notion? That's my point. There *is* no other notion, as
far as I am aware, and I would like to know what other notion you
have.
> I would be (and
> have been so in the past) interested in such a thread if you would
> start one. I would like to know when you might do so and the title of
> such a thread. From experience, I know that this issue of physicality
> must be concluded prior considering the non-physical in the same
> thread.
As far as I can tell, "non-physical" is *defined* as "non-existent".
I see no reason to discuss the non-existent at all. However, you are
obviously of a different opinion, and I wanted you to provide me with
your opinion, so that at least we'd have something to talk about. So
-- boil my question down to *this* question of definition, then:
"'Physical' as opposed to what, exactly?"
> In the past such a mix led to endless diversions with no useful outcome.
Perhaps that's because it's important to define one's terms before
debating the truthfulness of one's claims. It's rather unfair to
sneak in an assumption like "If you agree that life is solely
physical" and then avoid defining what you mean by "solely physical".
As far as I can tell, not only is everything "solely physical", I
don't know of any coherent alternative to real entities (living or
not) being "solely physical". I was inviting you to provide one, so
that your premise didn't sound entirely vacuous to me.
I'm afraid he only began giving them some time after I received my
diploma. I've never met him. Met Richard Feynman a couple times,
though, if you need me to drop names. :)
> He has many speculations, but no defining understanding.
That's quite the bold -- and rude -- assertion. After you've learned
the physics, perhaps you'll even be able to defend it. I seriously
doubt it, though.
> You see, I have grave doubts that this will ever be
> resolved by investigations within the realm of physics.
On what do you base this? Would you have said the same about the
origin of the planet Earth, a hundred years ago? Why or why not?
(People much like you were claiming that then, you know.)
> >> >space-time curvature satisfy, at some level, the question of 'but
> >> >where did *that* come from?' (others don't), but again my
> >> >understanding is fairly superficial. I recommend Hawking's books
> >> >aimed at the general public for an overview.
>
> >"Metaphysics" has, historically, had little value beyond "we don't
> >understand it yet". The area of questions we've had to relegate to
> >"metaphysics" has shrunk considerably, and this particular question is
> >leaving the realm of metaphysics and becoming a question answerable by
> >the hardest of sciences even as we speak. But of course, if you
> >choose not to learn what the physics of the beginning of the universe
> >are, then you can "think perhaps" there's some other answer somewhere
> >else.
> >
> >eyelessgame
>
> JP
> Of course. Incidentally, what do you mean by metaphysics?
That's a fair question. I'm not sure I have an answer -- perhaps I
mean it only in the elementary sense of "beyond physics"; the realm of
questions about the universe that one cannot answer through
systematically observing the universe with whatever tools are
currently at hand. (That may be far too general a definition and I'm
prepared to be shown so.)
We have better tools now, in any case; therefore questions like "how
does life begin?" "how does reproduction work?" "how do we account for
the diversity of life on Earth?" "how did the Earth form?" "what is
life?" "what makes the Sun shine?" "what is the nature of the stars?"
are no longer the realm of metaphysics -- as I use the term -- but can
in fact be answered definitively with the tools at hand. The idea
that "whatever the current limit of understanding is, no one shall
ever go beyond this limit" has been with us since first we started
understanding anything, and it has been wrong every time it's been
claimed.
eyelessgame
E. Smith
> Quite a few months ago there was much discussion on this subject. I
> initiated the thread and eventually had to stop posting for quite a
>
> Most everyone posting to this thread took the position that life is
> solely physical, but could not define life. There was one exception
> and I will list the physical attributes he proposed to be the
> definition of life.
>
> ********************
> >> >replication;
> >> >heredity;
> >> >homeostasis;
> >> >organization;
> >> >metabolism;
> >> >excitability;
> >> >growth
>
> ********************
>
> of life? If you agree that life is solely physical, that is, of
> matter, then how did the first matter come to be?
What is the physical nature of the mind? (not the brain)
IMO, Materialism and physicalism do not satisfactorily account for mental
processes.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html#mind
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/physicalism.html
Is an idea or an emotion physical?
judgement, preference, taste ...qualia
life is not solely physical.
Lenny Flank
What non-material or non-physical thingamajig do you propose to
account for mental processes, and where can we see this non-material
or non-physical thingamajig, whatever it is.
Do only humans have this non-material or non-physical thingamajig, or
do clams, petunias and doormice also have it. And how can we tell.
> http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html#mind
>
> http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/physicalism.html
>
> Is an idea or an emotion physical?
