|
Author
|
Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: Its relevant to distinguish what the scientist have done from normal reproduction. Normal reproduction is even more irrelevant than where the building blocks came from. You really don't think this topic has anything to do with normal reproduction, do you?
quote:
The definition of life is not dependent on the process.
The process is what makes it Artificial Life. Whether or not it's "artificial" life is the question, not the answer. If you can't tell "artificial" life from "real" life, how can you call it "artificial"?
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 122 of 185 (419048)
08-31-2007 3:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by ringo
08-31-2007 3:05 PM
|
|
You really don't think this topic has anything to do with normal reproduction, do you? Well, that's how life normally comes about. Its the standard for comparison.
If you can't tell "artificial" life from "real" life, how can you call it "artificial"? Its artificial because its man-made.
Whether or not it's "artificial" life is the question, not the answer. Its artificial by definition. The question is: Is it any different from regular-old life? But this topic is: How do creationists react to the development?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 3:05 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 123 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 3:49 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: quote:
You really don't think this topic has anything to do with normal reproduction, do you?
Well, that's how life normally comes about. Its the standard for comparison. No, it's not the standard for comparison. The three ways that life can arise are: - Created by God.
- Created by man.
- Created by normal reproduction.
In this topic, we are comparing only the first two.
quote:
If you can't tell "artificial" life from "real" life, how can you call it "artificial"?
Its artificial because its man-made. That doesn't answer the question. If I show you two bacteria under the microscope, how can you tell which is man-made and which is not? If you can't tell, you have no basis to call one of them "artificial".
Its artificial by definition. You can't define it as "artificial" if you can't tell it's man-made.
But this topic is: How do creationists react to the development? The answer appears to be: irrationally.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 124 of 185 (419058)
08-31-2007 4:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by ringo
08-31-2007 3:49 PM
|
|
No, it's not the standard for comparison. The three ways that life can arise are: - Created by God.
- Created by man.
- Created by normal reproduction.
In this topic, we are comparing only the first two.
Says you  The third one has been discussed as well. When did you get to decide what the rest of us are comparing?
Its artificial by definition. You can't define it as "artificial" if you can't tell it's man-made.
We know it is man-made a priori, it doesn't matter if we can tell afterwards or not.
quote:
If you can't tell "artificial" life from "real" life, how can you call it "artificial"?
Its artificial because its man-made. That doesn't answer the question. If I show you two bacteria under the microscope, how can you tell which is man-made and which is not? I can't.
If you can't tell, you have no basis to call one of them "artificial".
The basis is that one of them was, in fact, made by man. It doesn't matter if you can tell them apart or not. Maybe "synthetic" would be a better term, I dunno. They're both life. One was made by man and one wasn't. One is artificial and the other is natural. I'm not labelling artificial life as non-life.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 3:49 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 4:59 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: The third one has been discussed as well. When did you get to decide what the rest of us are comparing? I didn't decide, the topic did. In a nutshell, the OP says:
quote:
What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish.
Where ordinary reproduction has been mentioned, it's off-topic.
We know it is man-made a priori, it doesn't matter if we can tell afterwards or not. Wrong. In my example, you don't know which is which. You have to look at two bacteria and determine which (if either) is man-made. If you can't do that without a priori knowledge, you have no basis to say we've done less than create life. On the one hand, we have life. On the other hand, we have life. If you can't observe any difference between the two - without knowing their provenance - you can't claim any fundamental difference.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 126 of 185 (419065)
08-31-2007 5:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
08-31-2007 4:59 PM
|
|
Catholic Scientist writes: The third one has been discussed as well. When did you get to decide what the rest of us are comparing?
I didn't decide, the topic did. In a nutshell, the OP says:
quote:
What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish.
Where ordinary reproduction has been mentioned, it's off-topic.
Well, an off-topic comparison is a comparison none-the-less.
We know it is man-made a priori, it doesn't matter if we can tell afterwards or not. Wrong. In my example, you don't know which is which. You have to look at two bacteria and determine which (if either) is man-made. If you can't do that without a priori knowledge, you have no basis to say we've done less than create life. I don't see calling it artificial as saying its anything less.
