Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

What about those plants that can be propergated from cuttings? Is it obvious that that flower you've cut is dying then? Really?You made the claim that it's easy to tell the difference between living and non-living; that's not the case: and the difficulty of determining when a living thing dies illustrates the problem with examining the origin of life. Life isn't a mystical on/off thing; it's a pile of chemical processes. Because of this it's extremely difficult to define life, to determine whether something is living and to identify any "point" where non-living material first becomes living material.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

Cuttings prove you wrong. And in case you think that this is some obscure case I'm plucking out of nowhere, I'd point out that bananas are exclusively grown from cuttings. So you grant my point. Thank you. Yes. But we can still assert with a very high degree of confidence that non-living matter did, at some time 3.8-4.3 billion years ago give rise to life. In other words: abiogenesis happens. Woah there, Nelly! You can't elide the difference between organic and inorganic matter and living and dead things like that! Organic matter means something quite specific, and, yes, it's easily identifiable - but it also includes dead animals, and molecules produced entirely separately of any living thing.

Whether something is considered inorganic or organic depends on its chemistry, not on its provenance. CO₂ is not organic or inorganic depending on whether it comes from a fire or is breathed out by a donkey; it is always inorganic material. Similarly whether CH₃CH₂OH (ethanol) is fermented from sugars by yeasts or formed in the laboratory by scientists it is still an organic material.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

And, apparently there is a distinguish drawn between organic material and organic compounds which I had missed. Interesting.I think CO₂ is a fine example of the arbitary nature of the inorganic/organic divide, especially as methane (CH₃) is considered organic.

The clinical approach to death is utterly useless, and irrelevant, in relation to the task at hand. Why? Because most life has neither brains not hearts and you can bet your bottom sock that the "very first life" didn't have either. What is this "spark of life" you keep talking about? Chemistry happens, more chemistry happens, still more chemistry happens - and you have life, which is still - tada - chemistry happening. There isn't a "spark of life" to appear at any point in time.Nor is there a "pivotal transitional point", but rather gradual increases in complexity of chemical systems until, blurrily, we pass the point where people start being willing to call it life, and - a few billion years late - we get birds which everyone thinks are life.

Ah, so that's why this particular bit of silliness is popular at the moment - there's a new book about.

Species of bacteria are distinguish either by their pathological effects, or by their biochemical or genetic nature, your claim is impossible.What scientists have actually determined is that these bacteria are cyanobacteria similar to cyanobacteria living today. Cyanobacteria is not a species.

"All computer possess one or more information systems, which collect. store, retrieve, analyze and respond to information. Nothing living does so. Do not mistake what brain do for possessing and using information. Brains merely secrete neurotransmitters and alter synapses."If your argument carried a shred of truth one would find oneself rapidly in the position of claiming brains only carry information once a brain recognises the information in it. Computers are perfectly, and equally, capable of recognising, collecting, storing, retrieving, analyzing and responding to information - that they do so to a simpler level than human brains is no more meaningful to the fundementals of that reaction that pointing at a sea slug and claiming it's 200 neurons do bugger all in the way of retrieving, analysing and responding.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

How is the behaviour of an automatic door (converts infrared to electrical signal, responds to electrical signal with electrical signal triggering motor action) meaningfully different from the withdrawal response of a seaslug (converts touch to electrical signal, responds to electrical signal with electrical signal triggering muscle action)?The distinction you are trying to draw is projected by us; not there in the world.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

You don't believe that, otherwise you'd not be arguing with me about what is in the world. In that case you; you don't respond. An electrical signal triggered by a photo deforming pigments in your retina travels through your brain, triggering a muscle to move an arm.Respond is the correct word; and it's not anthropomorphising.

"bugger all" = "not a lot"

Sorry, I should have been clearer: it was not your claim of imperfect perception that I'm objecting to but your assertion that "[e]very concept we have is projected by us". This is clearly untrue; and you don't believe it to be true, either. Otherwise you could not argue with me about the nature of reality. I maintain there is a real world, which has real properties and can be naturally grouped in meaningful way - it is, of course, only imperfectly accessible to us; but it is real. The ability to produce differing responses is not a necessary part of a response. To give some biological examples: your leg will respond with a kick if you're tapped with a hammer just below the knee. A neuron given a correct stimulus will always respond with an action potential. A nicotonic ion channel will respond by opening when it binds to a molecule of acetylcholine. Stereotyped responses litter the living world, and among the simplest of organisms there is no learning and no choice.Leaving that aside, it's still simple enough to find examples of machines that choose from available responses - fire up pretty much any computer game and watch the AI - pick up an expensive washing machine and you'll find it uses adaptive fuzzy logic to alter the wash cycle to how much you've put in and how dirty it is. Modern cars adapt their engine management to the fuel you're using and your driving style.I chose the example of the automatic door because it's simple and directly comparable to simple organic responses.

I don't agree with you either that life is modular, or that integration - as you mean it - is a feature of designed systems. In fact, it's very much the other way round. I made this point way back on page 1, in posts 11 & 12, before the whole thread got sidetracked.Could you respond to the points I made in those posts?