Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 151 of 268 (594373)
12-03-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:43 AM


Re: the actual problem
620-750nm
So light of 619nm wavelength would be what colour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Jack, posted 12-03-2010 10:59 AM cavediver has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 268 (594378)
12-03-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:43 AM


The color red.
Interesting.
This source says red is 700-635nm and in graphic designs red is #FF0000 or 0,100,100 or 255,0,0.
Some definitions would not call the broad range that you specify red at all, but rather only one smal band from that spectrum.
The point is that definitions are only accurate within a set of parameters and when used by two parties using a common set of measurements.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 153 of 268 (594384)
12-03-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:43 AM


Re: the actual problem
Your answer shoots your own arguments down. Previously you said there was instrumentation that can show us where red ends. Now you give us a range? Please also show support that this is the range where red ends. I am not likely to take yours or anyone's assertions solely on their say so.
Remember the topic is what is life and what is not life. You assert that there is a clear point where something can easily be defined as life or not life. In the color analogy you are asserting there is a point where something is red or not red. Show us that point and show us the device you claim exists that can discern this point.
Using a range completely destroys your assertions. Give us the exact point on the spectrum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 154 of 268 (594386)
12-03-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:43 AM


Re: the actual problem
So which is it? 620 or 750 nm or is it 665?
If this question seems stupid, it is. you have shown that there is no specific end point.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 155 of 268 (594389)
12-03-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 6:35 PM


Re: the actual problem
The problem with your analogy is already identified by you. Colors may be fuzzy to the eye, and hard to dicern, indeed. But with instrumentation that can measure wavelengths, it is easy to dircern and define.
No, you didn't quite hit the point.
Colors are not that hard to identify with the eye. I know yellow when I see it and I know blue when I see it. The problem is when we "zoom in" on the boundaries and then realize that they are fuzzy, there is a whole range of green in between them. The instrumentation helps expose that fuzziness.
For example, yellow is wavelengths of 590 - 560 nm and blue is 490 - 450 nm, in between we have green from 560 - 490 nm.
If we have light that has a wavelenth of 525 nm, should we put it on the yellow side or the blue side? Could we all agree that 525.1 nm is definately yellow and 524.9 nm is definately blue? Is light that is exactly 560 nm yellow or green?
When we zoom in that closely, we find that our compartmentalization of color, which seems to work just fine for the everyday "zoomed out" uses, fails to accurately describe the continuum of color that actually exists in nature.
Similiarly, words like "life" and "non-life" work just fine for distinguishing between a cow and a boulder, but when we zoom in we find that fuzzy edge with things that seem to be somewhere in between life and non-life.
So I have provided the seven pillars. what is fuzzy about them?
Its not the pillars that are fuzzy, just like the wavelength definition of yellow is quite clear. Its that life is fuzzy and not as easily distinguished from non-life as the definition suggests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 156 of 268 (594396)
12-03-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:42 AM


AlphaOmegakid writes:
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
"Participate in the process of reproduction" is a poor choice of words. A participant is the subject of an action, not the object. A cheer isn't a participant in a baseball game; it's a product.
The point you're trying to make is that a species must reproduce to be alive, even if individual organisms don't reproduce.
If you want your One True Definition™ to be taken seriously, you'll have to be more precise with your language.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 11:06 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 159 by Dr Jack, posted 12-03-2010 11:11 AM ringo has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 157 of 268 (594397)
12-03-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by cavediver
12-03-2010 9:08 AM


Re: the actual problem
So light of 619nm wavelength would be what colour?
And more importantly what is the qualitative difference between light 619nm and light of 620nm that makes 620 red and 619 not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by cavediver, posted 12-03-2010 9:08 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 158 of 268 (594400)
12-03-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
12-03-2010 10:56 AM


Ringo writes:
If you want your One True Definition to be taken seriously, you'll have to be more precise with your language.
From what AOK is saying, he is using the standard definition of life found in most biology books.
The precise language should already exist.
Therefore he can provide a link rather than go into the detail himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 12-03-2010 10:56 AM ringo has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 159 of 268 (594402)
12-03-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
12-03-2010 10:56 AM


The point you're trying to make is that a species must reproduce to be alive, even if individual organisms don't reproduce.
And if you want to use a definition based on species you'll need a good, solid definition of species. Good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 12-03-2010 10:56 AM ringo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 268 (594403)
12-03-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
Repetition does help for some peolple's comprehension. Here...
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
Colors also.....
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
But it's not necessary for it to reproduce, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 268 (594410)
12-03-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:42 AM


