The Scientific Definition of Life

[huttnedu]

Here's a great article I found which provides an unambiguous, non-contradictory definition of life.

From the article:

What is life? What could this term possibly refer to?

a) An entity? If so, which one? Should we go on an expedition to compile a list?

b) A process? If so, what specific process distinguishes life from all other processes?

 

Even though Cosmologists are searching for life and Biologists are handling it, none of them can define this seemingly elusive term. They complain that it’s very challenging to define it, their brains hurt from thinking about it and it’s unfair to make such unreasonable demands of them. Why don’t we just give these poor fellas a break then? Nonetheless, Biologists have concluded that life is one of those terms that cannot be defined or understood. That’s why they can’t tell you whether DNA or viruses are alive; or whether DNA is the building block of life. When you can’t define, you have no clue.

This article will rationally define life in no ambiguous or contradictory terms so it can be used consistently in Science. The reader will understand that the term ‘life’ is a concept alluding to what is inherently dynamic. So whatever definition we can critically reason, it must necessarily describe the dynamic criterion that is common to all living entities in the Universe; whether we know about them or not. 

I hope you'll check it out, it's a great paper. 

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Scientific-Definition-of-LIFE

 

[ribuck]

 

Here's a great article I found which provides an unambiguous, non-contradictory definition of life...

The paper proposes that things are alive if they move by themselves against gravity. Are you actually serious about this, or is it some kind of joke?

What about a cell in orbit around the earth? How does it move by itself against gravity? What about flames? Are they not moving by themselves against gravity just as much as I am when I jump?

[huttnedu]

 

The paper proposes that things are alive if they move by themselves against gravity. Are you actually serious about this, or is it some kind of joke?

What about a cell in orbit around the earth? How does it move by itself against gravity? What about flames? Are they not moving by themselves against gravity just as much as I am when I jump?

 

A cell, if it is alive is necessarily resisting the universal pull of gravity. Gravity pulls everything, even if you are out in orbit. 

Flames? I understand that in normal usage, we can use flame as a noun, but physically, fire is a process of oxidation.  "Flames" do not move in reality, only objects such as oxygen and carbon molecules move.  These carbon/oxygen molecules do not suddenly propel themselves against gravity. A physical interaction between the carbon/oxygen which we call oxidation is responsible for the lift of air molecules, these air molecules do not move themselves by any stretch of the imagination.

Was your response serious? It seems kind of like a joke to me. 

[mythness]

To "move against gravitational pull" does not clear anything up, if you ask me. Are not the molecules that make up a "living entity" bound by the same limits of gravitational forces? Fatfist has used the term "volition" in the past to define life, yet this is incompatible with his rejection of free will.

 

Where, in the interactions of the molecules and atoms that make up a living thing (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, et al), does this resistance to gravitational forces occur?

 

Serious question.

[mythness]

Fatfist is very intelligent and knows how to communicate his message, but the guy is hard to take seriously when he engages in a conversation with anyone who isn't stroking his ego:

 

Actually, this individual had a mental breakdown over the past few
weeks. He realized that all he learned in school as “proven” by the
priests of academia….is nothing more than contradictory authoritative
dogma shoved down his throat. He’s been trying for weeks to find a
single flaw and contradict reason & rationality, but he fell on his
face. That’s what happens when you fight reality so you can protect your
Religion. He became mentally obsessed with me and my Science articles.
…to the point where he hasn’t been sleeping. He needs psychiatric help.
Unfortunately he can’t obtain it here. He needs to stay off the
Internet, but he lives alone so nobody is there for him. He used to
belong to Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Cult,…..and since that charlatan
did a number on his brain, brainwashing, torment, etc..his behavior here
is of no surprise. He won’t be posting here again.

 

Really, for a guy who is all about "defining your terms", he should define "cult" before throwing it around so loosely. (Yes, he's used "cult" to describe Stef and FDR multiple times in the past.)

 

A pattern I've noticed with him is that he loves to throw the following words around in his articles and comments. They're almost always used in a negative connotation to describe those who do not accept his arguments: priest, religion, cult, church, absolutist, god / god-like, and so on.

 

I used to follow his articles regularly, but his personality started to bore me, and it began to sound like a broken record after a certain point.

[huttnedu]

 

To "move against gravitational pull" does not clear anything up, if you ask me. Are not the molecules that make up a "living entity" bound by the same limits of gravitational forces? Fatfist has used the term "volition" in the past to define life, yet this is incompatible with his rejection of free will.

 

Where, in the interactions of the molecules and atoms that make up a living thing (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, et al), does this resistance to gravitational forces occur?

 

Serious question.

 

Volition is more of a synonym for life.

Living refers to the process of an object (that which has shape), you're attempted to perform a religious ceremony called "Mereology", implying that the parts = the whole.

It is not the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, that mooves when a cell moves, it is the cell. You are attempted to define an object as the list of it's parts instead of realizing that an object is NOT defined, an object simply has a shape and that shape relates with other shapes in definite ways.  The way an object relates to others if it is living is resisting gravitation, meaning, no external objects are responsible for it's movement. That is how we can scientifically define life. 

All objects in the U are subjected to gravity, an object is living if it has naturally developed the ability to resist that pull. Forget the atoms comprising it. Those are one shape and have some properties of their own, a living object like a cell is another shape and has different properties. The parts do not equal the whole. 

