Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
597 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 592 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,139 Year: 4,251/6,534 Month: 465/900 Week: 171/150 Day: 17/8 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 65 of 374 (772838)
11-19-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 5:19 PM


AlphaOmegakid writes:

All of these words carry ambiguous definitions themselves, and hence the current definitions of life are ambiguous and equivocal.


The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation. You need a complex network of definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 5:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 1:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 78 of 374 (772966)
11-21-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 1:14 PM


AlphOmegakid writes:

ringo writes:

The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation.


That's quite a philosophical statement.

It's the way science works. All of the assumptions in an experiment are confirmed as conclusions in other experiments.

There is no definitive "beginning" of knowledge. You can jump in anywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 1:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 147 of 374 (773420)
12-01-2015 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2015 12:33 PM


Re: Mercy Me!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Do you see any difference in "supposing an imaginary" observation, and real observations?


A good definition, like a good theory, should be able to accommodate new information. A good definition of life should predict what we "might" find on other planets, not just what we have already found in our own back yard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 12:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 1:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 166 of 374 (773467)
12-02-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2015 1:51 PM


Re: Mercy Me!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

But the observations come first before the modifications.


The point is that the definition ought to be able to accommodate new observations. If you define an animal as having pointed ears, what do you do when you observe one with round ears? Say it's not an animal? No. Instead, you should be leaving ear-shape out of your definition.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

All panspermia hypotheses predict life on other planets as being similar to ours.


Panspermia hypotheses are not the be-all and end-all. Science needs to consider the possibility of other forms of "life". What has already been observed is only a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 1:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 188 of 374 (773524)
12-03-2015 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 12:01 PM


Re: First life
AlphaOmegakid writes:

... God is living, but not biotic.


Your definition of life continues to shoot itself in the foot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:31 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 216 of 374 (773596)
12-04-2015 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 12:31 PM


Re: First life
AlphaOmegakid writes:

I guess you cannot understand the difference between science and philosophical thoughts and opinions.


This forum is not the place for philosophical thoughts or opinions. "God is alive" belongs in the religious section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 240 of 374 (773734)
12-08-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphOmegakid writes:

That is what I am elucidating to you and others that the boundary is not arbitrary nor arbitrarily chosen no matter how many times you say it.


The ends of the scale are not arbitrary. It's picking a point between the ends that's arbitrary.

Zero is not arbitrary and 100% is not arbitrary. Picking 55% as a passing grade is arbitrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 11:05 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 1:27 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 253 of 374 (773795)
12-09-2015 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 1:27 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Was it randomly chosen? Then it was arbitrary.


Zero and 100% are not arbitrary. They are the ends of the scale, like black and white.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Was there a specific reason 55% was chosen?


Arbitrary doesn't mean there's no reason. Some will chose 50% as a passing grade, some will chose 60%, some will chose 70%. All have their reasons for making their choice. It's an arbitrary point because there is no single reason for choosing one or another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 1:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 272 of 374 (773953)
12-11-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by AlphaOmegakid
12-11-2015 11:03 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Of course I put them together specifically to show you that your prior arguments were nonsensical.


Since nobody agrees with you, you don't seem to have "shown" anything. When you're right and everybody else is wrong, it may be time to try a different approach in your explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-11-2015 11:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 294 of 374 (774269)
12-15-2015 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by AlphaOmegakid
12-15-2015 12:05 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
quote:
Continuum...a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. Google

You quoted it but you don't seem to understand it: Black and white are distinct but gray and gray are not perceptibly different.

Imagine a room with one wall painted black and one wall painted white. Black is different from gray because you've hit he wall. White is different from gray because you've hit the wall. Everything else in the room is gray.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-15-2015 12:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-15-2015 1:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 307 of 374 (774345)
12-16-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by AlphaOmegakid
12-15-2015 1:10 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Alphaomegakid writes:

Now apply this to the analogy. Life is one wall. Chemicals the other wall. The gray in between. Fine. So all the things in the grey are not white or are not life.

Yes, I understand this exactly like you do.


No, you've misunderstood the analogy. By your definition, there is nothing between life and non-life - i.e. there is no room, just one wall touching the other; there is no gray, only black and white. That's not a continuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-15-2015 1:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-16-2015 4:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 314 of 374 (774403)
12-17-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by AlphaOmegakid
12-16-2015 4:11 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

How many non-distinct colors do we have?....One (gray, the transition between which has many shades)....Agree?


No. Every shade of gray is a colour. At the very least, we have dark gray, medium gray and light gray. Those are three "separate" colours even if they can't be defined unequivocally.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

This is a valid, logical continuum......Agree?


Yes, it's a continuum because it goes from one extreme to another without distinct "shades of gray".

AlphaOmegakid writes:

And what is between in the gray?....(Virions, Viruses, Self-replicating molecules, fire, crystals, etc.)....Agree?

All of this, I agree makes perfect sense as a continuum. Do you agree? All I need is your agreement or disagreement. I claim that this continuum fairly represents the transition from chemicals to life with a grey fuzzy area of things that are in between chemicals and life. Do you agree also?


This is what everybody has been trying to tell you: there is a continuum from non-life to life and some of the things "between" life and non-life can not be unequivocally defined as either life or non-life. With any unequivocal definition, there can be no shades of gray. An unequivocal definition of an equivocal situation has no value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-16-2015 4:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-17-2015 1:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 325 of 374 (774475)
12-18-2015 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by AlphaOmegakid
12-17-2015 1:45 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

I have argued that there is a valid continuum on this subject, but at the same time I have argued that there is no continuum at all that can be created between non-life and life.


I know you've argued that. You're wrong. The only way to argue away a fuzzy line between life and non-life is by defining it away, like you do. You're arbitrarily defining some gray as black and some gray as white. The problem is that that isn't a useful definition. If it was, scientists would have thought of it before you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-17-2015 1:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-18-2015 11:45 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 329 of 374 (774497)
12-18-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by AlphaOmegakid
12-18-2015 11:45 AM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

How can anything possibly be in between "life" and "non-life"? It can't


Of course it can. That's what people have been telling you for hundreds of posts.
"Is this thing alive?"
"I dunno."

AlphaOmegakid writes:

From non-life to life you have nothing but a dichotomy and no continuum.


That's a false dichotomy.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Forget my definition.


Done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-18-2015 11:45 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-18-2015 1:04 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 336 of 374 (774588)
12-19-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by AlphaOmegakid
12-18-2015 1:04 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

... you cannot say that DNA is any more closer to life than lead, because they are equally non-life.


DNA exists only in relation to living things, so it is definitely "closer to life" than lead. If DNA (or RNA or some other analog) did arise spontaneously from chemicals, then in doing so it became "closer to life".

Since you love analogies so much, here's another: Alsace-Lorraine is closer to France than it is to China. It is also closer to Germany than it is to China. However, sometimes in history it has been part of France and sometimes it has been part of Germany. The only way to define it unequivocally is to pick an arbitrary point in time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-18-2015 1:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Admin, posted 12-19-2015 12:50 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022