Reproduction
In order for an organism to be alive, it is not necessary for it to reproduce.
However, in order for an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
Actually, this is not correct. From the essay you linked to:
quote:
This is not the only way the living system regenerates. The constant resynthesis of its proteins and body constituents is not quite perfect, so the small loss for each regeneration in the short run becomes a larger loss overall for all the processes in the long run, adding up to what we call aging. So living systems, at least the ones we know, use a clever trick to perfect the regeneration processthat is, they start over. Starting over can be a cell dividing, in the case of Escherichia coli, or the birth of an infant for Homo sapiens. By beginning a new generation, the infant starts from scratch, and all the chemical ingredients, programs, and other constituents go back to the beginning to correct the inevitable decline of a continuously functioning metabolizing system.
Per this essay, the system would have to reproduce to be considered living. Since a mule cannot reproduce, it would not be a living system according to this definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 162 of 268 (594438)
12-03-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2010 10:24 AM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
No, you didn't quite hit the point.
That's because your "point" is fuzzy.
Colors are not that hard to identify with the eye. I know yellow when I see it and I know blue when I see it.
Then you are applying a definition of those colors relative to your vision.
The problem is when we "zoom in" on the boundaries and then realize that they are fuzzy, there is a whole range of green in between them. The instrumentation helps expose that fuzziness.
So yellow is clear? Blue is clear? And green is fuzzy? Can't you also just as easily recognize green? It is defined as well.
See, what you are missing is that the reason you recognize any color at all is because it is defined. Sure, I agree with you that there is a continuum of light and colors. But isn't a ruler a continuum also? But can't we define 1mm, 1cm, 1m? Once we define it it is recognizeable.
Is there a visible difference in .999m and 1.0m. It's fuzzy at arms length, but is is clear close up, because of the definition.
For example, yellow is wavelengths of 590 - 560 nm and blue is 490 - 450 nm, in between we have green from 560 - 490 nm.
If we have light that has a wavelenth of 525 nm, should we put it on the yellow side or the blue side?
It is green, because it is defined that way.
Could we all agree that 525.1 nm is definately yellow and 524.9 nm is definately blue?
We could argue all we want. But if it is defined, it is defined.
Is light that is exactly 560 nm yellow or green?
Again, that depends on the definition.
When we zoom in that closely, we find that our compartmentalization of color, which seems to work just fine for the everyday "zoomed out" uses, fails to accurately describe the continuum of color that actually exists in nature.
Again, I agree that light is a continuum. But a continuum can be defined in science. However, You are claiming that "Life" is a continuum. So I ask you to establish that claim. Life is nothing like light.
So I have provided the seven pillars. what is fuzzy about them?
Its not the pillars that are fuzzy, just like the wavelength definition of yellow is quite clear. Its that life is fuzzy and not as easily distinguished from non-life as the definition suggests.
What you have here is a bold claim that needs supporting evidence. As I understand you, you are saying "life' is just a contiuum of chemical reactions. Ok, you need to establish that continuum.
For instance. Metabolism. All life has it. All non-life doesn't. It appears digital to me. Please demonstrate that this is a continuum.
Reacting to stmuli. This also appears digital to me.
Now one might could argue that some pillars are contiuums, but not all. So I ask you to scientifically support your claim that life is a continuum.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2010 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2010 2:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 3:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 163 of 268 (594471)
12-03-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 12:32 PM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
That's because your "point" is fuzzy.
Others seem to think otherwise. From the post of the month thread:
quote:
A really clear and illustrated way to explain a concept that's actually quite difficult for people to get a handle on - the notion that most of physical existence is on a continuum but our categories invariably assume discreet states.
quote:
Seconded, that post is pretty cool and agree, it takes a concept that for some is difficult to understand and makes it very clear.
Then you are applying a definition of those colors relative to your vision.
Of course. Colors were described before the wavelengths were asigned to them.
So yellow is clear? Blue is clear? And green is fuzzy? Can't you also just as easily recognize green? It is defined as well.
Yes, but that is not what the analogy is explaining. Yellow = life, and blue = non-life... the green is the yet to be defined stuff in between.
See, what you are missing is that the reason you recognize any color at all is because it is defined.
Not because of the wavelength definition though. And that's a part of the point that helps expose the problem. Nailing down exact wavelengths of light to be certain colors doesn't remove the problem of some colors not being easily defined as one of them.
An exact and/or specific definition of "life" has the same problem.
Sure, I agree with you that there is a continuum of light and colors. But isn't a ruler a continuum also? But can't we define 1mm, 1cm, 1m? Once we define it it is recognizeable.
But deinifions of things like color and life are qualitative ones. To be analogous, we'd need to be defining somethign like "short" as, say, 1 mm. The problem is then whether something that is 2 mm is short or not. Compared to the difference betwee 1 and 1.01 mm, it isn't, but compared to 1 m it is.