[huttnedu]

 

Fatfist is very intelligent and knows how to communicate his message, but the guy is hard to take seriously when he engages in a conversation with anyone who isn't stroking his ego:

 

Actually, this individual had a mental breakdown over the past few
weeks. He realized that all he learned in school as “proven” by the
priests of academia….is nothing more than contradictory authoritative
dogma shoved down his throat. He’s been trying for weeks to find a
single flaw and contradict reason & rationality, but he fell on his
face. That’s what happens when you fight reality so you can protect your
Religion. He became mentally obsessed with me and my Science articles.
…to the point where he hasn’t been sleeping. He needs psychiatric help.
Unfortunately he can’t obtain it here. He needs to stay off the
Internet, but he lives alone so nobody is there for him. He used to
belong to Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Cult,…..and since that charlatan
did a number on his brain, brainwashing, torment, etc..his behavior here
is of no surprise. He won’t be posting here again.

 

Really, for a guy who is all about "defining your terms", he should define "cult" before throwing it around so loosely. (Yes, he's used "cult" to describe Stef and FDR multiple times in the past.)

 

A pattern I've noticed with him is that he loves to throw the following words around in his articles and comments. They're almost always used in a negative connotation to describe those who do not accept his arguments: priest, religion, cult, church, absolutist, god / god-like, and so on.

 

I used to follow his articles regularly, but his personality started to bore me, and it began to sound like a broken record after a certain point.

 

I speak with Fatfist regularly on facebook in the Rational Science group and he is actually quite a reasonable fellow.  See, we are weary of the jungle called Scientific debate. Some of the big-wig Scientific Establishment celebrities have come out encouraging ridicule, such as Lawrence Krauss, "Nothing is above ridicule."

Try questioning Einstein in any physics forum. Ask them what it means for space to be bent or how something could possibly exist without a size or shape and you'll get laughed out of the room! Most of them are far worse than Fatfist, to be sure. They are the "nerdy" atheists. The ones who hate God but wish Star Trek or Star Wars could be possible.

And Fatfist calls it a religion because it is. A religion is an irrational explanation, plain and simple. I don't necessarily agree with him about FDR being a cult but Stefan has offered some irrational definitions & explanations in his books and podcasts, mostly surrounding truth and morality. But that's not what this thread concerns. 

[Victor]

an object is living if it has naturally developed the ability to resist that pull.

Under this definition, mineral deposits are alive.

It's an ingenious take on the question, one I had not seen. But it looks more to be provocative than accurate. The definition of life I work with is very direct, simple and verifiable:

Life is a self-sustaining (self-driven, not directed or sustained by an external process) chemical (using matter and energy) process that self-replicates (multiplies) and adapts (evolves).

There are a number of other processes that approach but not quite become life (fire, self-replicating clay minerals, viruses). And also this definition is very accurate in helping us call when something dies (no-longer able to self-sustain, multiply and adapt).

What do you think?

[ribuck]

Life is a self-sustaining (self-driven, not directed or sustained by an external process) chemical (using matter and energy) process that self-replicates (multiplies) and adapts (evolves).

As an informal definition, "Life is that which evolves" works very well. It includes viruses (which certainly evolve) but not lower-level things like prions (which can sort-of move themselves ("fold") and reproduce ("replicate") but don't evolve).

However, it's hard to formalise that simple definition in a way that works for everyone. Because an individual instance of a species doesn't itself evolve, it becomes necessary to require replication. But then a castrated man is not alive because he can't reproduce! You could talk about life comprising instances of species that evolve, but then you end up having to define "species" which is hard to do without introducing a circularity.

Although it's interesting to ponder the definition of "life", there's no scientific need to rigorously define such a loose concept, just as we don't have a rigorous definition of "sand" or "food" or "furniture". Instead, scientists use rigorous specialised definitions that are not universal but suit the purpose at hand.

[huttnedu]

 

"Under this definition, mineral deposits are alive."

 

How does a mineral deposit move itself against gravity? I've never heard of a mineral deposit moving itself around without any external causation. An accumulation of minerals, such as a Stalagmite may appear as though it grew up out of the ground on it's own, but that is not actually happens.  The earth pulls mineralized water from the ceiling and those minerals accumulate. This accumulation and growth is DUE TO gravity, not in spite of it.

 

"Life is a self-sustaining (self-driven, not directed or sustained by an external process) chemical (using matter and energy) process that self-replicates (multiplies) and adapts (evolves)."

 

Self-sustaining is necessary but not sufficient to the definition of life... Stars are self-sustaining systems that are not directed or sustained by any process external to itself, yet, Stars obey gravity like all other inert objects.

 

If replication was the definition of life then you would not be able to classify an organism as "living" until you saw it replicate.  Clearly, it is possible to imagine a living organism that does NOT replicate.  Some humans die and never replicate... were they never alive?

 

Adaptation is yet another criterion that requires us to run an experiment to determine whether or not a living object adapts.  What if the living object does not adapt and instead it dies when you change it's environment. Does that mean it WASN'T alive? Of course not.

 

"Although it's interesting to ponder the definition of "life", there's no scientific need to rigorously define such a loose concept, just as we don't have a rigorous definition of "sand" or "food" or "furniture"."

 

There are no "loose concepts" in Science. Equivocations and ambiguities are for religion. A rational concept can always resolve to a specific meaning.  Biology is the study of living objects... the key word in question here is "living". What do we mean when we utilize this verb? If we hope to make a distinction between living and non-living objects then we need to define our term, plain and simple.

