Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 374 (773493)
12-02-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
12-02-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
The ambiguity lies in the middle, not at the endpoints, and in the middle is where your attempt at a definition of life fails...
Exactly my definition is for the endpoint, and it should fail in the middle. Just as I have said over and over, and over again.
because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary..
Again, your contradicting yourself, because you just said the endpoints were not ambiguous which means the line was drawn. Your having a tough time facing your own words, are you not?
and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know.
I certainly hope I am "uniformed by what I do not know"! Have a great evening. See ya tomorrow....unless tomorrow is a continuum of today, which means..... well, I give up, I just can't think this illogically. It's like a virus exploding my brain cells!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 4:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 177 of 374 (773494)
12-02-2015 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Tanypteryx
12-02-2015 5:35 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
I know it's contradictory.
tany writes:
Why do you care about the definition of life so much? What is in it for you?
I just like to see evos twist and turn and flip in their mental gymnastics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:35 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 185 of 374 (773517)
12-03-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
12-02-2015 8:43 PM


Re: self-replicating virus - again ...
RAZD writes:
Ah, so comprehension of parenthetical statements modifying the main statement of what is posted is also one of your problems in understanding what is said. Do I need to parse it for you?
Oh, by all means do so. I would be happy to see how you "Clintonize" "Is".
Just for clarification...
(1) It doesn't address the issue of viral life, which is increasingly being accepted as life forms as more is found out (self replication without host, metabolism and making of proteins used to encase it, etc);
Yes, it appears that your parenthetical statement clarifies what you mean by "as more is found out."
But that's not all! In message 138 you said..
RAZD writes:
Indeed, especially as we see more and more viruses that are capable of replication without high-jacking cells, and as we look closer and closer into the possible development of life. Viruses are being more and more accepted as an intermediate stage from first life to modern cellular life.
Unfortunately, there are no parentheses here!
These claims are false. I gave you plenty of time to correct yourself, and it only appears that you want to dig your hole deeper. Viruses outside a host cell DO NOT replicate or metabolize. That's why I asked for evidence, which you haven't provided.
This is the second half of your statement:
rather it ignores it and pretends that it is non-life, and in the process creates a third category of things: life, non-life that behaves like life (evolves, reproduces, etc, and not what is generally understood as "non-life"), and non-life that doesn't behave like life (rocks, and other non-life as it is generally understood). Not being able to distinguish between these last two cases is a fatal flaw.
These claims are likewise false. The definition is one that identifies "life" or "living organisms". So viruses or any other chemical arrangement must be evaluated against the definition and not your parody of it. The definition does not "ignore and pretend that viruses are non-life" (paraphrase) Instead the definition clarifies what a virus really is. A virus is a poison to living cells. When it is outside a host cell the definition identifies that it is not life. It cannot respire, make proteins, replicate, grow, adapt, or evolve. When it enters a living host, it actively starts disturbing the cell. My definition properly identifies the living organism as an infected host cell. That cell is alive. This is consistent with Cell Theory. The virus is only "alive" in the sense that it is part of a cell. Within that environment, the virus self-assembles duplicates and those populations evolve. But once the damaged cell explodes or the viral particles are released, the virus goes back to its chemical state, which is not living. All Life comes from pre-existing life. There are no exceptions to this. Those scientist you appeal to as claiming that viruses are "alive" are only claiming this within a host cell. So my definition properly and consistently with all other scientific observations and theories clarifies what a virus is in all of its forms.
It has always amazed me how evos always appeal to viruses and prions which kill living tissues as being "evidence of evolving life forms" . They are actually the opposite. At least, that's the way the medical field treats them.
And by the way- viruses are very much like rocks and they often are a part of rocks.
And I will answer your other failing objections as I get around to it. Your elephant hurling takes some time to address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2015 8:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 7:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 7:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 186 of 374 (773520)
12-03-2015 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
12-03-2015 7:51 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
The problem is that it fails at an *arbitrarily* chosen point in the middle, and that it is insufficiently general, as everyone keeps telling you over and over again.
quote:
Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle".[1]
Arbitrariness - Wikipedia
Yours, and others claims of my definition as being arbitrary are false. Please Identify how my definition meets any part of the definition of being arbitrary.
And what scientific principle requires "sufficient general-ness"? Scientific definitions are specific, except on some items within "biology" which seems to be acceptive of equivocation.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 2:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 208 by herebedragons, posted 12-03-2015 7:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 187 of 374 (773523)
12-03-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
12-03-2015 9:55 AM


First life
Percy writes:
Where did the first life come from?
Scientifically, no one knows. In my personal opinion, God created it. Again, this is philosophical, but God is living, but not biotic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 9:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 12-03-2015 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 2:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 189 of 374 (773525)
12-03-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ringo
12-03-2015 12:13 PM


