I also believe dividing the universe into 'living' and non-living matter is the a really pointless and foolish exercise. Theres no magical point at which dead matter non-sentient matter suddenly takes on the quality of 'aliveness'.
another emmotional response from yours truly Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! no - I am saying life comes from life, as opposed to the reassembling of inert atomic particles
i second the human cell thing. to use an analogy... a leukocyte can reason what not to attack, and what to attack. but the say the myeloblasts fuck up, and now the human is inflicted with leukemia. uh oh. the leukocytes have lost their reason! the brain works together similarly, and as a whole, reasons. but say the brain fucks up, and you think delusionally and cannot thinking reasonably. uh oh, he's gone insane! i apply the soul to this, we might as well have a ridiculous amount of driving souls. they drive the leukocytes, but the cell is fucked up! with reason must mean i? you wouldn't think that, because they have no brain. they dont think on their own. but they can reason! tahthathatah okay i really have to get back studing. a;sdlkfj
Funny. I didn't feel any emotion. If you're referring to the word "bullshit," this is simply the most apt and parsimonious description of your response. Or, perhaps by "yours truly" you meant that in the sense one would close a note or letter. Fire is *not* inert. It is very reactive. It breathes oxygen. It consumes fuel. It reproduces. In fact, I would bet that any legitimate definition of "alive" you can come up with, I can say fire is alive.
Sort of, or rather i dont believe theres much point in arguing anything inbetween 'everything is dead' or 'everything is alive'.
Mycoplasma genitalium is probably the simplest modern life form that we know of today. It has a genome of only 400 units.. So Light, what is it at 350? 300? Where exactly is that "essential distinction"? When does a puppy become a dog? "At what point do we say something is a life form and not just a chemical reaction that causes molecules to replicate?" Well?
skinwalker your posts hardly ring of dispassion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! fire is however is a temporary form from an insentient substrate constructed by atomic combinations
so what is the problem withthe idea that there is a distinction between life and matter - in other words adopting a dualistic approach to the phenomenal world the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality Here is one offerred by a Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry) MATTER 1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth 2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy 3. Eternal 4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent 5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose LIFE 1. The superior energy of the absolute truth 2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy 3. Eternal 4. Non -physical and non-chemical 5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose He also offers th e phenomena by which we can detect the difference between matter and matter associated with life --like a dead tree and a living tree Matter by itself 1. Inert and dead 2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures 3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states 4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter 5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation 6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal) Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain) Matter associated with Life 1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc) 2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form 3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role 4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism) 5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction). 6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age) 7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles a puppy is quite an arbitrary designation - states of death and life are quite clear cut there are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of pregnant wrong dead
You do realize that there is practically nothing at an atomic level (at least nothing that we are evolved to notice); no consciousness, no pulse, no eyesight, no red spot on Jupiter, etc. Your main point seems to be that we don't understand how the fundamental particles of the universe cooperate to form large scale objects that we are familiar with, in which case, consciousness is just one of many things. The only difference is that people can't stomach the fact that our very sentience is a material process just like anything else.
A dualistic view is all well and good in assisting with understanding of complex, not-understood phenomena (e.g. consciousness etc) of the (material) world - but it is quite another to go from there to the idea that there are actually TWO elements - one of which obviously has to be beyond the scope of detection and observation.
someone should explain to me the meaning of 'I' and the soul in the following case when an individual is on lsd, where his self-perception of 'I' can be above floating above his body. however, the brain activity is in his brain. everything in his body is running. the feeling that 'I am outside my body and i can see my body' is merely brain chemistry. the whole idea of 'I' and 'amness' IS brain chemistry. the drug controls the whole 'I' and 'amness' as it dies down, you find 'yourself' back in your body. that's your mind, that's your brain chemistry... period. the awareness of 'I' is not a soul.