 

Your point about defining objects such as "sand" "food" or "furniture" is a non-sequitor. Concepts are necessarily defined, objects are not. Objects are illustrated, not defined. You cannot "define an object"... only concepts. Concepts are relations between objects, and without specifying the relation, the concept has no meaning.

 

[mythness]

Volition is more of a synonym for life.

 

Huh? What does that even mean? I could say something random like "beauty is more of a synonym for art." For one to have "volition", one chooses. We do not say that plants are willful or have volition.

implying that the parts = the whole.

 

More like implying that "the whole" is contingent on there being parts to begin with. Let's not talk about the concept "whole" and disregard the parts which allow us to even talk about "the whole" in the first place.

It is not the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, that mooves when a cell moves, it is the cell.

 

Pray tell, how on earth does this "cell" move? By what mechanism? A bi-pedal human moves about using his legs. We say this "person moves", taking for granted the mechanism behind his movement. However, such movement is not possible without his legs (part of his "whole" body) to begin with. (Please don't say he can always drag himself forward with his arms. This is only to illustrate a point.) I ask you, without the atoms that make up a "cell", how does this cell move against gravity? Remember, these atoms are at the mercy of gravity, just like the same atoms that make up a rock or a drop of water. By what mechanism does this cell "move against gravity" (live)?

 

Here are some atoms at the mercy of gravity: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen

 

Nothing special.

 

Here they are again, but in relation to each other to form what we know as amino acids.

 

Nothing special.

 

And let us continue this structure until magically, with the addition of just one extra molecule (or even atom), this "whole" we now call a "cell" moves against gravity, and not with it.

 

A house of bricks is still comprised of individual bricks. The nature of each brick does not change, regardless of the other bricks around it. You could argue that "the whole" (house) "provides" shelter, which an individual brick cannot, but that is only a meaning that we give to the function "the house".

 

I would like to hear by what mechanism a cell (or any object) "lives" (AKA: moves against gravity). Then I will accept that "to live" boils down "to move against gravity."

[ribuck]

 

"Although it's interesting to ponder the definition of "life", there's no scientific need to rigorously define such a loose concept..."

There are no "loose concepts" in Science. Equivocations and ambiguities are for religion.

Of course. Instead, scientists use rigorous specialised definitions that are not universal but suit the purpose at hand. I already said this. You can do rigorous science without needing to have a universal definition of "life".

The scientist rigorously defines whatever it is that he/she is studying.

Your point about defining objects such as "sand" "food" or
"furniture" is a non-sequitor.

Do you really think so? Let's consider furniture. It's a concept that covers chairs, tables, sofas, beds, etc, just as life covers mammals, bacteria, etc. And furniture as a concept is as fuzzy as life, with lots of gray areas. For example, is an old wooden box a piece of furniture? What about the bed from a dolls house? "Furniture" is most certainly not an object as you suggested. You don't go to the store to buy a furniture.

The definition of "life" is a philosophical or linguistic exercise, not a scientific one. It's the same with furniture.

[Victor]

As an informal definition, "Life is that which evolves" works very well. It includes viruses (which certainly evolve) but not lower-level things like prions (which can sort-of move themselves ("fold") and reproduce ("replicate") but don't evolve).

Many things evolve. Ideas evolve. This is not a sufficient definition. If you apply the definition I gave above, then viruses are not alive, but interact with living things. They are replicated, but are not self-sustained. It is the nucleus of a cell that holds and sustains the processes replicating viruses.

 

However, it's hard to formalise that simple definition in a way that works for everyone. Because an individual instance of a species doesn't itself evolve, it becomes necessary to require replication. But then a castrated man is not alive because he can't reproduce! You could talk about life comprising instances of species that evolve, but then you end up having to define "species" which is hard to do without introducing a circularity.

It's not hard to use the definition when one realizes that the object this definition applies to is the cell. The multicellular organism is an aggregate of living cells. There are emergent properties that can be identified only in these kinds of organisms, and they die, while many cells remain alive (that's where it becomes complicated). But it's simplified when you recognize that a multicellular organism is a collection of living cells that work together (for the most part) for the multiplication of these cells (if not all, the sexual cells at least).

[Victor]

 

"Under this definition, mineral deposits are alive."

 

How does a mineral deposit move itself against gravity? I've never heard of a mineral deposit moving itself around without any external causation. An accumulation of minerals, such as a Stalagmite may appear as though it grew up out of the ground on it's own, but that is not actually happens.  The earth pulls mineralized water from the ceiling and those minerals accumulate. This accumulation and growth is DUE TO gravity, not in spite of it.

 

Plants grow thanks to the capillariy effect. They don't move stuff up against gravity. Electrostatic forces arrange proteins in a way, and the sun drives this process. Plants don't "move" against gravity. We can say the same for many different kinds of bacteria, fungy and microbial plants. Some of these don't move at all. So the definition based on defying gravity does not work.

 

 

Self-sustaining is necessary but not sufficient to the definition of life... Stars are self-sustaining systems that are not directed or sustained by any process external to itself, yet, Stars obey gravity like all other inert objects.

 

If replication was the definition of life then you would not be able to classify an organism as "living" until you saw it replicate.  Clearly, it is possible to imagine a living organism that does NOT replicate.  Some humans die and never replicate... were they never alive?

