|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Dr A writes: As I said: "Some of them say YES, some of them say NO, some say that they haven't made up their minds yet, but none of them equivocate." Again, I still think you don't understand, so I will use your example. Group A says "Yes" to a particular definition.Group B says "No" to the same definition Group B must have valid, reason to oppose Group A's definition. Usually, as in this forum, they try to give counter examples where the definition doesn't work. You are seeing this process in this forum. If those counter examples are valid, then that means that there must be an equivocation of defining terms in Group A's definition for it to continue. The definition is defeated or falsified. However, we have to put "definitions" in the textbooks, so those "definitions" are equivocal, because it is the best we have currently. They all have been defeated or falsified at some level within the defining terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
dwise1? writes: So then, AOK, just what are you trying to define out of existence through your Word Magick? I am simply trying to define what is alive and what is not. An important delineation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AOk writes:
I am simply trying to define what is alive and what is not. An important delineation But it's been shown to be an exercise in word play that serves little useful purpose. We have no definitional issues with virtually everything that is living and everything that is not. There are a miniscule number of artefacts to which there is a controversy. That's just the complication of the natural world, somehow we live with it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Tangle writes: But it's been shown to be an exercise in word play that serves little useful purpose. We have no definitional issues with virtually everything that is living and everything that is not. There are a miniscule number of artefacts to which there is a controversy. That's just the complication of the natural world, somehow we live with it. One man's word play is another man's scientific and published paper. Right? We have a whole field of science studying OOL. You cannot ever hope to show OOL unless you define life with agreement/consensus from the scientific community. Today there are multiple competing hypotheses in this field with little evidence. And there are many obstacles to be overcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AOk writes: One man's word play is another man's scientific and published paper. Right? It's still a "so what?" issue.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
yeah, so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
You got it. So time to fuck around with something that actually matters perhaps?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Great, I'll be happy to ignore your comments in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Group B must have valid, reason to oppose Group A's definition. Usually, as in this forum, they try to give counter examples where the definition doesn't work. You are seeing this process in this forum. If those counter examples are valid, then that means that there must be an equivocation of defining terms in Group A's definition for it to continue. No it doesn't. Some theists say that I should be a Christian. Some theists say that I should be a Muslim. I do not conclude that all or any one of them must be equivocating. I conclude that at least one of them must be wrong. But I don't go around saying "Well in that case they are all of them equivocating". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Great, I'll be happy to ignore your comments in the future. Cool, now you can stop ignoring mine:
Message 41
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Even without being able to show evidence of such a creature, the question is enough for me to find your definition unsatisfying. Crystals can reproduce without change, but are not generally considered life, so I don't see how anything that reproduces without change should be.
I accept that a mule is alive, the question is whether the definition you put forth works to tell me such a thing. Let me repeat your definition here ... Mules are not capable of evolution by the accepted definition of biological evolution. ... Curiously I disagree. That their ability to reproduce is severely hampered by infertility (although not 100%) just shows they are participating in the part of evolution dealing with speciation and the formation of daughter populations that can't interbreed. They are not a distinct species, but a hybrid between species ... daughter populations ... with limited ability to interbreed or interbred with their hybrids. Being capable of evolution also means capable of death and extinction.
... A population of mules does not reproduce and accordingly there are no following generations of mules to even discuss whether there are changes in alelle frequency from generation to generation of mules. ... Again I disagree -- the following generation would have virtually zero distribution of alleles from the existing mule population, and this would be a very distinctive change in the frequency of all the alleles. But existing mules have never been the source of new mules. New mules created by hybridizing horses and donkeys would also have different distribution of alleles compared to the current population, so the next generation by this method would still have a different distribution of alleles. Thus mules do evolve from generation to generation.
... If a mule has a feature that helps it survive better than other mules, those traits cannot be passed on to any offspring to increase those traits in the population. ... That trait would be lost in the same way that many traits are lost through genetic drift, aka part of evolution.
... You would have to redefine evolution somehow to make this stuff work. ... Nope, I just look at the whole picture, including the part where death and extinction play their roles and the part where reproductive incompatibility between daughter populations forms new species.
... But you said that you were using evolution to mean biological evolution as currently understood. Indeed, including death and extinction and the development of reproductive isolation between daughter populations.
... So yeah, the mule has living organs. But is a mule alive? Not according to your original definition. Organs, skin, bones, every part of the mule is a product of cell division, with mutations and cell death, there is no part that you can point to and say "that is not due to evolution." Nor can you point to the mule and say it is not a product of evolutionary processes that are acting on the mule. Is it capable of evolving? Yes, because it is capable of dying due to not being fit to survive and reproduce. If it is capable of dying then isn't it alive? Is not dying a part of evolution? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you are (like a colony of ants) a (colony) population of cells, and so yes, you are living by my definition. But, a breeding population? Like bacteria, cells breed by asexual reproduction -- cell division. All the cells in your body are replaced by new cells several times in the course of your life, so you better hope they keep breeding. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Dr A writes: No it doesn't. Some theists say that I should be a Christian. Some theists say that I should be a Muslim. I do not conclude that all or any one of them must be equivocating. I conclude that at least one of them must be wrong. But I don't go around saying "Well in that case they are all of them equivocating". Wow!........What pray tell does your analogy have to do with developing a definition? I will try one last time explaining, then I will give up, if there is no comprehension. When anyone, scientist or otherwise, is developing a definition for a word, that definition involves other words. It is words or language that can be equivocal. There in is the disagreement on the definitions. This is not a disagreement in general. It is a disagreement about the words used in the definition and their meaning, and their ambiguity. When defining life, people do it with different words like "growth", "reproduction", and "evolution". All of these words carry ambiguous definitions themselves, and hence the current definitions of life are ambiguous and equivocal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
you are (like a colony of ants) a (colony) population of cells, and so yes, you are living by my definition. But, a breeding population? Like bacteria, cells breed by asexual reproduction -- cell division. All the cells in your body are replaced by new cells several times in the course of your life, so you better hope they keep breeding. I know what you're talking about, but that's just not what "breeding" means. Maybe change it to reproducing populations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... So since a cell is the smallest unit of life ... Is it? By your definition (Message 1):
quote: You could have a prebiotic molecule in the RNA world that synthesizes ATP from ATP and uses that to reproduce the molecule, and according to your definition that would be life even though no cell is involved. It seems that your impetus (from reading other posts on this thread) for your definition is to find the boundary between life and non-life, to define the point of origin, the transition from chemistry to life. The point at which it is capable of undergoing evolutionary processes, the point at with it is capable of evolving. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024