Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modularity, A distinguishing property of life
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 291 (514130)
07-04-2009 12:51 AM


As far as a working definition of life goes I like to combine this
life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form
Life - Wikipedia
with the drive/ability for reproduction. Of course, this only works on a species wide scale, but I believe it works.

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 291 (514188)
07-04-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2009 2:14 PM


Re: Instantaneous
It's common sense. I look at a frog and it is alive. I look at a rock and it is non-living, my likes or dislikes be damned.
"common sense" as you call it is actually what caused people to believe abiogenesis hundreds to thousands of years ago. They saw a pile of dead meat, then saw flies coming out of it and used there "common sense" to come up with the explanation that flies are born from meat. So if you want to take the common sense approach(and not the scientific experimentation one) then you would have to believe in abiogenesis.
To further explain, I would like you to answer the following questions.
When you "look"(and I use this term metaphorically) at a virus, is it alive or nonliving? Why?
When you "look" at a self replicating molecule, is it alive or nonliving? Why?
Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.
Edited by themasterdebator, : added quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:20 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 291 (514299)
07-05-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony
07-05-2009 8:17 PM


Re: Intelligent design reductionist
In the reductionist view (approach), that phenomena we see ("Life") can be explained in terms of components and how those components interact with each other. - Life is a mechanism.
This is the greatest technology we have ever fallen over. We can not surpass it even with the greatest human minds. These artificial "life" forms are nothing less then intelligently made.
Machines that think they themselves are alive but are not. The illusion of intellectually extreme complexity. The technology of creating life like systems, highly automated to create the illusions of living systems.
Even the universe is an illusion of nature, make, designed to fool even the wisest fools like mankind - that’s you and me.
machines are not as intelligent as life yet. give it another 100 years and I bet they will be evolving at a rate far beyond any living thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 07-05-2009 8:17 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 291 (515171)
07-16-2009 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Filameter
07-15-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Perception, reality, survival, modularity, etc.
As to the evolution of our senses as a factor in the survival of our species: our senses, e.g., of smell, vision and hearing are quite poor compared to many other animals. Do you think in the course of evolution we lost some of the capabilites of our senses, compared to other species relatively close to us in the evolutionary tree, which implies a common ancestor ? How would having poorer vision, hearing and smell improve our species' chances of survival ?
Also, humans are able to survive short-term in space and in ocean deeps, despite never having previously had to. How do you think those capabilities evolved without subjecting our ancestors to a relevant selection pressure ?
What is/was the evolutionary advantage which selected us, but no other primate, for loss of body hair ?
My point: I think it is a mistake to assume that our characteristics are all the result of selection for short-term survival advantages.
Humans are very poorly designed for under water survival. If you were to simply quickly go underwater(like just shoot down to 50 feet) you would very likely die. We can't survive simply going into deep water. Our bodies have numerous flaws. In order to get to deep water we have to equalize ourselves numerous times on the way down and we can only stay for a very limited time anyway. Plus, some people cant even do that. Its all about luck really. Our deep water survival skills are pretty poor.
On body hair, there is a separate thread on that I believe, but it is advantageous over long distances(a human could outrun almost any animal over a long distance.) and allot less hot.
On senses, we have a unique set of senses, not neccesarily poorer. Senses require energy and effort to focus on, large amounts of unneccesary sense information would NOT be evolutionarily beneficial. If you look at animals with more developed senses, they have considerably larger brain areas which control those functions. Furthermore, those senses are not really neccesary for humans niche. We have decent development for every sense, just nothing super exeptional, because it would not be needed for us.
Now, this all assumes we have an evolutionary standpoint. If an all powerful being was in charge, there is no real reason not to give us our current intellegence and super developed senses.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Filameter, posted 07-15-2009 12:01 PM Filameter 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