 

Adaptation is yet another criterion that requires us to run an experiment to determine whether or not a living object adapts.  What if the living object does not adapt and instead it dies when you change it's environment. Does that mean it WASN'T alive? Of course not.

 

 

 

I agree. None of these criteria are sufficient to objectively identify what life is. But all of them combined are objectively necessarry and sufficient. That's what I mean by saying that the definition is direct, simple and verifiable.

 

[huttnedu]

"And let us continue this structure until magically, with the addition of just one extra molecule (or even atom), this "whole" we now call a "cell" moves against gravity, and not with it."

 

There's no magic. And you're focused on what structures in particular can possibly be living.

I am not attempting to develop a theory as to WHAT objects can be living, just that the term living means "this object has naturally developed the ability to move itself against gravity."

 

"You could argue that "the whole" (house) "provides" shelter, which an individual brick cannot, but that is only a meaning that we give to the function "the house"."

 

You have to recognize that "the house" is NOT a function and we do not define OBJECTS. Not by functions or relations or anything at all! Objects merely have a particular SHAPE which can be illustrated.

I don't define "a cell" or "a house" or "a brick". I just point to the object and I give it a name. When refering to an object, we are simply referencing a shape. 

It is irrational to say that a carbon atom (one shape) should perform all of the functions of a cell (another shape). It does not matter if you can tear that cell apart into individual carbon atoms, because when the carbon atoms stick together in certain shapes... we don't call them carbon atoms anymore! We call them CELLS. I reiterate.. the parts =/= the whole.

[huttnedu]

"Plants grow thanks to the capillariy effect. They don't move stuff up against gravity. Electrostatic forces arrange proteins in a way..."

 

Plants do not grow thanks to an "effect". The term capillary effect itself refers to the ACTION of water being squeezed through narrow places. "Electrostatic force" is a concept referring to how those things are being arranged. The term "electrostatic force" itself refers to an action. Actions can only be performed by objects, so "force" is synonymous with "arrangement". The action "to force" cannot perform the action "to arrange". 

Growth, forcing, arrangement, ect. is due to the STRUCTURE of the cell, not some nebulous "forces" and "actions". Growth is a verb. What is it that grows? The plant.

When a tree pushes itself out of the acorn and up toward the sun, NOTHING is responsible for that movement apart from the plant's own structure.

 

"I agree. None of these criteria are sufficient to objectively identify what life is. But all of them combined are objectively necessarry and sufficient. That's what I mean by saying that the definition is direct, simple and verifiable."

 

I think you're missing my point. My point is that we cannot define ONE distinct concept in terms of other distinct concepts.

To live is one action, distinct from "to evolve" or "to reproduce" ect. And this is clear because YOU YOURSELF can recognize when an object is living without first filling out this checklist of criteria.

[mythness]

 

 

"And let us continue this structure until magically, with the addition of just one extra molecule (or even atom), this "whole" we now call a "cell" moves against gravity, and not with it."

 

There's no magic. And you're focused on what structures in particular can possibly be living.

I am not attempting to develop a theory as to WHAT objects can be living, just that the term living means "this object has naturally developed the ability to move itself against gravity."

 

And that's why I ask for the mechanism of this movement (against gravity). This is the same type of question posed to those who argue for "free will". The parts that make up the physical brain of a human are all subject to the same physical laws, so one asks "Where does this exception to the physical laws occur?" You've got a brain made up of cells made up of atoms. The atoms interact with one another on a determined course, just like the atoms in a bucket of water. I am not saying I do not accept free will. I'm just bringing this up because it's the same type of question posed to those who accept free will.

 

"You could argue that "the whole" (house) "provides" shelter, which an individual brick cannot, but that is only a meaning that we give to the function "the house"."

 

You have to recognize that "the house" is NOT a function and we do not define OBJECTS. Not by functions or relations or anything at all! Objects merely have a particular SHAPE which can be illustrated.

I don't define "a cell" or "a house" or "a brick". I just point to the object and I give it a name. When refering to an object, we are simply referencing a shape.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you responded to a typo of mine. (I meant to type the word "of" in my sentence.) It should have read "...of the house". The house (*object) shelters (verb) its occupants (which a single brick cannot.) *It's actually a bunch of bricks that shelters an occupant; not the concept house. A house is, after all, a description. You can't "point to" a house, just like you can't "point to" a forest. You can only describe them. (See below.)

 

It is irrational to say that a carbon atom (one shape) should perform all of the functions of a cell (another shape). It does not matter if you can tear that cell apart into individual carbon atoms, because when the carbon atoms stick together in certain shapes... we don't call them carbon atoms anymore! We call them CELLS. I reiterate.. the parts =/= the whole.

 

You can call them whatever you want. Someone can point to a bunch of bricks and say "house", while another person will say "bunch of bricks." In the end, there are still a bunch of individual bricks, and bricks do what bricks do. In the end, a cell is still just a bunch of atoms, and atoms do what atoms do. So, I just want to know the mechanism by which these atoms defy gravity.

 

I'm guessing you're going to say something along the lines of "The atoms don't move. The cell does." And once again, I'll just say "There is only an 'object' for you to call a cell (or point at) because there are atoms." How can you tell whether a person is pointing to a bunch of bricks or a house? "House" might not even register for this person. He may not even see the "shape" of the house (no matter how hard you try to point it out), but rather the tiny shapes of the individual bricks; thus the house does not exist according to his subjective sensory input. (See Person A vs Person B below).

