Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The idea of life.
studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 5864 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 1 of 13 (445154)
01-01-2008 11:47 AM


Hi,
If "life" is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, and I am "alive," what's to say that the only difference between me and a container of vinegar and baking soda is the complexity of the chemical system?
I apologize if this sounds a bit silly, as it's banging around in my head right now, and I wanted your help in organizing my thoughts--and shooting me down, if necessary.
In the aforementioned argument, if I were to follow that, I'm not so much.. "alive" as much as I am "an ongoing chemical reaction" that will end when my body is no longer able to maintain the reaction.
In the aforementioned argument, life never arose. Instead, simple and sustainable chemical reactions arose, and these reactions changed in complexity and..
Yeah.
Am I missing something? Did I fail to consider something?
Or is "life" nothing more a philosophical concept that science simply glosses over and accepts and I never realized it until now.
I'm a little flustered right now, so I apologize for the nonsensical parts.
Edited by studioghibli, : Wanted to clarify my thoughts on the philosophy of life. Thanks for asking!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 11:56 AM studioghibli has replied
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 12:17 PM studioghibli has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 01-01-2008 12:52 PM studioghibli has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 13 (445155)
01-01-2008 11:50 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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


Message 3 of 13 (445159)
01-01-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by studioghibli
01-01-2008 11:47 AM


Life is but ...
... a Porco Rosso, a Grave of the Fireflies, a Whisper of the Heart; Laputa.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 11:47 AM studioghibli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 11:58 AM jar has replied

  
studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 5864 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 4 of 13 (445161)
01-01-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
01-01-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Life is but ...
I see a fan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 11:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 12:08 PM studioghibli has not replied

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


Message 5 of 13 (445164)
01-01-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by studioghibli
01-01-2008 11:58 AM


Re: Life is but ...
Partly.
But also your initial question has no answer. We will only know if there is more to life than an ongoing chemical and physics reaction after we die.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 11:58 AM studioghibli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 01-01-2008 12:35 PM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 6 of 13 (445165)
01-01-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by studioghibli
01-01-2008 11:47 AM


Studioghibli
In the aforementioned argument, if I were to follow that, I'm not so much.. "alive" as much as I am "an ongoing chemical reaction" that will end when my body is no longer able to maintain the reaction.
The trouble I think is the natural tendency of thinking creatures like ourselves to assert that the life we feel we possess is somehow separate from the chemistry {or rather the physics} of the world we live in.
The difficulty I feel is that life is a forced definition applied to a condition we have not fully investigated as yet. There are many studies that bring into question our innate perceptions of things like consciousness and free will that we tend to take for granted.
Experiments that have been performed that make the answers rather unsettling and in some cases both outright weird and counter intuitive.
Try checking out the following lectures by V.S.Ramachandran
BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind
Let me know if this makes thing more OR less clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 11:47 AM studioghibli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 2:36 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 7 of 13 (445170)
01-01-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
01-01-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Life is but ...
studioghbli writes:
Am I missing something? Did I fail to consider something?
jar writes:
But also your initial question has no answer. We will only know if there is more to life than an ongoing chemical and physics reaction after we die.
Why not consider digital genetic code as the key difference between living and non-living things? Nothing but life is capable of of building and sustaining infrastructure by passing along digital genetic information from one generation to the next. Rocks don't do it. Oceans don't it. Stars don't do it. Only biological life does it, along and several interesting computer simulations, such as Conway's Game of Life. So I'd say genetic code makes all the difference in studioghhbli's question.
And genes are digital, too; single nucleotide polymorphisms (snps) prove that.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 12:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 12:38 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 10 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 2:19 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:24 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 8 of 13 (445171)
01-01-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
01-01-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Life is but ...
Yada Yada

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 01-01-2008 12:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 9 of 13 (445174)
01-01-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by studioghibli
01-01-2008 11:47 AM


Yes, you're correct. Nothing but chemistry.
And?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 11:47 AM studioghibli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by studioghibli, posted 01-01-2008 2:20 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 5864 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 10 of 13 (445211)
01-01-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
01-01-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Life is but ...
To clarify, I'm thinking this thread more has to do with my shifting philosophy on what constitutes "life." That is, even though I've recognized our less-than-enchanting origins, I've never really considered the philosophical implications on the concept of "life," or "being alive."
All right, so.
Genetic code, then. Genetic code, though, is still the end result of a series of chemical responses.
This isn't a "value of the man" thread, I also want to clarify. I'm not trying to defend myself, nor am I trying to make a point.
In all honesty, I'm seriously wondering if the only difference between me and a container of baking soda and vinegar is chemical complexity. Both myself and the container are moving through chemical reactions; mine, however, are simply much, much more complex, considering I am the end result of a billions of years worth of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 01-01-2008 12:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 5864 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 11 of 13 (445212)
01-01-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
01-01-2008 12:52 PM


No 'and,' sorry.
I don't have an agenda.
I simply came to this possibility this morning, and I wanted to ask a man like Dawkins--but since I don't have access to Dawkins, I thought I'd ask the EvC lot instead.
Just fascinating, then.
Even more fascinating than I originally thought, assuming this is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 01-01-2008 12:52 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 13 (445217)
01-01-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
01-01-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Life is but ...
hoot writes:
Stars don't do it.
Some might argue that stars do pass along their traits onto their offsprings.
After all, we can tell whether it's a first, second, or third generation star by determining its composition. It's composition came from previous stars that died out.
Added by edit.
Why not consider digital genetic code as the key difference between living and non-living things?
More specifically to your comment, I personally feel uncomfortable using the genetic code that we have as the determining factor between life and non-life. Ok, don't laugh... but what if one day we find creatures on another planet that are silicone based or something? Instead of the 4 nucleotides A, G, C, and T, they have something else that's completely different. But they reproduce and evolve just like life on this planet.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 01-01-2008 12:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 5864 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 13 of 13 (445223)
01-01-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
01-01-2008 12:17 PM


Being that I don't know how to quote yet, I'd like to say this message is a response to "sidelined."
"
Try checking out the following lectures by V.S.Ramachandran.
BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind
"
Thank you. I'm listening to it now.
If I finish before I leave for the night, I'll let you know what I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 12:17 PM sidelined 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