> judgement, preference, taste ...qualia
How about the "go" in a car. Is that physical?
>
> life is not solely physical.
I see. And what non-physical thingamajig do you propose entails life,
and where can we see it.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
Indeed. Jerry, tell us all what non-physical thingamajig you think
life needs. Show it to us.
Put up or shut up.
Lenny Flank
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:57:58 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
> wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<1ad7kvkqje5visvur...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:23:47 +0000 (UTC), lfl...@ij.net (Lenny Flank)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<p1b4kv851va9jt51c...@4ax.com>...
> >> >
> >> ><snip more of Jerry's same old song-and-dance)
> >> >
> >> >> The question here is for those believing life is solely physical.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >and where can we see it.
>
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Hello again to you Lenny.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello. Answer my damn question.
>
> JP
> Your language is of the gutter and uncivil. I will no longer respond
> to you on this thread.
>
That's as good an excuse as any, Jerry.
How about if someone ELSE asks you the same question -- will you
answer THEN? Or will you still refuse to answer because I am being a
meanie to you.
dave e
>
> What is the physical nature of the mind? (not the brain)
>
> IMO, Materialism and physicalism do not satisfactorily account for mental
> processes.
>
> http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html#mind
>
> http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/physicalism.html
>
> Is an idea or an emotion physical?
> judgement, preference, taste ...qualia
>
> life is not solely physical.
You're right, of course. There is an obvious distinction between our
conscious thoughts, and the physical brain which underlies those
conscious thoughts. But that's not the same as saying that the nature
of our conscious experiences aren't fully dependent on the structure
of the brain- and that notion is well supported by evidence.
Particular parts of the brain can be associated with particular types
of mental processes. Damage to particular parts, or alternately
stimulation of particular parts of the brain result in altered mental
processing. The electrical signalling mechanism of individual neurons
is well understood, and stimulation of particular neurons from
external electrical sources result in the stimulation of particular
muscles or other organs. Altered concentrations of neurotransmitters
result in altered experience. Drugs or other chemical neurostimulants
and neurdepressants cause altered experience. And despite all the
popular folk wisdom, there is no reason to believe that consciousness
(as we experience it during our lives) continues beyond the body's
death.
Dave
Redmage
> JP
> Matter can be better understood by knowing its origin. Matter, as an
> effect, can be better understood when its cause is known. An effect
> cannot possess what is not present in its cause.
Of course it can. Suppose you're blinded by a chemical accident: an
acid splash. Is blindness present in the acid? Suppose instead you
were blinded by staring at the sun. Is blindness present in sunlight?
Does this mean that sunlight and acid have the same properties, since
they can produce the same effect?
You're arguing from primitive, badly formed Aristotelianism here. You
need to update and mature your paradigms.
> >But why not? Life is an emergent property of certain complex
> >arrangments of matter. Matter is an emergent property of of certain
> >sufficiently complex mathematical structures. Mathematical structures
> >just are.
>
> It seems to me that mathematics provide insights into matter and its
> order in terms of description of functions. I don't understand matter
> as a property of math structures. Did you really intend that
> relationship?
I expect he probably did. The extreme fringes of physics are where
you'll find the answers to the origins of matter emerging, and they
take the form of mathematical relationships among fundamental forces.
BTW, it's worth noting that invoking God (which is clearly what you're
trying to work up to) offers you no greater understanding. Saying
that matter originated because God did it by magic is even less
informative about the true nature of matter than Big Bang cosmology
is.
It's also worth noting that "defining" something is not the only way
to understand it. Describing it works pretty well too. If your
description of an object is capable of predicting all of its behavior,
then defining its fundamental character is simply an intellectual
curiosity; you don't really need to know that. Contrariwise, if you
understand its "inner nature" that doesn't necessarily give you the
ability to say anything useful about it.
Lastly, you seem to have a very binary view of the world: if something
is not completely understood, then it's a mystery. If something is
not completely alive, then it is dead matter. That's a fine worldview
for a child or an ancient greek philosopher, but it's not a very
useful approach for the real world.
Redmage
E. Smith
"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.03082...@posting.google.com...
I didn't say that mental processes where caused by anything non physical.
They are caused by neuro activity within the brain, but they exist as non
physical entities within our minds.
However, consider this thought experiment. Imagine the existence of an
entity that does not exist. Something within the set of everything that
does not exist within the set of things that have physical existence. That
entity that you imagine is non-physical and does elicit a physical-chemical
reaction within your brain, but it exists as a non-physical entity in your
mind. Mental processes are *more* than merely physical-chemical reactions
within the brain.