 

Going back to objects and concepts, why is a cell exempt from being a concept? You are, after all, only describing the interactions of atoms when you speak of a cell. Sure, you may short-hand the description, but it's still a concept (description of the relationship between objects), after all. When you describe what a forest is, you cannot escape essentially describing the relationship between the individual trees in your description of "a forest" (concept; there is no object "a forest", even if you can supposedly "point to one"). The same can be applied to the tree itself (relationship of the individual cells). Then you can go further and describe the cell by the relationship of the individual atoms. An atom of carbon does not "roll" down a hill. A piece of *coal does roll down a hill. However, it is because of the very atoms of carbon, interacting with the atoms of carbon around them and the atoms of the hill, that these carbon atoms "roll" down a hill. No carbon atoms, no coal to roll down the hill.

*It is in fact not the concept "coal" that "rolls" down the hill, but the carbon atoms which move.

 

If a timber company chops down a bunch of trees, we casually say "They destroyed the forest." But they did not destroy the forest, since forest is only a concept. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a single example of the destruction of a concept, let alone how a concept can interact with objects (impossible.)

 

None of this even takes into account the possibility that there is no "moving against gravity", for the assumption of gravity may be incorrect. As a thought experiment in an alternate world, what if someone were to smugly claim that balloons "move against gravity", and no one around him understood that it is the helium in the balloon that is less dense than the surrounding air. Then, what if a stranger were to come by and say "Guys, perhaps the balloon isn't actually moving against gravity. Maybe we just got this gravity thing all wrong. Let's try again?"

 

I'm being pretty annoying, right? This is the style I've noticed of fatfist. He can word anything to fit his argument. If you use the term "energy", it gets really ugly. If you use the terms "mass" or "weight", don't be surprised if you're "schooled" for your ignorance. We supposedly "point to" objects, objectively. Yet, this is done through an individual's subjective sensory input. This is not about labeling something with two different words. This is about making objective labels using subjective means.

 

Person A: Look, Person B. I am pointing to an object. I shall call it a rock. This rock exists.

Person B: Person A, you point at nothing! This object does not exist. I do not see it.

Person A: Then surely you can hear it as I drop it on the ground.

Person B: I do not hear anything.

Person A: Here! I placed it in your hands. You can surely feel it.

Person B: I think you are losing your mind. I feel nothing!

Person A: Okay, smartass! (throws rock against Person B's head) Now you're dead, idiot. How's that for a rock that doesn't exist?

Person C: Who's dead? Person B is alive, and he's talking to me right now.

Person A: (gets ready to throw the rock again)

And so on and so on. How can it be argued that any objective labeling of objects takes place when it is done through subjective senses?

 

Annoying, right?

 

 

[mythness]

Here. I shall apply to you the same standards that fatfist applies to everyone else. In order for me to be on the same page as you, without any confusion, please define "object". You use this term a lot, and I have no idea what it is. That's all. Define "object" with a clear, concise, unambiguous definition.

[Rick Horton]

 

Here. I shall apply to you the same standards that fatfist applies to everyone else. In order for me to be on the same page as you, without any confusion, please define "object". You use this term a lot, and I have no idea what it is. That's all. Define "object" with a clear, concise, unambiguous definition.

 

that's easy. Hold on. I have one of those things called a dictionary. I'm surprised you never heard of the word object before, but I'll help you out:

ob·ject

  [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]  Show IPA

noun

1.

anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

2.

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.

3.

the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.

4.

a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotionelicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.

5.

anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.

file:///Applications/Dictionary.app/Contents/Resources/DisclosureDown.png

[/anchor]

[anchor=com.apple.dictionary.AppleDictionary]

[mythness]

No, but you see, Moncaloono, I was asking huttnedu to define this elusive term, due to his use of it. Besides, citing a dictionary is just an appeal to authority.

[huttnedu]

 

And that's why I ask for the mechanism of this movement (against gravity). This is the same type of question posed to those who argue for "free will". The parts that make up the physical brain of a human are all subject to the same physical laws, so one asks "Where does this exception to the physical laws occur?" You've got a brain made up of cells made up of atoms. The atoms interact with one another on a determined course, just like the atoms in a bucket of water. I am not saying I do not accept free will. I'm just bringing this up because it's the same type of question posed to those who accept free will.

 

Before we can start looking at particular objects to tell WHY that one is alive and that one is not... we must first define our key term: to live.  If we don't even understand what the word means first, then it has no use.

 

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but you responded to a typo of mine. (I meant to type the word "of" in my sentence.) It should have read "...of the house". The house (*object) shelters (verb) its occupants (which a single brick cannot.) *It's actually a bunch of bricks that shelters an occupant; not the concept house. A house is, after all, a description. You can't "point to" a house, just like you can't "point to" a forest. You can only describe them. (See below.)

 

And I'm not trying to be rude but you missed the whole purpose of my response, which was not in regards to a typo. A house is a description? If we were to stand in front of my house, and I pointed to it, it would be ridiculous to suggest that we were standing out in front of a real, existing DESCRIPTION!||

A forest is a concept because it relates two or more objects (trees) to eachother. A tree is not a concept which "relates" multiple cells together, because those cells physically ASSEMBLE to form new shapes, new boundaries. They are no longer separate and distinct by then.