Is there a visible difference in .999m and 1.0m. It's fuzzy at arms length, but is is clear close up, because of the definition.
Sure, but "life" isn't quantitative. Like I said above, we'd need to be deciding: if 1.0 m is "long", then is .999m?
For example, yellow is wavelengths of 590 - 560 nm and blue is 490 - 450 nm, in between we have green from 560 - 490 nm.
If we have light that has a wavelenth of 525 nm, should we put it on the yellow side or the blue side?
It is green, because it is defined that way.
Missing the point. It has to be either yellow or blue but its not clear which one it should be included with. In this analogy, green is the things between "life" and "non-life" that we can't easily decide is either one.
Could we all agree that 525.1 nm is definately yellow and 524.9 nm is definately blue?
We could argue all we want. But if it is defined, it is defined.
But the definition isn't helping us decide what it looks more like.
Is light that is exactly 560 nm yellow or green?
Again, that depends on the definition.
The definition has been provided. If we define yellow as this and blue as that, the green in between doesn't easily fit with either one.
Again, I agree that light is a continuum. But a continuum can be defined in science. However, You are claiming that "Life" is a continuum. So I ask you to establish that claim. Life is nothing like light.
There's two seperate ways I could go with this...
First, things like viruses and prions sit between "life" and "non-life".
Also there's stuff like this going on:
quote:
Abstract
We propose the Thermal Protein First Paradigm (protocell theory) that affirms that first life was cellular. The first cells emerged from molecular (chemical) evolution as protocells (heated amino acids self-order in copolymerization reactions to form thermal proteins which self-organize when in contact with water to form protocells). Metaprotocells are specialized protocells capable of synthesizing ATP (light energy conversion to chemical energy), polypeptides, and polynucleotides. Aggregations of protocells in thermal protein matrices form distinctive morphologies (protocellular networks). Prokaryotic cells emerged from metaprotocells. We classify protocells and metaprotocells as members of the Domain Protolife. We revised the cell theory to include protolife. source
Second, think about the calcium in a cow's bone and the calcium in a boulder. There's nothing different between them at the atomic scale, but one is in a living system and one is not. That the one piece of calcium is "alive" doesn't distinguish it from the other one.
What you have here is a bold claim that needs supporting evidence. As I understand you, you are saying "life' is just a contiuum of chemical reactions. Ok, you need to establish that continuum.
See above, but also:
There's links to sources in the wiki definition of life where you'll find this:
quote:
It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. Defining life is difficultin partbecause life is a process, not a pure substance.
This one looks alright:
http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html
There's also some decent stuff here:
What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds? - PMC
I'm not aware of one source that I can point to that says that life is a continuum. Its just something I've come to understand over the years.
Do you think that it isn't? Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-06-2010 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 164 of 268 (594493)
12-03-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 12:32 PM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
For instance. Metabolism. All life has it. All non-life doesn't. It appears digital to me. Please demonstrate that this is a continuum.
Reacting to stmuli. This also appears digital to me.
Yes, but you see, by having seven pillars you allow, if not a continuum, then at least a set of fractions.
If we have seven pillars then we can conceive of something that is 5/7 alive and 2/7 not alive.
That's why people (me, for example) have tried to give a minimalist definition of life which rests on a single quality which is either there or not.
My aim was to make the question of abiogenesis a hard problem. If we define life as you do, it becomes easy, because non-life (6/7) can evolve into life (7/7).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 165 of 268 (594524)
12-03-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 3:20 PM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
Yes, but you see, by having seven pillars you allow, if not a continuum, then at least a set of fractions.
Yet another analogy that doesn't work. A dead person is about 99.99999% alive.
But we can without a clear definition of life still recognize it and recognize it's absence.
If we have seven pillars then we can conceive of something that is 5/7 alive and 2/7 not alive.
Yes, illogical, falacious scientists do argue this way. But the reality is that life is digital. It is on or off. It is alive or not alive. Therefore if you have seven qualities or processes that identify ALIVE!, you must have all seven. It's like having to turn on seven switches in order to open the logic gate for "on". Open six, and it is still off.
That's why people (me, for example) have tried to give a minimalist definition of life which rests on a single quality which is either there or not.
Yes, I read your circular definition of "evolution" in post # 10.
My aim was to make the question of abiogenesis a hard problem. If we define life as you do, it becomes easy, because non-life (6/7) can evolve into life (7/7).
Au contraire! Your circles just lead to equivocations on evolutionary terms. The seven/six pillars is all seven/six in the "on" position (my suggestion is six). No continuum. Not at all like light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 3:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 9:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 9:15 PM AlphaOmegakid 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