>
> Do only humans have this non-material or non-physical thingamajig, or
> do clams, petunias and doormice also have it. And how can we tell.
Any animal that has a consciousness.
>
>
>
>
> > http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html#mind
> >
> > http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/physicalism.html
> >
> > Is an idea or an emotion physical?
> > judgement, preference, taste ...qualia
>
>
>
> How about the "go" in a car. Is that physical?
I'm not sure what you consider to be the "go" in a car. Things like
velocity, acceleration and force are physical an can be measured. Cars are
not living things. What I am considering is the metaphysical properties of
the conscious mind.
>
>
>
> >
> > life is not solely physical.
>
>
>
> I see. And what non-physical thingamajig do you propose entails life,
> and where can we see it.
I don't think you can actually see something that has no physical
existence. In fact, what I am suggesting is the mind is an emergent,
non-physical property of the brain.
Consider this. Assume that we can understand every physical-chemical
property of the brain. The anatomy, physiology ...the function of every
atom, molecule and neuron. If we had this knowledge do you predict we could
read someone's mind by observing the operation of their brain? Could we
make valid predictions about behavior?
RetroProphet
>>
>>"Many people think all things can't be explained by
>>chemistry and physics, that it's explainable only as
>>something outside science - a life force. That was also
>>the view about our genetic inheritance before we knew
>>about DNA. Most scientists believe there isn't anything else."
>>But, he admits, "that's still a hypothesis." He knows at this
>>point based on the scientific data, that he couldn't convince a
>>skeptic. "They would just say, 'That is just your prejudice."
>>He adds, with a chuckle, "Which is not to say that your
>>prejudice may not turn out to be right."
>>- excerpt from interview with Francis Crick by Daniel Voll (1994)
>
>JP
>I think that is essentially true. It seems this a hard wall for the
>physical sciences.
>
Then again, science is about scaling hard walls.
There have been many walls deemed impossible to scale,
that have turned out not to be.
Crick sees no reason to abandon the "prejudice" that
the mind can ultimately be explained in fully physical
terms. It's why he wrote "Astonishing Hypothesis: The
Scientific Search for The Soul". Yes, it was a battle cry,
and yes, research into this area is remarkably bumpy.
There's also the problem that you're not supposed to
experiment on human brains. But results will eventually
be forthcoming. Crick has come to concede that the problem
is much more complicated than understanding DNA.
Impossibly more complicated? Nah. Humans can figure anything out.
>>As to the origin of matter, I kinda like Edward Tryon's
>>idea that the universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation,
>>popping into existance uncaused.
>>
>>Theodore Schick's "The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence
>>of God" is an interesting look at science and logic as it
>>bears on the origin question:
>>
>>www.infidels.org/library/modern/ theodore_schick/bigbang.html
>
>JP
>Well, RetroProphet, there is, indeed, a new trend starting to deal
>with the origin of matter. Along this line of thinking I am trying to
>locate some writings of an up and coming young physicist, I think his
>last name is Ricci, who thinks physicists will profit by studying
>philosophy. Have you any information on this physicist?
>. . .
>Blessings,
>Jerry
This him?:
SOME REFLECTIONS ON ROBERT RICHERT’S "SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT"
By Paul Ricci
http://www.ochumanists.org/newsletter/2000/november.htm
Wasn't too hard to find him.
I just Googled "Ricci" and "Young Earth"
Hmm. Now how do you suppose I thought of doing that?...
E. Smith
"dave e" <dgen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.03082...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. I'm not suggesting anything magical or supernatural. The mind is,
as far as I can tell, completely dependent on the physical-chemical
operations of the brain. I suppose that many people believe that the mind
can exist independent of the body, but there is no scientific evidence to
support this belief.
>
SortingItOut
I don't understand how you know that it exists as a non-physical
entity in your mind. Let's expand the thought experiment. Consider
these cases:
1) Place a pencil on your desk and look at it. Close your eyes and
imagine the pencil you just saw.
2) Close your eyes and remember someone's face that you saw days ago.
3) Now imagine a non-existing physical object (your thought
experiment).
Wouldn't all of these images exist in the same way in your mind? I
don't see anything special about #3.
Now go back to the pencil and take a picture of it with a film camera
and a digital camera. What about these representations of images? Is
there any non-physical component to them? Now feed the digital image
into a computer and manipulate the digital image into things that
don't exist. Does this change anything? Are the resulting images not
still 100% physical?
