|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2901 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nope. That's what "contiguous" means, but not what a "contiguous system" means. Because everything after this hinges on this false interpretation, then your argument for the "fish in a baggy thingy" and the "Russian Dolls with a bacteria inside thingy" becomes just a strawman argument. So a "contiguous system" would not be contiguous. Fascinating.
In other words if there is a living cell inside an enveloped entity defined by a boundary and the internal contents, then that whole entity (including the boundary) is alive. Nope, this is your strawman. Curiously this is exactly how you defend your definitions application to multicellular life. Equivocate much?
So not everything inside the boundary or the boundary itself need to be alive to meet the definition. This would include hair, hooves, nails, scales, shells, bark, core wood, some dead cells, etc etc etc ... This is correct, no strawman here. Thus the baggie with the goldfish in water is alive. You just confirmed it, thank you.
So now we can restate the definition as clarified... This is where the prodigal son goes wayward. Repent from your strawman tendencies! Come back to the Father. He only wants you to include the word "system" in your understanding. Is that such a difficult moral dilemma? Come home son! As has been pointed out, calling it a strawman does not make it so. You have failed to show how I can distinguish life* from non-life* using your definitions, your words, your interpretations. The only difference is that you equivocate when you compare non-life* entities to life* entities - by saying the application does not apply to non-life* because that is a strawman, but that it does apply to life* without being a strawman -- you have not actually shown how I - or anyone else - should distinguish between them via your definition. Enjoy Notes: (1) "life*" and "non-life*" refer to such entities as they are normally defined by most people, not as the AOK definition defines them. (2) strawman fallacy (one definition of straw man, there are others):
quote: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, I disagree. Period. You have described what "contiguous" means only. You have not included the meaning of the word "system". Therefore you have created a strawman. Nope. A "contiguous system" would be a system composed of contiguous elements -- eg touching at a minimum. This "system" can -- according to you -- include living and non-living elements. Thus the goldfish in the baggie of water is still a contiguous system. The elements even interact with each other, so even if you stretch your definition to mean a "contiguous system of interacting parts" it still fails to eliminate the baggie\goldfish entity from the "life*" category. You cannot make your definition say something it doesn't just because you want it to.
And you clearly don't understand equivocation, because I have not used any of these words with multiple meanings. Yet you insist that one application defines "life*" properly while an identical application does not. 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 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
However, the "goldfish in a baggy thingy" can evolve just like you previously described. And so does the Russian Dolls with the bacteria inside. They are alive using your definition. Once you contrive a thing to be multiple things then your definition fails with the same evaluation. Curiously it doesn't matter whether this little rant is correct or not (it isn't) it does not make your definition any better.
Nope. Again, I did not confirm this. You must first include the word "system" as you apply the definition of life to your "baggy with a goldfish thingy". Can you show me or any one in the "common language" how this thingy is recognized as a "system". EVIDENCE PLEASE! See previous response. The fish interacts with the water, the water interacts with the baggie and any air in the baggie. They form a system of interacting parts. Life interacts with it's ecology and cannot maintain itself without it. Enjoy ps Systemnoun 1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system. or Systemnoun 1. a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity; 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sadly you still fail. I already showed that they were systems. It is rather obvious from the definitions that "system" is a pretty open category, as the use of "or" should tell you -- many different ways to comply, any one of which is sufficient to qualify.
Good. Thanks for citing the definitions. Now please, in the "common language" anywhere on the web, show me how a "goldfish in water in a baggy with a twist tie thingy" is considered a "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". A. It is complex, certainly much more complex than a rock as it changes from minute to minute. One could say it is "Irreducibly Complex" if one were so inclined. B. It is a unitary whole, defined by being enclosed in the baggie. C. It is a collective entity, being made up of several parts. Similar for the other examples, but you should be able to see that for yourself -- if you were objective and not equivocating. 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 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nope. The problem is once again, you are using a "highly literal application of the dictionary definition" for system without understanding the words "common usage". You are still equivocating, and now you want to change definitions to focus on a different use of specific words -- repeating the problem you have been warned against pursuing. It - doesn't - matter - what - you - think, ... ... or what definition you pull out to tweak and twist: the simple definitions given classify it as a system. That should be the end of your argument. It is time for you to admit this.
The wiki article is very enlightening on this subject matter:
quote: Curiously I don't see how that eliminates the baggie with the goldfish.