No, objects like houses are not descriptions. Objects are that which has shape, we do not define them, we illustrate and then give the shape a name.  I may point at my house and say "a house" you may point at it and say "kalamazone". As long as we realize that we are referring to the structure itself, then we are on the same page.

 

You can call them whatever you want. Someone can point to a bunch of bricks and say "house", while another person will say "bunch of bricks." In the end, there are still a bunch of individual bricks, and bricks do what bricks do. In the end, a cell is still just a bunch of atoms, and atoms do what atoms do. So, I just want to know the mechanism by which these atoms defy gravity.

 

This is where you are mistaken. When we illustrate an object composed of bricks that have been physically fused together, then we are NO LONGER referring to a bunch of individual bricks.  The object; a house; is not the concept of "a bunch of individual bricks".  When we refer to an object, we refer to one shape in particular, not a conceptual grouping of other objects.

You are still performing religious mereology http://youstupidrelativist.com/04Exist/01Z2Z7Mereology.html and  still focusing on a theory that hasn't been presented. Before we can determine which particular mechanisms allow for certain objects to be living, we have to define the term living.

 

 

I'm guessing you're going to say something along the lines of "The atoms don't move. The cell does." And once again, I'll just say "There is only an 'object' for you to call a cell (or point at) because there are atoms." How can you tell whether a person is pointing to a bunch of bricks or a house? "House" might not even register for this person. He may not even see the "shape" of the house (no matter how hard you try to point it out), but rather the tiny shapes of the individual bricks; thus the house does not exist according to his subjective sensory input. (See Person A vs Person B below).

And this is exactly why the subjective sensory system is not invoked in science. Science is objective; i.e. invokes no observers. If I illustrate a shape, and then call it a house, then the matter of whether or not it has it's own shape is not up to interpretation. The bricks LOSE their shape when they join up with other objects. There becomes a NEW shape.

I may be able to look at the edge of a house and claim that there are HOLES in it or GROOVES which mark where the bricks were laid, but that doesn't discount the fact that the edge is one continuous edge!

 

 

Going back to objects and concepts, why is a cell exempt from being a concept? You are, after all, only describing the interactions of atoms when you speak of a cell.

If you are "describing interactions" then you are stating a concept. However, if we are hypothesizing "A cell moved across the table." Then we'd better be talking about a real object, something with shape. Abstract concepts such as "interactions" do NOT move in reality! If you are hit in the head with a baseball, it is not the surface of some ABSTRACT MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS which come and smack you in the head, it is an object.

 

*It is in fact not the concept "coal" that "rolls" down the hill, but the carbon atoms which move.

 

But mythness, a carbon atom is merely a fusion of a few hydrogen atoms. How come the product of hydrogens fusing is an object, but the product of carbon atoms fusing (coal) is NOT an object? 

 

If a timber company chops down a bunch of trees, we casually say "They destroyed the forest." But they did not destroy the forest, since forest is only a concept. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a single example of the destruction of a concept, let alone how a concept can interact with objects (impossible.)

 

Agreed, and why is a forest a concept? Because each tree has it's own shape, and they are all being related to each-other. They do not fuse together.

 

None of this even takes into account the possibility that there is no "moving against gravity", for the assumption of gravity may be incorrect. As a thought experiment in an alternate world, what if someone were to smugly claim that balloons "move against gravity", and no one around him understood that it is the helium in the balloon that is less dense than the surrounding air. Then, what if a stranger were to come by and say "Guys, perhaps the balloon isn't actually moving against gravity. Maybe we just got this gravity thing all wrong. Let's try again?"

 

A helium balloon is squeezed upwards, against gravity, by the atmosphere. It never moves by itself.

 

I'm being pretty annoying, right? This is the style I've noticed of fatfist. He can word anything to fit his argument. If you use the term "energy", it gets really ugly. If you use the terms "mass" or "weight", don't be surprised if you're "schooled" for your ignorance. We supposedly "point to" objects, objectively. Yet, this is done through an individual's subjective sensory input. This is not about labeling something with two different words. This is about making objective labels using subjective means.

 

An objective statement is one which does not invoke an observer. We do not rely on any sensory system in Science. A BLIND person, for example, will never see any illustration that you ever make, but they have the ability to visualize it within their minds and understand that all objects have a shape. What could possibly interact if not shapes?

 

Person A: Look, Person B. I am pointing to an object. I shall call it a rock. This rock exists.

Person B: Person A, you point at nothing! This object does not exist. I do not see it.

Person A: Then surely you can hear it as I drop it on the ground.

Person B: I do not hear anything.

Person A: Here! I placed it in your hands. You can surely feel it.

Person B: I think you are losing your mind. I feel nothing!

Person A: Okay, smartass! (throws rock against Person B's head) Now you're dead, idiot. How's that for a rock that doesn't exist?

Person C: Who's dead? Person B is alive, and he's talking to me right now.

Person A: (gets ready to throw the rock again)

And so on and so on. How can it be argued that any objective labeling of objects takes place when it is done through subjective senses?

 

Annoying, right?

 

Nope, just idiotic. The Rational Scientific Method makes no provision for subjective experiences of "seeing" "hearing" "feeling" ect.  The rock either has a shape or it doesn't.  We aren't out to CONVINCE the idiot Person B that the rock has shape if he tries to deny it.  Science is about making rational explanations, we don't care if your extreme devil's advocate won't admit that the rock has shape... because it does or it doesn't independent of our subjective sense system!