> Mental processes are *more* than merely physical-chemical reactions
> within the brain.
I still don't see how this assertion is supported. It may be true,
but based on what, exactly?
>
>
> >
> > Do only humans have this non-material or non-physical thingamajig, or
> > do clams, petunias and doormice also have it. And how can we tell.
>
> Any animal that has a consciousness.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html#mind
> > >
> > > http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/physicalism.html
> > >
> > > Is an idea or an emotion physical?
> > > judgement, preference, taste ...qualia
> >
> >
> >
> > How about the "go" in a car. Is that physical?
>
> I'm not sure what you consider to be the "go" in a car. Things like
> velocity, acceleration and force are physical an can be measured. Cars are
> not living things. What I am considering is the metaphysical properties of
> the conscious mind.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > life is not solely physical.
> >
> >
> >
> > I see. And what non-physical thingamajig do you propose entails life,
> > and where can we see it.
>
> I don't think you can actually see something that has no physical
> existence. In fact, what I am suggesting is the mind is an emergent,
> non-physical property of the brain.
>
> Consider this. Assume that we can understand every physical-chemical
> property of the brain. The anatomy, physiology ...the function of every
> atom, molecule and neuron. If we had this knowledge do you predict we could
> read someone's mind by observing the operation of their brain?
My prediction is yes, we could read someone's mind. Further, we'd be
able to recall all of their memories.
> Could we
> make valid predictions about behavior?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean could we predict
future behavior? If so, I'd say probably not. All of this is
speculation, of course, but I think it would be more like trying to
predict the weather.
E. Smith
"SortingItOut" <eri...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4404b96e.03082...@posting.google.com...
This question was asked:
> > > What non-material or non-physical thingamajig do you propose to
> > > account for mental processes, and where can we see this non-material
> > > or non-physical thingamajig, whatever it is.
My example was to show how something non-physical can stimulate brain
activity. You are probably correct; our brains probably do process the
images in the same way. The difference is that Nos 1 & 2 actually exist,
where as No. 3 does not. This was to show how our minds can actually create
something that does not exist in physical reality. Our minds can link us to
the metaphysical realm. That is something about life that is not physical
.... the mental images of something without physical existence.
What about things that we conceptualize without using mental images. When I
conceptualize some things I don't have a corresponding mental image
(example infinity). Although we could measure brain activity while I
conceptualize infinity, if you could read my mind you would see a blank
screen (or random images that have nothing to do with my conception of
infinity) .
A strict materialist would reject all of this, but I think that fails to
explain certain aspects of our brains. For instance, when we create
something that never had physical existence, it starts off as a conception.
Where does that idea come from? Not from my brain cells, because how could
it exist in my memory or my brain if it has never had physical existence.
Although brain activity underlies all mental activity, the actual
"creation" is metaphysical.
>
>
> Now go back to the pencil and take a picture of it with a film camera
> and a digital camera. What about these representations of images? Is
> there any non-physical component to them? Now feed the digital image
> into a computer and manipulate the digital image into things that
> don't exist. Does this change anything? Are the resulting images not
> still 100% physical?
>
>
> > Mental processes are *more* than merely physical-chemical reactions
> > within the brain.
>
>
> I still don't see how this assertion is supported. It may be true,
> but based on what, exactly?
What I am suggesting is that the mind is an emergent,
non-physical property of the brain. Our minds are the sum total of all
brain activity, but they have no single place of physical residence in our
brains.
Analogy, our brains are the computer and our minds are the virtual world
that does not exist as a physical reality.
This is probably the fundamental question to the whole debate. I think we
could not read someone's mind completely. Even if we could make the mental
images from the minds eye appear on a monitor, I think we would still fail
to perceive the complete mind of the subject. What about subconscious or
repressed thoughts that influence our minds but do not enter our minds as
images? Emotions, perceptions? What would we detect when a person thinks of
something that is physically impossible, i.e. a square circle.
Finally, what if it turns out that the only way to completely understand
the mental activity of a subject is to be that subject. That we are "too
busy" being ourselves to understand or fully perceive the mind of another.
We are now learning about the placidity of the brain, and it is probably
that no two brains are alike. Therefore, it is possible that we all process
information in our own unique way. I predict that even if we could read a
person's mind it would appear to the observer as total chaos.
If we're talking past each other, could it be possible that the only way to
fully understand another person's perception of reality is to actually be
that person. I think there could be profound truth to the cliché, "only in
your mind".
And then again, this could all be total bullshit... lol