Its not so much as distinction between life and matter, its the reasoning that some matter is dead and some matter is alive which i find pretty absurd. The problem is you have to pick a finite point at which matter suddenly takes on the quality of aliveness. Where does this sudden change occur? Id argue that even if you pick a finite point at which dead matter becomes alive/consciousness (which i believe is absurd in itself) youre frequently setting yourself up for the likelyhood of comming across matter which can demonstrate aliveness despite falling bellow your finite point at which matter becomes 'alive'. by using quality as a critera youre just muddying the waters even more, you might as well judge aliveness on the basis of matter being what you percieve as 'hardy' or 'wonderous' or any other number of subjective qualities. Wow hes really mixing up subjective qualities he percieves in things with objective measurable attributes, are you sure this man is a scientist? When an organism 'dies' the chemicals and cellular structure simply cease to coperate as a coherent whole, however even after clinical death individual chemicals and cells are very much alive in isolation. Death in most cases simply relates to a sharp decrease in collective order of the constituent parts, matter doesnt just suddenly dispose of the quality of 'aliveness'.
just further illustrates the limitations of reductionist paradigms - if not even matter can be determined what can it ultimately determine? (BTW - I had thought of posting a comment by a reputed reductionist that they don't even know what matter is, but I thought it would be too much of a struggle to communicate that to the audience here - looks like you did it for me - thanks)
who said it was not detectable The point of the dualistic paradigm is that there are two substances - matter (which can be perceived on teh strength of one's empirical endeavour) and spirit (which can be perceived according to one's consciousness) - in other words one is the substance of dull matter and the other is the substance of consciousness - for instance when you say 'hello' to someone, what part of the form you are seeing before you do you address it to? (the nose, the eyebrows, the little toe?) this is all changes of conceived self (whether one thinks one is a person or a floating banana skin is all merely a change in conception) if the person who takes drugs dies then you would have a difference between the self a s context (the self is no longer visible in the corporeal body, reagrdless whether they were thinking they were a person or a floating banana peel at the time of death) the self as context is the "am" in "I think therefore I am" - in other words there are so many things I can doubt (am I a person? am I a floating banana skin?) but I can not doubt my process of thinking, since that is the mechanism doubt operates within
It is not quite as simple as you would seemingly like people to believe, which was my point - and Dr Singh hasn't really said anything of value. I would ask if possible if I could be given his first name or a link to a webpage concerning him. I looked up a Dr Singh with the relevant qualifications but couldn't find anything of interest. Thanks in advance. I find viruses of interest in this discussion and offer this quote from carleton edu: ""Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell". By this alone, "life" becomes quite a fuzzy thing. Would you consider a virus 'life'? Most likely not, would you consider a virus 'matter'? Most likely not. Your good old Dr Singh, (whom I would like to know more about), has put it under "matter associated with life", which is trying to say what exactly? That it isn't matter and it isn't life.. so what exactly is it? How about a self replicator? It isn't "alive", but it self replicates. So what exactly is it. Dr Singh seemingly puts it down as 'matter that moves'. Interesting.. No it isn't. But they're not.. Hell, even Dr Singh is having problems - having to make an new section for those that are seemingly in between. Heliocentric has made a few pointers worth noting.
Two different people can look at a 11 month old dog and be in disagreement about whether or not it is still a puppy...neither will be right or wrong because it is an arbitrary judgement. But, if the same two people are arguing about whether or not a dog is living or dead, one of them will be right and one will be wrong. Get it?
In this instance neither can accurately show whether it is a puppy or a dog - by that same token, the example I used with concerns to "matter that moves" becomes relevant. It isn't matter, it isn't life.. (people could argue either way) and thus the definition that actually constitutes exactly what is or isn't life is an equally arbitrary judgement, (also given my earlier statements concerning mycoplasma genitalium). This of course on the basis that they can distinguish the difference - unlike the earlier cited examples that leaves PHDs in organic chemistry trying to put it somewhere in the middle. It's not as simple as "right and wrong" I'm afraid.
Snakelord “ the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality ” its not clear why you think viruses are not examples of life according to Dr Singh's defintions check out the 6 qualtiies of life and the 7 qualities of matter and get back to us with your thoughts I think grover evidenced that it is if you can't tell whether a person is dead or alive then further pursuits of knowledge will not bear much