[huttnedu]

 

ob·ject

  [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]  Show IPA

noun

1.

anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

2.

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.

3.

the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.

4.

a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotionelicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.

5.

anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.

 

[/anchor]

[anchor=com.apple.dictionary.AppleDictionary]

 

 

1. This definition is based on subjective opinion. Does the moon cease to be an existing object just because I can't see it or touch it? Of course not.
2. An object is a thing, person, or matter. This is circular, i.e. you are just repeating synonyms instead of providing a definition.
3. Object = end. Same nonsense as 2.
4. Object = person = thing. Same as 2 & 3.
5. Object = anything. Same as 2,3,4.

See, dictionaries are written by English grads for only 1 purpose: to compile the COMMON USAGES of words.  In Science, we don't go by common usage... we define terms unambiguously in such a way that it can be used without contradiction. 

Object: that which has shape. 

[Rick Horton]

Well, if you can source that "scientifically" accurate definition for the word then feel free. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't find that is the "definitive" meaning of the word.  Dictionaries aren't an appeal to authority, btw, you guys. You can't just define a word any way you want. It has to be agreed on by a lot of people or you're not going to make sense. You can try but, it "aint" so.  Saying dictionaries don't provide definitions that are usable in conversation is assinine. 

 

[huttnedu]

 

Well, if you can source that "scientifically" accurate definition for the word then feel free. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't find that is the "definitive" meaning of the word.  Dictionaries aren't an appeal to authority, btw, you guys. You can't just define a word any way you want. It has to be agreed on by a lot of people or you're not going to make sense. You can try but, it "aint" so.  Saying dictionaries don't provide definitions that are usable in conversation is assinine. 

 

 

Conversation =/= Science. Dictionaries compile COMMON USAGES of terms. In Science, we define the term strictly and unambiguously so that it is CLEAR whether or not we are using the word consistently.

A definition is rational insofar as it is unambiguous and can be used without contradiction. 

[Arius]

You can't just define a word any way you want. It has to be agreed on by a lot of people or you're not going to make sense.

I can.

Flurtigh (n):

1. A color between blue and purple.

2. Light with a wavelength of 437nm.

I can define any word to mean anything, even if people don't agree.  I don't think it would be especially hard to find a flurtigh object.  Unripened plums, for example, are flurtigh.  The act of defining is assigning meaning to a symbol.  It is through definition that words are given sense for other people to make.  I think you mean: it's unproductive to use highly unconventional definitions unnecessarily.

[mythness]

Object: that which has shape.

 

Cool. Now, unambiguously define this term "shape". I want to be on the same page as you.

 

You could have just as easily said:

 

"Object: that which has flurg."

 

To which I would have asked you to unambiguously define the term "flurg". Otherwise "flurg" (and "shape") are just meaningless sounds (or letters), and thus so is "object". Here are a few other examples of meaningless terms:

 

Blartop, zeblok, nashtin, truth, absolute, immoral. If I used them, you would ask me to unambiguously define these terms. So, I ask you to do the same with your use of the term "shape" (or "flurg" or any term).

 

You see, after all...

In Science, we don't go by common usage... we define terms
unambiguously in such a way that it can be used without contradiction.

 

I won't accept "Come on, you know what I mean. Don't feign ignorance."

[mythness]

 

A forest is a concept because it relates two or more objects (trees) to eachother. A tree is not a concept which "relates" multiple cells together, because those cells physically ASSEMBLE to form new shapes, new boundaries. They are no longer separate and distinct by then.

 

According to...?

 

Now you're just making up rules to fit the argument. And you do this throughout the rest of the post.

 

Watch:

A forest is an object because the trees and air molecules physically ASSEMBLE to form new shapes, new boundaries. A tree is a concept because it relates two or more objects (cells) to each other.

 

 

Here, let me by annoying again: What you wrote is just your opinion.

 

Still, though, you can even disregard this reply, because I'm more interested in my above post. (Defining terms.)

[Metric]

Standard sucker's game, like demanding a bunch of artists be on the same page with their definition of art.  The word is not used in a prescriptive way -- it's just a convenient catch-all term for a subject whose boundaries are a matter of convention rather than provided by nature.

Is a virus alive?  How about a prion?  Maybe, maybe not.  Regardless of your answers, they are still appropriate subjects for biologists to discover things about.

[huttnedu]

 

Object: that which has shape.

Cool. Now, unambiguously define this term "shape". I want to be on the same page as you.

 

SHAPE is not a key word, shape is a concept that a two year old can understand.

THIS is what I mean by shape:

It's fundamental. It's a "show, don't tell" understanding. Although, I can tell you that a shape is a discontinuity in space, it's the difference, or separation of inside and outside (Syn: finite, entity, boundary)... something from nothing. This takes CRITICAL thinking to understand.

[huttnedu]

 

 

A forest is a concept because it relates two or more objects (trees) to eachother. A tree is not a concept which "relates" multiple cells together, because those cells physically ASSEMBLE to form new shapes, new boundaries. They are no longer separate and distinct by then.

 

According to...? 

 

Now you're just making up rules to fit the argument. And you do this throughout the rest of the post.

 

Watch:

A forest is an object because the trees and air molecules physically ASSEMBLE to form new shapes, new boundaries. A tree is a concept because it relates two or more objects (cells) to each other.

 

 

Here, let me by annoying again: What you wrote is just your opinion.

