Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 16 of 268 (587173)
10-17-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mosassam
10-17-2010 12:31 PM


mosassam writes:
Part of science is to provide a description of reality and, in my opinion, Life is a fundamental feature of reality, particularly when discussing something like evolution. To suggest that trying to define Life is outside the arena of science seems preposterous to me and I find it truly shocking that there seems to be no scientific consensus on what Life is but it is understandable.
There's a difference between "description" and "definition".

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:31 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:00 PM ringo has replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 17 of 268 (587174)
10-17-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Panda
10-17-2010 12:53 PM


That is exactly the point I am making - if it cannot be weighed or measured then it cannot possibly exist according to the reductionist view but I am completely unwilling to say that Life doesn't exist
Edited by mosassam, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 12:53 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 2:40 PM mosassam has replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 18 of 268 (587175)
10-17-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
10-17-2010 12:54 PM


Part of the description of reality must include, imo, Life. But what is the definition of Life.
Edited by mosassam, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 10-17-2010 12:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 10-17-2010 1:04 PM mosassam has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 268 (587176)
10-17-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mosassam
10-17-2010 1:00 PM


mosassam writes:
Part of the description of reality must include, imo, Life. But what is the definition of Life.
Certainly, a description of reality should include a description of life - but what does a description of life have to do with a definition of life? An artist can describe life without defining it. Why not a scientist?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:00 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:14 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 268 (587177)
10-17-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mosassam
10-17-2010 12:54 PM


I have no idea. Not at all sure what any of that means.
As I have said, there are things where we can definitely say, "Yup, that's alive."
There are things where we can say "Yup, that's not alive."
But there are also things that seem alive and not alive depending on the perspective and moment.
Not sure what "real" has to do with any of it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:54 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:11 PM jar has replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 21 of 268 (587178)
10-17-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
10-17-2010 1:05 PM


Let's keep it to the things that we can say "yup, that's alive". Would you agree that 'alive' can mean to 'possess Life'. If so is this Life as scientifically comprehensible as Energy or Matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-17-2010 1:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-17-2010 1:20 PM mosassam has replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 22 of 268 (587179)
10-17-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
10-17-2010 1:04 PM


I have not asked for a description of Life, I have asked for a definition - what thoughts do you have regarding this. Don't you think it should be possible?
Edited by mosassam, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 10-17-2010 1:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 10-17-2010 1:26 PM mosassam has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 268 (587182)
10-17-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mosassam
10-17-2010 1:11 PM


Would you agree that 'alive' can mean to 'possess Life'.
Nope, wouldn't even understand how life could be possessed less we are talking Exorcist films.
If so is this Life as scientifically comprehensible as Energy or Matter?
We still have a very long way before we comprehend energy or matter too.
Let's keep it to the things that we can say "yup, that's alive".
Can't do that. That would be excluding data and so very much non scientific.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:11 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:30 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 268 (587183)
10-17-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mosassam
10-17-2010 1:14 PM


mosassam writes:
I have not asked for a description of Life, I have asked for a definition - what thoughts do you have regarding this.
You said that "part of science is to provide a description of reality". I'm asking what that has to do with a definition. My thought is that science can putter along quite nicely without a definition of life.
mosassam writes:
Don't you think it should be possible?
Definitions, by definition, are vague. "Meaning" is necessarily subjective. It's possible to have a thousand different definitions of life. It isn't possible to agree on one.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:14 PM mosassam has not replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 25 of 268 (587184)
10-17-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
10-17-2010 1:20 PM


When YOU say "yup, that's alive" what do you mean by 'alive'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-17-2010 1:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 10-17-2010 1:42 PM mosassam has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 268 (587185)
10-17-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mosassam
10-17-2010 1:30 PM


Not all that much.
It means that the thing seems to be something that reproduces by one of many different methods, capable of movement, that takes in some form of energy and expels some form of waste at least during part of its life cycle and that at some point can be said to be not alive.
It is really loose, vague.
As I pointed out way back in Message 7...
There are points where I can say it is blue, or green, but there are also many places that are kinda green or kinda blue or not blue or not green.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 1:30 PM mosassam has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 27 of 268 (587189)
10-17-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mosassam
10-17-2010 12:56 PM


mosassam writes:
but I am completely unwilling to say that Life doesn't exist
Why are you unwilling?
If you are unable to define the thing that you want so much to exist, then perhaps it is a psychological issue.
I do not mean that you are 'mad' or 'ill', but that maybe there is an intrinsic part of many people's psyches that wants 'life' to be real.
To paraphrase Voltaire:
""Let us accept that life exists. But what if it didn't? Well, we would have to invent it, because it is necessary for the individual / society , for whatever reasons."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 12:56 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:16 PM Panda has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 268 (587190)
10-17-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by barbara
09-13-2010 9:57 AM


Idiocy
The definition of life was a massive extinction event and was not able to recover to evolve a new answer.
You really are clueless, aren't you?
How is that in any way a working definition of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by barbara, posted 09-13-2010 9:57 AM barbara has not replied

  
mosassam
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 29 of 268 (587192)
10-17-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Panda
10-17-2010 2:40 PM


I am unwilling to say that Life doesn't exist in the same way I am unwilling to say that Matter doesn't exist or Energy doesn't exist. Is there anything you have to say about the subject of the thread itself?
I feel this thread is getting bogged down in semantics and solipsism. Let me help you out.
A good working definition of Matter is "that which has mass and occupies physical space". I wondered if there was a similar kind of definition for Life but, judging by the responses I've received to this thread it appears there isn't. This leads me to suspect that Life, like Mind, cannot be scientifically proven to exist. In a forum dealing with evolution I find this unusual to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 2:40 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 10-17-2010 3:47 PM mosassam has replied
 Message 31 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 4:16 PM mosassam has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 30 of 268 (587197)
10-17-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mosassam
10-17-2010 3:16 PM


Clumsy label
I think the problem is that chemical processes that take place are often described as part of being 'alive' or' not alive'.
But this is arbitrarily designating every thing into 2 distinct categories and then claiming that because we have arbitrarily decided to do this that 'alive' and 'not alive' are two distinct entities.
A human being has many chemical and electro-chemical processes taking place in her body but these are the same processes that take place in a virus: is a virus life?
English uses the word 'life' to categorise what we informally recognise as fitting in that category of 'life'.
It's like asking when a person is middle class or upper class: just two convenient labels used for categorisation that are not particularly rigorous or informative.
In short 'life' is a clumsy label.
Edited by Larni, : Clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:16 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 4:21 PM Larni has replied
 Message 36 by Parasomnium, posted 10-17-2010 5:16 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024