On the one hand, we have life. On the other hand, we have life. If you can't observe any difference between the two - without knowing their provenance - you can't claim any fundamental difference. Their provenance is the fundamental difference. Given two lifeforms without the knowledge of their provenance and being unable to tell the difference, then basically they are the same. I don't disagree with you here. But one of them is still artificial if we can tell it or not. There's still a fundamental difference even if we don't know it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 4:59 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 5:20 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2664 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 127 of 185 (419066)
08-31-2007 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
08-31-2007 4:59 PM
|
|
I'm going to have to agree with Ringo here. Life ("artificial") is life ("natural"). Chemically there is no difference. And given a ribozyme derived in vivo and a ribozyme derived in vitro, one would be unable to tell the difference chemically (without a priori knowledge). That's the whole point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 4:59 PM | | ringo has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: But one of them is still artificial if we can tell it or not. There's still a fundamental difference even if we don't know it. How utterly unscientific. The evidence indicates no difference - like two photographs of the same person - yet you claim there is a difference. And not only do you claim there is a difference but it's a "fundamental" difference. If there's no detectable difference, the only difference is in your mind. That's called "delusion". You might as well say that the #5 bus is an ordinary bus but the #6 bus is trying to steal your thoughts.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 129 of 185 (419071)
08-31-2007 5:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
08-31-2007 5:20 PM
|
|
the difference
If you look close one will say hecho in vitro.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 5:20 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 130 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 5:33 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 130 of 185 (419073)
08-31-2007 5:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
08-31-2007 5:24 PM
|
|
Re: the difference
If we can create life, we should be able to fake the trademark too. 
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 5:24 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 131 of 185 (419077)
08-31-2007 5:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
08-31-2007 5:20 PM
|
|
If there's no detectable difference, the only difference is in your mind. That's called "delusion". You're taking this too far, Ringo. I know there's no difference other than the way they were made. But that is still a difference. Maybe not a fundamental one, that was just poor word choice. And that difference is outside my mind and I'm not delusional. What the hell are you typing about? I think that you are assuming too much about me. I have no problem calling this life.
The evidence indicates no difference - like two photographs of the same person - yet you claim there is a difference. The differece is in the way they were made. Even identical chemicals can be distinguished as synthetic or natural because of the way they were processed, yet they are chemically identical. If one of the photos was digital and one was, uhhh, came from film... (is that analog?), but you didn't know that and you couldn't tell the difference, we could still say that the photos are different because one is digital and one isn't. I don't see why you have a problem with this? I don't really have any ramifications for this difference in the two life forms. They are both life, its just that one was created by man and one wasn't. How can you say that that is not a difference?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 5:20 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 133 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 6:01 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 143 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 7:25 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
I'm going to have to agree with Ringo here. Life ("artificial") is life ("natural"). Chemically there is no difference. And given a ribozyme derived in vivo and a ribozyme derived in vitro, one would be unable to tell the difference chemically (without a priori knowledge). That's the whole point.
A point I accept. My point is that one being in vivo and one being in vitro is a difference. So what if we can't tell? And so what if it is a difference? Not much of anything, really. We could call it 'artificial' if we were so inclined (like it has been done) but it is still life none-the-less.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by molbiogirl, posted 08-31-2007 5:13 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: I think that you are assuming too much about me. I have no problem calling this life. And yet you have a problem recognizing that there is no difference when there is no detectable difference.
Even identical chemicals can be distinguished as synthetic or natural because of the way they were processed, yet they are chemically identical. That makes no sense. How could they be distinguished if they were chemically identical?
If one of the photos was digital and one was, uhhh, came from film... (is that analog?), but you didn't know that and you couldn't tell the difference, we could still say that the photos are different because one is digital and one isn't. This is getting old. The principle still applies: if you can't tell the difference, you can't claim that there's a difference.
I don't really have any ramifications for this difference in the two life forms. They are both life, its just that one was created by man and one wasn't. How can you say that that is not a difference? Show me the difference and I'll stop saying there's no difference.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 134 of 185 (419088)
08-31-2007 7:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by ringo
08-31-2007 6:01 PM
|
|
And yet you have a problem recognizing that there is no difference when there is no detectable difference. Yes, there is no detectable difference. I recognize that. But recognizable differences are not the only ones. Thier provenance, for example, is an unrecognizable differences.
Even identical chemicals can be distinguished as synthetic or natural because of the way they were processed, yet they are chemically identical. That makes no sense. How could they be distinguished if they were chemically identical? 1) We take our suppliers documented word for it. 2) We run an FTIR to make sure there's no recognizable difference.
This is getting old. The principle still applies: if you can't tell the difference, you can't claim that there's a difference. Old indeed. But I disagree with your principle. Are you saying that there cannot be differences that are unable to be recognized?
Show me the difference and I'll stop saying there's no difference. The difference is their provenance and it is unrecognizable.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 6:01 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 135 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 7:47 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Catholic Scientist writes: Are you saying that there cannot be differences that are unable to be recognized? I'm saying that if we don't recognize a difference - if there's no evidence of a difference - it's unscientific to claim there's a difference. Just saying you know there's a difference means nothing unless you can actually point to evidence of a difference.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels -------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
™ Version 4.2