 

Still, though, you can even disregard this reply, because I'm more interested in my above post. (Defining terms.)

 

A tree either has a shape (see my post on what a shape is) or is does not.  The onus is on YOU to present the audience with an object (which you name a tree) or you explain to them the biological concepts of a tree (it's comprised of cells, ect.).

But you cannot say that the tree is both the OBJECT of reality, and the concept (relationships) understood by your brain. 

[huttnedu]

 

Is a virus alive?  How about a prion?  Maybe, maybe not.  Regardless of your answers, they are still appropriate subjects for biologists to discover things about.

 

Point is, they cannot even begin to determine whether or not a virus is alive without first defining the term life. 

[huttnedu]

Here is a relevant excerpt from Bill Gaede's website: youstupidrelativist.com

Before we go any further on defining terms, we have to understand that objects are visualized and concepts are relationships we describe between those objects.

The language of Physics and of Science is called visualization.  In order for the prosecutor and the juror to 

be on the same wavelength, they must both watch the same movie. If the prosecutor is talking about rocks 

and the juror imagines trees they cannot possibly be communicating. We don't understand rocks and trees. 

We see them with our eyes! There is only one way to guarantee that everyone visualizes the same thing: the 

presenter should be able to make a movie of his theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why 

something occurred. If the presenter cannot put his ideas on the Big Screen for everyone to watch (the 

same thing), he is not doing Science. And in order for the theory to be converted into a movie, an even more 

fundamental requirement is form. Without shapes, the prosecutor has nothing to film and the juror has 

nothing to watch. The first requirement of science and of the scientific method is to produce the physical 

objects. We cannot make a film with abstract concepts! We cannot do science with the idiotic words of 

Mathematics: energy, mass, time, force, or field. These words do not represent physical objects.

Science is not about running experiments or  proving theories or about Math. Science is about 

communicating ideas.  Afterwards you can infer whatever you like, run experiments in the lab, and reach 

your own conclusions. In order to communicate ideas precisely, the presenter absolutely needs to define 

his words rigorously. A precise definition of the words that make or break a theory is the second 

requirement of the scientific method.

Mathematical Physics fails both of these requirements.  Not a single mathematician in the world can make a 

movie of his presentation. What is he going to put on the screen? A picture of energy? A scene where mass 

jumps up and down? And not a single mathematician on Earth defines the words that make or break his 

theory rigorously. The contemporary mathematicians:

•        tell you that their crucial words are primitives (i.e., undefinable) (e.g., point, line,

mass, energy, time)

•       use these terms inconsistently during their talks anyways

•        replace concepts with objects (e.g., the center of mass with a dot, space-time

with a tesseract)

•        move abstract concepts (e.g., transfer energy, accelerate point particles, bend

time, blend orbitals)

•        describe interactions between abstractions (e.g., virtual particles, field and

charge, annihilation of two 0-D particles)

 

[Metric]

 

 

Is a virus alive?  How about a prion?  Maybe, maybe not.  Regardless of your answers, they are still appropriate subjects for biologists to discover things about.

 

Point is, they cannot even begin to determine whether or not a virus is alive without first defining the term life. 

 

And even if they did bother to do so, it would be a complete waste of time, because someone else would simply offer up another definition.  Discovering new phenomena is science  -- definitions can come and go, but the phenomena remain observable pieces of nature.  You need not consult terminology to delve deeper -- you can consult nature directly.  Playing around with terminology is something entirely different, and much more akin to "fashion" -- it is subject to whim, preference, and inevitably changes with time.

[Rick Horton]

I'll tell everybody my rule for communicating with me right now, and if it's too much to ask then you're not a person I want to communicate with anyhow. USE a dictionary to look up words that you aren't sure the meaning of. Period. This bullshit game, copout, distraction, diversion, that people use when they either think it's okay to define words themselves "apart" from the rest of the society that speaks the language they are choosing to speak, write, or type,OR that they can ignore the common lexicon to stifle a conversation to death is pure NONSENSE. Communication "requires" concrete definitions. If you look beyond a dictionary to define a word you are entering your own problematic areas and NOT MINE.  There isn't one thread on this forum that hasn't been plagued with this stupidity. If you can't assemble an argument by using a choice out of the lexicon of the language, and need to start redefining things you lack creativity, and honesty.

[Arius]

I'll tell everybody my rule for communicating with me right now, and if it's too much to ask then you're not a person I want to communicate with anyhow. USE a dictionary to look up words that you aren't sure the meaning of. Period.

I'll tell you, because I think you're interesting and this seems to frustrate you.  There is not a single individual on this forum who does not realize that a dictionary is a great source of definitions for words.  When one person asks another for a definition, it isn't that the questioner doesn't know what the dictionary indicates the word means.  It's that the questioner believes the claimant has used a word in a way which is inconsistent with the dictionary definition or that the dictionary definition is too imprecise for the conversation.

If I say "Society creates laws to dictate morality", you might notice that I've made a behavioral claim about several non-existent things.  A reasonable approach to the argument might be for you to ask me what I mean when I use the word "society", as it is obviously a conceptual placeholder for something else.  Better yet, what do I mean by the word "laws"....laws and society are not existent objects.  They cannot do anything, much less dictate anything.  Further defining words creates greater resolution in an argument.

It's not a game.  Through discussion, we arrive at shared definitions which are useful in resolving disagreements surrounding larger arguments.