Re: First life
I guess you cannot understand the difference between science and philosophical thoughts and opinions. Sorry for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 12-03-2015 12:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by ringo, posted 12-04-2015 10:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 190 of 374 (773526)
12-03-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
12-03-2015 7:51 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
Sorry, I thought it would have been clear from context, but evidently you found use of the term "draw the line" confusing. "Draw the line" is a common English expression meaning, in this context, "an indication of demarcation; boundary." Another way of saying it would have been, "Because anywhere you place the boundary between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary." This is the same thing people have already been telling you.
Ok, I understand now! from your previous example a dog is obviously "arbitrarily" alive, and a rock is obviously "arbitrarily" non-living. That makes perfect sense now. To me, you are just stumbling all over yourself trying to justify a contradictory thought process.
The problem is your lack of understanding of "arbitrary".
I know a lot of people keep telling me this, but that doesn't make it not contradictory. I don't know how many time I have to keep demonstrating this in yours, and everyone else's own words. I guess you all have been trained to think this way, but it is not logical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 191 of 374 (773527)
12-03-2015 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
12-03-2015 9:55 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
With something as complex as life you're not going to find clear lines of demarcation.
You can say this over and over again, but you haven't established this evidentially. In fact, your own words refute this by saying certain things are "obviously alive" and certain things are "obviously non-living". By doing that you have drawn an "obvious" line somewhere within your mind. You haven't said where that line exists, but it obviously is "obvious" to you.
Please support with evidence your claim above. Cell theory has many clear demarcation lines for life. Why can't a definition have the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 9:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2015 1:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 2:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 196 of 374 (773534)
12-03-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
12-03-2015 9:55 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
And then the virus enters another cell and is alive again? Really?
Yes, really. That's exactly what we observe!
No, that's not what we observe. That's what you claim according to your own private definition. You're not going to have much luck selling a definition where biological agents move back and forth between living and non-living.
Ok, I see where the confusion lies. The virus that enters the cell is not the same as the viruses that leave the cell. These are different entities. "offspring" so to speak. So, No, the same entity that infects the cell is basically destroyed and the new virions are released. It is not that a virus is moving back and forth between living and non-living.
So let me clarify, so that hopefully everyone understands. I have a previous post on this to RAZD. A virion (virus) is non-living by my definition. The infected host cell is alive. The host cell has living tissue within it. Viruses are replicating and assembling inside the host cell. Therefore, they are part of the cell and are alive during this period by my definition. Once the virions are released by the cell, they are non-living entities, but they are not the same entity that infected the original host cell. They are it's "offspring". Some viruses live inside cells a long time before they cause significant damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 9:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-03-2015 4:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 206 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2015 5:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-04-2015 5:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 197 of 374 (773535)
12-03-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tangle
12-03-2015 1:11 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Tangle writes:
Tell me, is a seed alive?
Some are, and some are not. I will post more on this to RAZD. There are dead seeds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2015 1:11 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2015 4:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 198 of 374 (773536)
12-03-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2015 2:11 PM


Re: First life
Cat Sci writes:
Then it wasn't the first life, because God was already a life.
Sure philosophically, but not scientifically. Scientifically and Biologically, life must be defined in natural terms which I have done. This doesn't necessarily apply to a different philosophical discussion or logic where life may be defined differently.
Not all of us in this world accept the strict philosophical naturalism that underpins science. Some of us can accept both natural and supernatural explanations of cause and affect. But that's another forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 199 of 374 (773538)
12-03-2015 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2015 2:15 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Cat Sci writes:
Wrong. Just like the with the gradient I posted, you can clearly see that one edge is white and the other edge is black, but it is impossible to determine where white stops and black starts.
This is getting really old, and I feel bad every time I do this. Your statement contradicts itself. Open your eyes and let the light in.
You just said that we can "clearly see that one edge is white and the other edge is black". Cat Sci I agree 100%. That edge is the line of demarcation. It starts and/or ends there. The in-between is some shade of grey. I also agree 100%. Therefore, if the black and white edge are clear, then the start of grey on both side is equally as clear. Open your eyes and listen to the words you write.
I know you guys have been in these forums a long time, and that causes "group thinking". This comes from an incorrect emotional appeal to your psyche. However, you can logically overcome this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 3:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 202 of 374 (773542)
12-03-2015 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2015 3:24 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Cat Sci writes:
Wrong. There is no clear line where the white edge turns into grey.
Sure there is, and here is the proof. If you take the image as given with the left side clearly being white as you say and have agreed. And you then extend the left side out to infinity with white only, then the edge of white and grey will still be there. It hasn't moved.
I can keep repeating this as long as you like, just like you keep repeating your contradictory argument. It will get us no where. I don't do this to convince the "group thinkers". I Know it is very rare to change one of their minds. I do this for the visitors who peak in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 4:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 205 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-03-2015 4:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 207 of 374 (773550)
12-03-2015 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2015 4:47 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Cat Sci # 1 mess 204 writes:
There is no edge of white and grey
Cat Sci #2 mess 195 writes:
Wrong. Just like the with the gradient I posted, you can clearly see that one edge is white and the other edge is black . . the grey area in between.
Cat Sci #1 mess 200 writes:
Wrong. There is no clear line where the white edge turns into grey.
Cat Sci #2 mess 195 writes:
Wrong. Just like the with the gradient I posted, you can clearly see that one edge is white and the other edge is black . . the grey area in between.
And around and around he goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 8:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 211 of 374 (773576)
12-04-2015 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2015 8:05 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
I have 2 full years of calculus starting with derivatives then integrals and later matrices. I am also highly trained/schooled in certain scientific fields. etc. I know full well what a gradient is, but it is not I who misunderstands them.
It appears from the evidence in your post that you have some experience with web development. Well whether you create your gradient in Photoshop or using some other website tool, you used the hexadecimal standardized color code. Within whatever program you used to generate the image , you inputted the starting color code and the ending color code and defined the vector direction and shape and distance. The mere fact that you inputted the codes for white and black created the edges of whatever shape function you also inputted or used. There is a line or functional edge in these gradients that you are using. In your newest image it is a circle. Have you ever used a cookie cutter? That's a circular edge. The black circle exists in your image, and I assume there is either a white circle or a white point. The grey vectors are in between.
So please stop burying yourself deeper and deeper trying to argue that there is no edge when you yourself,and in your own words recognize that there is. You apparently are self deceived and the evidence is clear. I would take this to court any day of the week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2015 8:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2015 9:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-04-2015 10:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024