If you read beyond this:
quote: You see the person who assembled the bag and water and fish did not design them to "work as a coherent entity". And being that the fish is natural and the other items are designed in the "common language" these are viewed a "two or more distinct systems". On the contrary the baggie with the water and fish inside is most definitely a system designed to work as a coherent entity. That it has several parts is why it is a system. But there is much a bigger problem for you with this argument: how do you know what is "natural" and what is "man made" -- using your definition of "life" -- you can't presuppose one is natural, and another is not, without biasing your interpretation. That would be begging the question. This has been your problem all along, that you presuppose results instead of determining them. Thus you also need to look at: "Natural systems may not have an apparent objective but their outputs can be interpreted as purposes" and ask if it is a natural system. We don't even have to know the output or purpose of a natural system for it to be determined to be a system. That has been done. It is. Now is it a natural system? Well according to your definition it is a life entity, so it must be natural. Again this kind of hair splitting and insistence on your version\interpretation trumping all others that you are once again engaged in is what you have been warned against. The purpose of a definition is to be able to distinguish life from non-life, and that means you can make no a priori assumptions outside the definition when you apply it, but make your evaluation solely on the merits of the entities being studied and what the definition says. 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 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
In Message 353, I did not argue the definition of self-contained at all. But I provided you many examples in the "common language" that can be found all over the web that refute your individual "highly literal" interpretation about "self-contained". Apparently you have now dropped that argument, because it has become overwhelmingly obvious that you were wrong by the evidence. ... Curiously that is not how I remember that argument line ending: I have not pursued it because my point was made, and you changed your position to reflect that. In other words you equivocated on what you meant originally. Note that I used your words in the table the way you meant them originally, and if you disagree with my evaluation you need to address that table and show how they do not meet your criteria and how that would change the results. The problem you now face is that -- in addition to the examples in my table (still not addressed by you) -- all those examples you provided in Message 353 just became life by your definition as you have now clarified, ... as I said in my reply, Message 354 (bold added):
You will note that I used a caveat for "self-contained" in the table that specifically addressed the issue of the degree of self-enclosure during evaluation. I need not point out nor address whether or not this degree of self-enclosure is a grey scale issue to show that your definition fails miserably to exclude entities not normally considered "life" ... now including trains, apartments and machines. You then dropped that argument line, which I take as agreement that "self-contained" is a poor choice of words (a better one would be "enclosed by a semi-permeable envelope" as this would include skin, shells, fur, chitin etc). That was shortly after you added this "contiguous system" band-aid -- which has also been shown to be problematic.
Please note RAZD, I am not arguing the words in these definitions. You are. I am not showing you how your interpretation doesn't meet any grouping of words. I am only asking for evidence. Not claims. Meaning a citation of some sort, that supports your position that a "fish in a baggie with water and a twist tie" is viewed by anyone else as a "system" and not multiple systems or entities. ... Out of curiosity I went back you your example, as I have done before, to see how you qualify things as life, in specific I looked at:
Message 361: Yet, my hair and fingernails and my undigested food (dead things) are part of my "complex or unitary whole" and me as a "collective entity". And it is all self-contained and contiguous. And, I am a system. And I notice that you separate "contiguous" and "system" just as I have done (and you complained about). Then I looked for citations of "human system" and the best I could find was this:
quote: Now they don't strictly call the entire human body a system, and I could find no site that did: perhaps you can do better. I do agree that the whole can be regarded as a system, but I could not find the kind of confirmation you want on the baggie+water+fish system. What I did find fairly quickly to support my argument was:
quote: They clearly consider the baggie plus the contents to be one system, just as the digestive system is a system in an a living entity. And I don't think I need to look further as I would expect more similar results to follow. This suffices to show that
baggie+water+bread = *A* system ... and not two or more systems as you claim. I should not need to point out that "baggie+water+bread" is virtually the same as "baggie+water+fish", so I do think this suffices.
Message 364: Yes, you continue to claim this. Now just support it with evidence. Show me anywhere that such a thing is referred to as a system, or as a single entity rather that two or more distinct entities. That's all. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it. You have the whole web at your access. Now done, thank you, but I would like to point out that I am not relying on a single definition and precise interpretation of specific words in as you claim (you only quoted one), rather that *ALL* the definitions, including the one you posted from wikipedia, can objectively classify the "baggie+water+fish" as a system ... *ALL* of them. As such I think you need to give up this line of argument and go back to the table in Message 320 and deal with the issues. Now if you want to pursue this we can talk about how your apartment is a system of contiguous elements that include processes that aid in metabolism and evacuation of waste. Same for workplace. As I've said before, life is part of an ecology (your apartment is a mini-ecological system for instance) -- it is a major mistake imho to try to define life without recognizing this fact. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
PS: I'm OK if one argues that they respond to stimuli... Which is good seeing as they (virii) evolve resistance to drugs, a definite response to stimulii inmho.
In other words, the mantra that viruses are on the "edge of life" is no more than a mantra from a scientific paper that doesn't even discuss this subject! Therefore, this mantra should not be widely used in the scientific community or the text books. It is nothing more than a headline title that has no factual scientific support. That is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but it doesn't trump what actual scientists say in any way. 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 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Also, I don't think it's a good idea to try to define "life" and "a living organism" with the same definition. "Organism" is a term about how you define separate "units" of life, and I don't think it's necessary to open that can of worms in the basic definition. That was pretty much the conclusion reached in the Definition of Life thread. My definition is pretty good at defining "life" imho, but not so good at defining "units" (or entities) of life. AOK's definition is a fair stab at defining single cellular life, but runs into problems with multicellular life and life in general terms (such as finding ET life, due to emphasis on known terrestrial molecules and processes). One of my problems with AOK is that he apparently has an agenda to exclude virii, and chose his criteria to effect that, not for scientific reasons, while I feel a good definition of life should err on the inclusive side. I'm thinking an ecological definition would be instructive. Life is something that interacts with its environment in ways that promote it's continuance ... but: oceans. Needs work. 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