Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
98 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 96 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 46 of 374 (772717)
11-18-2015 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2015 10:15 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2015 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2015 2:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 47 of 374 (772718)
11-18-2015 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
11-13-2015 1:02 AM


Word Magik
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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 11-13-2015 1:02 AM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 9:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8549
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 48 of 374 (772720)
11-18-2015 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 8:54 AM


Re: Word Magik
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 8:54 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 49 of 374 (772738)
11-18-2015 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tangle
11-18-2015 9:08 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 9:08 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 11:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8549
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 50 of 374 (772741)
11-18-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 11:14 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 12:10 PM Tangle has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 51 of 374 (772749)
11-18-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tangle
11-18-2015 11:32 AM


yeah, so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 11:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8549
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 52 of 374 (772751)
11-18-2015 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 12:10 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 12:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 2:31 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 53 of 374 (772768)
11-18-2015 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
11-18-2015 12:13 PM


Great, I'll be happy to ignore your comments in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2015 12:13 PM Tangle has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2015 4:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 374 (772769)
11-18-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 8:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 8:47 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 5:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 374 (772784)
11-18-2015 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 2:31 PM


Great, I'll be happy to ignore your comments in the future.

Cool, now you can stop ignoring mine:

Message 41


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 2:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 374 (772789)
11-18-2015 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
11-15-2015 12:22 PM


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?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2015 12:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2015 2:02 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2015 2:09 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2015 2:10 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 374 (772790)
11-18-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2015 7:24 PM


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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2015 7:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2015 5:32 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2150 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 58 of 374 (772791)
11-18-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2015 2:35 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2015 2:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-19-2015 11:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2015 1:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 374 (772793)
11-18-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
11-18-2015 5:15 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2015 5:15 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 374 (772795)
11-18-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid
11-17-2015 6:05 PM


... So since a cell is the smallest unit of life ...

Is it? By your definition (Message 1):

quote:
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA.

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, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-17-2015 6:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 10:08 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 2:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022